alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subpart 22.9 - Nondiscrimination Because of Age    **Parent topic:** Part 22 - Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisitions22.901 Policy.       Executive Order11141, February 12,1964 (29 FR2477), states that the Government policy is as follows:                                       (a) 						            Contractors and subcontractors shall not, in connection with employment, advancement, or discharge of employees, or the terms, conditions, or privileges of their employment, discriminate against persons because of their age except upon the basis of a bona fide occupational qualification, retirement plan, or statutory requirement.                                          (b) 						            Contractors and subcontractors, or persons acting on their behalf, shall not specify in solicitations or advertisements for employees to work on Government contracts, a maximum age limit for employment unless the specified maximum age limit is based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, retirement plan, or statutory requirement.                                          (c) 						            Agencies will bring this policy to the attention of contractors. The use of contract clauses is not required.22.902 Handling complaints.       Agencies shall bring complaints regarding a contractor’s compliance with this policy to that contractor’s attention (in writing, if appropriate), stating the policy, indicating that the contractor’s compliance has been questioned, and requesting that the contractor take any appropriate steps that may be necessary to comply.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PICTURETEL
CORPORATION'S BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 29,
1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          42,980
<SECURITIES>                                    30,802
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,538
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (3,712)
<INVENTORY>                                     71,514
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               285,850
<PP&E>                                         122,504
<DEPRECIATION>                                (72,843)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 363,035
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,815
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           378
<OTHER-SE>                                     264,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   363,035
<SALES>                                        239,901
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               239,901
<CGS>                                          129,469
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  129,469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 688
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,070)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,181)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,889)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,889)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GREGORY JONES,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 5:03cv238-RS

JAMES R. McDONOUGH,

Respondent.

___________________________________________/

ORDER

Before the court is the Magistrate Judge’s Order and Report and Recommendation

(Document 28). Petitioner has not filed objections.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s Order and Report and Recommendation is adopted

and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This action is dismissed with prejudice, and the clerk is directed to enter

judgment accordingly.

 

ORDERED on April 18, 2006.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-00238-RS-EMT Document 29 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Maxine Jerome et al., Respondents, v. Martin Lewis, Respondent, and General Motors Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, (1) one dated February 28, 1968, which granted the separate motions of plaintiffs and defendant Lewis for protective orders as to appellant’s notice for discovery and inspection and (2) one dated May 1, 1968, which denied appellant’s motion for a rehearing of said motions. Order dated February 28, 1968 reversed, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and said motions for protective orders denied, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements against respondents filing separate briefs. The discovery and inspection shall take place at a time and place to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days to be given by appellant, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. Appeal from order dated May 1, 1968, dismissed as academic, without costs. In our opinion, appellant made an adequate showing that the report and photographs *649sought to be inspected cannot be duplicated and that there was no substantial lack of diligence in conducting its own investigation as to the whereabouts of the wrecked ear. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
#### § 4280.104 Exception authority.

The Administrator may, on a case-by-case basis, grant an exception to any requirement or provision of this subpart provided that such an exception is in the best financial interests of the Federal Government. Exercise of this authority cannot be in conflict with applicable law.
Exhibit 31.2



I, Eric Bello, certify that:



1.

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



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;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and



b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.













/ s / ERIC BELLO_

Eric Bello

Chief Financial Officer



Date:

April 17, 2007
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Robert M. Chiste, certify that:

 

1.        I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Comverge, Inc.;

 

| 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. |
|--------|---------|

 

 

April 10, 2009

 

 

/s/ Robert M. Chiste

Robert M. Chiste

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 3555.54 Sale of loans to approved lenders.

Lenders may sell SFHGLP loans only to other Agency-approved lenders, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the Federal Home Loan Banks. In such a sale, the purchasing lender acquires all rights of the selling lender under the Loan Note Guarantee, and assumes all of the selling lender's obligations contained in any note, security instrument, or Loan Note Guarantee in connection with the loan purchased. The purchasing lender may be subject to any defenses, claims, or offsets that Rural Development would have had against the selling lender if the selling lender had continued to hold the loan. The lender must notify Rural Development immediately upon the sale or transfer of servicing of a SFHGLP loan.
[Cite as State v. Shriner , 2016-Ohio-7672.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

v. : No. 16AP-66 (C.P.C. No. 14CR-5937) James W. Shriner, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Defendant-Appellant. :

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on November 8, 2016

On brief: Mike DeWine , Attorney General, Darcy T. Cook and Anil Patel , for appellee. Argued: Darcy T. Cook.

On brief: Jon J. Saia and Jessica G. D'Varga , for appellant. Argued: Jessica G. D'Varga

.

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

TYACK, J

. {¶ 1} James Shriner is appealing from his conviction on a single charge of forgery. He assigns a single error for our consideration: The trial court erred in denying Appellant's Motion for a Mistrial after the Prosecutor's misconduct in closing argument substantially prejudiced the rights of the Appellant.

{¶ 2} Our standard of review for a ruling on a motion for a mistrial is abuse of discretion. Did the trial court judge abuse his discretion when he overruled the motion for a mistrial precipitated by comments made during closing argument by the assistant prosecuting attorney trying the case? Because the comments were made during the state's rebuttal portion of the argument, defense counsel had no opportunity to respond personally before the jury began its deliberations but objected.No. 16AP-66 2

{¶ 3} The trial court judge sustained the defense objection to the statements of the assistant prosecuting attorney, which were: "[b]y putting that false information on that page that is a forged document. The Defendant admitted to it on the stand." (Apr. 8, 2016 Tr. at 458.) {¶ 4} The assistant prosecutor's argument overlooked the required mental state for forgery. {¶ 5} After the trial court sustained the defense objection, the assistant prosecuting attorney returned to the same improper argument by stating to the jury "I was telling you about how the Defendant admitted to committing the offense of forgery." (Tr. at 461.) {¶ 6} Defense counsel objected again. The trial judge sustained the objection again and reprimanded the assistant prosecuting attorney. The judge instructed the assistant prosecuting attorney to correct her misstatement by admitting directly to the jury that she had misspoken. {¶ 7} The judge later correctly charged the jury on the elements of forgery, including the requirement that Shriner had to have acted with knowledge of a fraud or with knowledge he was facilitating a fraud in order to be found guilty of forgery. {¶ 8} We find that the trial court judge managed the situation appropriately. The misstatements of the assistant prosecuting attorney were corrected. The correct jury instruction was given. The trial court judge certainly was within his discretion to believe and rule that he had corrected the misstatement and any harm the misstatement could have caused and therefore should not grant a mistrial. {¶ 9} The sole assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 10} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

KLATT and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.
149 So.2d 763

#### Willie O. CLAUSE v. Consuelo BROUSSARD and Grover Rees.

No. 46507.

Feb. 8, 1963.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the judgment is correct.
#### § 4288.4 Compliance with other laws and regulations.

Participating biorefineries must comply with other applicable Federal, State, and local laws, including, but not limited to, the Equal Employment Opportunities Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 7 CFR Part 1901, subpart E, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Applicants must submit and will be subject to pre-award and post award compliance reviews with the terms and conditions set forth in Form RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement” and Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”
IllO O 2l0 02 0 7/ 12/20 1 0 1 0:53 FA X 512239 2 3 4 6**RE~IEDI** ATl OS

mC!: rr:r.r.y July 8, 2010



### Alfredo "1'.1" Am1endariz, 

### Ph .D. Reg l ona.l AdminiSlra!or, 6-A U
. S.**En vironme~taJ**  Prot ection Agency, Region 6 

### 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 DnlJa$,**Tcxa~** 

### 75 2 0:-2733 RE: ? r opose d Lis tin g ofth/!**es~** 

### County 

### Ro sd 11 2 

### Grouncw3 1 t:r**~;! e**  

### OJ! the Federa l Na ti onal Priorities L is! Dear Dr Armendanz: 

### Texa." supports th e C.S. E!!Vl f Onrnent&J :!'r ole.::!ion 

### Agency' s (EPA) de cisicr:**th~!** 

### the We st Co unt y-Road 112 grv:mdv.-:.ller 

### "ile be**con id~red**  

### a candidate 

### for the Nationa l Prioril) eS 

### Lis ! (N"PL) for c.lcanup. 

### Tr.t Texas Corr
.. 'l1iss!on on Env;rOJul1ental 

### Quality (T C EQ) believes that this s ile is eligihie for the propo5ed NP L b as ed o n EP,\ · s 

### cvabatin !": ofi he 

### site under the federa: Hazard 

### RMking System Si n ::-cely
. 

# 70ik**?~J** - '" '­**~** 

### c:: r­ "") N 

# " :x 

# <**~** 0 

### en

Rick Perry 

# R
. ECEIV ED Govcrr.or 

### RY t zp 

### PEMEDlAJION DlvlSlON cc: 

### Bryan 'V Sh aw, Ph.D., ·C hainn2n , TCEQ Mar k R. VicK er y, P .G
.. Executi""Je Di r ecto)", TCEQ Mr .John Sadlier , DeputY Dr,e::tor
.**OfflC~** of Co mpli an:::c and Enforcemen t. TCEQ :--·1 r Bren i Wade, Direct o ;·, RCr:1.:
. aiatHH l Div i sion. TCEQ
#### § 29.1001 Definitions.

As used in these standards, the words and phrases hereinafter defined shall have the indicated meanings so assigned.
#### § 504.1 General statement.

This part sets forth fees to be charged for the deposit and distribution of microbial patent cultures. The fees set forth in this part are applicable to the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Patent Culture Collection, Northern Regional Research Center, Peoria, Illinois.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                                   
<ARTICLE>                                               5
<CIK>                                          0000794927
<NAME>            CANTERBURY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                            1
                                                         
<S>                                           <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-MOS
<CASH>                                            295,936
<SECURITIES>                                            0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0 
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                5,719,327
<PP&E>                                          5,899,277
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,396,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 25,787,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,081,246
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                     1,043,841
<COMMON>                                           16,251
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,544,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   25,787,101
<SALES>                                        12,423,452
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,423,452
<CGS>                                           7,104,803
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   6,350,965
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (89,222)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                490,552
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,433,646)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (501,776)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (931,870)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,536,047)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,467,917)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.17)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


          We  have  issued  our  report  dated  June  15, 2004, accompanying the
     financial  statements  included in the Annual Report of APA Optics, Inc. on
     Form  10-K  for  the  year  ended  March 31, 2004. We hereby consent to the
     incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
     APA  Optics,  Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-74214, effective November 30,
     2001;  File  No.  333-44500, effective August 25, 2000; File No. 333-44488,
     effective  August  25,  2000;  and File No. 333-44486, effective August 25,
     2000).



/s/GRANT  THORNTON  LLP


Minneapolis,  Minnesota
June  29,  2004


<PAGE>
#### § 4280.1 Purpose.

The Rural Economic Development Loan (REDL) and Grant (REDG) Programs provide financing to eligible Rural Utilities Service (RUS) electric or telecommunications borrowers (Intermediaries) to promote rural economic development and job creation projects.
#### FARMERS’ COTTON OIL & TRADING CO. v. SOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

October 31, 1912.)

No. 2,405.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama; Harry T. Toulmin, Judge.

Daniel Partridge, Jr., of Selma, Ala., for plaintiff in error.

Leon Weil, of Montgomery, Ala., and E. W. Pettus, of Selma, Ala., for defendant in error.

Before PARDEEi and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and MEEK, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

No one of the assignments of error in this case is well taken. The contract sued on is not tainted with illegality. The case seems to have been correctly ruled throughout in the court below, and the judgment of that court is therefore affirmed.
#### § 502.15 Exceptions.

The Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, may in individual cases, make prior, written exceptions to the rules and regulations in this part, if a determination is made that the exception is not adverse to the public interest.

[61 FR 51212, Oct. 1, 1996]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated balance sheet of Transnational  Industries,  Inc. as of January 31,
1997 and the related consolidated  statement of operations and statement of cash
flows for the year then ended and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000796228
<NAME>                        SPITZ, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                         953
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1077
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    983
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3136
<PP&E>                                         2308
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2571
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    399
<COMMON>                                       65
<OTHER-SE>                                     2045
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6059
<SALES>                                        6842
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6842
<CGS>                                          4737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                279
<INCOME-TAX>                                   6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            273
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   273
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>