alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 301A/12 D

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 301A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4912 December 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 301A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4912 December 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 301A/1 | Community Plant Variety Office — Call for expression of interest in the appointment as Chairperson of the Board of Appeal and his/her alternate | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

Commission

2006/C 301A/1

Community Plant Variety Office — Call for expression of interest in the appointment as Chairperson of the Board of Appeal and his/her alternate

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
----

(2004/C 78 E/0475)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3265/03

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 October 2003)

Subject:   Info-Points and Carrefours

In its resolution of 13 March 2002 Parliament called on the European institutions to step up and improve support for the existing information networks, including the Info-Points and Carrefours. On 10 April 2003, in a follow-up resolution, Parliament drew attention to the need for extra efforts to be made in 2004 in the area of communication and information about European policies.

The Info-Points and Carrefours are the information centres which are closest to hand for the general public. In view of the elections, the enlargement and the adoption of the new European Constitution, all of which are set to take place in 2004, it is essential that these centres should be working flat out. However, the Commission has decided to abolish the operating subsidies for these centres as from 1 January 2004.

Can the Commission state why the annual operating subsidies for the Info-Points and Carrefours are being discontinued as from 1 January 2004?

Can the Commission give valid reasons for taking this step at such short notice?

Has the Commission made provision for transitional arrangements to help the Info-Points and Carrefours cope with 2004, which will be a difficult year?

When does the Commission plan to put forward practical proposals regarding support for the information centres in the future?

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CELESTIAL SEASONING, INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BE REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             276
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    17118
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (549)
<INVENTORY>                                      19256
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 39208
<PP&E>                                           31754
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (12635)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   77369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            11663
<BONDS>                                           8900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            83
<OTHER-SE>                                       56723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     77369
<SALES>                                          69238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 69238
<CGS>                                            24335
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    24335
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 36126
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 428
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   8349
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3131
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5218
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5218
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .59
        

</TABLE>
§ 42.39 Appeal to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. ( a ) Any defendant who has filed a timely answer and who is determined in an initial decision to be liable for a civil penalty or assessment may appeal the decision to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs by filing a notice of appeal with the Secretary in accordance with this section.
( b ) ( 1 ) A notice of appeal may be filed at any time within 30 days after the ALJ issues an initial decision. However, if another party files a motion for reconsideration under § 42.8 of this part, consideration of the appeal shall be stayed automatically pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration.
( 2 ) If a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, a notice of appeal may be filed within 30 days after the ALJ denies the motion or issues a revised initial decision, whichever applies.
( 3 ) The Secretary may extend the initial 30 day period for an additional 30 days if the defendant files with the Secretary a request for an extension within the initial 30 day period and shows good cause.
( c ) If the defendant files a timely notice of appeal with the Secretary, and the time for filing motions for reconsideration under § 42.38 of this part has expired, the ALJ shall forward the record of the proceeding to the Secretary.
( d ) A notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a written brief specifying exceptions to the initial decision and reasons supporting the exceptions.
( e ) The representative for the Government may file a brief in opposition to exceptions within 30 days of receiving the notice of appeal and accompanying brief.
( f ) There is no right to appear personally before the Secretary.
( g ) There is no right to appeal any interlocutory ruling by the ALJ.
( h ) In reviewing the initial decision, the Secretary shall not consider any objection that was not raised before the ALJ unless a demonstration is made of extraordinary circumstances causing the failure to raise the objection.
( i ) If any party demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that additional evidence not presented at the hearing is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to present the evidence at the hearing, the Secretary shall remand the matter to the ALJ for consideration of such additional evidence.
( j ) The Secretary may affirm, reduce, reverse, compromise, remand, or settle any penalty or assessment, determined by the ALJ in any initial decision.
( k ) The Secretary shall promptly serve each party to the appeal with a copy of the decision of the Secretary and a statement describing the right of any person to seek judicial review.
( l ) Unless a petition for review is filed as provided in 31 U.S.C. 3805 after a defendant has exhausted all administrative remedies under this part and within 60 days after the date on which the Secretary serves the defendant with a copy of the Secretary's decision, a determination that a defendant is liable under § 42.3 of this part is final and is not subject to judicial review.
§ 18.541 Compliance reviews. ( a ) VA may conduct compliance reviews and preaward reviews of recipients or use other similar procedures that will permit it to investigate and correct violations of the Act and these regulations. VA may conduct these reviews even in the absence of a complaint against a recipient. The review may be as comprehensive as necessary to determine whether a violation of these regulations has occurred.
( b ) If a compliance review or preaward review indicates a violation of the Act or these regulations, VA will attempt to achieve voluntary compliance with the Act. If voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, VA may institute enforcement proceedings as described in § 18.546.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6101-6107)
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



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Apollo Debt Solutions BDC (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:



1. the Company’s Form 10-K for the annual ended December 31, 2021 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 Company’s Form 10-K for the annual ended December 31, 2021 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: March 30, 2022

|    |                        
|--- | -----------------------
|By: | /s/ Amit Joshi         
|    | Amit Joshi             
|    | Chief Financial Officer





---
9

Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

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

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours 

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection/Modify 

Upper and Lower

Wing Skin-t0-Rib 

Attachments at WS 

167 and WS 209.

560.0 $47,600.

00 $5,000 $52,600.00 4 $210,400.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $210,400

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Repair (unknown) $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00
10

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): Man-hours and 

materials required to accomplish necessary repairs found during inspections per this AD will be 

dependent upon extent of damage and type of repair required.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

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* NO 

*Explanation:
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Pakistan

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Pakistan			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Pakistan 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Pakistan

During the review period, the government made its enacted budget and end-of-year report widely and easily accessible to the general public, including online.  It did not publish its executive budget proposal in a reasonable period of time.  While the government published limited information on debt obligations, it did not adequately disclose all public and publicly guaranteed debt obligations, including financing related to China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) projects.  Publicly available budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of most of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams, including natural resource revenues.  The budget of the intelligence agencies was not subject to adequate parliamentary or other civilian oversight.  The information in the budget was considered generally reliable and subject to audit by the supreme audit institution.  The supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence.  Its audit reports are made publicly available within a reasonable period of time and provide substantive findings. The criteria and procedures by which the national government awards contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction were specified in law, regulation, and appeared to be followed in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available. Pakistan’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- publishing its executive budget proposal in a reasonable period of time;
- disclosing detailed information on government debt obligations, including for state-owned enterprises; and
- subjecting the intelligence agencies’ budgets to parliamentary or other civilian oversight.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Pakistan 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentPakistan

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
Exhibit 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David Mintz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Tofutti Brands Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Reserved]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  August 15, 2006

/s/David Mintz*
---------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer

* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Benin

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Benin			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Benin 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Benin

While Benin made significant progress by making information on state-owned enterprise debt guaranteed by the government publicly available, budget documents did not detail allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises.  Additionally, the end-of-year budget report was not published within 12 months of the end of the fiscal year.  During the review period, the government made budget documents widely and easily accessible to the general public, including online.  Information on debt obligations was publicly available.  The supreme audit institution audited the entire executed budget and made the results available online.  The government is in the process of establishing a new, independent supreme audit institution. Benin’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- publishing timely end-of-year reports;

- establishing a supreme audit institution that meets international standards of independence; and
- providing comprehensive accounting of transfers to and from all state-owned enterprises.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Benin 

Tags

BeninBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and Development

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
#### Samuel Jenkelson, Respondent, *v.*August Ruff, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

April, 1900.)

Lease — Wot actionable if incomplete.

Where an agreement in regard to leasing premises is tentative and incomplete and the only term agreed upon is the amount of the rent, the proposed tenant cannot sue for a breach of the agreement even though he has paid the proposed landlord a sum equal to one month’s rent. His remedy is confined to a recovery of the payment.

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

Christian G-. Moritz, for appellant.

Leopold W. Harburger, for respondent.

O’Gormah, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for breach of contract and for money had and received. The defense was a general denial, counterclaim and tender and payment into court of the amount conceded by the defendant to be due the plaintiff.

Plaintiff bases his right to recover upon an alleged oral hiring of the defendant’s premises, and the refusal of the defendant to give possession thereof. Plaintiff’s own evidence, however, fails to establish a binding or completed agreement between the parties. The agreement, so far as it proceeded, was merely tentative, the amount of the rent being the only item specifically agreed upon. At this time the building was not completed, and there was doubt as to when it would be ready for occupancy. It .was understood by both parties that a written lease was to be *277prepared and that a surety agreement was to be executed by plaintiffs brother. The written lease was never prepared or executed, and plaintiffs brother refused to become surety on the lease when called upon by the defendant. These writings being essential to the validity of the lease, the hiring was never completed and plaintiff is without remedy. Law v. Pemberton, 10 Misc. Rep. 362. This is not a case where all the terms and conditions were actually settled and closed, excepting the mere reduction of the agreement to writing.

The payment of the fifty dollars to the defendant at the time of the alleged hiring by the plaintiff does not alter the situation of the parties. Wilder v. Stace, 61 Hun, 233. Whether we regard it as a deposit or rent for the first month, it was manifestly accepted subject to the execution of the formal contract and the surety agreement. The transaction, therefore, never having been consummated, this action cannot be sustained except for money had and received. The court below having found that defendant’s counterclaim was established by competent proof, the plaintiff was entitled only to the balance remaining on the deposit, which was duly tendered and paid into court. Under the proofs, the defendant was entitled to a judgment.

• Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment ordered for the defendant, with costs.

Beeicman, P. J., and Giegerioh, J., concur.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment ordered for defendant, with costs.