alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
13.203 Purchase guidelines. ( a ) *Solicitation, evaluation of quotations, and award.* ( 1 ) To the extent practicable, micro-purchases shall be distributed equitably among qualified suppliers.
( 2 ) Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive quotations if the contracting officer or individual appointed in accordance with 1.603-3(b) considers the price to be reasonable.
( 3 ) The administrative cost of verifying the reasonableness of the price for purchases may more than offset potential savings from detecting instances of overpricing. Therefore, action to verify price reasonableness need only be taken if— ( i ) The contracting officer or individual appointed in accordance with 1.603-3(b) suspects or has information to indicate that the price may not be reasonable (e.g., comparison to the previous price paid or personal knowledge of the supply or service); or
( ii ) Purchasing a supply or service for which no comparable pricing information is readily available (e.g., a supply or service that is not the same as, or is not similar to, other supplies or services that have recently been purchased on a competitive basis).
( b ) *Documentation.* If competitive quotations were solicited and award was made to other than the low quoter, documentation to support the purchase may be limited to identification of the solicited concerns and an explanation for the award decision.
[62 FR 64917, Dec. 9, 1997. Redesignated at 78 FR 37688, June 21, 2013]
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Oxygen Biotherapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedJuly 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Chris J. Stern, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

Date: September 9, 2010

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
### §7302. Effect of chapter

#### (a) Effect on prior crops

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law, this chapter and the amendments made by this chapter shall not affect the authority of the Secretary to carry out a price support or production adjustment program for any of the 1991 through 1995 crops of an agricultural commodity established under a provision of law in effect immediately before April 4, 1996.

#### (b) Liability

A provision of this chapter or an amendment made by this chapter shall not affect the liability of any person under any provision of law as in effect before April 4, 1996.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §172, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 938.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

For definition of "this chapter", referred to in text, see note set out under section 7201 of this title.
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 Esterline Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 1, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I,
Robert D. George, Chief Financial Officer 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                          |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                
|------------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated:  September 5, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert D. George                                           
|                          |  |  |  |     |  | Robert D. George                                               
|                          |  |  |  |     |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,Secretary and Treasurer
Exhibit 23.1 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (No. 33-54657 and No. 333-71003) and the Registration Statement onForm S-4 (No. 333-127047) of Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated of our report dated March 13, 2007 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

March 14, 2007
#### § 553.30 Inscriptions on private headstones and markers.

An appropriate inscription for the decedent will be placed on the headstone or marker in accordance with the dimensions of the stone and arranged in such a manner as to enhance the appearance of the stone. Additional inscriptions may be inscribed following each succeeding interment in the gravesite. All inscriptions will be in accordance with policies established by the Executive Director.
#### DE LOVENZO v. HUGHES.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Accord and Satisfaction—Tender in Full—Acceptance—Effect.

Where a creditor accepts a check tendered as payment in full, and retains the proceeds, there is an accord and satisfaction, notwithstanding his protest that he does not accept it in full.

¶ 1. See Accord and Satisfaction, vol. 1, Cent. Dig. §§ 76, 78.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

Action by Dominick De Lovenzo against William Hughes. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and B1SCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

W. E. Benjamin, for appellant.

A. A. Kremer, for respondent.

BISCHOFF, J.

It appeared, from undisputed evidence, and the respondent’s counsel concedes the facts to have been, that, disputing the justice of his client’s claim of $52.19 for the balance of a merchandise account, the appellant tendered the respondent a check for $2.19 in full payment, and that the latter, having previously refused acceptance of the check, nevertheless, upon the advice of his attorney, and with full knowledge of the condition accompanying the tender, did accept it, and retained the proceeds of its collection to his own use. That these facts, notwithstanding the respondent’s express refusal to accept the check in full discharge of any further demand, constituted an accord and satisfaction, and precluded him from any further recovery upon the account, was held in Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231, 33 N. E. 1034, 20 L. R. A. 785; and Jackson v. Volkening, 81 App. Div. 36, 80 N. Y. Supp. 1102. The rulings of the court below to the contrary, therefore, to which due exception was taken, present error, for which the judgment appealed from must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and judgment ordered for defendant (appellant), with costs. All concur.
FORM 10-Q

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

[x]	QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004

OR

[ ]	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ____________ to ___________

Commission file number 0-827

EMPIRE STATE BUILDING ASSOCIATES L.L.C.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

A New York Limited Liability Company	13-6084254

(State or other jurisdiction of 	(I.R.S. Employer

incorporation or organization)	Identification No.)

60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York

(Address of principal executive offices)

10165

(Zip Code)

(212) 687-8700

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

N/A

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [ X ]. No [ ].

An Exhibit Index is located on Page 14 of this Report.

Number of pages (including exhibits) in this filing: 14

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements.

Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income

(Unaudited)

	For the Three Months	For the Six Months

	Ended June 30,	Ended June 30,

	2004	2003	2004	2003
Workshop on Analysis of Standard 90.1-1999 February 17,2000

AGENDA

Introduction and Purpose

Format of Workshop Background Proposed Methodology

What we would like you to do Qualitative analysis Quantitative analysis Basis for energy savings Past work: What we looked at last summer Enhancementsproposed Overview of approach Why a generic building approach Genericbuilding prototype Modeled systems Building descriptions Representativeclimates Commercialbuilding types Permutations Building characterizationissues Average window to wall ratio (WWR) Variations in WWR Determining envelope requirements Lightingpower densities Mechanical systems Aggregation of energy use index (EUI) data EUI Issues Calculation of utilization indices What we can do.

Scheduled Speakers - additional comments Jason Glazer, GUARD Analysis, Inc. James A. Ranfone, American Gas Association Harold 

### L. Crowder, Jr., Virginia Power

Attendees - additional comments

C:\DATA\VOLCO~90.1-99Detemination\WorkshopgendaOOO27.d, February 16, 2000
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40142 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
TAVORI TERRELL JACKSON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:18

- CR

- 142

- 2

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Tavori Terrell Jackson has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jackson h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief
and the re levant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 6, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40142 Document: 00515300487 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2020No. 19

- 40142

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further resp onsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-40142 Document: 00515300487 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2020
### §5604. Preservation of traditional markets

The Secretary shall, in implementing programs of the Department of Agriculture intended to encourage or assist exports of agricultural commodities, seek to preserve traditional markets for United States agricultural commodities.

(Pub. L. 95–501, title I, §104, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1531, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3672.)
#### 1303.502-2 Subcontractor kickbacks.

Suspected violations of the Anti-Kickback Act of 1986 shall be reported to the DOC Office of Inspector General.
### §8201. Definitions

In this chapter:

#### (1) Eligible orchardist

The term "eligible orchardist" means a person that produces annual crops from trees for commercial purposes.

#### (2) Natural disaster

The term "natural disaster" means plant disease, insect infestation, drought, fire, freeze, flood, earthquake, lightning, and other occurrence, as determined by the Secretary.

#### (3) Secretary

The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Agriculture.

#### (4) Tree

The term "tree" includes a tree, bush, and vine.

(Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §10201, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 490.)
### §618. Existing contracts; imposition of tax on vendee; collection

(a) If (1) any processor, jobber, or wholesaler has, prior to the date a tax with respect to any commodity is first imposed under this chapter, made a bona fide contract of sale for delivery on or after such date, of any article processed wholly or in chief value from such commodity, and if (2) such contract does not permit the addition to the amount to be paid thereunder of the whole of such tax, then (unless the contract prohibits such addition) the vendee shall pay so much of the tax as is not permitted to be added to the contract price.

(b) Taxes payable by the vendee shall be paid to the vendor at the time the sale is consummated and shall be collected and paid to the United States by the vendor in the same manner as other taxes under this chapter. In case of failure or refusal by the vendee to pay such taxes to the vendor, the vendor shall report the facts to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue who shall cause collections of such taxes to be made from the vendee.

(May 12, 1933, ch. 25, title I, §18, 48 Stat. 41.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Constitutionality

Unconstitutionality of processing and floor stock taxes, see note set out under section 616 of this title.

#### Separability

Validity of remainder of this chapter as not affected should any of the provisions of this chapter be declared unconstitutional, see section 614 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of all officers of Department of the Treasury, and functions of all agencies and employees of such Department, transferred, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Treasury, with power vested in him to authorize their performance or performance of any of his functions, by any of such officers, agencies, and employees, by 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 26, §§1, 2, eff. July 31, 1950, 15 F.R. 4935, 64 Stat. 1280, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, referred to in this section, is an officer of Department of the Treasury.
#### § 750.21 Scope of subpart B.

This subpart provides information regarding the administrative processing and consideration of claims against the United States under the FTCA. The FTCA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Under the FTCA, an individual can seek money damages for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of a Federal employee acting within the scope of employment. The FTCA also provides for compensation for injuries caused by certain intentional, wrongful conduct. The liability of the United States is determined in accordance with the law of the State where the act or omission occured.
Dcrr-oST-cSiovv-o\3^ V 

Q Memorandum 

us. Department of 

TrantportOFtion 

Office oTrhe Secretary 

ofTransportafon 

Subject: Clarification on EAS billing for SkyWest at Cody, WY Date- January 5, 2012 

From: Denni mis J. DeViHVAny,. Chief CC7T Michael tvlartin, X-53 

EAS and Domestic Analysis, X-53 ^"^^ ^^^'^'^ 

To: Gregory Frazier, S-3.6 

Reference: Order 2011-11-24 

As stated in the Appendix to Order 2011-11-24, SkyWest, operating as Delta Connection, 

proposed EAS at Cody for the first year of its contract to be effective from 

October 4, 2011, through May 31, 2012. However, SkyWest has informed us that the 

start date of that service is in error and shoijld have been October 1, 2011. Therefore, 

SkyWest has requested that the Department adjust the effective period of the service to 

October 1, 2011. We request that you please compensate accordingly. 

cc: 

Brad Rawson, SkyWest Airlines, Inc.
#### KRING, Appellant, v. KERSTER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 11, 1903.)

Action by *1139Philip Kring against Isaac Kerster.

No opinion. Judgment oí the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
#### § 770.56 Entry restrictions.

Except for military personnel, their authorized dependents, or guests, and civilian employees of the United States in the performance of their official duties, entry upon Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, or remaining thereon by any person for any purpose without the advance consent of the Commander, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, or his authorized representative, is prohibited. In many instances, Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command, approval is required.
### §8773. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–79, title I, §1422(b)(1), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 695

Pub. L. 110–234, title I, §1506, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 994; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title I, §1506, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1723; Pub. L. 112–240, title VII, §701(b)(2)(B), Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 2363; Pub. L. 113–79, title I, §1422(a), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 694, related to the milk income loss contract program.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 113–79, title I, §1422(b), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 695, provided that:

"(1) Repeal.—Effective on the termination date, section 1506 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8773) is repealed.

"(2) Termination date defined.—In paragraph (1), the term 'termination date' means the earlier of the following:

"(A) The date on which the Secretary [of Agriculture] certifies to Congress that the margin protection program required by section 1403 [7 U.S.C. 9053] is operational.

"(B) September 1, 2014."
#### In the Matter of Reynaldo Agosto, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[834 NYS2d 402]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After two inmates were found to be in possession of forged certificates indicating that they had completed aggression replacement training, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with forgery, stealing and altering state property. After a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of forgery. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Petitioner argues that the hearing was not timely commenced. We disagree. Pursuant to 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a), where an inmate is confined pending a disciplinary hearing, the hearing must be commenced within seven days of such confinement. In calculating that period, the day the misbehavior report is written is excluded *(see Matter of Infante v Selsky,*299 AD2d 612, 613 [2002]; *Matter of Carrelero v Goord,*284 AD2d 679, 679 [2001]). In this case, the misbehavior report was written on January 6, 2006 and the hearing commenced on January 13, 2006. The hearing was, therefore, timely commenced. Moreover, the Hearing Officer, believing that the hearing had to be commenced by *1107January 12, 2006, had already requested an extension, which was properly granted based on the officer’s prior unavailability *(see Matter of Farrell v Selsky,*32 AD3d 1103, 1104 [2006]).

The misbehavior report, the testimony of the investigating officers and the documentary evidence provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Tarantola v Selsky,*32 AD3d 1102, 1102 [2006]; *Matter of Santana v Selsky,*23 AD3d 722, 723 [2005]). The contrary testimony of petitioner and his inmate witness presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Thomas v Goord,*34 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2006]; *Matter of Moore v Goord,*17 AD3d 816, 816 [2005]). Although the documents were not compared by a handwriting expert, the Hearing Officer’s own analysis and his finding of sufficient similarities between the forged documents and petitioner’s handwriting samples are enough to sustain the determination *(see Matter of Santana v Selsky, supra*at 723; *Matter of Burgess v Goord,*269 AD2d 722, 723 [2000]). Finally, upon our review of the record, we find no evidence that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Nina v Selsky,*35 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LEE MOMIENT )

 Plaintiff )

-v- )

) 1:12-cv-00615

CBE GROUP, INC )

Defendant )

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISAL PURSUANT TO FRCP 41

Now Comes the Plaintiff, Lee Momient and he moves this court to dismiss the case pursuant to FRCP 

41(a)(1)(A)(i) and in support of which he states as follows:

1. There have been no answers or responsive pleadings filed by the defendant.

2. Voluntary dismissal is proper under the rule FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

Wherefore the Plaintiff, Lee Momient, prays this court enter and order dismissing the instant

case.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ LEE MOMIENT

P.O. BOX 608082

CHICAGO, IL 60660

773-712-3989

Case: 1:12-cv-00615 Document #: 6 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:19