alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 91

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 91 appear at 61 FR 51350, Oct. 2 1996.

#### § 91.15 Basis of a laboratory service.

Analytical testing and laboratory determination for analyte or quality constituent shall be based upon the appropriate standards promulgated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, applicable standards prescribed by the laws of the State where the particular product was produced, specifications of any governmental agency, written buyer and seller contract specifications, or any written specifications by an applicant which is approved by the Administrator; *Provided,* That, if such product is regulated pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*), or the comparable laws of any State, such testing and determination shall be on the basis of the standards, if any, prescribed in, or pursuant to, the marketing order and/or agreement effective thereunder.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of James Friscia, Respondent, v. Mermaid Sea Products, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Special Disability Fund, Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the Special Disability Fund under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which held it liable for reimbursement. The record shows that after a hearing on April 3, 1962 (.Special Fund being represented) the Referee by a decision dated April 6, 1962 established “ knowledge ” in accordance with the provisions of subdivision 8 of section 15 to which finding the Fund representative excepted. On October 15, 1965 the board found, based on the testimony of Dr. Merwarth at a hearing on March 12, 1965, that the evidence established “materially and substantially greater disability under section 15-8” and also “ that the question of knowledge of pre-existing permanent physical impairment has long since been established and no appeal was taken from said decision. Review thereof is not granted at this time.” The sole issue on this appeal is: Was the appellant bound by the decision of April 6, 1962, from which no appeal was taken, as to “ knowledge ”? The liability of the Special Fund (§ 15, subd. 8) depends upon the finding of several facts: (1) A permanent physical impairment; (2) Hiring or retention in employment with knowledge by the employer of such impairment and its permanency; (3) That such permanent condition is a hindrance or obstacle to employment and is materially and substantially a greater disability than would have resulted from the subsequent injury alone. There is no liability until all of these factors are established against the Fund. A finding *615of one factor is essential to the whole but of itself creates no liability. In the present ease the establishment of these factors required several hearings. In *Matter of Guest*v. *Western Gateway Roofing Metal Works*(21 A D 2d 918, mot. for lv. to app. den. 14 N Y 2d 488), a similar procedural problem, we held that the initial determination of permanency as related to a schedule loss or permanent partial was not a final determination but “ simply interlocutory in nature ” and such we find to be the present procedural problem. To determine that a factual finding of one of the several factors of liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 requires a separate appeal would tend to create congestion in a busy administrative agency and it seems fair to assume that if the appellant had appealed from the finding of *“*knowledge ”, the board might very well have denied a hearing until a final and ultimate determination of liability based on all of the essential factors. From the present record there appears to be substantial evidence to sustain the board’s finding of materially and substantially greater disability. Decision reversed, and matter remitted for further proceedings, with costs to appellant against the State Insurance Fund. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Herlihy, J.
607.503 Policy.       (e) Requirements offices shall provide to the contracting officer a written determination that none of the functions to be performed are inherently governmental. This determination shall be included with the procurement request package, which is transmitted to the contracting officer to initiate an action. The Form DS–4208 may be used to meet this requirement. The contracting officer shall obtain review from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Buildings and Acquisitions (L/BA) of any request package that the contracting officer determines raises substantial questions as to the performance of inherently governmental functions. Disagreements regarding the determination shall be resolved by the head of the contracting activity.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 607.5—Inherently Governmental Functions
Exhibit 13.1**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of AvagoTechnologies Finance Pte. Ltd. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:(i) the accompanying report of the Company on Form 20-F/A for the period ended October 31, 2007(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date:February 27, 2008/s/Hock Tan
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

#### § 982.65 Carryover reports.

As of January 1, May 1, and August 1, or such other dates as the Board may recommend and the Secretary approve, each handler shall report within 10 days to the Board the handler's inventory of inshell and shelled hazelnuts. Such reports shall be certified to the Board and the Secretary as to their accuracy and completeness and shall show, among other items, the following: (a) Certified merchantable hazelnuts on which the restricted obligation has been met; (b) merchantable hazelnuts on which the restricted obligation has not been met; (c) the merchantable equivalent of any hazelnuts intended for handling as inshell hazelnuts; and (d) restricted hazelnuts withheld.

[46 FR 26040, May 11, 1981]
#### § 905.71 Other information.

Upon request of the committee, made with the approval of the Secretary, every handler shall furnish the committee, in such manner and at such times as it prescribes, such other information as will enable it to perform its duties under this subpart.

[22 FR 10734, Dec. 27, 1957. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 42 FR 59371, Nov. 17, 1977]
#### MURPHY, Appellant, v. DREW, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by James H. Murphy, an infant, by John P. Murphy, his guardian ad litem, against Emanuel Drew.

No opinion. Motion denied.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Jeffrey L. Sanford Gregory F. Zoeller

South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court 

_________________________________

No. 71S03-1306-CR-455

VALENTIN ESCOBEDO, Appellant (Defendant),

v.

STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee (Plaintiff).

_________________________________

Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court, No. 71D01-0812-FA-49

The Honorable Jane Woodward Miller, Judge

_________________________________

On Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 71A03-1202-CR-60

_________________________________

June 28, 2013

Dickson, Chief Justice.

Sentenced to an aggregate term of fifty-three years upon convictions for Battery, a class 

A felony, and Neglect of a Dependent as a class D felony, the defendant appealed asserting 

claims of error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings and seeking appellate sentence review and 

revision under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Escobedo v. State, 

987 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). We now grant transfer to address a single point.

In rejecting the defendant's request for appellate sentence revision, the Court of Appeals 

summarized its analysis as follows: "In other words, the maximum sentence here can be justified 
2

as a deontological response giving voice to a community's outrage, based on the facts and circumstances of the crime." Id. at 120. We disagree and disapprove of consideration of a community's outrage in the determination or review of a criminal sentence. Notwithstanding this reference, however, we agree with the ultimate conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the sentence 

imposed by the trial court is appropriate and should be affirmed.

In all other respects we summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Indiana 

Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).

Rucker, David, Massa, and Rush, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Dominick Giaquinto, Appellant, v Commissioner of New York State Department of Health, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

Submitted August 27, 2007;

decided October 23, 2007

Reported below, 39 AD3d 922.

Motion by the Empire Justice Center for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed.
Exhibit 12.1**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Hock Tan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Avago Technologies Finance Pte. Ltd (the“registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        /s/ Hock Tan   Hock Tan   Chief Executive Officer    Date:December 12, 2007
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PLAN FOR

CONTROL OF NONSTANDARD CLAUSES

September 3, 2014

1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this plan is to implement, maintain, and comply with a plan for

controlling the use of clauses other than those prescribed in the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) as required in DFARS

201.304(4). This plan supersedes the July 31, 2009, update.

2. DEFINITIONS.

a. Clause – The term “clause” includes solicitation provisions and means a term or condition of the

type set forth in FAR part 52 and DFARS part 252.

b. Deviation – The term “deviation” includes any clause that is inconsistent with the FAR or DFARS.

c. Regulation – The term “regulation” includes any contracting supplement, policy letter, clause

book, automated system, acquisition instruction (AI), or similar regulatory instrument.

3. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NONSTANDARD CLAUSES. Army contracting activities coordinate

all nonstandard clauses with the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Procurement)

(ODASA(P)) Policy and Programs Directorate in accordance with Army Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (AFARS) 5101.304(1)(i). The ODASA(P) Policy and Programs Directorate

coordinates with the Office of the Army General Counsel during review of nonstandard clauses.

a. Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) Clause Approval –

(1) Obtain DPAP approval to use clauses that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating

procedures of the Army or impose a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or

offerors (DFARS 201.304(1)). Included are class deviations from the FAR or DFARS (DFARS

201.404(b)) and the six categories of individual deviations set forth in DFARS 201.402(1).

(2) Coordinate with the ODASA(P) Policy and Programs Directorate to publish clauses requiring

DPAP approval in the Federal Register, conduct analysis to ensure compliance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (FAR 1.301(c)), and analyze public comments.

Submit the clause and all analysis through the Defense Acquisition Regulations (DAR) Council

Director (DFARS 201.304(5) and AFARS 5101.301(b)).

b. Other than DPAP Clause Approval –

(1) Obtain Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Procurement) (DASA(P)) approval to use clauses

that do not require DPAP approval and do not require publication in the Federal Register for public

comment, but are included in contracting activity AIs or clause books.

1




Parent topic: APPENDIX - FF Table Of Contents
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR                           ( print page 76467)                        part 515, effective on the corresponding date shown below:                

*License Number:*                     3007F.                

*Name:*                     Berardino & Associates Incorporated.                

*Address:*                     188 Industrial Drive, Suite 427, Elmhurst, IL 60126.                

*Date Revoked:*                     November 9, 2010.                

*Reason:*                     Surrendered license voluntarily.                

*License Number:*                     022766N.                

*Name:*                     Atlantic Integrated Freight Inc.                

*Address:*                     19 Princeton Drive, Dix Hills, NY 11746.                

*Date Revoked:*                     November 5, 2010.                

*Reason:*                     Surrendered license voluntarily.                

Sandra L. Kusumoto,

Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.

[FR Doc. 2010-30878 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Avago Technologies Finance Pte. Ltd. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying report of the Company on Form 20-F for the period ended November 2, 2008 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: December 17, 2008 |  | /s/    DOUGLAS R.
BETTINGER                      
|                        |  | Douglas R. Bettinger                             
|                        |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Christine Staples, Respondent, v Brendan Staples, Appellant.

In a divorce action, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered April 26, 1979, which awarded the plaintiff wife temporary alimony, child support and an interim counsel fee. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. A speedy trial is the most effective remedy to cure any inequity in a *pendente lite*award *(Fitzgerald v Fitzgerald,*69 AD2d 808; *Hahn v Hahn,*65 AD2d 782; *Steinñnk v Steinñnk,*65 AD2d 621; *Lemme v Lemme,*63 AD2d 695). Titone, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

#### § 982.85 Agents.

The Secretary may, by a designation in writing, name any person, including any officer or employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, to act as his agent or representative in connection with any of the provisions of this subpart.
1501.603-1 General.       EPA Contracting Officers shall be selected and appointed and their appointments terminated in accordance with the Contracting Officer warrant program specified in EPA Acquisition Guide (EPAAG) subsection 1.6.4.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1501.6 - Contracting Authority and Responsibilities
#### § 986.77 Reports of pecans received by handlers.

Each handler shall file such reports of their pecan receipts from growers, handlers, or others in such form and at such times as may be required by the Council with the approval of the Secretary.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998 
<CASH>                                                  12 
<SECURITIES>                                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                            1 
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0 
<INVENTORY>                                              0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        13 
<PP&E>                                                   0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          13 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0 
<BONDS>                                                  0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                                 0 
<OTHER-SE>                                              13 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            13 
<SALES>                                                  0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0 
<CGS>                                                    0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0 
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                             0 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
                                                        
                                                        

</TABLE>
SCPW-13-000095

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(S.P.P. No. 12-1-0011)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney’s motion

for reconsideration of the February 21, 2013 order denying his

“Motion for Appoin[t]ment of Counsel Demand by U.S. Supreme

Court”, which was reviewed as a petition for a writ of mandamus, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for

reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 13, 2013.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-13-0000095

13-MAR-2013

01:41 PM