alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
Forms S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-11842, 333-9352, 333-11154 and 333-13686) and
Forms F-3 (Registration Nos. 333-12996 and 333-11250) of our report dated May
28, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of NICE Systems
Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,
2002.




                                                  Yours Truly,

                                             /s/ Kost,forer,& Gabay
                                             ----------------------
June 25, 2003                                KOST, FORER and GABBAY
Tel-Aviv, Israel                        A Member of Ernst & Young Global
309P15

#### State v. Reginald Underwood Fullard

1. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-93)

1. Denied

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

2. Denied 01/13/2016
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

###### Food and Drug Administration 

          - [Docket No. 00F-1366] 

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that Nippon Shokubai has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of methylmethacrylate-trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate copolymer as an antiblocking agent in linear low-density polyethylene intended for use in contact with food. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Julius Smith, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-215), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3091. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 0B4713) has been filed by Nippon Shokubai, c/o Keller & Heckman, 1001 G St., NW., suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001. The petition proposes to amend the food additive regulations in § 177.1520                     *Olefins polymers*                     (21 CFR 177.1520) to provide for the safe use of                           ( print page 41080)                        methylmethacrylate-trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate copolymer as an antiblocking agent in linear low-density polyethylene intended for use in contact with food. The agency has also determined under 21 CFR 25.32(i) that the petitioned action would be of the type that would not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement would be required.                 

Dated: May 16, 2000. 

Alan M. Rulis, 

Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 

[FR Doc. 00-16725 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
#### § 301-11.17 If my agency authorizes per diem reimbursement, will it reduce my M&IE allowance for a meal(s) provided by a common carrier or for a complimentary meal(s) provided by a hotel/motel?

No. A meal provided by a common carrier or a complimentary meal provided by a hotel/motel does not affect your per diem.
No. 11-9511.

#### Loren-Maltese v. Phillips.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4176 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4176

       To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize 
appropriations for refugee and entrant assistance for fiscal years 1995 
                               and 1996.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 1994

   Mr. Mazzoli (by request) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize 
appropriations for refugee and entrant assistance for fiscal years 1995 
                               and 1996.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 414(a) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by striking out ``fiscal 
year 1993 and fiscal year 1994'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``for 
each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996''.

                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 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 offices 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 July 19, 2000. 

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:                 

                    1. James Steve Daniels, Livingston, Tennessee; to retain voting shares of American BancShares Corporation, Livingston, Tennessee, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of                           ( print page 41467)                        American Savings Bank, Livingston, Tennessee.                 

**B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Phillip Jackson, Applications Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                 

1. Perry B. Hansen, The Woodlands, Texas; Douglas M. Kratz, The Woodlands, Texas; and Francis P. McCarthy, Bettendorf, Iowa; to acquire voting shares of Second Mid-America Bancorp, Inc., Savanna, Illinois, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First Illinois National Bank, Savanna, Illinois. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 28, 2000.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00-16834 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### § 302-15.8 When my agency authorizes payment for me under this part, am I obligated to use such services, or may I elect instead to sell my residence at Government expense?

You are not obligated to use your authorized property management services allowance. You have the option of choosing to sell your residence at Government expense or to use the property management services allowance.
536P00-7

#### Terrance L. James v. State of North Carolina

Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Habeas Corpus*

Denied 01/21/2016

Ervin, J.,

recused
§ 302-12.116 What must we consider in deciding whether to use the fixed-fee or cost-reimbursable contracting method? You must consider the following factors in deciding whether to use the fixed-fee or cost-reimbursable contracting method: ( a ) *Risk of alternative methods.* Under a fixed fee contract, the relocation services company bears all risks not expressly contained in the contract. Under a cost-reimbursable contract, you must assume some or all risks and, therefore, must assume some management responsibilities under the contract as well. For example, under a fixed fee homesale program you are not directly liable for losses incurred if a residence does not sell immediately, while under a cost-reimbursable homesale program you assume some or all risks of selling the residence.
( b ) *Cost of alternative methods.* Under the fixed fee method of contracting, the fee includes a cost component for risks assumed by the relocation services company. Under the cost-reimbursable method of contracting, you are directly responsible for some or all of the costs associated with management of the contract. In deciding whether to use cost-reimbursable contracting you, therefore, must consider the cost of resources you would require (including personnel costs) to manage a cost-reimbursable relocation services contract.
( c ) *Effect on the obligation of funds.* You must obligate funds for a relocation in the fiscal year in which the purchase order is awarded under the contract. Under the fixed fee contracting method, the amount of the relocation services fee is fixed and you have a basis for determining the amount of funds to obligate. Under the cost-reimbursable contracting method, you must obligate funds based on an estimate of the costs that will be incurred. When opting for cost-reimbursable contracting you, therefore, should establish a reliable method of computing fund obligation estimates.
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18344, Apr. 1, 2011]
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Atlas Minerals Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Gary E. Davis,
Chief Financial 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 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.

By:       /s/ Gary E. Davis
          ------------------------
          Gary E. Davis
          Chief Financial Officer
          July 30, 2002






                                 Page 16 of 16
#### § 302-11.305 Will I receive reimbursement for any residence transaction expenses incurred prior to being officially notified of my transfer?

No, reimbursement of any residence transaction expenses (or settlement of an unexpired lease) that occurs prior to being officially notified (generally in the form a change of station travel authorization) is prohibited.
No. 11-28.

#### Malcolm *v.*Honeoye Falls Lima Central School District.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

UNDER SEAL (NON-PUBLIC ORDER)

__________________________

IN RE COMPLAINT NO. 23-90015

__________________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

ORDER

Judge Newman has requested that she and her lawyers, Gregory Dolin, Mark Chenoweth, and John Vecchione, be permitted to attend the confidential hearing 

scheduled for July 13, 2023. That request is approved. 

Judge Newman further requested that her law firm be 

permitted to bring their summer associates to the hearing 

and that she be permitted to bring her chambers staff to 

the hearing. That request is denied. As the Committee 

explained in its June 20, 2023 order, the hearing is closed 

because information that is confidential under the rules,

such as witness names and testimony, is likely to be discussed. The protections of confidentiality covering this information preclude releasing it to anyone other than the 

subject judge, her counsel, and those assisting the Committee in conducting this investigation. Confidential information cannot properly be released to summer associates

who are not members of the bar or to Judge Newman’s

chambers staff, who are not permitted to act as her lawyers 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

2

in this matter. See Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, Canon 4(D). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) Judge Newman, Gregory Dolin, Mark Chenoweth, 

and John Vecchione may attend the confidential hearing 

scheduled for July 13, 2023;

(2) Judge Newman’s chambers staff and summer associates at Judge Newman’s attorneys’ law firm may not attend the hearing.

SO ORDERED: July 11, 2023.
17 March 2016

012P16

#### State v. Don Christopher Hawes

1. Defs *Pro Se*Motion for Petition for *Writ of Error Goram Nobis*and Post Conviction Relief

1. Dismissed

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

2. Dismissed as moot
§ 18.111 General operating conditions. ( a ) Persons operating ISM equipment shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to the continued use of any given frequency, by virtue of any prior equipment authorization and/or compliance with the applicable rules.
( b ) Subject to the exceptions in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section and irrespective of whether the equipment otherwise complies with the rules in this part, the operator of ISM equipment that causes harmful interference to any authorized radio service shall promptly take whatever steps may be necessary to eliminate the interference.
( c ) The provisions of paragraph (b) of this section shall not apply in the case of interference to an authorized radio station or a radiocommunication device operating in an ISM frequency band.
( d ) The provisions of paragraph (b) of this section shall not apply in the case of interference to a receiver arising from direct intermediate frequency pickup by the receiver of the fundamental frequency emissions of ISM equipment operating in an ISM frequency band and otherwise complying with the requirements of this part.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4311

To amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 to postpone the round of base closures and realignments scheduled for 1995

until 1997.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 28, 1994

Mr. HANSEN (for himself, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. LANCASTER,

Ms. SNOWE, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mrs. FOWLER,

Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. ORTON, Mr.

DELAY, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. STUMP, Mr. GEKAS, Mr. HORN, Mr. TUCKER, Mr. CANADY, Mr. LEVY, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. TORKILDSEN, Mr.

INHOFE, Mr. GALLO, Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas, and Mr. SWETT) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on

Armed Services and Rules

A BILL

To amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act

of 1990 to postpone the round of base closures and

realignments scheduled for 1995 until 1997.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4311 IH

1 SECTION 1. POSTPONEMENT OF 1995 ROUND OF BASE CLO2 SURES AND REALIGNMENTS UNTIL 1997.

3 The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of

4 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–510; 10

5 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended—

6 (1) in subsections (c)(1)(B)(iii), (c)(1)(C),

7 (e)(1), and (l) of section 2902, section 2903(c)(1),

8 and section 2909(a), by striking out ‘‘1995’’ each

9 place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof

10 ‘‘1997’’; and

11 (2) in section 2902(c)(1)(B)(iii), by striking out

12 ‘‘104th Congress’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

13 ‘‘105th Congress’’.

Æ
#### § 50-205.3 Agreement with a State agency.

The Secretary may enter into an agreement with the head of a State agency providing for the use of State or local officers and employees in the conduct of inspections under the safety and health provisions of the Act as interpreted or applied in part 50-204 of this chapter whenever he finds that the utilization of such State or local officers is necessary to assist in the administration of those provisions. In making such a finding, consideration may be given to the State laws or regulations administered by the State agency providing safety and health standards, the central and field organization of the State agency, and the qualifications of its investigative personnel.
No. 11-5059.

#### Bryant *v.*Berghuis, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### GEORGE W. CRANNELL, Appellant, *v.*EDWIN D. COMSTOCK, Respondent.

*Jurisdiction of County Court*— *to retry cause on appeal from Justices*Court— *where the amount involved in the Justice’s Court exceeded its jurisdiction*— the *appeal not having been taken upon questions of lorn.*

Appeal from an order of the Oneida County Court granting a motion made by defendant, on a case containing exceptions, to set aside a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and for a new trial. The action was commenced in a Justice’s Court, where a judgment was rendered upon a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed to the County Court. In the Justice’s Court the plaintiff’s complaint was for work and materials, and the.amount claimed by him was $115.50. The defendant pleaded a set-off for goods sold and delivered to the plaintiff to the value of $3,000, for which sum ho claimed judgment. Doth parties introduced evidence before the justice in support of their respective claims, and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant for forty-three dollars and sixty-.five cents. The notice of appeal to the County Court alleged, as grounds of appeal, that the jury erred in not rendering a verdict in favor of the plaintiff; that the verdict and judgment were unsupported by the evidence, and that on the whole evidence the defendant was not entitled to a verdict. A new trial was had in the County Court on appeal, where the plaintiff recovered a verdict for forty-five dollars, which that court, on motion, set aside. The appeal papers did not show on what ground the County Court set aside the verdict.

*294The court at General Term said: “ The respondent’s counsel contends that neither the Justice’s Court nor the County Court had jurisdiction of this action because the sum total of the accounts of both parties exceeded $400. If the County Court had not jurisdiction, that part of the order appealed from which grants a new trial is erroneous and should be reversed. But we think that court had jurisdiction on the appeal to try the cause and render judgment, although it may have appeared on the trial in that court that the sum total of the accounts proved exceeded $400. The County Court had nothing to do with the question whether the justice erred in holding that he had jurisdiction. , The appeal was not taken upon questions of law. It did not bring up the testimony taken before the justice, and the County Court had no means of determining whether the accounts proved before the justice exceeded $400; The appeal brought up the issues of fact joined in the court below to be tried anew in the appellate court, and the jurisdiction of the appellate court' for all the purposes of the trial and judgment was the same as if the action had been commenced in that court originally.”

*H. O.*Jones, for the appellant.

*LvncLsley <&*Duwmwe, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Smith, J.

Present — Talcott, P. J., Smith and Merwin, JJ.

Order of County Court affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      State of             Percent by
         Corporate Name             Organization   National Auto Credit, Inc.
---------------------------------   ------------   --------------------------
<S>                                   <C>                     <C>
ARAC, Inc. (1)                        Delaware                100%
Audience Response Systems, Inc.       New York                100%
Campus Group Companies, Inc.          New York                100%
NAC Capital, Inc.                     Delaware                100%
NAC, Inc. (2)                         Delaware                100%
National Cinemas, Inc.                Delaware                100%
OMI Business Communications, Inc.     New York                100%
ZoomLot Corporation                   Delaware                100%
</TABLE>

     All of the subsidiaries listed above are included in the consolidated
financial statements of the Company. The Company also has various subsidiaries
which, when considered in the aggregate, do not constitute a significant
subsidiary.

     (1)  Formerly operated under the name of Agency Rent-A-Car and its
          divisions, Altra Auto Rental, Automate Auto Rental and National
          Motors.

     (2)  NAC, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ARAC, Inc.