alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Louise Nardone, Appellant, v J. Stanley Coyne, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to Onondaga County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order of Family Court which dismissed three petitions seeking modification of support payments for her out-of-wedlock child. The amount of support was fixed by this court in 1965 *(Matter of Nardone v Coyne,*23 AD2d 819, affd 18 NY2d 626). On June 17, 1974, Family Court modified our order and directed respondent to pay $125 per week for the child’s support, plus orthodontic expenses. The order appealed from is dated September 23,1976. We are thus limited in our review to the question of whether petitioner demonstrated such a change in circumstances between June 17,1974 and the date of the order appealed from as would justify an upward modification of support. It does not appear that there was any material change in the ability of respondent to support the child. The record demonstrates that he has long been a man of substantial financial means. It is also clear that the only changes in the needs of the child from 1974 to the date of the hearing were those resulting from *988inflation, from his maturing, and from his transfer from public school to private school. The mere fact that a child has grown two years older and prices have become inflated will not, standing alone, serve as a basis for increased support *(Riposo v Riposo,*60 AD2d 790; cf. *Klubek v Schad,*49 AD2d 669). Nor may the cost of the child’s private education be charged to respondent where, as here, it is demonstrated that the child was able to function in the public school system *(Wagner v Wagner,*51 Misc 2d 574,576, affd 28 AD2d 828, mot for lv to app dsmd 20 NY2d 803; *Brotherton v Brotherton,*73 AD2d 1062; *Matter of Monesi v Monesi, 55*AD2d 1020). Thus, petitioner failed to demonstrate a basis for upward modification of support. In denying her petitions, Family Court found, albeit erroneously, that respondent was obligated to pay the cost of the child’s private education. The court further found, however, that the amount of $125 per week was adequate to cover that cost. Petitioner might reasonably have believed, therefore, that there was merit to this appeal. In such circumstances, the matter should be remitted to Family Court to determine the amount, if any, that should be awarded to petitioner for counsel fees upon the appeal (Family Ct Act, § 536; *see Matter of Giacomanv Boer,*23 AD2d 737). In remitting the matter, we also note that Family Court should rule upon petitioner’s *pro se*application for reimbursement of expenses incurred in the proceeding at Family Court. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Family Court — modify support.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
228 So.2d 483

#### Kenneth Wayne MATTHEWS et al. v. ALL AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 50171.

Dec. 11, 1969.

In re: Kenneth Wayne Matthews et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vermilion. 226 So.2d 181.

Writ refused. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal the judgment is correct.

FOURNET, C. J., takes no part.
#### § 820.63 Procedures.

The Secretarial Officer shall utilize any procedures deemed necessary and appropriate to comply with his responsibilities under this subpart. All exemption decisions must set forth in writing the reasons for granting or denying the exemption, and if granted, the basis for the determination that the criteria in § 820.62 have been met and the terms of the exemption. All exemption decisions must be filed with the Office of the Docketing Clerk which shall maintain a docket for exemption decisions issued pursuant to this subpart.
#### Clara A. Hoffman, Individually and as Administratrix of Estate of Helena Engelking, Deceased, Appellee, v. Arthur Engelking et al., Appellants.

Gen. No. 41,343.

opinion filed June 25, 1940.

Wolff, Keane, O’Leary & Gomberg, for appellants; Philip Bairn, for appellee.

Opinion by

Justice McSurely.

“Not to be published in full.’’
Depart

Interna
Coastal and Marine Geology Program > Fact Sheet 041-98

# Sedimentary Environments in Long Island Sound: A Guide to Sea-Floor Management in a Large Urbanized Estuary

"Bottom sedimentary environments, defined by sidescan-sonar patterns, indicate where sea-floor sediments are moved and deposited in the Long Island Sound estuary. The patchy distribution of environments, which reflects both regional and local changes in geologic and oceanographic conditions, provides a predictive framework for those concerned with the management and utilization of the sea floor in this urbanized area."- Harley J. Knebel, U.S. Geological SurveyThe sea floor in Long Island Sound serves many uses.
Long Island Sound is a major coastal estuary near the most densely populated region of the United States. It abuts the New York-Connecticut metropolitan area (fig. 1), and more than 8 million people live within its watershed. As a consequence of this enormous population, the sound is heavily used, and, thus, the sea floor can be affected by human activities. The sea floor comprises a variety of benthic habitats that support a large commercial and recreational fishery. It can also be a sink for wastes and contaminants derived from sources such as wastewater treatment plants, urban runoff, riverine input, and airborne transport (Wolfe and others, 1991, *Estuaries*, v. 14, p. 224-236).
#### TEETER v. DANIEL.

(No. 5794.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

Appeal from' Special Term, New York County. Action by Sydney M. Teeter against Anna K. Daniel. From an order denying a motion to dismiss the judgment and all proceedings thereon, and to order the case off the calendar, or to order it set down and tried at a date known to defendant, defendant appeals. Affirmed. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 670; 148 N. Y. Supp. 1146.

Anna K. Daniel, of New York City, pro se. Isaac A. Hiller, of New York City, for respondent,

PER CURIAM

This action having been reguiariy brought on for trial at Special Term, and a judgment having been rendered in favor of the plaintiff, it is quite evident that none of tins facts upon which the application to the Special Term, for the hearing of motions was based would justify that court m vacating, the judgment or setting aside the proceedings, TIlls order> therefore, must be affirmed, without costs-
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000812076
<NAME>                        TOPPS
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Feb-26-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 May-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Aug-28-1999
<CASH>                                         57,090
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  42,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,299
<INVENTORY>                                    16,536
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              123,755
<PP&E>                                         14,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                  6,357
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                193,534
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          83,394
<BONDS>                                         9,375
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          477
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  193,534
<SALES>                                        80,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               81,439
<CGS>                                          43,105
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  64,423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  134
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                268
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                16,748
<INCOME-TAX>                                    6,867
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             9,881
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    9,881
<EPS-BASIC>                                     .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .21



</TABLE>
§ 905.10 Who must comply with the integrated resource planning and reporting regulations in this subpart? ( a ) *Integrated resource plans (IRP) and alternatives.* Each Western customer must address its power resource needs in an IRP prepared and submitted to Western as described in this subpart. Alternatively, Western customers may submit a small customer plan, minimum investment report or EE/RE report as provided in this subpart.
( b ) *Rural Utility Service and state utility commission reports.* For customers subject to IRP filings or other electrical resource use reports from the Rural Utilities Service or a state utility commission, nothing in this part requires a customer to take any action inconsistent with those requirements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              40,161
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       77,120
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,341,910
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,481,276
<PP&E>                                             379,475
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (116,770)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,131,773
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,814,569
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            252
<COMMON>                                             1,851
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,194,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,131,773
<SALES>                                            715,435
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   715,435
<CGS>                                              361,714
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      361,714
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   847,037
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (490,872)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (490,832)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (490,832)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.27)
        

</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 31989D0275 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31989D0275

**89/275/EEC: Commission Decision of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by Greece (Only the Greek text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 108 , 19/04/1989 P. 0030 - 0030 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by Greece (Only the Greek text is authentic) (89/275/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 86/469/EEC of 16 September 1986 concerning examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas, by letter of 25 May 1988, Greece sent the Commission a plan setting out the national measures taken on the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC;

Whereas examination of this plan, as modified, has shown that it conforms to the provisions laid down in Directive 86/469/EEC, and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1 The plan relating to the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC submitted by Greece is hereby approved.

Article 2 Greece shall adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions for the implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Greece.

Done at Brussels, 30 March 1989.

For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 275, 26. 9. 1986, p. 36.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Kevin K. Moriarty, Director, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Del
Taco Income Properties IV, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Del Taco Income
Properties IV;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 officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) 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; andc)
    
    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 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 registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  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; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal controls over financial reporting. Date:
    
    August 13, 2004
    
    /s/ Kevin K. MoriartyKevin K. MoriartyDirector, Chairman andChief Executive Officer
 -2-
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. NELSON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

July 1, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Alfred Nelson.

No opinion. Judgment of conviction affirmed. See, also, 157 App. Div. 883, 141 N. Y. Supp. 1139.
#### § 1120.4 Elements and subelements of the standard award format in relation to the organization of this part.

(a) The standard award format has three major elements that are designated as Divisions I through III of the award.

(1) The first major element of the standard award format is comprised of the award cover pages. It is designated as Division I of the award.

(2) The second major element is comprised of any award-specific terms and conditions. That element is designated as Division II of the award.

(3) The last of the three major elements of the standard award format is comprised of the general terms and conditions. That element is designated as Division III of the award. It has four subelements that are designated as Subdivisions A through D of the general terms and conditions.

(i) The first subelement of the general terms and conditions is the preamble, which is designated as Subdivision A.

(ii) The second subelement of the general terms and conditions is comprised of terms and conditions addressing administrative requirements. That subelement is designated as Subdivision B of the general terms and conditions.

(iii) The third subelement of the general terms and conditions is comprised of terms and conditions addressing national policy requirements. That subelement is designated as Subdivision C of the general terms and conditions.

(iv) The last of the four subelements of the general terms and conditions is comprised of any programmatic requirements that apply to awards using those general terms and conditions. That subelement is designated as Subdivision D of the general terms and conditions.

(b) This part has seven subparts. Each subpart addresses one major element or subelement of the standard award format, as shown in Table 1:

| Major element or subelement of the standard award format | Subpart of this part |
| --- | --- |
| (1) Division I—Award cover pages | Subpart A. |
| (2) Division II—Award-specific terms and conditions, if any | Subpart B. |
| (3) Division III—General terms and conditions, comprised of four subelements: | Subpart C. |
| (i) Subdivision A—The preamble to the general terms and conditions | Subpart D. |
| (ii) Subdivision B—General terms and conditions for administrative requirements | Subpart E. |
| (iii) Subdivision C of the—General terms and conditions for national policy requirements | Subpart F. |
| (iv) Subdivision D—General terms and conditions for programmatic requirements, if any | Subpart G. |

Table 1 to Paragraph (b)
§ 783.2 Limitations. ( a ) Except with regard to the use of the Gamma facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, nothing contained in this part shall be deemed to waive any rights in inventions or discoveries where a person or a group of persons acting on behalf of the person requesting the irradiation service works at the DOE facility in connection with the irradiation service. In such event, special arrangements are made.
( b ) Nothing contained in this part shall be construed to affect the provisions of any written agreement to which DOE has or may become a party.
2007-1895.

#### State v. Weimer.

Cuyahoga App. No. 88135, 2007-Ohio-3774. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.
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 SITI-Sites.com, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), We,
Lawrence M. Powers, Chief Executive Officer and Toni Ann Tantillo, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 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/ Lawrence M. Powers
                                                ----------------------
                                                Lawrence M. Powers
                                                Chief Executive Officer


                                                /s/ Toni Ann Tantillo
                                                ---------------------
                                                Toni Ann Tantillo
                                                Chief Financial Officer

August 13, 2004


                                       15
#### §§ 781.51-781.52 [Reserved]
SUBCHAPTER C—CONTRACTING METHODS

AND CONTRACT TYPES

PART 1614—SEALED BIDDING

PART 1615—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

PART 1616—TYPES OF CONTRACTS

PART 1614—SEALED BIDDING

1614.000 Applicability.

PART 1615—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

1615.070 Negotiation authority.

Subpart 1615.1—Source Selection Processes and Techniques

1615.170 Applicability.

Subpart 1615.2—Solicitations and Receipt of Proposals and Information

1615.270 Applicability.

Subpart 1615.3—Source Selection

1615.370 Applicability.

Subpart 1615.4—Contract Pricing

1615.402 Pricing policy.

1615.404-4 Profit.

1615.404-70 Profit analysis factors.

1615.406-2 Certificates of accurate cost or pricing data for community rated

carriers.

1615.407-1 Rate reduction for defective pricing or defective cost or pricing data.

1615.470 Carrier investment of FEHB funds.

1615.470-1 Investment income clause.

Subparts 1615.8–1615.9 [Reserved]

Subpart 1615.70—Audit and Records—Negotiation

1615.7001 Audit and records.

PART 1616—TYPES OF CONTRACTS

Subpart 1616.1—Selecting Contract Types

1616.102 Policies.

1616.105 Solicitation provision.

Subpart 1616.70—Negotiated Benefits Contracts

1616.7001 Clause—contracts based on a combination of cost and price analysis

(community rated).

1616.7002 Clause—contracts based on cost analysis (experience rated).
#### § 963.15 Postclosure suitability determination.

DOE will apply the method and criteria described in §§ 963.16 and 963.17 to evaluate the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for the postclosure period. If DOE finds that the results of the total system performance assessments conducted under § 963.16 show that the Yucca Mountain site is likely to meet the applicable radiation protection standard, DOE may determine the site suitable for the postclosure period.