alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 62.11 Filing and distribution of a determination request. ( a ) The person submitting a request for a Commission determination shall file a signed original of the request with the Commission at the address specified in § 62.3 of this part, with a copy also provided to the appropriate Regional Administrator at the address specified in appendix D to part 20 of this chapter. The request must be signed by the person requesting the determination or the person's authorized representative under oath or affirmation.
( b ) Upon receipt of a request for a determination, the Secretary of the Commission shall publish a notice acknowledging receipt of the request in the Federal Register. The notice must require that public comment on the request be submitted within 10 days of the publication date of the notice. A copy of the request will be made available for inspection or copying at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov ,* and/or at the NRC Public Document Room. The Secretary of the Commission shall also transmit a copy of the request to the U.S. Department of Energy, to the Governors of the States of the Compact region where the waste is generated, to the Governors of the States with operating non-Federal low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities, to the Compact Commissions with operating regional low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities, and to the Governors of the States in the Compact Commissions with operating disposal facilities.
( c ) Upon receipt of a request for a determination based on a serious and immediate threat to the common defense and security, the Commission will notify DOD and/or DOE and provide a copy of the request as needed for their consideration.
( d ) Fees applicable to a request for a Commission determination under this part will be determined in accordance with the procedures set forth for special projects under category 12 of § 170.31 of this chapter.
( e ) In the event that the allocations or limitations established in section 5(b) or 6(h) of the Act are met at all operating non-Federal or regional LLW disposal facilities, the Commission may suspend the processing or acceptance of requests for emergency access determinations until additional LLW disposal capacity is authorized by Congress.
[54 FR 5420, Feb. 3, 1989, as amended at 64 FR 48954, Sept. 9, 1999; 68 FR 58814, Oct. 10, 2003]
# EUR-Lex - 31992R1264 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31992R1264

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1264/92 of 18 May 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 429/90 on the granting by invitation to tender of an aid for concentrated butter intended for direct consumption in the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 3143/85 on the sale at reduced prices of intervention butter intended for direct consumption in the form of concentrated butter **

*
Official Journal L 135 , 19/05/1992 P. 0005 - 0005 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 42 P. 0081 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 42 P. 0081 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1264/92 of 18 May 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 429/90 on the granting by invitation to tender of an aid for concentrated butter intended for direct consumption in the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 3143/85 on the sale at reduced prices of intervention butter intended for direct consumption in the form of concentrated butter

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 816/92 (2), and in particular Articles 6 (7) and 7a (3) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulations (EEC) No 429/90 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3301/90 (4), and (EEC) No 3143/85 (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3683/91 (6), contain similar provisions on markings on packs of concentrated butter intended for direct consumption in the Community; whereas the terms laid down in those Regulations should be supplemented and brought into line with the trade descriptions used in the Member States;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. The third indent of Article 10 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 429/90 is hereby replaced by the following:

'- "Butterfett - Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 429/90" or "Butterkonzentrat - Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 429/90" or "Butterschmalz - Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 429/90";'.

2. The following is hereby added to the second indent of Article 5 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 3143/85:

'or "Butterschmalz".'

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 May 1992. For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13. (2) OJ No L 86, 1. 4. 1992, p. 83. (3) OJ No L 45, 21. 2. 1990, p. 8. (4) OJ No L 317, 16. 11. 1990, p. 24. (5) OJ No L 298, 12. 11. 1985, p. 9. (6) OJ No L 349, 18. 12. 1991, p. 37.
#### MURPHY, Appellant, v. YONKERS SAVINGS BANK et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by Denis J. Murphy, an infant,_ by Denis Murphy, his guardian ad litem, against the Yonkers Savings Bank and another.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. See, also, 161 App. Div. 949, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1102.
H. Res. 553 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 4, 2017. 

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 71) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal 

year 2018 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels 

for fiscal years 2019 through 2027. The first reading of the 

concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of 

order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are 

waived. General debate shall not exceed four hours, with 

three hours of general debate confined to the congressional 

budget equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget and 

one hour of general debate on the subject of economic goals 

and policies equally divided and controlled by Representative 

Tiberi of Ohio and Representative Carolyn Maloney of New 

York or their respective designees. After general debate the 
2 

•HRES 553 EH 

concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment 

under the five-minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall be 

considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except 

those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 

only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time specified in 

the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 

and an opponent. All points of order against such amendments are waived except that the adoption of an amendment 

in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion 

of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. 

After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment and a final period of general debate, 

which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution to the House with such amendment as may have been adopted. The previous question shall 

be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and 

amendments thereto to adoption without intervening motion 

except amendments offered by the chair of the Committee on 

the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consist-
3 

•HRES 553 EH 

ency. The concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question of its adoption. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### § 200.0 Acronyms.

Acronym Term

CAS Cost Accounting Standards

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CMIA Cash Management Improvement Act

COG Councils Of Governments

COSO Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERISA Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1301-1461)

EUI Energy Usage Index

F&A Facilities and Administration

FAC Federal Audit Clearinghouse

FAIN Federal Award Identification Number

FAPIIS Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FFATA Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 or Transparency Act—Public Law 109-282, as amended by section 6202(a) of Public Law 110-252 (31 U.S.C. 6101)

FICA Federal Insurance Contributions Act

FOIA Freedom of Information Act

FR Federal Register

FTE Full-time equivalent

GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

GAGAS Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards

GAO Government Accountability Office

GOCO Government owned, contractor operated

GSA General Services Administration

IBS Institutional Base Salary

IHE Institutions of Higher Education

IRC Internal Revenue Code

ISDEAA Indian Self-Determination and Education and Assistance Act

MTC Modified Total Cost

MTDC Modified Total Direct Cost

NFE Non-Federal Entity

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PII Personally Identifiable Information

PMS Payment Management System

PRHP Post-retirement Health Plans

PTE Pass-through Entity

REUI Relative Energy Usage Index

SAM System for Award Management

SFA Student Financial Aid

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

SPOC Single Point of Contact

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

TFM Treasury Financial Manual

U.S.C. United States Code

VAT Value Added Tax

[78 FR 78608, Dec. 26, 2013, as amended at 79 FR 75880, Dec. 19, 2014; 80 FR 43308, July 22, 2015; 85 FR 49529, Aug. 13, 2020]
**EXHIBIT      32 **

**CERTIFICATIONS      **

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

|                                       |                                                 |                                         |
|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                                  |                                            |                                    |
| Date: February                9, 2006 |                                                 | /s/                Reginald M. Fountain, Jr. |
|                                       | Reginald                M. Fountain, Jr.             |
|                                       | President                and Chief Executive Officer |

|                                       |                                   |                               |
|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                  |                              |                          |
| Date: February                9, 2006 |                                   | /s/                Irving L. Smith |
|                                       | Irving                L. Smith         |
|                                       | Chief                Financial Officer |

----
#### Hilda DeJesus, Appellant, v Howard E. Tanenbaum et al., Respondents.

[814 NYS2d 749]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered March 17, 2005, as granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

*853Although the plaintiff claimed that she had injured her neck in the subject accident and a magnetic resonance imaging scan indicated a disc bulge in that region, the affirmed report of the defendants’ orthopedist did not reflect that he ever tested the range of motion of that part of the plaintiffs body *(see Beyel v Console, 25*AD3d 636 [2006]; *Edwards v New York City Tr. Auth.,*17 AD3d 628 [2005]). Under the circumstances, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiffs papers in opposition to the defendants’ cross motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Facci v Kaminsky,*18 AD3d 806 [2005]; *Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of James William H. (Anonymous) and William Howard H. (Anonymous), Appellants.

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Suffolk County, both dated August 20, 1968, which respectively adjudged appellants to be juvenile delinquents. Orders reversed, on the law and- the facts, and petitions dismissed. In our opinion, there was no evidence of actual damage to petitioner’s driveway within the meaning of section 145.00 of the Penal Law (cf. *People*v. *Washington,*18 N Y 2d 366, 369; *People*v. *Hackley,*20 A D 2d 534, 535). Christ, Hopkins and Martuscello, JJ., concur; Beldoek, P. J., and Brennan, J., dissent and vote to affirm the orders, with the following memorandum: In our opinion, the acts which appellants were found to have committed were such as, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree within the purview of subdivision 1 of section *145.00*of the Penal Law. The facts and circumstances adduced reflect a course of conduct on the part of appellants which goes beyond. the pale of indulgence in mischievous pranks and renders the chalking of the obscenities on petitioner’s driveway an intentional infliction of damage to property without honest claim of privilege, well within the traditional concept of malicious mischief with which subdivision 1 of section *933145.00 of the Penal Law is concerned (see Practice Commentary, by Denzer and McQuillan, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 39 [1st vol.], Penal Law, p. 378). We construe the statute as proscribing the intentional defacing of property such as occurred at bar; and the extent of the damage is immaterial. The fact that the chalking was removed by petitioner’s husband after applying his energies in that direction does not render appellants’ acts any the less violative of the statute. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that appellants were properly adjudicated juvenile delinquents.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 778 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 778

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        April 26, 2006.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: Mr. Berman (to rank immediately 
ahead of Mrs. Jones of Ohio).

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### § 1130.500 Purpose of PROP Article V.

PROP Article V specifies requirements for recipients' use and disposition of federally owned property. It implements the portion of OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.312(a) that applies to disposition of federally owned property.
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. KELSEY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Robert G. Kelsey.

No opinion. Judgment of conviction of the County Court of Kings County affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Danetra, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on July 24, 1979, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). No opinion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Markewich, Yesawieh and Carro, JJ.
226 So.2d 923

#### Miss Felonies BRIGGS v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY.

No. 50039.

Oct. 14, 1969.

In re: United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 224 So. 2d 124.

*797The application is denied. According to the facts as found to he by the Court of Appeal, the judgment complained of is correct.
§ 200.100 Purpose. ( a ) *Purpose.* ( 1 ) This part establishes uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for Federal awards to non-Federal entities, as described in § 200.101. Federal awarding agencies must not impose additional or inconsistent requirements, except as provided in §§ 200.102 and 200.211, or unless specifically required by Federal statute, regulation, or Executive order.
( 2 ) This part provides the basis for a systematic and periodic collection and uniform submission by Federal agencies of information on all Federal financial assistance programs to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). It also establishes Federal policies related to the delivery of this information to the public, including through the use of electronic media. It prescribes the manner in which General Services Administration (GSA), OMB, and Federal agencies that administer Federal financial assistance programs are to carry out their statutory responsibilities under the Federal Program Information Act (31 U.S.C. 6101-6106).
( b ) *Administrative requirements.* Subparts B through D of this part set forth the uniform administrative requirements for grant and cooperative agreements, including the requirements for Federal awarding agency management of Federal grant programs before the Federal award has been made, and the requirements Federal awarding agencies may impose on non-Federal entities in the Federal award.
( c ) *Cost principles.* Subpart E of this part establishes principles for determining the allowable costs incurred by non-Federal entities under Federal awards. The principles are for the purpose of cost determination and are not intended to identify the circumstances or dictate the extent of Federal Government participation in the financing of a particular program or project. The principles are designed to provide that Federal awards bear their fair share of cost recognized under these principles except where restricted or prohibited by statute.
( d ) *Single Audit Requirements and Audit Follow-up.* Subpart F of this part is issued pursuant to the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, (31 U.S.C. 7501-7507). It sets forth standards for obtaining consistency and uniformity among Federal agencies for the audit of non-Federal entities expending Federal awards. These provisions also provide the policies and procedures for Federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities when using the results of these audits.
( e ) *Guidance on challenges and prizes.* For OMB guidance to Federal awarding agencies on challenges and prizes, please see memo M-10-11 Guidance on the Use of Challenges and Prizes to Promote Open Government, issued March 8, 2010, or its successor.
[78 FR 78608, Dec. 26, 2013, as amended at 85 FR 49536, Aug. 13, 2020]
#### State of New York, Appellant, v. Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association (New York Division) et al., Respondents.

Order entered December 19, 1969 modified on the law and facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, to the extent of striking items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, *77010, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, and as so modified, affirmed. The complaint in the instant ease spells out the particular charges against defendants under the Donnelly Act (General Business Law, § 340) by identifying the type and nature of the anti-competitive restraint as a boycott plus the overt acts. No further particulars are required to apprise defendants of the cause of action. The purpose of a bill of particulars is to amplify the pleading, limit the proof and prevent surprise at the trial. Defendants under the present facts may not use this demand as a means for disclosure of evidence or for the identity of witnesses. The disclosure of evidentiary detail is not the office of a bill of particulars. *(JJ. M. & M. Fin. Corp.*v. *Hirseh,*16 A D 2d 770, McCulIen, Bills of Particulars, §§ 47, 48 and cases cited.) The fact that the complaint alleges a conspiracy and a boycott does not of itself create sufficient special circumstances to allow a deviation from the general rule. A reading of the complaint indicates that no further particulars are necessary. (See *State of New York*v. *Nassau é Suffolk Chapter Nat. Elec. Contrs. Assn.,*N. Y. L. J., April 9, 1965, p. 15, col. 4.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli and McNally, JJ.
#### Grace G. Maxwell *v.*The People *ex rel.*Freise, County Collector.

*Opinion filed February 20, 1901*

*Rehearing denied April 11, 1901.*

This case is controlled by the decision in *Maxwell*v. *People ex rel. (ante,*p. 546.)

Appeal from the County Court of Mercer county; the Hon. W. T. Church, Judge, presiding.

Robert L. Watson, and Guy C. Scott, for appellant.

James M. Brock, for appellee.

Per Curiam:

The questions involved in this case are the same as the questions involved in the case of *Maxwell*v. *People, (ante,*p. 546.) The decision of that case controls the disposition of this case.

Accordingly, the judgment of the county court, so far as it applies to the property of the present appellant, is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion in the case of *Maxwell*v. *People, supra.*

*Reversed and remanded.*
#### In the Matter of Mahmoud Alsafty, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[813 NYS2d 926]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2000. He resides in New Jersey.

By decision dated March 30, 2004, respondent was reciprocally suspended by this Court for a period of one year *(Matter of Alsafty,*5 AD3d 976 [2004]). He now applies for reinstatement. Petitioner advises that it does not oppose the application.

Our examination of the papers submitted on the application indicates that respondent has complied with the provisions of the order of suspension and with this Court’s rules regarding *1215the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9). We are also satisfied that respondent has complied with the requirements of this Court’s rule regarding reinstatement *(see*22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]) and that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law.

Accordingly, the application is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, effective immediately.

Crew III, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.