alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.206 Informing applicants and beneficiaries. ( a ) The agency must issue and publicize its hearing procedures.
( b ) The agency must, at the time specified in paragraph (c) of this section, inform every applicant or beneficiary in writing— ( 1 ) Of his or her right to a fair hearing and right to request an expedited fair hearing;
( 2 ) Of the method by which he may obtain a hearing;
( 3 ) That he may represent himself or use legal counsel, a relative, a friend, or other spokesman; and
( 4 ) Of the time frames in which the agency must take final administrative action, in accordance with § 431.244(f).
( c ) The agency must provide the information required in paragraph (b) of this section— ( 1 ) At the time that the individual applies for Medicaid;
( 2 ) At the time the agency denies an individual's claim for eligibility, benefits or services; or denies a request for exemption from mandatory enrollment in an Alternative Benefit Plan; or takes other action, as defined at § 431.201; or whenever a hearing is otherwise required in accordance with § 431.220(a);
( 3 ) At the time a skilled nursing facility or a nursing facility notifies a resident in accordance with § 483.15 of this chapter that he or she is to be transferred or discharged; and
( 4 ) At the time an individual receives an adverse determination by the State with regard to the preadmission screening and annual resident review requirements of section 1919(e)(7) of the Act.
( d ) If, in accordance with § 431.10(c)(1)(ii), the agency has delegated authority to the Exchange or Exchange appeals entity to conduct the fair hearing, the agency must inform the individual in writing that— ( 1 ) He or she has the right to have his or her hearing before the agency, instead of the Exchange or the Exchange appeals entity; and
( 2 ) The method by which the individual may make such election;
( e ) The information required under this subpart must be accessible to individuals who are limited English proficient and to individuals with disabilities, consistent with § 435.905(b) of this chapter, and may be provided in electronic format in accordance with § 435.918 of this chapter.
[44 FR 17932, Mar. 29, 1979, as amended at 57 FR 56505, Nov. 30, 1992; 58 FR 25784, Apr. 28, 1993; 78 FR 42301, July 15, 2013; 81 FR 68847, Oct. 4, 2016; 81 FR 86448, Nov. 30, 2016]
Exhibit 32.1
   1.
    
    Our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2009, and to which this
Certification is attached (the Annual Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of our operations.
 By:
    
    /s/ Frank WitneyName: Frank WitneyTitle: President, Chief Executive Officer and DirectorDated: August 28, 2009
FOOD PROCESSING OPPORTUNITIES IN NOVOSIBIRSK

----

**May 1999**
by Azim Mamanov
     Siberia's Novosibirsk Oblast, with 7.15 million hectares of agricultural land and 2.8million consumers, is a major food processing center and a promising market for U.S. foodprocessing equipment. Although causing difficulties in Novosibirsk, the August 1998 Russianfinancial crisis has opened up some new opportunities for the local food processing sector, whichaccounts for about 25 percent of all industrial production in the oblast. 
     The August crisis caused a major decrease in imported foodstuffs, making domestic foodproducts more competitive in the local market and prompting a resurgence in production byNovosibirsk food processors. However, Novosibirsk food processors that want to take fulladvantage of this situation need to remedy the lack of modern food processing equipment. Forexample, a company that previously imported foods from Italy is now in the process of obtainingItalian equipment to produce mozarella to supply the region. 
**Major Players**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000727745
<NAME> LDP-III
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       51
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   585
<PP&E>                                           10505
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4040
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    7600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               98
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      7600
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   985
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   769
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (79)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

        

</TABLE>
# C_2006114EN.01000301.xml

| 16.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4183 — Foodco Pastries/Tele Pizza)

(2006/C 114/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 21 April 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4183. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4183. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### Samuel Hoffman, Respondent, *v.*Louis Hand, Impleaded Etc., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

February, 1899.)

1. Attachment — Action against sureties on bond — Cost as evidence of value.

* Cost is in some cases evidence of value, but cannot be proved where property has a market value.

2. Same — Sureties may show that plaintiff did not own the property levied on.

In an action against the sureties on an attachment bond, they have a right to show that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property levied upon.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New Toik, borough of Manhattan, fourth district.

A, A. Joseph, for appellant.

Max D. Steuer, for respondent.

*371
      *Per Curiam.*

This is an action brought against the sureties on an attachment bond, and the damages laid embrace the amount expended for counsel fees on the vacation of the attachment and also the value of the property on which the levy was made. The justice awarded judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. The plaintiff’s assignor was allowed to testify that the goods levied upon cost the sum of $500, and it was upon this evidence alone that the justice assessed the damages. This, under the circumstances, was not competent proof of value. While cost is in some cases some evidence of value, it may not be resorted to where the property is of such a character as to possess a market value, as was the case here. The goods in question should have been properly described, and proof given with respect to such value. »

The court below also erred in refusing to allow the defendant to show that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property levied upon. The question put to the plaintiff’s assignor on cross-examination as to whether he claimed' to be such owner was excluded under objection, and an exception to this ruling of the justice was taken. It is obvious that the defendant was entitled to pursue such an inquiry, and the refusal to permit it was reversible error.

The defendant-appellant contends that the value of the property is not recoverable under the bond as damage resulting from the attachment and levy made thereunder. The case, however, was so loosely tried below, and the record is so deficient that in view of the fact that there must be a new trial in any event, we prefer to leave this question an open one for the determination of the trial court upon a fuller presentation of the facts of the case.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
Exhibit 10.8.4


 


AMENDMENT NUMBER 5

TO

THE MACERICH COMPANY

EXECUTIVE OFFICER SALARY DEFERRAL PLAN


 


WHEREAS, The
Macerich Company (the “Company”) has established The Macerich Company Executive
Officer Salary Deferral Plan (the “Plan”) to provide supplemental retirement
income benefits through prior salary deferrals for certain of its executive
officers; and


 


WHEREAS, it is
appropriate and desirable to amend the Plan to permit Dana Anderson to make a
new distribution election during 2008 pursuant to transition relief provided in
Treasury Regulations and Internal Revenue Service guidance under Section 409A
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and


 


WHEREAS, Section 8.4
of the Plan provides for the amendment of the Plan.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the
Plan is hereby amended as set forth below, effective January 1, 2008, or
such other date or dates as may be specified below.


 


ARTICLE III

DEFERRAL ELECTIONS


 


Section 3.1 of the Plan is amended by adding a new subsection (g) to
the end thereof to read as follows:


 


(g)           2008 Transition Relief
Distribution Election by Anderson.  Notwithstanding
the provisions of Section 3.1(c) hereof, Dana Anderson may designate
a new date or dates for the distribution of benefits to him under the Plan by
filing a new election with the Committee on or after January 1, 2008 and
on or before December 31, 2008.  Any
such new election shall apply only to amounts that would not otherwise be
payable in 2008 and shall not cause any amount to be paid in 2008 that would
not otherwise be payable in 2008.  Any
such new election shall be irrevocable.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company has caused its duly authorized officer to execute this amendment
this 24th day of November, 2008.


 


	
   

  	
  THE MACERICH COMPANY

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ Richard A. Bayer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Richard A. Bayer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Senior Executive Vice President, Chief

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Legal Officer & Secretary
- Bureau Home
- Leadership
- Reports

HomeBureau of Budget and Planning...Leadership – Bureau of Budget and Planning

# 						Leadership – Bureau of Budget and Planning					

4											Items									

          -  							Pitkin, Douglas						DirectorBureau of Budget and Planning 
          -  							Hannah, Sherry M						Deputy DirectorBureau of Budget and Planning 
          -  							Parker, Deena Johnsonbaugh						Deputy DirectorBureau of Budget and Planning 
          -  							Rajadhyaksha, Raj						Deputy DirectorBureau of Budget and Planning 

Back to Top
#### David BALTER, Appellant, v. ETHYL CORPORATION, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 78-1402.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 8, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1980.

Bailey & Dawes and Guy B. Bailey, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Britton, Cohen, Kaufman, Zinkow, Benson & Schantz and John L. Britton, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

*1227PER CURIAM.

The final order under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the underlying judgment upon which pre-judgment interest was sought and denied below is itself subject to reversal as to the defendant Ethyl Corporation, and, consequently, pre-judgment interest thereon was properly denied as to such defendant, *Ethyl Corporation*v. *Balter,*386 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (case no. 78-994, opinion released this date), and (b) pre-judgment interest on the plaintiff Balter’s claim for tortious interference with advantageous contractual relations against the defendants herein did not lie, in any event, because, in our view, neither test for the allowance of such interest established by *Sullivan v. McMillan,*37 Fla. 134, 143-144, 19 So. 340, 343 (1896), was met in this case. *Vacation Prizes, Inc. v. City National Bank of Miami Beach,*227 So.2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).

Affirmed.
§ 435.212 Individuals who would be ineligible if they were not enrolled in an MCO or PCCM. The State agency may provide that a beneficiary who is enrolled in an MCO or PCCM and who becomes ineligible for Medicaid is considered to continue to be eligible— ( a ) For a period specified by the agency, ending no later than 6 months from the date of enrollment; and
( b ) Except for family planning services (which the beneficiary may obtain from any qualified provider) only for services furnished to him or her as an MCO enrollee.
[56 FR 8849, Mar. 1, 1991, as amended at 67 FR 41095, June 14, 2002]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6662

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HERMAN LEE TATE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-98-125-5-V; CA-01-14-5-1-V)

Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 5, 2004

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herman Lee Tate, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Steven Cromwell, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Herman Lee Tate seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Tate has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### TEMPLETON V. THE STATE.

(Decided Dec. 19, 1911.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. S. L. Weaver.

No counsel marked for appellant.

R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and T. H. Seay, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

de Graffenried, J.

Affirmed on the authority of *Wade v. The State,*54 South. 171; *Blake v. The State,*54 South. 496.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Awards.                    

*Date:*                         October 8-9, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 2 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Crowne Plaza Washington National Airport, 1489 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA 22202.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Robert Blaine Moore, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7213, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-8394,                         *mooreb@nhlbi.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 11, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-22433 Filed 9-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 176 (Monday, September 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46994-46995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22016]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than September 29, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 
2200

[[Page 46995]]

North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Robert B. Dunkin, Sr., Harlingen, Texas; Gilbert Garza, San 
Benito, Texas; and Fred L. Cole, Jr., Harlingen, Texas, as Trustees of 
a Voting Trust Agreement (``Agreement'') with respect to First San 
Benito Bancshares Corporation (the ``Company''), San Benito, Texas, 
along with the shareholders that are parties to the Agreement: James S. 
Benson; Fred and Martha Cole, Jr.; Elizabeth Ann Cole, all of 
Harlingen, Texas; Charles A. Cox, Tampico, Tamaulipas, Mexico; Wendell 
J. Cox, Rockwall, Texas; Betty Joyce DeCarriere, San Benito, Texas; 
Annette Dillard; Lee Roy Dillard Jr., both of Georgetown, Texas; Robert 
B. Dunkin, Sr., Harlingen, Texas; Robert B. Dunkin, II, West Palm 
Beach, Florida; Charles O. Eubanks, Harlingen, Texas; Gilbert Garza, 
San Benito, Texas; Sue Ann Holloman, Harlingen, Texas; Estate of Warren 
Jackson; Angelia G. Leal, both of San Benito, Texas; Tracey M. 
Longshore, Friendswood, Texas; Elisa or Joe E. Lopez, Harlingen, Texas; 
Joaquin L. Lopez, McAllen, Texas; F.L. or Concepcion Lopez, Jr.; Carlos 
Muniz, both of Harlingen, Texas; Janet Miles Murphy, Birmingham, 
Alabama; John F. and Ann K. Phillips, Jr., Harlingen, Texas; Beto and 
Carmen Ramirez, San Benito, Texas; Phyllis M. Robinson, Burlington, 
Iowa; Beatriz Rodriguez, San Benito, Texas; Harry Shimotsu, La Feria, 
Texas; Kenneth Shimotsu; Robert L. Tumberlinson, both of San Benito, 
Texas; Thomas C. Washmon, Austin, Texas; Lucy Ann Wolthoff, Harlingen, 
Texas; and Joe C. Weaver, Dallas, Texas; to acquire voting shares of 
the Company, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First 
Community Bank, National Association, San Benito, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 9, 
2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-22016 Filed 9-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
###### Editorial Note on Part 460

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 460 appear at 67 FR 61504, Oct. 1, 2002.

#### § 460.66 Training.

The PACE organization must provide training to maintain and improve the skills and knowledge of each staff member with respect to the individual's specific duties that results in his or her continued ability to demonstrate the skills necessary for the performance of the position.

[64 FR 66279, Nov. 24, 1999, as amended at 71 FR 71335, Dec. 8, 2006; 84 FR 25673, June 3, 2019]
#### Lawrence SCHLOSBERG, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. BIG “K” DISTRIBUTORS et al., Respondents, Cross-Petitioners.

No. 45750.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 22, 1975.

Certiorari denied.

ADKINS, C. J., ROBERTS and OVER-TON, JJ., and SIEGENDORF, C. J., concur.

McCAIN and ERVIN, JJ., would grant the petition for writ of certiorari but would deny the cross-petition for writ of certiorari.