alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 200.331 Subrecipient and contractor determinations. The non-Federal entity may concurrently receive Federal awards as a recipient, a subrecipient, and a contractor, depending on the substance of its agreements with Federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities. Therefore, a pass-through entity must make case-by-case determinations whether each agreement it makes for the disbursement of Federal program funds casts the party receiving the funds in the role of a subrecipient or a contractor. The Federal awarding agency may supply and require recipients to comply with additional guidance to support these determinations provided such guidance does not conflict with this section. ( a ) *Subrecipients.* A subaward is for the purpose of carrying out a portion of a Federal award and creates a Federal assistance relationship with the subrecipient. See definition for *Subaward* in § 200.1 of this part. Characteristics which support the classification of the non-Federal entity as a subrecipient include when the non-Federal entity: ( 1 ) Determines who is eligible to receive what Federal assistance;
( 2 ) Has its performance measured in relation to whether objectives of a Federal program were met;
( 3 ) Has responsibility for programmatic decision-making;
( 4 ) Is responsible for adherence to applicable Federal program requirements specified in the Federal award; and
( 5 ) In accordance with its agreement, uses the Federal funds to carry out a program for a public purpose specified in authorizing statute, as opposed to providing goods or services for the benefit of the pass-through entity.
( b ) *Contractors.* A contract is for the purpose of obtaining goods and services for the non-Federal entity's own use and creates a procurement relationship with the contractor. See the definition of *contract* in § 200.1 of this part. Characteristics indicative of a procurement relationship between the non-Federal entity and a contractor are when the contractor: ( 1 ) Provides the goods and services within normal business operations;
( 2 ) Provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers;
( 3 ) Normally operates in a competitive environment;
( 4 ) Provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program; and
( 5 ) Is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program as a result of the agreement, though similar requirements may apply for other reasons.
( c ) *Use of judgment in making determination.* In determining whether an agreement between a pass-through entity and another non-Federal entity casts the latter as a subrecipient or a contractor, the substance of the relationship is more important than the form of the agreement. All of the characteristics listed above may not be present in all cases, and the pass-through entity must use judgment in classifying each agreement as a subaward or a procurement contract.
38446.

#### ATLANTIC WHOLESALERS, INC. v. DEEB.

Decided September 21, 1960

Rehearing denied October 24, 1960.

*Robert L. Cork,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. Lundie Smith,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

Where there is a conflict between the bill of exceptions and the record, and the record shows that the certificate on the bill of exceptions was signed more than thirty days after the date of the ruling complained of, the record controls, and the writ of error must be dismissed. *Johnson v. Johnson,*98 Ga. App. 588 (106 S. E. 2d 176); Ga. L. 1957, pp. 224, 244; *Code Ann.*§ 6-902.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.*

On Motion for Rehearing.

“Unless it affirmatively appears from the record that the bill of exceptions was tendered to the trial judge on a different date, it will be presumed that the bill of exceptions was tendered to the judge on the date his certificate is signed.” *Capers v. Ball,*211 Ga. 502, 503 (87 S. E. 2d 85). Since *Capers v. Ball,*it is no longer sufficient to show that a bill of exceptions was presented in time for the bill of exceptions to recite that it was tendered to the judge within the time prescribed by law, but the record or the judge’s certificate, or both, must affirmatively show *626that the bill of exceptions was tendered to the judge for certification within the required time.

It is contended in this case that the judge mistakenly certified the bill of exceptions on a day later than the actual certification. We know of nothing that this court can do under the law to correct such an error, if such a one was made. The appellate court will not hear evidence to show that the date of the judge’s certificate to a bill of exceptions is wrong. *Kohn v. Lovett,*43 Ga. 179. See also *Cordray v. Savannah Union Station Co.,*134 Ga. 865 (1) (68 S. E. 697).

*Motion for rehearing denied.*
Exhibit 23.1




               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants



The Board of Directors
BNCCORP, Inc.:


We consent to  incorporation  by reference of our report dated January 29, 2003,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of BNCCORP, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of  December  31,  2002 and 2001,  and the related  consolidated  statements  of
income,  comprehensive income,  stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears
in the  December  31,  2002 Form 10-K of  BNCCORP,  Inc.,  and in the  following
Registration  Statements  of  BNCCORP,  Inc.:  Nos.  333-03512,  333-58584,  and
333-98647 on Form S-8. Our report refers to the adoption of Financial Accounting
Standards Board (FASB)  Statement of Financial  Accounting  Standards (SFAS) No.
142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, and FASB SFAS No. 144, Accounting for
the Impairment or Disposal of Long-lived Assets, as of January 1, 2002.


KPMG LLP



Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 18, 2003
# EUR-Lex - 31981R2721 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31981R2721

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2721/81 of 17 September 1981 on the advance fixing of export refunds for beef and veal **

*
Official Journal L 265 , 19/09/1981 P. 0017 - 0017 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 14 P. 0016 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 23 P. 0099 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 14 P. 0016 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 23 P. 0099 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2721/81 of 17 September 1981 on the advance fixing of export refunds for beef and veal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Greece, and in particular Article 18 (6) thereof,

Whereas Article 5 (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 885/68 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 427/77 (3), makes provision for deciding that the refund for beef and veal products may be fixed in advance on request;

Whereas the present scope for exports, and exporters' requirements, justify implementation of the advance-fixing system for refunds for all products in the beef and veal sector for which a refund is fixed ; whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 683/77 (4), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2649/77 (5), should therefore be repealed;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds provided for in Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 shall be fixed in advance for all products in the beef and veal sector for which such refunds are fixed.

Article 2

Regulation (EEC) No 683/77 is hereby repealed.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 September 1981.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 September 1981.

For the Commission

Poul DALSAGER

Member of the Commission (1) OJ No L 148, 28.6.1968, p. 24. (2) OJ No L 156, 4.7.1968, p. 2. (3) OJ No L 61, 5.3.1977, p. 16. (4) OJ No L 84, 1.4.1977, p. 51. (5) OJ No L 304, 30.11.1979, p. 7.
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

I, Erin M. Rohde, certify that:

 

(a)                                 A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from March 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)                                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.

 

 
| Dated March 25, 2014 |                                  |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                      |                                  |
|                      | /s/ Erin M. Rohde                     |
|                      | Erin M. Rohde                         |
|                      | Assistant Treasurer of                |
|                      | Ford Motor Credit Company LLC,        |
|                      | as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Lease |
|                      | Trust 2013-A                          |

 

----
§ 835.209 Concentrations of radioactive material in air. ( a ) The derived air concentration (DAC) values given in appendices A and C of this part shall be used in the control of occupational exposures to airborne radioactive material.
( b ) The estimation of internal dose shall be based on bioassay data rather than air concentration values unless bioassay data are: ( 1 ) Unavailable;
( 2 ) Inadequate; or
( 3 ) Internal dose estimates based on air concentration values are demonstrated to be as or more accurate.
[58 FR 65485, Dec. 14, 1993, as amended at 63 FR 59682, Nov. 4, 1998]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  117,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,300
<INVENTORY>                                     89,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               231,000
<PP&E>                                       1,086,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 502,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 983,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          131,500
<BONDS>                                        847,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       177,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (198,400)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   983,300
<SALES>                                        416,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               416,700
<CGS>                                          383,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  426,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (54,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (20,900)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (33,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (23,900)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (57,500)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.08)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 3513.332 What methods must I use to pass requirements down to participants at lower tiers with whom I intend to do business?

To communicate the requirements, you must include a term or condition in the transaction requiring the participants' compliance with subpart C of this part and requiring them to include a similar term or condition in lower-tiered covered transactions.
#### FROLICH *v.*BLACKSTOCK.1

Mechanics’ Liens — Property Exempt — Estates by Entireties.

A mechanics’ lien cannot be created against land, or the building erected thereon, held by husband and wife by executory contract, as tenants by the entireties, for materials furnished under a building contract made by defendant in which the wife did not join.

Appeal from Wayne; Donovan, J.

Submitted January 12, 1909.

(Docket No. 71.)

Decided March 3, 1909.

Bill by Simon Frolich against William H. Blackstock and others to enforce a mechanics’ lien. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Covert & Berry,*for complainant.

*Choate & Webster,*for defendants Blackstock.

1

 Rehearing denied July 15, 1909.

Ostrander, J.

The bill is filed to enforce a mechanic’s lien upon premises in the city of Detroit. A lien is claimed *605upon the land, but it is prayed that, if complainant is found not to be entitled to that, the lien may be enforced upon the dwelling separate and apart from the land on which it is erected. To the bill defendants Blackstock demurred. They also entered a plea and filed an answer. There was a replication and demand that testimony be taken in open court. There is no compliance with the rule of this court, which requires the date of the official filing of all pleadings, etc., to be stated in the record. Supreme Court Buie 35 (136 Mich. xxxvii). The printed record does not contain the decree, nor does it appear therefrom that a decree was ever entered. The case appears to have been heard on bill, answer, and proofs, with the result that the bill was dismissed. As we find in the briefs no reference to the pleadings, we conclude that no issue not made by the bill and answer is considered to be of importance. The case may be determined upon undisputed facts. The written contract for the erection of the building — a dwelling house — was made with William H. Blackstock. He has paid the contract price. No one except complainant filed a lien. When the contract for the building was dated, which was May 23, 1906, the premises — land-—were held by William H. and Ellen Blackstock, husband and wife, under an executory contract which so described them. Later, in June, 1906, the vendor made his warranty deed of the premises in which Blackstock and his wife are grantees of the land. Under these circumstances, no lien attached to either the land or the building. *McMillan*v. *Schneider,*147 Mich. 263; *Bauer*v. *Long,*147 Mich. 351. See, also, *Scott*v. *Keeth,*152 Mich. 547, 552.

The decree dismissing the bill is affirmed, with costs to defendants Blackstock.

Blair, C. J., and Grant, Montgomery, and Moore, JJ., concurred.
#### QUINN et al., Appellants, v. O’Reilly, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 29, 1914.)

Action by John Quinn and James Quinn, copartners, etc., against James O’Reilly.

PER CURIAM.

Order of the County Court of Kings County reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and order directed for judgment allowing plaintiffs’ demurrer to defense and counterclaim pleaded in defendant’s amended answer, with costs, with leave to defendant to amend the amended answer within 20 days on payment of costs. The defendant’s defense is obviously insufficient in law upon its face. Defendant’s counterclaim is not of the character *1140specified in section 501 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It states, if anything, a cause of action in tort, which does not arise out of the contract or transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of pIaintifi~s' claim, and which is not connected with the subject-matter of the action.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1186 

Expressing the sense of Congress that Fort San Juan holds a significant 

place in the early history of North Carolina and of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 21, 2018 

Mr. MEADOWS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that Fort San Juan holds 

a significant place in the early history of North Carolina 

and of the United States. 

Whereas Fort San Juan was originally settled by the Spanish 

in western North Carolina in 1567; 

Whereas Fort San Juan predates the English settlement on 

Roanoke Island by 20 years and the settlement at Jamestown by 40 years; 

Whereas Fort San Juan was the first European settlement 

in the interior of the United States; 

Whereas Captain Juan Pardo built Fort San Juan as part 

of the greater mission of the Spanish exploring North 

America from Santa Elena (modern-day Parris Island, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1186 IH 

South Carolina) into what are now Tennessee and Alabama under Hernando de Soto; 

Whereas Fort San Juan served as the base for Captain Juan 

Pardo’s expedition into the Appalachian Mountains in 

search for silver mines; 

Whereas Fort San Juan after 18 months was destroyed in a 

fire after the relationship between the Spanish settlers 

and Native Americans at Joara deteriorated; 

Whereas Fort San Juan was rediscovered near Morganton, 

North Carolina, between the years of 2004 and 2006; 

and 

Whereas archaeologists investigating the site have expressed 

their appreciation for the cooperation of the landowners, 

the Berry family, for preserving the site and providing 

access: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the importance of Fort San Juan 

3 for the early history of North Carolina; 

4 (2) recognizes that Fort San Juan reshapes the 

5 historical narrative around the United States earliest 

6 history; and 

7 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

8 to continue studying Captain Juan Pardo’s expedi9 tion, visiting the ruins of Fort San Juan, and edu10 cating the people of North Carolina and the United 

11 States about Fort San Juan’s role in North Carolina 

12 and the United States earliest history. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANA GANJEH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 468 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of February, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
Velocity Asset Management, Inc. for the three months ended March 31, 2007, I,
James J. Mastriani, Chief Financial Officer of Velocity Asset Management, Inc.,
do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (1) such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months
ended March 31, 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Velocity
Asset Management, Inc.


                                                         /s/ James J. Mastriani
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         James J. Mastriani
                                                         Chief Financial Officer

May 21, 2007

                                      -29-
§ 50.92 Issuance of amendment. ( a ) In determining whether an amendment to a license, construction permit, or early site permit will be issued to the applicant, the Commission will be guided by the considerations which govern the issuance of initial licenses, construction permits, or early site permits to the extent applicable and appropriate. If the application involves the material alteration of a licensed facility, a construction permit will be issued before the issuance of the amendment to the license, provided however, that if the application involves a material alteration to a nuclear power reactor manufactured under part 52 of this chapter before its installation at a site, or a combined license before the date that the Commission makes the finding under § 52.103(g) of this chapter, no application for a construction permit is required. If the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, the Commission will give notice of its proposed action: ( 1 ) Under § 2.105 of this chapter before acting thereon; and
( 2 ) As soon as practicable after the application has been docketed.
( b ) The Commission will be particularly sensitive to a license amendment request that involves irreversible consequences (such as one that permits a significant increase in the amount of effluents or radiation emitted by a nuclear power plant).
( c ) The Commission may make a final determination, under the procedures in § 50.91, that a proposed amendment to an operating license or a combined license for a facility or reactor licensed under §§ 50.21(b) or 50.22, or for a testing facility involves no significant hazards consideration, if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: ( 1 ) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
( 2 ) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
( 3 ) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
[51 FR 7767, Mar. 6, 1986, as amended at 72 FR 49504, Aug. 28, 2007]