alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 92.9 Refusals of requests for notarial services. ( a ) A notarizing officer should refuse requests for notarial services, the performance of which is not authorized by treaty provisions or permitted by the laws or authorities of the country in which he is stationed. (See § 92.4(a).) Also, a notarizing officer should refuse to perform notarial acts for use in transactions which may from time to time be prohibited by law or by regulations of the United States Government such, for example, as regulations based on the “Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917,” as amended.
( b ) A notarizing officer is also authorized to refuse to perform a notarial act if he had reasonable grounds for believing that the document in connection with which his notarial act is requested will be used for a purpose patently unlawful, improper or inimical to the best interests of the United States. Requests for notarial services should be refused only after the most careful deliberation.
[22 FR 10858, Dec. 27, 1957, as amended at 60 FR 51723, Oct. 3, 1995]
Exhibit 32.1

                   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

     In connection with the filing with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission of Emergent Group Inc.'s (the "Company") Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that (i) in our capacities as officers of the Company,
(ii) to each of our own respective actual knowledge, and (iii) solely for the
purpose of compliance with 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, that:

          (1)       the Report fully complies with the requirements of ss.13(a)
                    or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                    and

          (2)       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                    all material respects, the financial condition and results
                    of operations of the Company.

     The above certification is given as of the date of the Report and is
limited to the periods covered by the Report. The above certification is made
severally and not jointly.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate on
November 12, 2004.



                                                By:   /s/ Bruce J. Haber
                                                      ------------------
                                                          Bruce J. Haber
                                                          Chairman and Chief
                                                          Executive Officer
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NOMA F. KAMLER, *

* No. 11-617V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: April 11, 2013

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; stipulation of

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * fact; award in the amount to which

* respondent has not objected

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

Donald L. Schlapprizzi, St. Louis, MO, for Petitioner;

Michael P. Milmoe, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Respondent filed a stipulation of fact concerning final attorneys’ fees and costs in the 

above-captioned matter on April 10, 2013. Previously, on March 15, 2013, Ms. Kamler filed a 

motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion on April 

1, 2013, wherein respondent raised objections to certain items. Based on subsequent informal 

discussions, petitioner amended her application to request a total of $34,500.00 in fees and costs, 

an amount to which respondent does not object. The Court awards this amount. 

Ms. Kamler filed for compensation on September 26, 2011, alleging that the TetanusDiphtheria-acellular Pertussis vaccine, which she received on or about September 19, 2009, 

caused her to suffer Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Ms. Kamler received compensation based upon 

the parties’ stipulation. Decision, filed Jan. 22, 2013. Because Ms. Kamler received 

compensation, she is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

Ms. Kamler seeks a total of $34,500.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs for her counsel. In 

compliance with General Order No. 9, Ms. Kamler filed a statement that she incurred no out-of-

 

1

The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), 

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website.
pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim. Respondent has no objection to the amount 

requested for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

After reviewing the request, the court awards a check made payable to petitioner and

petitioner’s attorney in the amount of $34,500.00 for attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs. 

The court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this matter.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

 

2

 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each party filing 

a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 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
<CASH>                                           6,032
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,802
<PP&E>                                         285,101
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 406,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,127
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           305
<OTHER-SE>                                     159,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   406,824
<SALES>                                         64,964
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,964
<CGS>                                           30,751
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,380
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,469
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,461)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       106
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,567)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,567)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)


</TABLE>
DAIML

ERCHRYSLER CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,
v. UNI TED STATE S, Defend ant. Slip Op. 05-128 UNITED STATES COURT OF I NTERNATIONAL

TRADE

Before: Jane A. Restani Chief Judge Court No. 99-00668

JUDGMENT [Judgment for plaintiff on Tariff Classification of U.S. made truck parts painted and asse mbled in Mexico free of duties.] Dated: September 26, 2005 Barnes, Richardson & Colburn , ( Lawrence M. Friedman

and Ily a A. Bakke ) for plaintiff. Peter D. Keisler , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, Barba

ra S. Willi ams , A ttorney-in-Charge, International

Tr ade Fi eld Office, Commercial Litig ation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department

of Justice ( Saul Davi s ), Michael Hey drich , Office

of Assista

nt Chief Co

unsel, Inte rnationa l Trade L itigation, U.S. Cust

oms and B order Pr

otection , of coun sel, for

defenda nt. Restani, Chief Judge: The merchandise at issue is ide ntical in all material respects to that in DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. U nited States , 361 F. 3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2004), wherein defendant’s classification failed. The parties do not

r equest a new trial. Accordingly , the court is bound by prec edent, and judgment is entered for

plaintiff requiring duty

free treatment

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item 9802.00.80 for the U.S. made truck parts painted and assembledCourt No. 03-00442 Page 2

inMexico, re-entered into the United States on May 5, 1993, under e ntry numbers 228-0107083-4 and 228-0107085-9. Defendant

shall refund

the duties erroneously c ollected together with interest as provided by law.

/s/ Jane A. Re stani Jane A. Restani Chief Judge Dated: New York, New York This 26th day of September, 2005.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FAITH TURNAGE,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

HAYWARD ISLANDER MOTEL,

Defendant(s).

))))))))))

No. C08-5618 BZ

AMENDED CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL(Extending Days ofConditional Dismissal)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE and all scheduled matters are VACATED; provided,

however, that any party may, within 90 days of the date of

this Order, move the Court to restore this matter to the

calendar on the grounds that the settlement has not been

consummated.

Dated: March 29, 2010

   Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\MISC\TURNAGE AMENDED CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-05618-BZ   Document 16   Filed 03/29/10   Page 1 of 1
#### Mary J. Donahue et al., Respondents, v E. Petracca & Co., Inc., Defendant, and Jonang, Inc., Appellant.

[717 NYS2d 189]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Jonang, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated September 20, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the appellant’s motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiff Mary J. Donahue was injured after she fell on a patch of ice in a parking lot owned by the defendant E. Petracca & Co., Inc. (hereinafter Petracca). The defendant Jonang, Inc. (hereinafter Jonang), is a contractor which was responsible for removing snow from the subject premises pursuant to an agreement with Petracca.

Where a snow removal contract is not a comprehensive and exclusive property maintenance obligation intended to displace a landowner’s duty to maintain the property, as is the case here, the contractor owes no duty of reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to an injured plaintiff *(see, Bugiada v Iko,*274 AD2d 368). The exception to this rule is where the *347contractor’s actions have “advanced to such a point as to have launched a force or instrument of harm” *(Moch Co. v Rensselaer Water Co.,*247 NY 160, 168; *see, Pavlovich v Wade Assocs.,*274 AD2d 382). Here, in opposition to Jonang’s prima facie case for summary judgment the plaintiff failed to raise a traible issue of fact as to whether the above exception applies.

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions. O’Brien, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY MITCHELL SR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF PITTSBURG,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-00794 SI

SECOND

PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED pursuant to F.R.C.P. and the Local Rules of this Court:

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT: May 7, 2010 at 3:00 p.m.

Counsel must file a joint case management statement seven days in advance of the conference.

DISCOVERY PLAN: Per F.R.Civ.P and Local Rules, subject to any provisions below.

NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is June 18, 2010.

DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS: 4/30/10; REBUTTAL: 5/10/10. Parties SHALL conform to Rule 26(a)(2).

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is June 18, 2010.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL be filed by June 25, 2010; 

Opp. Due July 9, 2010; Reply Due July 16, 2010;

 and set for hearing no later than July 30, 2010 at 9:00 AM.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: August 24, 2010at 3:30 PM.

JURY TRIAL DATE: August 30, 2010 at 8:30 AM., Courtroom 10, 19th floor.

TRIAL LENGTH is estimated to be days.

SPECIAL DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL PROVISIONS:

The Court continued the trial dates as indicated above.

Defendant’s Wielsch and CCNET are dismissed without prejudice and shall be terminated from this

docket.

This case shall be referred to either Magistrate-Judge Larson, Chen or Spero for settlement purposes.

The settlement conference shall occur in April 2010.

The pretrial conference SHALL be attended by trial counsel prepared to discuss all aspects of the case,

including settlement. Parties SHALL conform to the attached instructions. Plaintiff is ORDERED to

serve a copy of this order on any party subsequently joined in this action.

Dated: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00794-SI Document 39 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 134.6 Allowable fees and expenses. ( a ) Awards will be based on rates customarily charged by persons engaged in the business of acting as attorneys, agents and expert witnesses, even if the services were made available without charge or at a reduced rate to the applicant.
( b ) No award for the fee of an attorney or agent under these rules may exceed $75.00 per hour. No award to compensate an expert witness may exceed the highest rate at which the Department of State pays expert witnesses, which is generally $50.00 per hour. However, an award may also include the reasonable expenses of the attorney, agent or witness as a separate item, if the attorney, agent or witness ordinarily charges clients separately for such expenses.
( c ) In determining the reasonableness of the fee sought for an attorney, agent or expert witness, the adjudicative officer shall consider the following: ( 1 ) If the attorney, agent or witness is in private practice, his or her customary fee for similar services, or, if an employee of the applicant, the fully allocated cost of the services;
( 2 ) The prevailing rate for similar services in the community in which the attorney, agent or witness ordinarily performs services;
( 3 ) The time actually spent in the representation of the applicant;
( 4 ) the time reasonably spent in light of the difficulty or complexity of the issues in the proceeding; and
( 5 ) Such other factors as may bear on the value of the services provided.
( d ) The reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, project or similar matter prepared on behalf of a party may be awarded, to the extent that the charge for the service does not exceed the prevailing rate for similar services, and the study or other matter was necessary for preparation of applicant's case.
### §§3861, 3862. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Appropriations for this subchapter have not been authorized for fiscal years after 1975.

Section 3861, Pub. L. 90–445, title II, §201, as added Pub. L. 92–381, §1, Aug. 14, 1972, 86 Stat. 534, related to project grants and contracts for the training of personnel in fields related to diagnosis and treatment of delinquent youths and parental counseling or instruction.

A prior section 3861, Pub. L. 90–445, title II, §201, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 470, related to similar subject matter, prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 90–445 by section 1 of Pub. L. 92–381.

Section 3862, Pub. L. 90–445, title II, §202, as added Pub. L. 92–381, §1 Aug. 14, 1972, 86 Stat. 535, related to recipients and conditions of grants and contracts.

A prior section 3862, Pub. L. 90–445, title II, §202, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 470, related to similar subject matter, prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 90–445 by section 1 of Pub. L. 92–381.
#### § 229.100 Purpose and effective date.

The purpose of these Title IX regulations is to effectuate Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (except sections 904 and 906 of those Amendments) (20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682, 1683, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688), which is designed to eliminate (with certain exceptions) discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, whether or not such program or activity is offered or sponsored by an educational institution as defined in these Title IX regulations. The effective date of these Title IX regulations shall be September 29, 2000.
§ 1000.342 Are undisbursed IHBG funds a factor in the grant formula? Yes, beginning fiscal year 2018. After calculating the initial allocation calculation for the current fiscal year by calculating FCAS, need, the 1996 Minimum, and repayments or additions for past over- or under-funding for each Indian tribe, the undisbursed funds factor shall be applied as follows: ( a ) The undisbursed funds factor applies if an Indian tribe's initial allocation calculation is $5 million or more and the Indian tribe has undisbursed IHBG funds in an amount that is greater than the sum of the prior 3 years' initial allocation calculations.
( b ) If subject to paragraph (a) of this section, the Indian tribe's grant allocation shall be the greater of the initial allocation calculation minus the amount of undisbursed IHBG funds that exceed the sum of the prior 3 years' initial allocation calculations, or its 1996 Minimum.
( c ) For purposes of this section, “undisbursed IHBG funds” means the amount of IHBG funds allocated to an Indian tribe in HUD's line of credit control system on October 1 of the fiscal year for which the allocation is made. For Indian tribes under an umbrella TDHE (a recipient that has been designated to receive grant amounts by more than one Indian tribe), if the Indian tribe's initial allocation calculation is $5 million or more, its undisbursed IHBG funds is the amount calculated by multiplying the umbrella TDHE's total balance in HUD's line of credit control system on October 1 of the fiscal year for which the allocation is made by a percentage based on the Indian tribe's proportional share of the initial allocation calculation of all tribes under the umbrella.
( d ) Amounts subtracted from an initial allocation calculation under this section shall be redistributed under the need component among all Indian tribes not subject to paragraph (a) of this section (while also retaining the 1996 Minimum).
[81 FR 83682, Nov. 22, 2016]
Exhibit 10.15


 


Summary of Fluor Corporation Non-Management Director Compensation


 


Cash Compensation


 


	
  Annual
  Retainer:

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  105,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Annual
  Committee Retainer:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Audit Committee Chair:

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,000

  	
   

  
	
  Organization and Compensation

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Committee Chair:

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,000

  	
   

  
	
  Governance Committee Chair:

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Lead
  Director Retainer:

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30,000

  	
   

  



 


Retainers are paid quarterly in cash and can be deferred at the
director’s election under the Fluor Corporation 409A Deferred Directors’ Fees
Program.


 


Equity Compensation


 


Each non-management director receives an annual grant of restricted
stock and restricted units with a total market value of $105,000.  The grant is made on the date of the annual
meeting of shareholders.  Non-management
directors joining the Board after the date of the annual meeting receive a pro
rata award on the date of their appointment to the Board.  Restrictions on awards granted prior to 2008
lapse at a rate of 20% per year over five years; and restrictions on awards
granted in 2008 or later will vest immediately on the first anniversary of the
date of grant.


 


Other Information


 


Fluor Corporation reimburses non-management directors for their travel
and related expenses in connection with attending Board meetings and
Board-related activities.  Directors also
receive life insurance ($75,000 in coverage) and travel insurance ($250,000 in
coverage).  Directors’ charitable
contributions that meet the guidelines of the Company’s employee charitable
matching gift program are eligible for matching funds from the Company in an
amount up to $5,000 per year.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HALSEY MINOR, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHRISTIE’S INC., a New York corporation, 

and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

CHRISTIE, MANSON & WOODS, LTD., 

a United Kingdom corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HALSEY MINOR, an individual,

and ROES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-05445 WHA (Lead Case)

Consolidated with:

No. C 09-00471 WHA

AMENDED JUDGMENT

Based on the accompanying jury verdicts, judgment is hereby entered as follows: 

1. In Case No. 08-05445, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff

Halsey Minor and against defendant Christie’s Inc. in the total amount of

$8,570,001. 

Case 3:09-cv-00471-WHA Document 57 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2. In Case No. 08-05445, judgment is entered in favor of

counterclaimant Christie’s Inc. and against counterdefendant Halsey Minor in the

total amount of $417,000. 

3. In Case No. 09-00471, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff

Christie, Manson & Woods and against defendant Halsey Minor in the total

amount of $994,716.06.

4. As between the parties to this action, Halsey Minor has the

superior right to ownership and possession of the April artworks.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00471-WHA Document 57 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 2
### §6003. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–402, title IV, §401(a), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1737

Section 6003, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §104, as added Pub. L. 98–527, §2, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2667; amended Pub. L. 103–230, title I, §105, Apr. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 293, related to records and audits.

A prior section 6003, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §104, as added Pub. L. 94–103, title I, §125, Oct. 4, 1975, 89 Stat. 498, set forth provisions relating to State control of operations, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 98–527.