alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11765]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Center For Research Resources; amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Advisory Research Resources Council, May 18, 2000, 8 am to May 18, 
2000, 5 pm, National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, 
Conference Room 6, Building 31C, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was 
published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2000, 00-8316.
    The meeting will be open to the public from 9:15 a.m. until 1:30 
p.m., closed to the public from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., and open to the 
public from 3:30 p.m. to adjournment. The meeting is partially closed 
to the public.

    Dated: May 3, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-11765 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### MORRIS J. ROSE v SELMA E. ROSE, et al

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No. 1716.

Decided October 16, 1929

Messrs. Rockwell & Grant, Akron, and Max P. Goodman, Cleveland, for Selma E. Rose.

Messrs. Carl M. Myers, and Slabaugh, Seiberling, Huber & Guinther, all of Akron, for Morris J. Rose.

*667PER CURIAM

It is claimed that the papers which were filed were not bonds because there were no qualified sureties thereon, — the bonds, except the two signed by Carl M. Myers, being signed only by co-defendants.

It may be assumed that where one of several defendants attempts to perfect an appeal, another defendant cannot properly be taken as a sufficient surety on the bond; but where such a bond is filed and approved in the manner provided by the statute, is it a nullity, or can a sufficient surety be supplied under 11363 GC?

Sec. 12226 GC seems to make the sufficiency of the surety a question for the determination, in the first instance, of the “clerk of the court or a. judge thereof,” and if that required approval is, in good faith, secured and the bond is filed in time, we do not think it is a nullity, even though the surety be insufficient; and hence, the appellee, under 12232 GC, or the appellant, under 11363 GC, may have the surety made sufficient.

Austin v. Morris, 103 OS. 449.

Some other objections to the bonds are suggested, but we think the court has power to and should permit the correction of all mistakes or omissions in the bonds, and therefore the motions to dismiss the appeals are overruled and the request to supply other surety and correct any uncertainties. is granted.

Funk, PJ, Pardee, J, and Washburn, J, concur.
#### Joel Alvarez, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Lucy Alvarez, et al., Respondents, v Ming Chao Wong et al., Appellants.

[699 NYS2d 420]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated April 21, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The notice of appeal from the decision dated January 13, 1999, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order *(see,*CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants met their initial burden of demonstrating that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiffs to come forward with admissible evidence to create an issue of fact *(see, Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957). Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, we find that the plaintiffs failed to do so. The injured plaintiffs subjective complaints of headaches were insufficient to defeat the motion *(see, Licari v Elliott,*57 NY2d 230, 239; *Grayer v Jerez,*192 AD2d 637; *Oswald v Ospina,*187 AD2d 570). In addition, the affirmation of the injured plaintiffs doctor was insufficient since it failed to indicate that the opinion expressed therein was based upon a recent medical examination rather than his examination and treatment of the injured plaintiff some 11 years earlier *(see, Kosto v Bonelli,*255 AD2d 557; *Attanasio v Lashley,*223 AD2d 614). S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
#### § 10.27 Anti-kickback.

All wages paid to workers performing on or in connection with covered contracts must be paid free and clear and without subsequent deduction (except as set forth in § 10.23), rebate, or kickback on any account. Kickbacks directly or indirectly to the employer or to another person for the employer's benefit for the whole or part of the wage are prohibited.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 14.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:

                               COMMISSION FILE NO.
                             Form S-8, No. 333-91847
                             Form S-8, No. 333-92705
                             Form S-8, No. 333-31506
                             Form S-8, No. 333-34104
                             Form S-8, No. 333-58454
                            Form S-8, No. 333-114077
                            Form S-8, No. 333-132968
                            Form S-8, No. 333-135320
                            Form S-8, No. 333-137617
                            Form S-8, No. 333-139310
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-39278
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-44994
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-57036
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-67572
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-114079
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-114344

of our reports dated November 30, 2006, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Amdocs Limited, Amdocs
Limited management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of Amdocs Limited, included in this Amendment No. 1 to Form 20-F
(Annual Report) for the year ended September 30, 2006.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
February 14, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31179-31180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12179]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 99N-5325]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB 
Approval; Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of 
Food

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Irradiation in the Production, 
Processing, and Handling of Food'' has been approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Schlosburg, Office of 
Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 22, 2000 
(65 FR 15343), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and

[[Page 31180]]

a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now 
approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 
0910-0186. The approval expires on April 30, 2003. A copy of the 
supporting statement for this information collection is available on 
the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

    Dated: May 9, 2000.
William K. Hubbard,
Senior Associate Commissioner for Policy, Planning, and Legislation.
[FR Doc. 00-12179 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
§ 100.611 Reporting claims or debts. ( a ) In addition to assessing interest, penalties, and administrative costs pursuant to 31 CFR chapter IX § 901.9, the NLRB may report a debt that has been delinquent for 90 days to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
( b ) The information the NLRB discloses to a consumer reporting agency is limited to— ( 1 ) Information necessary to establish the identity of the individual debtor, including name, address, and taxpayer identification number;
( 2 ) The amount, status, and history of the debt; and
( 3 ) The NLRB activity under which the debt arose.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MEEMIC HOLDINGS, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           156,942
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    2,300
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 166,190
<CASH>                                           7,282
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               2,299
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           1,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 278,960
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 98,455
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             33,473
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  1,066
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,295
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   278,960
<PREMIUMS>                                      28,603
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              2,478
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                (15)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     377
<BENEFITS>                                      20,103
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             6,863
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,727
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,240
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,487
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,487
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  46,563
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             20,658
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                (555)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                               9,776
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                 7,618
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 49,272
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
Errata Sheet Created 2/10/2010 

for the document titled 

Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter, December 2009, Final 

Table or 

Figure Page Erratum 

iv-v Table of contents for Chapter 2 updated to correct page numbers. 

xv, xxiii Page numbers for Chapter 2 figures and tables corrected. 

2-9 Replaced reference to “Table 6-14” in the text with “Table 6-15” 

2-10 Replaced reference to “Table 6-14” in the text with “Table 6-15” 

2-11 Replaced reference to “Table 6-14” in the text with “Table 6-15” 

2-12 Replaced the reference to “Figure 7-8” in the text with “Figure 7-

7” (cited 3 times) 

Figure 2-2 2-15 Mean concentration for Laden et al. (2006, 087605) corrected 

from 14.8 to 16.4. Deleted “conducted in locations where the 

mean annual PM2.5 concentrations were < 17 μg/m3 ” in caption. 

2-17 Replaced reference to “Table 6-17” in the text with “Table 6-18” 

Figure 6-4 6-72 Figure replaced. Lisabeth et al. (2008, 155939) correctly moved to 

PM2.5 study group. 

Figure 6-15 6-148 Updated HERO ID numbers that were unlinked. 

Figure 7-6 7-85 PM2.5 concentrations for Laden et al. (2006, 087605) corrected 

from 17.6 to 16.4
###### Editorial Note on Part 380

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 380.26 Discrimination.

No charter operator shall make, give, or cause any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, port, locality, or description of traffic in air transportation in any respect whatsoever, or subject any particular person, port, locality, or description of traffic in air transportation to any unjust discrimination or any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever.
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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of UC Hub Group, Inc. for the Quarter ending April 30, 2010, I, Larry Wilcox, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 Company.



/s/ Larry D. WilcoxLarry D. WilcoxPrincipal Executive Officer & Principal Financial OfficerJune 14, 2010
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 Tower Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
R. Sawyer, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, 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 Company.
 
 
 /s/ Richard R. SawyerRichard
      R. SawyerChief
      Financial Officer and SecretaryAugust
      5, 2008
§ 135.119 Prohibition against carriage of weapons. No person may, while on board an aircraft being operated by a certificate holder, carry on or about that person a deadly or dangerous weapon, either concealed or unconcealed. This section does not apply to— ( a ) Officials or employees of a municipality or a State, or of the United States, who are authorized to carry arms; or
( b ) Crewmembers and other persons authorized by the certificate holder to carry arms.
§ 1601.15 Investigative authority. ( a ) The investigation of a charge shall be made by the Commission, its investigators, or any other representative designated by the Commission. During the course of such investigation, the Commission may utilize the services of State and local agencies which are charged with the administration of fair employment practice laws or appropriate Federal agencies, and may utilize the information gathered by such authorities or agencies. As part of each investigation, the Commission will accept any statement of position or evidence with respect to the allegations of the charge which the person claiming to be aggrieved, the person making the charge on behalf of such person, if any, or the respondent wishes to submit.
( b ) As part of the Commission's investigation, the Commission may require the person claiming to be aggrieved to provide a statement which includes: ( 1 ) A statement of each specific harm that the person has suffered and the date on which each harm occurred;
( 2 ) For each harm, a statement specifying the act, policy or practice which is alleged to be unlawful;
( 3 ) For each act, policy, or practice alleged to have harmed the person claiming to be aggrieved, a statement of the facts which lead the person claiming to be aggrieved to believe that the act, policy or practice is discriminatory.
( c ) The Commission may require a fact-finding conference with the parties prior to a determination on a charge of discrimination. The conference is primarily an investigative forum intended to define the issues, to determine which elements are undisputed, to resolve those issues that can be resolved and to ascertain whether there is a basis for negotiated settlement of the charge.
( d ) The Commission's authority to investigate a charge is not limited to the procedures outlined in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 12, 1999, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Multiservice Switching Forum (“MSF”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, France Telecom, Lannion Cedex, FRANCE has been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Multiservice Switching Forum (“MSF”) intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On January 22, 1999, Multiservice Switching Forum (“MSF”) filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on May 26, 1999 (64 FR 28519).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 1, 1999. A notice has not yet been published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-12037 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### § 1404.10 Arbitrability.

OA will not decide the merits of a claim by either party that a dispute is not subject to arbitration.
# Tbl2_LLDs

Definitions of analyticial method abbreviations  are in Table 1.  For Analytical Method "Other, ppm":  Hg by AA_CV; Au by AA_GF_HBr; Th and U by DN; Ir, Pd, Pt, Rh and Ru by MS_ST_REE. For Analytical Method "Other, pct":  H2Om and LOI by GV; F by ISE_Fuse; Cl by ISE_HF; H2O and H2Ob by TT_Flux; CO2 by TT_HCl; FeO by TT_HF. Blank cells indicate no data.

# image1.jpeg
[Crim. No. 642.

First Appellate District.

November 16, 1916.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. C. L. BAENDER, Appellant.

Criminal Law—Grand Larceny—Sufficiency of Evidence.—In this prosecution for grand larceny it is held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order denying a new trial. T. W. Harris, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

C. L. Baender, *in pro. per.,*for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and John H. Riordan, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

*101THE COURT.

The defendant in this case was charged by an information filed in the superior court of the county of Alameda with the crime of grand larceny. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in the state prison, and now appeals from the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The only point presented in support of the appeal involves the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant the verdict and support the judgment; and in that behalf it is insisted (1) that there is a variance between the allegations as to the ownership of the subject matter of the larceny and the proof proffered in their support; and (2) that the verdict was had and rests solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

A thorough examination of the record has satisfied us that there is no merit in either phase of the point above stated, and that the evidence upon the whole case amply supports the verdict and judgment.

The judgment and order denying the defendant a new trial are" affirmed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on January 11, 1917, attention being directed to the opinion in *Burke*v. *Maze,*10 Cal. App. 206-211, [101 Pac. 438, 440.]