alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

§ 989.92 Proceedings after termination. ( a ) Upon the termination of the provisions of this amended subpart, the members of the Committee then functioning shall continue as joint trustees for the purpose of liquidating the affairs of the Committee, of all funds and property then in the possession or under the control of the Committee, including claims for any funds unpaid or property not delivered at the time of such termination. Action by said trusteeship shall require the concurrence of a majority of the said trustees.
( b ) Said trustees shall continue in such capacity until discharged by the Secretary; shall, from time to time, account for all receipts and disbursements and deliver all property on hand, together with all books and records of the Committee and the joint trustees, to such person as the Secretary may direct; and shall, upon the request of the Secretary, execute such assignments or other instruments necessary or appropriate to vest in such person full title and right to all of the funds, property, and claims vested in the Committee or the joint trustees pursuant to this subpart.
( c ) Any person to whom funds, property or claims have been transferred or delivered by the Committee or its members, pursuant to this section, shall be subject to the same obligations imposed upon the members of the said Committee and upon said joint trustees.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32


                            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 Quarterly Report of Universal Detection Technology (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jacques Tizabi, Principal Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Registrant, certify to the best
of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



                                    /s/ Jacques Tizabi
                                    ------------------
Dated: November 13, 2009            Jacques Tizabi
                                    Principal Executive Officer and Acting
                                    Principal Financial Officer and Principal
                                    Accounting Officer
# Subpart 1520.1 - General [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**PART 1520 - LABOR SURPLUS AREA CONCERNS
#### § 140.83 Determination of extraordinary nuclear occurrence.

If the Commission determines that both of the criteria set forth in §§ 140.84 and 140.85 have been met, it will make the determination that there has been an extraordinary nuclear occurrence. If the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register in accordance with § 140.82(a) and does not make a determination within 90 days thereafter that there has been an extraordinary nuclear occurrence, the alleged event will be deemed not to be an extraordinary nuclear occurrence. The time for the making of a determination may be extended by the Commission by notice published in the Federal Register.

[33 FR 15999, Oct. 31, 1968]
Subpart 2817.1 - Multiyear Contracting

Parent topic: PART 2817 - SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS

2817.104 General.

The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 17.104(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial
statements together with the related footnotes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          79,847
<SECURITIES>                                    32,970
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,440
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     69,146
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               203,471
<PP&E>                                         185,313
<DEPRECIATION>                                  83,006
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 737,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,102
<BONDS>                                        776,518
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (105,605)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   737,344
<SALES>                                        216,474
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               216,474
<CGS>                                          119,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,892
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              58,907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,404
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,974
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,430
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,430
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v ) CR. NO. 2:06cr198-WKW-DRB

)

RONALD MCQUEEN )

ORDER ON MOTION FOR DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

At the scheduled preliminary and detention hearing this day the parties received notice of

Defendant’s indictment on August 15, 2006; accordingly, it isORDERED that the scheduled

preliminary hearing is mooted by the indictment.

Upon confirmation that the Alabama Parole Board has lodged a detainer to effect the

Defendant’s return to state custody in the event of his release on federal bond, the Defendant made

a counseled waiver of the detention hearing and express notice that he no longer desires to pursue

his release on federal bond. Accordingly, it is

 ORDERED that the Government’s Motion for Detention (Doc. 4, July 28, 2006), which

invokes the rebuttable presumption under Section 3142(e) for defendant’s detention is GRANTED

based on the court’s finding that there are no conditions of release which will reasonably assure his

appearance as required and the safety of any other person and the community. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant shall

be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On order of a

court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person in charge of

the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United States marshal for the purpose of

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 20 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

DONE THIS 16 day of August, 2006. th

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 20 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Techdyne, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Barry J. Pardon, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                 /s/ Barry J. Pardon
                                 --------------------------------------------
                                 Barry J. Pardon
                                 President and Principal Executive Officer
November 14, 2002
§ 956.43 Accounting. ( a ) All funds received by the committee pursuant to the provisions of this part shall be used solely for the purposes specified in this part.
( b ) The Secretary may at any time require the committee, its members and alternate members, employees, agents, and all other such persons associated with the committee to account for all receipts, disbursements, funds, property, or records for which they are responsible. Whenever any person ceases to be a member, alternate member, employee, or agent of the committee, such person shall account for all receipts, disbursements, funds, property, and records pertaining to the committee's activities for which such person was responsible, deliver all property and funds in such person's possession to the committee, and execute such assignments and other instruments as may be necessary or appropriate to vest in the committee full title to all of the property, funds, and claims vested in such person pursuant to this part.
( c ) The committee may make recommendations to the Secretary for one or more of the members thereof, or any other person, to act as a trustee for holding records, funds, or any other committee property during periods of suspension of this part, or during any period or periods when regulations are not in effect and, upon determining such action is appropriate, the Secretary may direct that such person or persons shall act as trustee or trustees for the committee.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Manuel Mojica, Appellant.

Appeals by defendant from two judgments of the'Supreme Court, Queens County, (1) the first rendered April 25, 1968, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, unarmed, upon a plea of guilty, and sentencing him to a prison term of 2% to 5 years; and (2) the second rendered February 19, 1970, resentencing him upon the same conviction to 2% to 4 years, *nunc pro tunc.*The appeals bring up for review portions of two orders of the same court, i.e., (1) so much of the first order, dated February 20, 1967, as, after vacating a wiretap order and suppressing wiretap evidence, on the consent of the District Attorney, failed to grant defendant a hearing on the contents of the wiretap tapes (as a forerunner to an attack against any fruits of the tape contents); and (2) so much of the second order, dated April 24, 1968, as denied a renewed application for such a hearing. Appeal from original judgment (rendered April 25, 1968) dismissed as academic. That judgment was superseded by the judgment of resentenee. Judgment of resentence (rendered February 19, 1970), and orders insofar as reviewed, affirmed. No opinion. Christ, P. J., Latham, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
1852.301 Solicitation provisions and contract

clauses (Matrix).

Parent topic: Subpart 1852.3—Provision and Clause Matrix
COURTROOM DEPUTY MINUTES DATE : NOVEMBER 13, 2006

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA DIGITAL RECORDED: 1:10 p.m. to 1:11 p.m.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

PRESIDING MAG. JUDGE: CHARLES S. COODY DEPUTY CLERK: WANDA STINSON 

CASE NUMBER: 2:06CR193-MEF-CSC DEFENDANT NAME: JOSHUA W. HESTER

 

APPEARANCES

GOVERNMENT DEFENDANT

ATTY. KARL DAVID COOKE, JR. ATTY. STEPHEN GLASSROTH

/ DISCOVERY STATUS: Complete.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 _________________________________________________________________________________________

/ PENDING MOTION STATUS: NONE

/ PLEA STATUS: Possible Plea.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

/ TRIAL STATUS: Will take 3-4 days to try case if goes to trial.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

/ REMARKS: Will set plea hrg. for 11/20/06 at 2:00 p.m.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 33 Filed 11/13/2006 Page 1 of 1
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-07-364-CR

MANUEL R. MURILLO APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

-----------

Appellant Manuel R. Murillo entered an open plea of guilty to two counts

of indecency with a child by contact and elected to have the jury assess

punishment. The jury assessed punishment at two years’ confinement on the

first count and four years’ community supervision on the second count. The

trial court sentenced Murillo in accordance with the jury’s verdict. 
2... 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

2

Murillo’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw

as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion

meet the requirements of Anders v. California2 by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for

relief. Murillo was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not do

so.

As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of

the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the

appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Because

Murillo entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential error

is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Murillo’s plea,

error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error

occurring after entry of the guilty plea. See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615,

620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666–67 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2000).
3

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree

with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find

nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); accord Meza v.

State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We therefore grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 16, 2008
SUBPART 29.1 — GENERAL

Parent topic: PART 29 ––TAXES

29.101 Resolving tax problems.

(a)(S-90) Contracting officers should request assistance from legal counsel and the PL842 Cost and

Pricing Branch. PL842 can provide assistance on applicability and reasonableness prior to

negotiations.
#### § 205.353 Special investigation and reports.

If directed by the Director, Office of Energy Emergency Operations in writing and noticed in the Federal Register, a utility or other subject entity experiencing a condition described in § 205.351 above shall submit a full report of the technical circumstances surrounding a specific power system disturbance, including the restoration procedures utilized. The report shall be filed at such times as may be directed by the Director, Office of Energy Emergency Operations.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1901-0288)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ELISHA JAMES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv768-ID

)

THERMASYS CORP., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The parties are hereby reminded of the obligation, imposed by Rule 26(f) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to confer and to develop a proposed discovery plan. 

The Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable,

but no later than October 12, 2006.

The longstanding practice in this district is that dispositive motions shall be filed

no later than 90 days prior to the pretrial date. If the parties seek to vary from that

schedule, they should present, in the plan, specific case related reasons for the requested

variance. 

This case will be set for trial before the undersigned judge during one of that

judge's regularly scheduled civil trial terms. The pretrial date is normally set within 4 to

6 weeks of a scheduled trial term. The dates of each judge's civil trial terms are available

on the court's website, www.almd.uscourts.gov.

Case 2:06-cv-00768-ID-SRW Document 5 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 1 of 2
The court may or may not hold a scheduling conference before issuing a

scheduling order. If the court holds a scheduling conference, counsel may participate in

the scheduling conference by conference call.

The scheduling order entered by the court will follow the form of the Uniform

Scheduling Order adopted by the Judges of this court. The Uniform Scheduling Order is

also available on the court's website. 

The report of the parties should comply with Form 35 of the Appendix of Forms to

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

DONE this 28 day of September, 2006. th

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00768-ID-SRW Document 5 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 2 of 2
Regulat01·y Evaluation 

DocketNo. FAA-2 012-11 3 1 Directorate Ide ntifi er: 12-NE-34-AD 

If you make changes to the values in the table bel01v, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, app I iance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Reg istered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Daily Ch eck (1 /2 

ho ur per ch eck , 160 1420 

estimated 320 

checks per year) 

1 000 hour Ch eck 1.5 1420 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Tota l Costs of compliance for U.S. fl eet: $ 19,493,050 

Costs covered under wa rranty Uf known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Pa1ts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

rep lacement) testing, and closeup) 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this .field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This .field can also be used Ia explain warranty costs): The assumption 
that each engine requires a daily check each day is inaccurate. Therefore, a hours-to-cycle 

conversion ratio was obtained from Turbomeca. It was assumed that a daily check would be 

performed after each cycle, which leads to a more accurate prediction for the number of daily 

checks per year. The a1mual operating hours and conversion ratio were used to find the average 

number of cycles per year for the fl eet. Since some engines accumul ate more than 365 cycles in 

one year, the estimate was capped at 365 . Based on these numbers, we estimated that 320 dail y 

checks would be required on average per engine - whi ch is conservative. To determine the hourly 

cost: 320*0. 5 hours per check = 160 hours of labor per year. 

Executive Orde1· 12866: 

Could the A D be considered a " significant regul atory action" ? ~ 

Y ES* D NO~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and P1·ocedures: 

Is the AD significa nt? ~ 

Y ES* D O~ 

*Expl anati on: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significa nt economic impact on a substanti a l number of sma ll entities? Expla in fo r 

e ither a Yes or No answer. ~ 

YES D NO~ 

Explanation: 

l ntJ·astate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate av iation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include spec ifi c requirements for 

a ircraft operated in Alaska where av iation might be the only mode of transportation? ~ 

YES* D NO~ 

*Explanation:
```

[House Report 106-1006]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                    106-1006

======================================================================

 
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

                                _______
                                

October 26 (legislative day, October 25), 2000.--Referred to the House 
                   Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Reynolds, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 651]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 651, by a non-record vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides that certain specified bills and 
resolutions may be considered under suspension of the rules at 
any time on the legislative day of Thursday, October 26, 2000.

                                  

```
# Subpart 826.2 - Disaster or Emergency Assistance Activities

**Parent topic:**PART 826 - OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS

## 826.202-1 Local area set-aside.

(c) The contracting officer shall determine whether a local area set-aside should be further restricted to verified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) or Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs) pursuant to subpart 819.70.

## 826.202-2 Evaluation preference.

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 8128, the contracting officer shall include evaluation factors in accordance with 815.304 and the evaluation criteria clause prescribed at 815.304-71(a), 852.215-70, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned and Veteran-Owned Small Business Evaluation Factors.
#### § 984.6 Board.

*Board* means the California Walnut Board established pursuant to § 934.35.

[73 FR 11336, Mar. 3, 2008]