alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 64 FR 38108, July 15, 1999.

§ 47.24 Rehearing, reargument, reconsideration of orders, reopening of hearings, reopening after default. ( a ) *Petitions to rehear, reargue, and reconsider.* A petition for rehearing or reargument of the proceeding, or for reconsideration of the order, shall be made by petition to the Secretary filed with the Hearing Clerk within 20 days after the date of service of the order. Every such petition shall state specifically the matters claimed to have been erroneously decided and the alleged errors. If the Secretary concludes that the questions raised by the petition have been sufficiently considered in the issuance of the order, the Secretary shall dismiss the petition without service on the other party. Otherwise, the Secretary shall direct that a copy of the petition be served upon such party by the Hearing Clerk. The filing of a petition to rehear or reargue a proceeding, or to reconsider an order, shall automatically operate to set aside the order pending final action on the petition. Only one petition to rehear, reargue, or reconsider will be accepted from each party, except when a mathematical or typographical error appears in either the original decision and order or in the decision on reconsideration.
( b ) *Petition to reopen.* A petition to reopen the hearing to take further evidence may be filed with the examiner at any time prior to the issuance of the final order. Every such petition shall state briefly the nature and purpose of the evidence to be adduced, shall show that such evidence is not merely cumulative, and shall set forth a good reason why such evidence was not adduced at the hearing. Every such petition shall be served by the Hearing Clerk on the other party in the proceeding.
( c ) *Procedure for disposition of petitions.* Within 20 days following the service of any petition provided for in this section, the other party to the proceeding may file with the Hearing Clerk an answer thereto. In the event that any such petition is granted the applicable rules of practice shall be followed.
( d ) *Reopening after default.* The party in default in the filing of an answer or reply required or authorized under this part may petition to reopen the proceeding at any time prior to the expiration of 20 days from the date of service of the default order. If, in the judgment of the examiner, after notice to and consideration of the views of the other party(ies), there is good reason for granting such relief, the party in default will be allowed 20 days from the date of the order reopening the proceeding to file an answer.
[10 FR 2209, Feb. 27, 1945, as amended at 56 FR 175, Jan. 3, 1991; 60 FR 8462, Feb. 14, 1995; 64 FR 38108, July 15, 1999; 65 FR 29941, May 10, 2000]
§ 3560.623 Housing management and operations. Borrowers with on-farm labor housing loans must: ( a ) Develop and submit to the Agency a management plan in a format specified by the Agency. At a minimum, the management plan will detail the borrower's operational and occupancy policies, how the borrower will deal with resident complaints, and how repairs will be completed; and
( b ) Maintain a lease or employment contract with each tenant specifying employment with the borrower as a condition for continued occupancy.
#### § 3560.622 Subsequent loans.

The requirements established in § 3560.572 apply to all applications for on-farm labor housing subsequent loans.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Eric Bello, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Quipp, Inc.; and

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

|                                        | 
|--------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ ERICBELLO                           | 
|Eric Bello                              | 
|Treasurer (principal financial officer) | 

Date:  April 30, 2007
#### Joann Fardys, Respondent, v Louis Urbinati, Appellant, and Edward T. McGuire et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered July 17,1979, which granted plaintiff a new trial on the issue of damages, but denied the joint request of plaintiff and defendant Louis Urbinati, Jr., for a new trial on the issue of the liability of the remaining defendants, unanimously modified, on the law, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of directing a new trial on the issue of liability also, and as so modified, affirmed, with costs and disbursements to abide the event. The jury awarded plaintiff $31,296, finding that the driver of the taxi (defendant Urbinati), in which plaintiff was a passenger, was solely at fault. The driver of the other vehicle, Freeman (which vehicle is owned by defendant McGuire) was thus absolved of liability. However, inexplicably the jury made no award for loss of future earnings. This two-car intersection accident occurred while Freeman was endeavoring to execute a left-hand turn from the southbound lane while the taxi was approaching in a northbound lane. The accident occurred in the northbound lane, and the record raises a genuine question as to the negligence of Freeman. Under the circumstances presented by the record herein, the jury verdict appears to be a compromise and, in totally exonerating defendant Freeman, appears to be against the weight of the evidence (see *Pickard v Koenigstreuter,*70 AD2d 693). Accordingly, a new trial for all purposes is warranted. Concur— Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Markewich, Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38782

STATE OF IDAHO
,

Plaintiff-Respondent
,

v.

THOMAS EDWARD PINZ
,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 717

Filed: November 21, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and determinate sentence of ten years for failure to register as a sex offender

, affirmed

.

Molly J. H uskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Thomas Edward Pinz pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender. Idaho Code §§

18

- 8309, 18

- 8311. The district court sentenced Pinz to a ten

- year determinate term. Pinz

appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court ’ s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 6 50 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho2 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Pinz’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
22.605 Rulings and interpretations of the statute.       (a) 						            As authorized by the Act, the Secretary of Labor has issued rulings and interpretations concerning the administration of the statute (see 41 CFR50-206). The substance of certain rulings and interpretations is as follows:                                                         (1) 								                If a contract for $15,000 or less is subsequently modified to exceed $15,000, the contract becomes subject to the statute for work performed after the date of the modification.                                                            (2) 								                If a contract for more than $15,000 is subsequently modified by mutual agreement to $15,000 or less, the contract is not subject to the statute for work performed after the date of the modification.                                                            (3) 								                If a contract awarded to a prime contractor contains a provision whereby the prime contractor is made an agent of the Government, the prime contractor is required to include the stipulations of the statute in contracts in excess of $15,000 awarded for and on behalf of the Government for supplies that are to be used in the construction and equipment of Government facilities.                                                            (4) 								                If a contract subject to the statute is awarded to a contractor operating Government-owned facilities, the stipulations of the statute affect the employees of that contractor the same as employees of contractors operating privately owned facilities.                                                            (5) 								                Indefinite-delivery contracts, including basic ordering agreements and blanket purchase agreements, are subject to the statute unless it can be determined in advance that the aggregate amount of all orders estimated to be placed thereunder for 1 year after the effective date of the agreement will not exceed $15,000. A determination shall be made annually thereafter if the contract or agreement is extended, and the contract or agreement modified if necessary.                                                                             (b) 						            [Reserved]    **Parent topic:** Subpart 22.6 - Contracts for Materials, Supplies, Articles, and Equipment
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.610 Required certifications for Loans and Investments. For each of your Loans and Investments, you must have the documents listed in this section. You must keep these documents in your files and make them available to the Agency upon request. ( a ) For each Financing made to a Rural Business Concern or Smaller Enterprise, a certification by the Portfolio Concern stating the basis for its qualification as a Rural Business Concern or Smaller Enterprise.
( b ) A certification by the Portfolio Concern that it will not discriminate in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title V of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
( c ) A certification by the Portfolio Concern of the intended use of the proceeds. For securities purchased from an underwriter in a public offering, you may substitute a prospectus indicating the intended use of proceeds.
[69 FR 32204, June 8, 2004, as amended at 76 FR 80223, Dec. 23, 2011; 85 FR 16523, Mar. 24, 2020]
#### § 3430.806 Matching requirements.

There are no matching requirements for grants under this subpart.
#### § 4284.504 Definitions.

*Center* —The entity established or operated by the grantee for rural cooperative development. It may or may not be an independent legal entity separate from the grantee.

*Cooperative development* —The startup, expansion or operational improvement of a cooperative to promote development in rural areas of services and products, processes that can be used in the marketing of products, or enterprises that create Value-Added to farm products through processing or marketing activities. Development activities may include, but are not limited to, technical assistance, research services, educational services and advisory services. Operational improvement includes making the cooperative more efficient or better managed.

*1994 Institution* —means a college identified as such for purposes of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note). Contact the Agency for a list of currently eligible colleges.

*Project* —A planned undertaking by a Center that utilizes the funds provided to it to promote economic development in rural areas through the creation and enhancement of cooperatives.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,829
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,579
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,981
<INVENTORY>                                     52,140
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,082
<PP&E>                                         364,843
<DEPRECIATION>                                 133,465
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 395,436
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,012
<BONDS>                                        139,232
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           344
<OTHER-SE>                                     151,456
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   395,436
<SALES>                                        124,993
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,993
<CGS>                                          100,757
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  100,757
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,647
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,495
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,607
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,445
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,162
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,162
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27


</TABLE>
## 1999 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-14-1999 

# C a r t e r v . C it y of P hi l a del phi a
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ocke t 98-1581

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1999

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1999 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" C a r t e r v . C it y of P hi l a de lp hi a " (1999). 1999 D e cisio n s . P ape r 127. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1999/127

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 98-1581 Re: Carter v. City of Philadelphia, et al.
The following modifications have been made to the Court's Opinion issued on April 28, 1999 and to the prior corrections noted in the above-entitled appeal and will appear as part of the final version of the opinion:
Page 31, n.61, add the followin g sentence at the end: "To the extent that Carter's claims are predicated on inadequ ate training, supervision or discipline of police officers (as opposed to assistant district attorneys), Carter will be required to establish suff icient de jure or de facto control by the defendants to supporting a finding of causation. In the prior corrections "de jure" had been in correctly spelled due to a typographic error.
Very truly yours, /s/ P. Douglas Sisk, Clerk

Dated: May 14, 1999
Exhibit 34.2

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that FDI Collateral Management (the ‘‘Company’’), a wholly owned subsidiary of Trivin, Inc., complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the title servicing platform as of and for the year ended March 31, 2007, except for 1122(d)(1)(ii)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii)(D), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(iii)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report. See Management’s Assertion for the asset backed transactions covered by this platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the Institute of Certified Public Accounts as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended March 31, 2007 for the title servicing platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Hartford, Connecticut

May 15, 2007

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 74755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30185]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Parcel Return Service Negotiated Service 
Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Postal Service notice of filing of a request with the Postal 
Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to 
the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification 
Schedule's Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 
3632(b)(3).

DATES: December 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that on November 17, 2010, it filed with the Postal 
Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to 
Add Parcel Return Service Contract 2 to Competitive Product List and 
Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Contract and Supporting Data. 
Documents are available at http://www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2011-6 and 
CP2011-33.

Neva R. Watson,
Attorney, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 2010-30185 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
----

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/ Richard W. McCullough                    |   | May 16, 2011 |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------|
| Richard W. McCullough                              |   |
| Chief Executive Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |   |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |
|                                               |   |
|                                               |   |
|  /s/ Gysle R. Shellum                         |   | May 16, 2011 |
| Gysle R. Shellum                                   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |   |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |

----