alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary information extracted from the financial
statements of the September 30, 1999 Form 10-Q Integrated Resources High Equity
Partners, Series 85 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial  statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      8,048,391
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 280,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             42,319,737
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                 40,826,677
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               42,319,737
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            7,440,086
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               2,226,112
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            2,727,903
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             2,827,089
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         2,827,089
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                2,827,089
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
§ 75.1 Background and purpose. ( a ) The purpose of these regulations is to implement the provisions of section 979 of the Consumer-Patient Radiation Health and Safety Act of 1981, 42 U.S.C. 10004, which requires the establishment by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of standards for the accreditation of programs for the education of certain persons who administer radiologic procedures and for the credentialing of such persons.
( b ) Section 979 requires the Secretary, after consultation with specified Federal agencies, appropriate agencies of States, and appropriate professional organizations, to promulgate by regulation the minimum standards described above. These standards distinguish between the occupations of ( 1 ) radiographer,
( 2 ) dental hygienist,
( 3 ) dental assistant,
( 4 ) nuclear medicine technologist, and
( 5 ) radiation therapy technologist. In the interest of public safety and to prevent the hazards of improper use of medical radiation identified by Congress in its determination of the need for standards, the Secretary is also authorized to prepare standards for other occupational groups utilizing ionizing and non-ionizing radiation as he/she finds appropriate. However, the standards set out below are limited to the five occupational groups listed above, utilizing ionizing radiation. Nothing in these accreditation standards is intended to discriminate against proprietary schools.
No. 27,263.

#### The State of Kansas, *Appellee,*v. Francis Rodgers, *Appellant.*

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

*Larceny*— Evidence. In a prosecution for larceny, the evidence is examined and found to support the verdict of guilty.

Larceny, 36 C. J. p. 899 n. 34.

Appeal from Franklin district court; Hugh Means, judge.

Opinion filed April 9, 1927.

Affirmed.

*Edward T. Riling*and *John J. Riling,*both of Lawrence, for the appellant.

*William A. Smith,*attorney-general, and *B. F. Bowers,*county attorney, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

Francis Rodgers was duly informed against, tried and found guilty of the larceny of chickens of the value of $25. He has appealed, and contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. This is the sole question presented. We have carefully examined the evidence as abstracted and conclude not only that there is an abundance of competent substantial evidence to support the verdict, but that no other just verdict could have been reached from the evidence. It is not necessary to detail or even to summarize the evidence.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
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 Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Mintz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/David Mintz*
---------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2006


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.481 Payment of international preliminary examination fees.

(a) The handling and preliminary examination fees shall be paid within the time period set in PCT Rule 57.3. The handling fee or preliminary examination fee payable is the handling fee or preliminary examination fee in effect on the date of payment.

(1) If the handling and preliminary examination fees are not paid within the time period set in PCT Rule 57.3, applicant will be notified and given one month within which to pay the deficient fees plus a late payment fee equal to the greater of:

(i) Fifty percent of the amount of the deficient fees, but not exceeding an amount equal to double the handling fee; or

(ii) An amount equal to the handling fee (PCT Rule 58*bis.*2).

(2) The one-month time limit set in this paragraph to pay deficient fees may not be extended.

(b) If the payment needed to cover the handling and preliminary examination fees, pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, is not timely made in accordance with PCT Rule 58bis.1(d), the United States International Preliminary Examination Authority will declare the Demand to be considered as if it had not been submitted.

[63 FR 29619, June 1, 1998, as amended at 68 FR 59888, Oct. 20, 2003]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Kass, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/Steven Kass*
---------------
Steven Kass
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  May 12, 2009



* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
#### § 10.3 Issuance of duplicate adjusted service certificate with bond.

An indemnity bond will be required as a prerequisite to the issuance of a duplicate adjusted service certificate in all cases where the certificate was lost after receipt by the veteran, or after receipt by the veteran was defaced or mutilated and cannot be identified to the satisfaction of the Secretary, provided the loss, defacement, or mutilation was without bad faith on the part of the veteran or the person entitled to payment thereon. The bond must be in the manner and form prescribed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and for an amount equal to the face value of the certificate, with surety or sureties residents of the United States and satisfactory to the Secretary, with condition to indemnify and save harmless the United States from any claim on account of such certificate. If the certificate was defaced or mutilated the veteran or person entitled to payment thereon will be required to surrender to the Department of Veterans Affairs the certificate or so much thereof as may remain.
§ 1.906 Required administrative proceedings. ( a ) In applying §§ 1.900 through 1.953, VA is not required to omit, foreclose, or duplicate administrative proceedings required by contract or other laws or regulations.
( b ) Nothing contained in §§ 1.900 through 1.953 is intended to foreclose the right of any debtor to an administrative proceeding, including appeals, waivers, and hearings provided by statute, contract, or VA regulation (see 38 U.S.C. 3720(a)(4) and 5302 and 42 U.S.C. 2651-2653).
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 3720(a)(4), 5302; 42 U.S.C. 2651 through 2653)
[69 FR 62192, Oct. 25, 2004]
41243.

#### THORNTON v. ALFORD et al.

*322Decided September 8, 1965

Rehearingdenied September 22, 1965.

*323
      *Albert E. Butler,*for plaintiff in error.

*Bouhan, Lawrence, Williams & Levy, Frank W. Seiler, Walter C. Hartridge, II,*contra.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

Sec. 11 (c) of the Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title Act (Ga. L. 1961, pp. 68-76; *Code Ann.*§ 68-411a (c)) provides: “A certificate of title issued by the Commissioner is prima facie evidence of the facts appearing on it.” The owner’s name stated in the certificate of title is required by *Code Ann.*§ 68-411a (a2) of the Act, and is a “fact” within the meaning of *Code Ann.*§ 68-411a (c). Thus, it is a ■“fact” uncontradicted by other evidence that the owner of the vehicle was “Western Auto Associate Store.” The evidence shows without dispute that “Western Auto Associate Store” was a trade name used by Mache of Jesup, Inc., and it follows that the truck in question was in fact owned by Mache of Jesup, Inc.

There is no merit in plaintiff’s contention that the personal signature of W. H. Holt appearing on the certificate in the bracket entitled “Personal Signature of Owner” is a fact showing Holt is the owner. The certificate shows that the Commissioner issued the certificate of title upon the same form used by the applicant in applying for the certificate. Under these circumstances the personal signature of the owner obviously is not a fact within the meaning of *Code Ann.*§ 68-411a (c), but merely a matter of form in making application for the certificate under *Code Ann.*§ 68-408a.

*Code Ann.*§ 110-1205 provides: “Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matter stated [t]herein.” Plaintiff’s statement as to the content of *324signs on the store which might indicate ownership of the truck by W. H. Holt was mere hearsay. His statement that “plaintiff is advised and believes” that W. H. Holt had a proprietary interest in the store (and hence in the truck) was not evidence based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant, and it was ineffectual to aid him against defendants’ evidence to the contrary. *Planters Rural Tel. Co-op., Inc. v. Chance,*108 Ga. App. 146, 147 (132 SE2d 90).

As there was no material issue of fact in the case, the trial court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.*
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA-FAA-2011-1411 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-074-AD 

((nm makt! clumKi!.\' 10 thi! \'(/lues in the lahle ln!lmr, you IIIllS! ensttrt! the totu/s updme accordi11g~v. (f 

they tlo nut, click (or Tab) imo and lhl.!n out of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

replacement) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

Do not include on- (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

condition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

<same as existing " AD actions> l·lPI B 

; l ~J)-'l:J/'1 

hK~. ,, 

'• ' r I 

'I ' ~(t£,1"'""-

~Jr,lt-~ ' 

:) 'lvv~p (\\_ (' ,, }(i > IIJ (: Yb1t{~ '> 

'2 'Ji} flf I 

~~I 1 ( 

r J II 

:) '' 'i 

' 

' !] ' 

\ ' ,. \ ' 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: s 0 

Costs covered under warrantY (if known) $ 

On-Condition @ Costs: __ 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g .. Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

<same as existing 

AD actions> 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? Q 

*Explanation: <same as existing AD action> 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

J'!fB'h 

Is the AD significant? ~ 

*Explanation: <same as existing AD action> 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

YES*O NO~ 

YES*0 NO~ 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. -

YES0 NO~ 

Explanation: <same as existing AD action> 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ~ 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: <same as existing AD action>
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 11.33 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3396 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3396

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

           To define and protect the institution of marriage.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3396

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
           To define and protect the institution of marriage.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defense of Marriage Act''.

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
``Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect 
              thereof
    ``No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or 
Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, 
record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, 
possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the 
same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other 
State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising 
from such relationship.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

``1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect 
                            thereof.''.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'
    ``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any 
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative 
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means 
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, 
and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who 
is a husband or a wife.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

``7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 435.118 Infants and children under age 19. ( a ) *Basis.* This section implements sections 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(III), (IV), (VI), and (VII); 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(IV) and (IX); and 1931(b) and (d) of the Act.
( b ) *Scope.* The agency must provide Medicaid to children under age 19 whose household income is at or below the income standard established by the agency in its State plan, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Income standard.* ( 1 ) The minimum income standard is the higher of— ( i ) 133 percent FPL for the applicable family size; or
( ii ) For infants under age 1, such higher income standard up to 185 percent FPL, if any, as the State had established as of December 19, 1989 for determining eligibility for infants, or, as of July 1, 1989 had authorizing legislation to do so.
( 2 ) The maximum income standard for each of the age groups of infants under age 1, children age 1 through age 5, and children age 6 through age 18 is the higher of— ( i ) 133 percent FPL;
( ii ) The highest effective income level for each age group in effect under the Medicaid State plan for coverage under the applicable sections of the Act listed at paragraph (a) of this section or waiver of the State plan covering such age group as of March 23, 2010 or December 31, 2013, if higher, converted to a MAGI-equivalent standard in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary under section 1902(e)(14)(A) and (E) of the Act; or
( iii ) For infants under age 1, 185 percent FPL.
[77 FR 17205, Mar. 23, 2012]
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Comm Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"), I, William
F. Farber, Sr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Act of 1934, and

2.       The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

Date: November 12, 2003                   /s/ William F. Farber, Sr.
                                          --------------------------------
                                          William F. Farber, Sr.
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          Chairman of the Board/Director
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written Statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       51