alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
23.602 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.223-7, Notice of Radioactive Materials, in

solicitations and contracts for supplies which are, or which contain-(a) radioactive material requiring

specific licensing under regulations issued pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of1954; or (b)

radioactive material not requiring specific licensing in which the specific activity is greater than

0.002 microcuries per gram or the activity per item equals or exceeds 0.01 microcuries. Such

supplies include, but are not limited to, aircraft, ammunition, missiles, vehicles, electronic tubes,

instrument panel gauges, compasses and identification markers.

Parent topic: Subpart 23.6 - Notice of Radioactive Material
(October 23, 1980)

#### In the Matter of Rose L. Rubin, Appellant, v Anthony Sadowski et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents.

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 21, 1980, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Mangano and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
#### Nora F. Warshaw, Respondent-Appellant, v. Bernard Feinstein et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Order entered July 2, 1968, denying motion of plaintiff and cross motion of defendants for summary judgment, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Open questions are apparent both as to the existence and viability of the alleged trust and the validity of the alleged assignment. We cannot dismiss out of hand the contentions of the defendants that the alleged trust was not an actual one, that *ab initio*it was ignored by all of the parties, and that upon the death of the settlor in 1940 and the sale of all *527the assets the proceeds were turned over to his widow, and not the beneficiaries, as provided for in the 1937 agreement, resulting in a de *facto*dissolution of the trust, if one ever truly eixsted. The letter of the defendant Bernard Feinstein, written in 1966, 29 years after the 1937 agreement, cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence on which to sustain a finding that a trust existed and still endures. Similarly, the alleged assignment, not unambiguous in its terms, has been challenged as fraudulent. There being critical and unresolved issues pertaining to both causes of action, 'Special Term was correct in disallowing summary judgment. *(Glick & Dolleck*v. *Tri-Pack Export Corp.,*22 N Y 2d 439 ; *Falk*v. *Goodman,*7 N Y 2d 87, 91; *Sillmap*v. *Twentieth Century-Fox,*3 N Y 2d 395, 404.) Accordingly, the matter is remanded to Trial Term, first for a primary determination of the question as to whether there had been created a valid *inter vivos*trust and if there was the period of time it continued, following a resolution of which the court may then proceed, without a reference, to take evidence bearing upon the accounting issues, including the issue of the assignment, all of which should be submitted to the trial process. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Eager and MeGivern, JJ.; McNally, J., dissents in the following memorandum: In this action for an accounting and other relief, I would modify the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the extent of directing an accounting wherein all the issues in respect of the amended complaint and the answer may be resolved. The letter of defendant Feinstein, an attorney, dated March 8, 1966 is an unequivocal acknowledgement of an existing trust and the duty to account therefor. The allegations and issues of the amended complaint and the answer arise from and are connected with the trust estate and properly matters to be passed on in the accounting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                          332768
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2077937
<ALLOWANCES>                                    327036
<INVENTORY>                                      48528
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2776665
<PP&E>                                        10894165
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4821354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9273442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1976668
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                          1216
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     5660256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9273442
<SALES>                                        2810319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2886497
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2673969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               55923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 156605
<INCOME-TAX>                                     69125
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              87480
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     87480
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Kerma Restaurant Corporation, Petitioner, v. State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Motion for an order directing State Liquor Authority to issue a restaurant liquor license to petitioner dismissed, having become moot by virtue of the decision of this court in *Matter of Kerma Rest. Corp.*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*27 A D 2d 978) decided herewith. Concur — Eager, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 1:02-cr-38 MP/AK

MAHMOUD ELDICK

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to and at the direction of the Court, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant take nothing, and that his

motion under U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED.

 March 23, 2010

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/ TiAnn Stark

DATE Deputy Clerk: TiAnn Stark

 

Case 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK Document 210 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Joseph Di Russo, Respondent, v. Daniel Kravitz, Appellant.

[11444.]

—In view of our determination in No. 11442 dismissing the action, the judgment entered June 13, 1966 is vacated on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to the defendant. We add, that if the action were not dismissed, four of the members of this court would have voted to reverse the judgment in favor of the plaintiff and order a new trial, while one member of the court would have voted to dismiss on the ground that the malpractice of the defendant was not proven. The trial court’s findings of malpractice were generally against the weight of the credible evidence. In addition, the trial court erred in excluding material hospital records which could have disclosed a basis other than defendant’s alleged malpractice, for plaintiff’s blindness. The exclusion of the records of Goshen Hospital, indicating that both eyes of the plaintiff were treated for the consequence of a gas boiler explosion, which occurred subsequent to plaintiff’s last visit with the defendant doctor, precluded exploration as to whether the subsequent accident, rather than the alleged malpractice of the defendant, was the cause of plaintiff’s corneal condition. Such hospital record might also have shown that at the time of the explosion, and even the subsequent operation, plaintiff was indeed not blind. Concur—■ Steuer, Rabin and McNally, JJ.; Eager, J. P., and Capozzoli, J., concur on constraint of the determination of appeal No. 11442, decided herewith.
<page>
                                                            Exhibit 31.2

Certification required by Section 302(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael G. Koppel, Vice President and Treasurer of Nordstrom Credit, Inc.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Nordstrom Credit, 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(s) 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 most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) 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(s) 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 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.

Date: June 8, 2004                        /s/ Michael G. Koppel
      -------------                      -----------------------------
                                          Michael G. Koppel
                                          Vice President and Treasurer
#### MARTIN, Appellant, v. HIGGINSON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 20, 1906.)

Action by Margaret C. Martin against Margaret Higginson. W. E. Benjamin, for appellant. C. Nor-wood, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2287 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2287

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and permanently 
 extend the expensing of certain depreciable business assets for small 
                              businesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 15, 2006

  Ms. Snowe (for herself and Mr. Lott) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and permanently 
 extend the expensing of certain depreciable business assets for small 
                              businesses.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INCREASE AND PERMANENT EXTENSION FOR EXPENSING FOR SMALL 
              BUSINESS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dollar limitation) is amended by 
striking ``$25,000 ($100,000 in the case of taxable years beginning 
after 2002 and before 2008)'' and inserting ``$200,000''.
    (b) Increase in Qualifying Investment at Which Phaseout Begins.--
Paragraph (2) of section 179(b) of such Code (relating to reduction in 
limitation) is amended by striking ``$200,000 ($400,000 in the case of 
taxable years beginning after 2002 and before 2008)'' and inserting 
``$800,000''.
    (c) Inflation Adjustments.--Section 179(b)(5)(A) of such Code 
(relating to inflation adjustments) is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
                    (A) by striking ``after 2003 and before 2008'' and 
                inserting ``after 2007'', and
                    (B) by striking ``the $100,000 and $400,000 
                amounts'' and inserting ``the $200,000 and $800,000 
                amounts'', and
            (2) in clause (ii), by striking ``calendar year 2002'' and 
        inserting ``calendar year 2006''.
    (d) Revocation of Election.--Section 179(c)(2) of such Code 
(relating to election irrevocable) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(2) Revocability of election.--Any election made under 
        this section, and any specification contained in any such 
        election, may be revoked by the taxpayer with respect to any 
        property, and such revocation, once made, shall be 
        irrevocable.''.
    (e) Off-the-Shelf Computer Software.--Section 179(d)(1)(A)(ii) of 
such Code (relating to section 179 property) is amended by striking 
``and before 2008''.
    (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit  99.2


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of APA Optics, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K  for  the  period  ending  March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David R. Peters, Chief
Financial  Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Sec.  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

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

2.   The  information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Signature:     /s/  David  R.  Peters
               ----------------------
Print  Name:   David  R.  Peters
               -----------------
Print  Title:  Chief  Financial  Officer
               -------------------------


<PAGE>
18.000 Scope of part.

(a) This part identifies acquisition flexibilities that are available for emergency acquisitions. These

flexibilities are specific techniques or procedures that may be used to streamline the standard

acquisition process. This part includes-

(1) Generally available flexibilities; and

(2) Emergency acquisition flexibilities that are available only under prescribed circumstances.

(b) The acquisition flexibilities in this part are not exempt from the requirements and limitations set

forth in FAR part 3, Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest.

(c) Additional flexibilities may be authorized in an executive agency supplement to the FAR.

Parent topic: Part 18 - Emergency Acquisitions
. ... .: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ~TEXAS ’ 

# --- --- muwiotul5-*4
EGU MACT -- Interagency Comments on preamble
12/14/2011 06:58 PM

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

HI Bob, Attached are redline edits to the preamble from interagency reviewers. This may be it for comments on the preamble, but I’ll let you know by
noon tomorrow if there are more.

Regards,
Cortney

From: Higgins, Cortney Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:50 PM To: Bob Wayland (Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov) Cc: Maxwell.Bill@epamail.epa.gov Subject: EGU MACT -- Comments on benefits discussion in preamble

Hi Bob, Attached is the latest preamble with redline edits to the benefits discussion. These track with edits suggested in the RIA Executive Summary I sent earlier today.

I’ve asked for interagency comments by COB today, but I wanted to send these over. I plan to get any additional interagency comments on the preamble to you by noon tomorrow (but likely not tonight).

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,
Cortney

EO12866NESHAPMACT_NSPSforUtilitie sMATS2060_AP52Final20111212_Int eragencyCommentsunderEO13563. docx
APSC Docket 12-008-U Sierra Club 1-45 Attachment 1

Page 1 of 1

**Generating Unit MW**  **SCR In-Service**  **SCR Type Vendor**  **Length of Time to Install**  **(months) (1)**  **Tie-in Outage**

**Duration (days)**  **Project Cost**

**($/kW) (2)**  Big Sandy

Unit 2 800 2003 SCR Babcock Power/Riley 46 107 197.8

(1). Length of time required to install each SCR from start of Phase I to in-service date. (2). $/kWincludes total cost plus overheads and AFUDC. **Big Sandy Unit 2 SCR**
§ 400.53 Yield certification and acceptability. ( a ) Production reports must be provided to the crop insurance agent no later than the production reporting date for the crop insured. ( 1 ) Production reports must provide an accurate account of planted acreage for annual crops or insurable acres for perennial crops, as well as harvested and appraised production by unit.
( 2 ) The insured must certify the accuracy of the information.
( 3 ) Production reported for more than one crop year must be continuous. A year in which no acreage was planted to the crop on a unit or no acreage was planted to a practice, type, or variety requiring an APH yield will not be considered a break in continuity. Assigned yields, at the discretion of the FCIC, may be used to maintain continuity of yield data of file. Production on uninsured (for those years a crop insurance policy under the Federal Crop Insurance Act is in effect) or uninsurable acreage (for other years of the period) will not be used to determine APH yield unless production from such acreage is commingled with production from insured or insurable acreage.
( b ) Production reports and supporting records are subject to audit or review to verify the accuracy of the information certified. Production and supporting records may be reviewed and verified if a claim for indemnity is submitted on the insured crop. The reported yield is subject to revision, if needed, so that the claim conforms to the records submitted at that time. ( 1 ) Inaccurate production reports or failure to retain acceptable records shall result in the verifier combining optional farm units and recomputing the approved APH yield. These actions shall be taken at any time after reporting or record discrepancies are identified and may result in reduction of the approved APH yield for any calendar year.
( 2 ) Records must be provided by the insured at the time of an audit, review, or as otherwise requested, to verify that the acreage and production certified are accurate. Records of any other person having shares in the insured crop, which are used by the insured to establish the approved APH yield, must also be provided upon request.
( 3 ) In the event acreage or production data certified by two or more persons sharing in the crop on the same acreage is different, the verifier shall, at the verifier's discretion, determine which acreage and production data, if any, will be used to determine the approved APH yield. If the correct acreage and production cannot be determined, the data submitted will be considered unacceptable by the verifier for APH purposes.
( 4 ) Failure of the producer to report acreage and production completely and accurately may result in voidance of the crop insurance contract, as well as criminal or civil false claims penalties pursuant to applicable Federal criminal or civil statutes.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:96cr56-RH/WCS

RENEE PATTERSON,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EARLY

TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

Defendant Renee Patterson has moved for early termination of supervised

release. Ms. Patterson has served only one year of the five-year term to which she

was sentenced. She has not alleged extraordinary circumstances of the type that

would support so early a termination. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

Defendant Renee Patterson’s motion for early termination of supervised

release (document 738) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 7th day of August, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:96-cr-00056-RH-WCS Document 739 Filed 08/07/05 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.310 Contents of application. Each Applicant must submit a complete application, including the following: ( a ) *Management team experience.* The Applicant must provide information generally as to the background, capability, education, reputation and training of its management team, including general partners, managers, officers, key personnel, and investment committee and governing board members. The Applicant also must provide information specifically on these individuals' qualifications and reputation in the areas of Community Development Finance and/or Relevant Capital Finance, including the impact of these individuals' activities in these areas.
( b ) *Amount of Regulatory Capital.* The Applicant must indicate the amount of Regulatory Capital it has raised or proposes to raise, which amount must satisfy the requirements of § 4290.210(a) of this part, unless the Applicant indicates that it has raised or proposes to raise at least $2,500,000 and is applying for an exception pursuant to § 4290.210(b) of this part and includes in its application— ( 1 ) A showing of special circumstances and good cause for the exception:
( 2 ) Will satisfy all eligibility criteria for licensing as a RBIC as set forth in § 4290.390(a) of this part, except the capital requirement specified in paragraph (a)(1) of that section, as determined solely by the Agency;
( 3 ) Has a viable business plan reasonably projecting profitable operations; and
( 4 ) Has a reasonable timetable for achieving Regulatory Capital in an amount that satisfies the requirements of § 4290.210(a) of this part.
( c ) *Comprehensive business plan.* The Applicant must submit a comprehensive business plan covering at least a five-year period, addressing the specific items described in § 4290.320, and which demonstrates that the Applicant has the capacity to operate successfully as a RBIC.