alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
76418 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices 

[FR Doc. 2010–30728 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 10–65] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following is a copy of a letter to the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Transmittals 10–65 with attached 

transmittal, and policy justification. 

Dated: December 1, 2010. 

Morgan F. Park, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN08DE10.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices 76419 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN08DE10.013</GPH>
76420 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN08DE10.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices 76421 

[FR Doc. 2010–30727 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 

Meeting of the Department of Defense 

Military Family Readiness Council 

(MFRC) 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a), 

Public Law 92–463, as amended, notice 

is hereby given of a forthcoming 

meeting of the Department of Defense 

Military Family Readiness Council 

(MFRC). The purpose of the Council 

meeting is to review the military family 

programs which will be the focus for the 

Council for next year, review the status 

of warrior care, and address selected 

concerns of military family 

organizations. 

The meeting is open to the public, 

subject to the availability of space. 

Persons desiring to attend may contact 

Ms. Melody McDonald at 571–256–1738 

or e-mail 

FamilyReadinessCouncil@osd.mil no 

later than 5 p.m. on Friday, 10 

December 2010 to arrange for parking 

and escort into the conference room 

inside the Pentagon. 

Interested persons may submit a 

written statement for consideration by 

the Council. Persons desiring to submit 

a written statement to the Council must 

notify the point of contact listed below 

no later than 5 p.m., Wednesday, 8 

December 2010. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN08DE10.015</GPH>
16.206 Fixed-ceiling-price contracts with

retroactive price redetermination.

16.206-1 Description.

16.206-2 Application.

16.206-3 Limitations.

16.206-4 Contract clause.

Parent topic: Subpart 16.2 - Fixed-Price Contracts
#### WITTSCHEN et al., Respondents, v. MANHATTAN RY. CO. et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Action by George Wittschen and other against the Manhattan Railway Company and others. J. 0. Nichols, for appellants. E. M. Felt, for respondents.

PER OURIAM.

Judgment modified by reducing amount awarded for fee damage to $1,500, and by reducing the judgment for rental damage, etc., as entered, including interest, costs, and extra allowance, to the sum of $1,327.85, and, as so modified, judgment and order appealed from affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice.
#### In the Matter of Xerox Corporation, Respondent, v Werner Kramarsky, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights, et al., Appellants.

— Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: On July 10, 1975, Robert Steers filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights (Division), charging that Xerox Corporation (Xerox) had unlawfully discriminated against him in his employment because of his age. On December 19, 1975 the Division dismissed the complaint upon its finding that probable cause did not exist. On January 2, 1976 Steers filed a timely notice of appeal. On November 1, 1977 the State Human Rights Appeal Board (Appeal Board) annulled the dismissal and remanded the matter to the Division for a public hearing. On December 1, 1978 the Division noticed the matter for a public hearing to be held on December 18, 1978. Xerox brought this article 78 proceeding on December 8, 1978, seeking a writ of prohibition enjoining the Division from further proceeding on the ground that it had unreasonably delayed in processing the complaint. Special Term granted the writ and the Division appeals. We reverse. While we agree that the administrative delays were unreasonable in processing this complaint (see Executive Law, § 297, subds 2, 4, par a; § 297-a, subd 4), in cases of this nature the remedy for any error of law in the exercise of jurisdiction or authority by the State Division of Human Rights "lies first in administrative review and following exhaustion of that remedy in subsequent judicial review pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law” *(Matter of Tessy Plastics Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights,*47 NY2d 789, 791; *Matter of Sarkisian Bros. v State Div. of Human Rights,*48 NY2d 816). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court— art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
Exhibit 18.1

March 12,
2010

Board
of Directors
Heelys, Inc.
3200 Belmeade Drive, Suite 100
Carrollton, Texas 75006

Dear
Directors:

We
are providing this letter solely for inclusion as an exhibit to Heelys, Inc.'s (the "Company") Form 10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We
have audited the consolidated financial statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as set forth in our report
dated March 12, 2010. As stated in Note 2 to those financial statements, the Company changed its accounting for shipping and handling expenses. Note 2 also states management's belief
that the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances because it allows for a better analysis of the Company's gross profit margin and will allow for that financial measure to
more consistently convey the relationship between sales and costs that are directly attributable to the procurement and production of inventory sold from year to year.

With
regard to the aforementioned accounting change, it should be understood that authoritative criteria have not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable
method of accounting over another acceptable method and, in expressing our concurrence below, we have relied on management's business planning and judgment and on management's determination that this
change in accounting principle is preferable.

Based
on our reading of management's stated reasons and justification for this change in accounting principle in the Form 10-K, and our discussions with management as to their
judgment about the relevant business planning factors relating to the change, we concur with management that the newly adopted method of accounting is preferable in the Company's circumstances.

Very
truly yours,

/s/
Grant Thornton LLP

Dallas,
Texas

---



QuickLinks
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ORTAVIOUS DEVON WILSON,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5848/LAC/EMT

SECRETARY DEP’T OF CORR.,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on July 7,

2021 (ECF No. 18). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of

the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections

thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

18) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 5) is

DENIED.

Case 3:20-cv-05848-LC-EMT Document 22 Filed 08/26/21 Page 1 of 2
Page of 2

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with

this order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5848/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05848-LC-EMT Document 22 Filed 08/26/21 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6253

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANAND LAKHRAM, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-88-BR, CA-98-174-7-BR) Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anand Lakhram, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Anand Lakhram seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Lakhram , Nos. CR-97-88- BR; CA-98-174-7-BR (E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
42.1501 General.

(a) Past performance information (including the ratings and supporting narratives) is relevant

information, for future source selection purposes, regarding a contractor’s actions under previously

awarded contracts or orders. It includes, for example, the contractor’s record of-

(1) Conforming to requirements and to standards of good workmanship;

(2) Forecasting and controlling costs;

(3) Adherence to schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance;

(4) Reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction;

(5) Complying with the requirements of the small business subcontracting plan (see 19.705-7(b));

(6) Reporting into databases (see subpart 4.14, and reporting requirements in the solicitation

provisions and clauses referenced in 9.104-7);

(7) Integrity and business ethics; and

(8) Business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

(b) Agencies shall monitor their compliance with the past performance evaluation requirements (see

42.1502), and use the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) metric tools

to measure the quality and timely reporting of past performance information. CPARS is the official

source for past performance information.

Parent topic: Subpart 42.15 - Contractor Performance Information
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Humble Oil & Refining Company, Appellant, and Onofrio R. Civitano et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 14, 1969, which denied the application. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements; application granted to the extent of staying arbitration pending determination, pursuant to CPLR 7503 (subd. [a]) of the issue of whether the taking by condemnation of a portion of the subject property “ substantially interfere [d] with the conduct of * * * [petitioner’s] business ” within the meaning of paragraph (12) of the lease between the parties; and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for trial and determination of that issue. Paragraph (12) of the lease of a gasoline service station by respondents to petitioner provided that the taking for public use of more than five feet of the property “if it does not substantially interfere with the conduct of the Lessee’s business shall be the subject of renegotiation as to rental value, such renegotiation to be had by the parties, who, if unable to agree shall cause arbitration thereof.” Approximately 40 feet were taken; petitioner claimed that the taking constituted a substantial interference with its business, so that the lease was terminated, while respondents argued to the contrary; respondents demanded arbitration of a number of issues, including the questions of whether the partial taking substantially interfered with the conduct of petitioner’s business in the property remaining and whether petitioner was estopped from claiming that there was such substantial interference; petitioner sought to stay such arbitration; and its application for a stay was denied by the order under review. It is our opinion that under the limited provision for arbitration here, the dispute as to whether the partial taking constituted a “substantial” interference with the conduct of petitioner’s business is one which must be settled by the court after trial; and a finding that there was no such substantial interference is a condition precedent to the right to arbitration (cf. *Matter of Rosenbaum [American Sur. Co. of N.*Y.], 11 N Y 2d 310, 313-314; *Matter of Wilaka Constr. Co.*[N. Y. *City Housing*Auth.], 17 N Y 2d 195, 198; *Matter of Methodist Church of Babylon [Glen-Rich Constr. Corp.],*29 A D 2d 773). We note, also, that the only issue to be arbitrated, if it is found that respondents are entitled to arbitration, is the rental value of the premises after the partial taking. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
100.11.27 15:33 B C:\permftp\lps2662\lps2662.tpp --> permanent.access.gpo.gov /diska/netsite-docs/lps2662 lps2662.tpp
100.11.29 13:27 B C:\permftp\lps2662\lps2662.tpp --> permanent.access.gpo.gov /diska/netsite-docs/lps2662 lps2662.tpp
100.11.29 13:27 B C:\permftp\lps2662\WS_FTP.LOG --> permanent.access.gpo.gov /diska/netsite-docs/lps2662 WS_FTP.LOG
100.12.20 12:06 B C:\permftp\lps2662\lps2662.tpp --> permanent.access.gpo.gov /diska/netsite-docs/lps2662 lps2662.tpp
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





I, Nidhi
Andalon, Chief Financial Officer of Qualstar Corporation (the “Company”),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:





(1) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March
31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and





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





Dated:
      May 12, 2009
              /s/       NIDHI  ANDALONNidhi
      AndalonPrincipal
      Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2


Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
    for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the
    Report) fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
|
| | (2) the information contained in the Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                        



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ FREDERIC T. BOYER  
| |                        
| | Frederic T. Boyer      
| | Chief Financial Officer
FORM OF ANNUAL  BACK-UP CERTIFICATION
Re:
The Pooling And Servicing Agreement, dated as of  September 1, 2006
(the "Agreement"), by and among J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I, as depositor (the "Depositor"),  HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee") and U.S. Bank National Association, in its dual capacities asmaster servicer (the "Master Servicer") and securities administrator.
I, Bryan Calder, the Executive Vice President  of U.S. Bank National Association,certify to the Depositor, the Master Servicer, the Securities Administrator, and their officers, with the knowledge and intent that they will rely upon thiscertification, that:
(1)
I have reviewed (i) the servicer compliance statement of the Company provided in
accordance with Section 11.05 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Compliance Statement"), (ii) the report on assessment of the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria provided in accordance with Section 11.06 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, (iii) the registered public accounting firm's attestation report provided in accordance with Section 11.07 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Attestation Report"), and all servicing reports, officer's certificates and other information relating to the servicing of the Mortgage Loans by the Company during 200[ ] that were deliveredby the Company to the Securities Administrator pursuant to the Agreement (collectively, the "Company Servicing Information");
(2)
Based on my knowledge, the Company Servicing Information, taken as a whole,
does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period of time covered by the Company Servicing Information;
(3)
Based on my knowledge, all of the Company Servicing Information required to be
provided by the Company under the Agreement has been provided to the Securities Administrator;
(4)
I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Company as
servicer under the Agreement, and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the Compliance Statement and except as disclosed in the Compliance Statement, the Servicing Assessment or the Attestation Report, the Company has fulfilled its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects; and
(5)
The Compliance Statement required to be delivered by the Company pursuant to
the Agreement, and the Servicing Assessment and Attestation Report required to be provided by the Company and by any Subservicer or Subcontractor pursuant to the Agreement, have been provided to Securities Administrator.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed to Securities Administrator.Any material instance of noncompliance with the Servicing Criteria has been disclosed in such reports.
Exhibit 312
By:
/s/: Bryan Calder
Name:  Bryan CalderTitle : Executive Vice President
Date: 3/30/2007
#### The Attorney-General *v.*The Continental Life Insurance Company.

(Argued. June 19, 1884;

decided June 27, 1884.)

*John C. Keeler*for appellant.

*Lucius McAdam*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed.
# L_2013273EN.01002701.xml

| 15.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 273/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 273/27

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 987/2013

of 14 October 2013

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Fenland Celery (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2).

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘Fenland Celery’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘Fenland Celery’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).

| (3) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Fenland Celery’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Fenland Celery’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 October 2013.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ C 353, 17.11.2012, p. 9.

3

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

UNITED KINGDOM

Fenland Celery (PGI)

---