alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 835.205 Determination of compliance for non-uniform exposure of the skin. ( a ) Non-uniform exposures of the skin from X-rays, beta radiation, and/or radioactive material on the skin are to be assessed as specified in this section.
( b ) For purposes of demonstrating compliance with § 835.202(a)(4), assessments shall be conducted as follows: ( 1 ) Area of skin irradiated is 100 cm *2* or more. The non-uniform equivalent dose received during the year shall be averaged over the 100 cm2 of the skin receiving the maximum dose, added to any uniform equivalent dose also received by the skin, and recorded as the equivalent dose to any extremity or skin for the year.
( 2 ) Area of skin irradiated is 10 cm *2* or more , *but is less than 100 cm* *2*. The non-uniform equivalent dose (H) to the irradiated area received during the year shall be added to any uniform equivalent dose also received by the skin and recorded as the equivalent dose to any extremity or skin for the year. H is the equivalent dose averaged over the 1 cm2 of skin receiving the maximum absorbed dose, D, reduced by the fraction f, which is the irradiated area in cm2 divided by 100 cm2 (*i.e.*, H = fD). In no case shall a value of f less than 0.1 be used.
( 3 ) Area of skin irradiated is less than 10 cm *2* . The non-uniform equivalent dose shall be averaged over the 1 cm2 of skin receiving the maximum dose. This equivalent dose shall: ( i ) Be recorded in the individual's occupational exposure history as a special entry; and
( ii ) Not be added to any other equivalent dose to any extremity or skin for the year.
[58 FR 65485, Dec. 14, 1993, as amended at 72 FR 31926, June 8, 2007]
§ 824.13 Initial decision. ( a ) The Hearing Officer shall issue an initial decision as soon as practicable after the hearing. The initial decision shall contain findings of fact and conclusions regarding all material issues of law, as well as reasons therefor. If the Hearing Officer determines that a violation has occurred and that a civil penalty is appropriate, the initial decision shall set forth the amount of the civil penalty based on: ( 1 ) The nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation or violations;
( 2 ) The violator's ability to pay;
( 3 ) The effect of the civil penalty on the person's ability to do business;
( 4 ) Any history of prior violations;
( 5 ) The degree of culpability; and
( 6 ) Such other matters as justice may require.
( b ) The Hearing Officer shall serve all parties with the initial decision by certified mail, return receipt requested. The initial decision shall include notice that it constitutes a final order of DOE 30 days after the filing of the initial decision unless the Secretary files a Notice of Review. If the Secretary files a notice of Notice of Review, he shall file a final order as soon as practicable after completing his review. The Secretary, at his discretion, may order additional proceedings, remand the matter, or modify the amount of the civil penalty assessed in the initial decision. DOE shall notify the person of the Secretary's action under this paragraph in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested. The person against whom the civil penalty is assessed by the final order shall pay the full amount of the civil penalty assessed in the final order within thirty days (30) unless otherwise agreed by the Director.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 4, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40807

Summary Calendar

 

SHELIA R. BEAUMONT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CV-313

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shelia R. Beaumont filed a complaint seeking review

of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

(“the Commissioner”) denying her application for Supplemental

Security Income benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). After the

Commissioner answered Beaumont’s complaint, the Commissioner

moved the district court to reverse the agency’s decision and

to remand the matter for further administrative proceedings. 
No. 03-40807

-2-

The district court granted the motion and remanded the matter

pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

The fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides that

“[t]he [district] court shall have power to enter, upon the

pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming,

modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a

rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Beaumont argues that there

is no basis for a remand and that she is entitled to an award

of benefits because she meets the requirements for listed

impairments pursuant to 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1,

§§ 12.05(C) and (D). The Commissioner argues that the record

contain inconsistencies and conflicts which require further

administrative review. 

After an examination of the record, we agree with the

Commissioner that the record contains inconsistencies and

unresolved issues that preclude an immediate award of benefits. 

“Conflicts in the evidence are for the [Commissioner] and not the

courts to resolve.” Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.

2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court reversing

the Commissioner’s decision and remanding the matter for further

administrative proceedings is AFFIRMED. We deem it unnecessary

to resolve the parties’ dispute over the applicable standard of

review.

AFFIRMED.
1653.000 FEHBP forms.

The following forms specified in FAR subparts 53.2 and 53.3 are applicable to FEHBP acquisitions:

53.2 53.3 Form title

53.201–1 53.301–1402 SF 1402–Certificate of Appointment.

53.203 53.301–119 SF 119—Statement of Contingent or Other Fees.

53.204–2(a) 53.301–279 SF 279 FPDS—Individual Contract Action Report (over

$10,000).

53.204–2(b) 53.301–281 SF 281 FPDS—Summary of Contract Actions of $10,000 or

less.

53.229 53.301–1094 SF 1094—U.S. Tax Exemption Certificate.

53.229 53.301–1094A SF 1094A—Tax Exemption Certificates Accountability

Record.

Parent topic: PART 1653—FORMS
#### Frederick Faro, Appellant, v Transamerica Insurance Company, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitrator’s award, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 7, 1980, which denied the application. Judgment reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, application granted, and award confirmed. Petitioner was injured while repairing a street light; he was standing in the bucket of a vehicle known as a "cherry picker” or "bucket truck”. Although petitioner’s claim for no-fault benefits was initially denied by the respondent, he demanded arbitration of his claim and the arbitrator ruled in his favor. Special Term denied confirmation of the award, however, concluding that the petitioner’s injury did not arise out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle (see Insurance Law, § 672, subd 1; *Reisinger v Allstate Ins. Co.,*58 AD2d 1028, affd 44 NY2d 881). Without deciding whether the arbitrator’s determination was erroneous as a matter of law, we hold that the award was not so irrational as to warrant vacatur (see *Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.],*74 AD2d 442). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
      32**








**Certification
      of Periodic Financial Report**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**








Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Criticare
      Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
      of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with
      the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
      information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.











Date:
      November 10,
      2005                            
      /s/ Emil H.
      Soika


Emil
      H.
      Soika, Chief Executive Officer











Date:
      November 10,
      2005                             /s/
      Joel D.
      Knudson


Joel
      D.
      Knudson, Vice President - Finance











This
      Certification is made solely for
      purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained
      therein, and not for any other purpose.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 31, 2013

Order 

Clerk

October 31, 2013

147941 (31)

MICHAEL CHARLES WARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

V SC: 147941

CoA: 310968

CARSON CITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Macomb CC: 11-003446-AH

WARDEN, PAROLE BOARD,

and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees pursuant to MCR 

7.319(B)(7) is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil 

action be liable for filing fees. Ordinarily, MCL 600.2963(8) would preclude plaintiff 

from seeking leave to appeal in this Court because of the outstanding fees he owes in 

other civil case filings. However, applying that statutory section to bar review of 

plaintiff’s original complaint for habeas corpus in the court of appeals would violate the 

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Smith v Bennett, 365 US 708; 81 

S Ct 895; 6 L Ed 2d 39 (1961). 

The Clerk shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff. Plaintiff has 21 days 

from the certification of this order to submit one of those copies to this Court. By doing 

that, plaintiff becomes responsible for paying the $375 filing fee. MCL 600.2963. 

Failure to timely submit the order will result in the appeal not being docketed in this 

Court. The Clerk shall retain plaintiff’s pleadings until he timely submits the order or the 

21-day period for doing so has expired.

Plaintiff is not required to pay an initial partial fee at the time he submits the order 

to this Court. The Department of Corrections is directed to collect amounts equal to 50 

percent of the deposits made to plaintiff’s account each month and remit $375 to this 

Court when that full amount is collected. Plaintiff may not file further appeals in this 

Court from civil cases initiated by him until the entry fee in this appeal is paid in full. 

MCL 600.2963(8).
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2013, by and among Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent and Custodian, NS Servicing II, LLC as Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Trust Advisor and U.S. Bank, National Association as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C8 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of the Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------|
§ 71.93 Inspection and tests. ( a ) The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall permit the Commission, at all reasonable times, to inspect the licensed material, packaging, premises, and facilities in which the licensed material or packaging is used, provided, constructed, fabricated, tested, stored, or shipped.
( b ) The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall perform, and permit the Commission to perform, any tests the Commission deems necessary or appropriate for the administration of the regulations in this chapter.
( c ) The certificate holder and applicant for a CoC shall notify the NRC, in accordance with § 71.1, 45 days in advance of starting fabrication of the first packaging under a CoC. This paragraph applies to any packaging used for the shipment of licensed material which has either— ( 1 ) A decay heat load in excess of 5 kW; or
( 2 ) A maximum normal operating pressure in excess of 103 kPa (15 lbf/in2) gauge.
[69 FR 3796, Jan. 26, 2004]
Consent of Davidson & Co. LLP



 Exhibit 10.1 
  

					
	DAVIDSON & COMPANY LLP	  	Chartered Accountants	  	A Partnership of Incorporated Professionals

 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED 
 PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 
 We consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form 20-F/A-1
of Crosshair Exploration & Mining Corp. of our report dated July 18, 2005 appearing in the Registration Statement, and to the reference of us under the heading “Experts” in such Registration Statement. 
 “DAVIDSON & COMPANY LLP” 
  

			
	 Vancouver, Canada
	 	Chartered Accountants
		
	 July 19, 2006
	 	

 A Member of SC INTERNATIONAL 
 1200 - 609 Granville Street, P.O. Box 10372, Pacific Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V7Y 1G6 
 Telephone (604) 687-0947 Fax (604) 687-6172
Exhibit 32.1



                            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 The  Topps  Company,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  November 26, 2005,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Arthur T. Shorin, Chairman and Chief 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, as amended; 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/ Arthur T. Shorin
                                              ------------------------
                                                    Arthur T. Shorin
                                         Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



January 5, 2006
#### MT. VERNON TRUST CO. et al., Respondents, v. PENFIELD et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 11, 1914.)

Action by the Mt. Vernon Trust Company and others against James T. Penfield and others.

No opinion. Motion denied, without costs. .
§ 707.16 Records. ( a ) Confirmed positive test results shall be provided to the Medical Review Officer and other contractor and DOE officials with a need to know. Any other disclosure may be made only with the written consent of the individual.
( b ) Contractors shall maintain maximum confidentiality of records related to illegal drug use, to the extent required by applicable statutes and regulations (including, but not limited to, 42 U.S.C. 290dd-3, 42 U.S.C. 290ee-3, and 42 CFR part 2). If such records are sought from the contractor for criminal investigations, or to resolve a question or concern relating to the Personnel Assurance Program certification or access authorization under 10 CFR part 710, any applicable procedures in statute or regulation for disclosure of such information shall be followed. Moreover, owing to DOE's express environmental, public health and safety, and national security interests, and the need to exercise proper contractor oversight, DOE must be kept fully apprised of all aspects of the contractor's program, including such information as incidents involving reasonable suspicion, occurrences, and confirmed test results, as well as information concerning test results in the aggregate.
( c ) Unless otherwise approved by DOE, the contractors shall ensure that all laboratory records relating to positive drug test results, including initial test records and chromatographic tracings, shall be retained by the laboratory in such a manner as to allow retrieval of all information pertaining to the individual urine specimens for a minimum period of five years after completion of testing of any given specimen, or longer if so instructed by DOE or by the contractor. In addition, a frozen sample of all positive urine specimens shall be retained by the laboratory for at least six months, or longer if so instructed by DOE.
( d ) The contractor shall maintain as part of its medical records copies of specimen chain of custody forms.
( e ) The specimen chain of custody form will contain the following information: ( 1 ) Date of collection;
( 2 ) Tested person's name;
( 3 ) Tested employee/applicant's social security number or other identification number unique to the individual;
( 4 ) Specimen number;
( 5 ) Type of test (random, applicant, occurrence, reasonable suspicion, follow-up, or other);
( 6 ) Temperature range of specimen;
( 7 ) Remarks regarding unusual behavior or conditions;
( 8 ) Collector's signature; and
( 9 ) Certification signature of specimen provider certifying that specimen identified is in fact the specimen the individual provided.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Thomas J. Nimbley, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of PBF Holding Company LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

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

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

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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants 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 and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

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

Date:
March 18, 2013



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas J. Nimbley                                                  
|Thomas J. Nimbley Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
PGI 242.705-1 Contracting officer

determination procedure.

(a) Applicability and responsibility.

(1) When negotiations are conducted on a coordinated basis, individual administrative contracting

officers are responsible for coordinating with the corporate administrative contracting officer to

ensure consistency of cost determinations.

Parent topic: PGI 242.705 Final indirect cost rates.
###### Editorial Note on Part 72

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 72.166 Handling, storage, and shipping control.

The licensee, applicant for a license, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall establish measures to control, in accordance with work and inspection instructions, the handling, storage, shipping, cleaning, and preservation of materials and equipment to prevent damage or deterioration. When necessary for particular products, special protective environments, such as inert gas atmosphere, and specific moisture content and temperature levels must be specified and provided.
1915.106-70 Key personnel and facilities.       Whenever contractor selection has been substantially predicated on the contractor's possession of special capabilities (i.e., personnel and/or facilities) the contracting officer shall include the clause at 1952.215-70 in the awarded contract.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1915.1 - General Requirements for Negotiation