alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 2200.437 What method do I use to communicate to a participant the requirements described in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.435?

To communicate to a participant the requirements described in 2 CFR 180.435 of the OMB guidance, you as an agency official must include a term or condition in the transaction that requires the participant's compliance with subpart C of 2 CFR part 180, and requires the participant to include a similar term or condition in lower-tier covered transactions.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21


                  C.P. CLARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                            LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

            SUBSIDIARY                                  PLACE OF INCORPORATION
            ----------                                  ----------------------
<S>                                                       <C>
Clare Capital, Inc.                                       New York
Clare Capital, Inc.                                       Delaware
Clare Components, Inc.                                    New York
Clare Components, Inc.                                    Delaware
Clare Electronics, Inc.                                   New York
Clare Electronics, Inc.                                   Delaware
Clare Instruments, Inc.                                   New York
Clare Instruments, Inc.                                   Delaware
Clare Services, Inc.                                      New York
Clare Services, Inc.                                      Delaware
Clare Systems, Inc.                                       New York
Clare Systems, Inc.                                       Delaware
Clare Technologies, Inc.                                  New York
Clare Technologies, Inc.                                  Delaware
Clare Canada, Ltd.                                        Ontario, Canada
Clare France S. A. R. L.                                  France
C.P. Clare Electronics GmbH                               Germany
C.P. Clare Foreign Sales Corporation                      U.S. Virgin Islands
C.P. Clare International N.V.                              Belgium
C.P. Clare Mexicana S.A. de C.V.                          Mexico
Clare Technologies (Taiwan), Inc.                         Taiwan
</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 106
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 106 appear at 81 FR 49895, July 29, 2016.

§ 106.35 Controls to prevent adulteration due to automatic (mechanical or electronic) equipment. ( a ) For the purposes of this section: ( 1 ) “Hardware” means all automatic equipment, including mechanical and electronic equipment (such as computers), that is used in production or quality control of infant formula.
( 2 ) “Software” means any programs, procedures, rules, and associated documentation used in the operation of a system.
( 3 ) “System” means a collection of components (including software and hardware) organized to accomplish a specific function or set of functions in a specified environment.
( 4 ) “Validation” means establishing documented evidence that provides a high degree of assurance that a system will consistently produce a product meeting its predetermined specifications and quality characteristics. Validation can be accomplished through any suitable means, such as verification studies or modeling.
( b ) All systems shall be designed, installed, tested, and maintained in a manner that will ensure that they are capable of performing their intended function and of producing or analyzing infant formula in accordance with this subpart and subpart C of this part. ( 1 ) A manufacturer shall ensure, at any point, step, or stage where control is necessary to prevent adulteration of the infant formula, that all hardware is routinely inspected and checked according to written procedures and that hardware that is capable of being calibrated is routinely calibrated according to written procedures.
( 2 ) A manufacturer shall check and document the accuracy of input into, and output generated by, any system used in the production or quality control of an infant formula to ensure that the infant formula is not adulterated. The degree and frequency of input/output verification shall be based on the complexity and reliability of the system and the level of risk associated with the safe operation of the system.
( 3 ) A manufacturer shall ensure that each system is validated prior to the release for distribution of any infant formula manufactured using the system.
( 4 ) A manufacturer shall ensure that any system that is modified is revalidated following the modification and prior to the release for distribution of any infant formula manufactured using the modified system. All modifications to software shall be made by a designated individual and shall be checked by the infant formula manufacturer to ensure that infant formula that is produced or analyzed using the modified software complies with this subpart and with subpart C of this part.
( c ) A manufacturer shall make and retain records, in accordance with § 106.100(f)(5), concerning mechanical or electronic equipment.
[79 FR 8059, Feb. 10, 2014, as amended at 79 FR 33071, June 10, 2014]
§ 121.315 Requirements for record retention. ( a ) ( 1 ) All records required by this part must be retained at the facility for at least 2 years after the date they were prepared.
( 2 ) Records that a facility relies on during the 3-year period preceding the applicable calendar year to support its status as exempt as a very small business must be retained at the facility as long as necessary to support the status of a facility as a very small business during the applicable calendar year.
( b ) The food defense plan must be retained for at least 2 years after its use is discontinued.
( c ) Except for the food defense plan, offsite storage of records is permitted if such records can be retrieved and provided onsite within 24 hours of request for official review. The food defense plan must remain onsite. Electronic records are considered to be onsite if they are accessible from an onsite location.
( d ) If the facility is closed for a prolonged period, the food defense plan may be transferred to some other reasonably accessible location but must be returned to the facility within 24 hours for official review upon request.
----- Forwarded by Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/18/2011 03:13 PM

-----

From: Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

 Jim Eddinger/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/01/2011 09:43 AM

Subject: Baseline emissions estimates and emission reductions memos

Cortney,

Per your request, attached are the draft memos describing the emission

estimation procedures used in the boiler MACT. If you want the

Appendices to the cost/reductions memo, I'll have to figure out how to

get those to you...they are over 32 MB zipped. Please let me know if

you have any questions.

Thanks!

Brian

(See attached file: Baseline EF Memo GRG 012011_clean.doc)(See attached

file: Baseline Appendices GRG 120910.xls)(See attached file:

mjrDraftCostImpactsMemo 010511.doc)
#### § 780.10 What does this part do?

This part adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by this part, as the USAID policies and procedures for non-procurement debarment and suspension. It thereby gives regulatory effect for USAID to the OMB guidance as supplemented by this part. This part satisfies the requirements in section 3 of Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension” (3 CFR 1986 Comp., p. 189); Executive Order 12689, “Debarment and Suspension” (3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 235); and section 2455 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Public Law 103-355 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).
#### § 1.680 How and when will FDA monitor eligible entities?

FDA may, at any time, conduct an onsite audit of an eligible entity that has received food or facility certification from an accredited third-party certification body under this subpart. Where FDA determines necessary or appropriate, the unannounced audit may be conducted with or without the accredited third-party certification body or the recognized accreditation body (where applicable) present. An FDA audit conducted under this section will be conducted on an unannounced basis and may be preceded by a request for a 30-day operating schedule.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**ChairmanXi remakes the PLA : assessing Chinese military reforms
 
PDF |epub
 
SuDoc Number:D 5.402:XI 4
Item Number:0378-H-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001095358
May 13, 2019
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 Hutton Investors Futures Fund L.P. II (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                          |
|--|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. |

/s/ Jerry Pascucci

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Jerry PascucciCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director

Date: May 14, 2007

----
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 928 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 928

Of inquiry requesting the President and directing the Attorney General 
     to transmit, respectively, certain documents to the House of 
  Representatives relating to the President's use of the pardon power 
            under article II, section 2 of the Constitution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 2018

Mr. Ted Lieu of California (for himself and Mr. Pascrell) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Of inquiry requesting the President and directing the Attorney General 
     to transmit, respectively, certain documents to the House of 
  Representatives relating to the President's use of the pardon power 
            under article II, section 2 of the Constitution.

    Resolved, That the President is requested, and Attorney General of 
the United States is directed, to transmit, respectively, to the House 
of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the 
adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, record, audio 
recording, memorandum, correspondence, or other communication in their 
possession, or any portion of any such communication, that refers or 
relates to the following:
            (1) Any pardon issued by the President on or after January 
        20, 2017.
            (2) Any pardon under consideration by the President, 
        including pardons under consideration for any of the following 
        individuals:
                    (A) Michael Cohen, the President's personal 
                attorney.
                    (B) Paul Manafort, former chairman of the Trump 
                Presidential campaign.
                    (C) Richard Gates, former deputy chairman of the 
                Trump Presidential campaign.
                    (D) Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
                    (E) George Papadopoulos, advisor to the Trump 
                Presidential campaign.
                    (F) Alex van der Zwaan, attorney and former 
                associate of Paul Manafort.
            (3) Any consideration of the President's power to pardon 
        himself, including his assertion that he has the ``absolute 
        right'' to pardon himself.
            (4) President Trump's decision to issue pardons without 
        first consulting the Office of the Pardon Attorney of the 
        Department of Justice.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1303.01 Scope of part 1303.

Procedures governing the establishment of production and manufacturing quotas on basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II pursuant to section 306 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 826) are governed generally by that section and specifically by the sections of this part.

[36 FR 7786, Apr. 24, 1971. Redesignated at 38 FR 26609, Sept. 24, 1973]
#### § 133.175 Pasteurized cheese spread.

Pasteurized cheese spread is the food which conforms to the definition and standard of identity, and is subject to the requirements for label statement of ingredients, prescribed for pasteurized process cheese spread by § 133.179, except that no emulsifying agent as prescribed by § 133.179(e) is used.

[58 FR 2894, Jan. 6, 1993]
Exhibit No. 11
                                                                  --------------

                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)
                                   (Unaudited)

                           National Datacomputer, Inc.
          Statement recomputation of net income (loss) per common share

<TABLE><CAPTION>

                                                                                          Nine Months ended
                                                                                          -----------------
                                                                            September 30, 2001         September 30, 2000
                                                                                -----------                -----------
<S>                                                                             <C>                        <C>
Net income (loss), as reported                                                  $(1,021,288)               $    27,440

Preferred stock preference items:

Interest on Series B, C, D and F convertible preferred stock                    $  (202,875)               $  (234,630)
                                                                                -----------                -----------

Total preferred stock preference item                                           $  (202,875)               $  (234,630)

Net loss attributable to common stockholders                                    $(1,224,163)               $  (207,190)

Weighted average shares outstanding:

A. Shares attributable to common stock outstanding                                9,235,445                  4,480,563
B. Shares attributable to convertible preferred stock outstanding                      --                         --
C. Shares attributable to common stock options and warrants
        pursuant to APB 15, paragraph 38 (a)                                           --                         --
                                                                                -----------                -----------

Weighted average shares outstanding                                               9,235,445                  4,480,563
                                                                                ===========                ===========

Net loss per share                                                              $     (0.13)               $     (0.05)

                                                                                ===========                ===========
</TABLE>
#### Boubacar Siddy SOW, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Respondent.

No. 03-4611AG.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 4, 2005.

Boubacar Siddy Sow, New York, New York, for Appellant, pro se.

William J. Schneider, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Maine (Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney for the District of Maine, on the brief), Portland, Maine, for Appellee.

PRESENT: LEVAL, STRAUB, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

*

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as a respondent in this case.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is denied and the decision of the BIA be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Boubacar Siddy Sow, *pro se,*petitions for review of the BIA decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

This Court reviews the IJ’s decision where, as here, the BIA summarily adopted or affirmed the IJ decision without opinion. *See Arango-Aradondo v. INS,*13 F.3d 610, 613 (2d Cir.1994). This Court reviews an IJ’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, and as such, “a finding will stand if it is supported by ‘reasonable, substantial, and probative’ evidence in the record when considered as a whole.” *Secaida-Rosales,*331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting *Diallo v. INS,*232 F.3d 279, 287 (2d Cir.2000)). Credibility determinations are also typically reviewed under the substantial evidence standard of review, and this Court’s review of an adverse credibility determination is “highly deferential.” *Dong v. Ashcroft,*406 F.3d 110, 111 (2d Cir.2005) *(per*curiam).

In this case, the IJ’s credibility determination was substantially supported by the *104evidence as a whole. The credibility determination was based on specific examples in the record of Sow’s contradictory and improbable testimony regarding his arrest, his travels between Guinea and Moscow, and his inability to correctly name the political party to which he claimed to have belonged.
EXHIBIT  99.1

                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                    As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                          Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Semele  Group Inc., a Delaware
corporation  (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  the  undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  that:

(1)     the  Report  of  the  Partnership  filed  today  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  results of operations of the Company.

                    /s/  Gary  D.  Engle
                    --------------------
                    Gary  D.  Engle
                    Chief  Executive  Officer
                    November  26,  2002
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

CHARLES PUGSLEY, Individually

, a nd MEDICAID ELIGIBIILTY, INC., a Florida f or Profit Corporation

, Appellant s ,

v.

ANDREWS. NEILSON, IV, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Melvin R. Angell

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 620

[ November 25, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2019

- CA

011351

- XXXX

- MB

.
Michael E. Zapin of the Law Offices o f Michael E. Zapin, Boca Raton, for appellants.

Sheila Biehl of Sheila Biehl, P.A., Stuart, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ROSS , C IKLIN and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 1.402 What are the requirements for submitting an appeal? ( a ) If you want to appeal a detention order, you must submit your appeal in writing to the FDA Division Director in whose division the detained article of food is located, at the mailing address, email address, or fax number identified in the detention order according to the following applicable timeframes: ( 1 ) *Perishable food:* If the detained article is a perishable food, as defined in § 1.377, you must file an appeal within 2 calendar days of receipt of the detention order.
( 2 ) *Nonperishable food:* If the detained article is not a perishable food, as defined in § 1.377, you must file a notice of an intent to request a hearing within 4 calendar days of receipt of the detention order. If the notice of intent is not filed within 4 calendar days, you will not be granted a hearing. If you have not filed a timely notice of intent to request a hearing, you may file an appeal without a hearing request. Whether or not it includes a request for hearing, your appeal must be filed within 10 calendar days of receipt of the detention order.
( b ) Your request for appeal must include a verified statement identifying your ownership or proprietary interest in the detained article of food, in accordance with Supplemental Rule C to the “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
( c ) The process for the appeal of a detention order under this section terminates if FDA institutes either a seizure action under section 304(a) of the act or an injunction under section 302 of the act (21 U.S.C. 276) regarding the article of food involved in the detention order.
( d ) As part of the appeals process, you may request an informal hearing. Your request for a hearing must be in writing and must be included in your request for an appeal specified in paragraph (a) of this section. If you request an informal hearing, and FDA grants your request, the hearing will be held within 2 calendar days after the date the appeal is filed.
[69 FR 31701, June 4, 2004, as amended at 85 FR 16550, Mar. 24, 2020]