alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 1322.103-4 Approvals.

Approval of use of overtime may be granted by the approving official as set forth in CAM 1301.70.
1315.604 Agency points of contact. ( a ) Unsolicited proposals are to be submitted to the appropriate DOC contracting office. Any person or entity considering the submission of an unsolicited proposal should first determine, based on the subject matter of the proposal, to which DOC operating unit the proposal applies. Proposers should contact the applicable operating unit contracting office to determine procedures for submission and to whom to send the proposal.
( b ) Program offices must immediately transmit any unsolicited proposals sent to them to their contracting office. If there is a question concerning which operating unit should evaluate an unsolicited proposal, the contracting office shall identify the proper office, in coordination with the Office of Acquisition Management, if necessary, and transmit the proposal to the applicable contracting office.
§ 97.9 Procedures—requirements and determinations. ( a ) A litigation request or demand must describe, in writing and with specificity, the nature of the official information or witness testimony sought, its relevance to the litigation, and other pertinent details addressing the factors in § 97.8.
( b ) Personnel who receive a litigation request or demand must notify their DoD Component's chief legal advisor immediately. Former personnel (e.g., retired Service members, separated employees, past contractors) must notify the chief legal advisor of the component to which they were last assigned.
( c ) If another DoD Component or Federal agency originated the responsive information or otherwise has the primary equity with respect to that information, the chief legal advisor will: ( 1 ) Transfer the litigation request or demand (or the appropriate portions) to such other component or agency for action.
( 2 ) Inform the requesting party or issuing court.
( 3 ) In case of conflict, elevate to the GC DoD for resolution.
( d ) If the litigation request or demand requires a response before a determination can be made, the chief legal advisor will inform the requesting party or the issuing court that the request or demand is still under consideration. The chief legal advisor also may seek a stay from the court in question until a final determination is made.
( e ) Upon making a final determination pursuant to § 97.7(a), the chief legal advisor will inform the requesting party or issuing court.
( f ) If the chief legal advisor approves the release of official information or the presentation of witness testimony, personnel will limit the disclosure to those matters specified in the litigation request or demand, subject to any conditions imposed by the chief legal advisor. Personnel may not release, produce, comment on, or testify about any official information without the chief legal advisor's prior written approval.
( g ) If a court orders a disclosure that the chief legal advisor previously disapproved or has yet to approve, personnel must respectfully decline to comply with the court's order unless the chief legal advisor directs otherwise.
#### 13.202 Unenforceability of unauthorized obligations in micro-purchases.

Many supplies or services are acquired subject to supplier license agreements. These are particularly common in information technology acquisitions, but they may apply to any supply or service. For example, computer software and services delivered through the internet (web services) are often subject to license agreements, referred to as End User License Agreements (EULA), Terms of Service (TOS), or other similar legal instruments or agreements. Many of these agreements contain indemnification clauses that are inconsistent with Federal law and unenforceable, but which could create a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341) if agreed to by the Government. The clause at 52.232-39, Unenforceability of Unauthorized Obligations, automatically applies to any micro-purchase, including those made with the Governmentwide purchase card. This clause prevents such violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act.

[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 Composite Technology Corporation (the "Company") Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Benton
H Wilcoxon, Chief Executive 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, 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.




/s/
      Benton H WilcoxonBenton
      H WilcoxonChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





Date:
 December 14, 2010
#### 1316.602 Labor-hour contracts.
From: Wieg, Christina <Christina.Wieg@epa.state.oh.us>

Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 11:42 AM

To: Conrad Chin

Cc: friedman.beth@ecrweb.com; nelson.brad@ecrweb.com; Chuck French; 

Jonathan Averback; Deshaies, Marco; Weinberg, Bruce

Subject:RE: Eramet Test Data

Conrad,

Marco, our stack test coordinator was kind enough to quickly pull together what he could find. Hope 

this helps and please let us know if you have any questions regarding this information:

It should be noted that MW below are the average for the runs during the test.

Furnace #1 (EU P901)

4/9/2002 - 28.89 MW - SiMn

6/12/2003-28.87MW-SiMn

5/26/2004-28.88MW-SiMn

6/15/2005-27MW-SiMn

11/8/2006-24.18-SiMn

5/9/2007 -28.2MW-SiMn

5/10/2007-24.7MW-SiMn

3/25/2008-26.5MW-SiMn

9/16/2008-29MW-SiMn

10/13/2009-22.2-SiMn

10/14/2009-22.2MW-SiMn

11/26/2010-28.88MW-SiMn

5/26/2011-27.12MW-SiMn

8/12/2003-26MW-We believe this one was SiMn but this one needs doubled checked

Furnace #12 (EU P908)

4/9/2002 - 20.7 MW - FeMn

6/12/2003-19.82MW-FeMn

5/26/2004-21.86MW-FeMn

6/15/2005-20.6MW-FeMn

11/8/2006-21.15MW-FeMn

5/8/2007 -20.55MW-FeMn

3/25/2008-21.06MW-FeMn

3/2/2009-20.03MW-FeMn

6/28/2010-19.90MW-FeMn

5/25/2011-19.54MW-FEMn
Sincerely,

Christina Wieg

Environmental Specialist III

Division of Air Pollution Control Ohio EPA - SEDO

2195 Front Street

Logan, OH 43138

740-380-5223

Fax: 740-385-6490

Christina.wieg@epa.ohio.gov

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." ~ The Lorax 

by Dr. Seuss

-----Original Message-----

From: Conrad Chin [mailto:Chin.Conrad@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 6:52 PM

To: Wieg, Christina

Cc: friedman.beth@ecrweb.com; nelson.brad@ecrweb.com; Chuck French; Jonathan Averback

Subject: Fw: Eramet Test Data

Hello ChristinaHope you are doing well. With reference to the attached Excel, we have the historical test data from 

Eramet on all three furnaces. We assume these are the annual compliance test data.

We would be very interest to know the type of product being produced during each of these tests, and 

the furnace operating MW. Is that something you can help us with?

If it is too much work, even partial data would be helpful (such as only for furnaces 1 and 12; and/or only 

data for the last five years etc.)

Please let me know if this is something you can help us with. Thanks in advance.

Conrad K. Chin

Mail Code D243-02

Metals and Minerals Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

919-541-1512 (voice)

919-541-3207 (fax)
Exhibit 31.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) as adopted
pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.

I, Benton H Wilcoxon, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-KSB of
Composite Technology Corporation;

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

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

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: August 8, 2005


/s/ Benton H Wilcoxon
------------------------
Benton H Wilcoxon
Chief Executive Officer
and Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jesse James Reid, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on October 12, 1976, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Appellant has been afforded ample time in which to file a supplemental brief, but has failed to avail himself of that opportunity. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Evans, Sandler, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
### §6809. Investigations and power to subpoena

#### (a) Investigations

The Secretary may make such investigations as the Secretary considers necessary for the effective administration of this chapter, or to determine whether any person has engaged or is engaging in any act that constitutes a violation of this chapter or any order or regulation issued under this chapter.

#### (b) Subpoenas, oaths, and affirmations

#### (1) Investigations

For the purpose of making an investigation under subsection (a), the Secretary may administer oaths and affirmations, and issue subpoenas to require the production of any records that are relevant to the inquiry. The production of the records may be required from any place in the United States.

#### (2) Administrative hearings

For the purpose of an administrative hearing held under section 6807(a)(2) or 6808(c)(3) of this title, the presiding officer may administer oaths and affirmations, subpoena witnesses, compel the attendance of witnesses, take evidence, and require the production of any records that are relevant to the inquiry. The attendance of witnesses and the production of the records may be required from any place in the United States.

#### (c) Aid of courts

#### (1) In general

In the case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpoena issued under subsection (b) to, any person, the Secretary may invoke the aid of any court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which the investigation or proceeding is conducted, or where the person resides or conducts business, in order to enforce a subpoena issued under subsection (b).

#### (2) Order

The court may issue an order requiring the person referred to in paragraph (1) to comply with a subpoena referred to in paragraph (1).

#### (3) Failure to obey

Any failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the court as a contempt of court.

#### (4) Process

Process in any proceeding under this subsection may be served in the United States judicial district in which the person being proceeded against resides or conducts business or wherever the person may be found.

(Pub. L. 103–190, §10, Dec. 14, 1993, 107 Stat. 2288.)
Opinion issued March 12, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00856-CV

———————————

ADRIAN BEAMON, Appellant

V.

ROMANA SANTANA, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1051415

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Adrian Beamon, has neither paid the required fees nor established 

indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; see also TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041 (West 2013), § 101.0411 

(West Supp. 2014); Order Regarding Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil 
2

Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District 

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 13-9127 (Tex. Aug. 16, 2013). Further, appellant has 

not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to 

dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 37.3(b), 

42.3(b), (c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and 

for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOY MACK

,

Appellant,

v.

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, FSB f/k/a

WORLD SAVINGS BANK FSB

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 3799

[ December 5 , 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Joel T. Lazarus , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 10024485

.

Joy Mack, Hollywood, pro se.

Jason F. Joseph of the Tromberg Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton, for

appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, T AYLOR and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### §3192. Definitions

When used in this subchapter—

(1) the term "eligible institution" means an accredited school or college of veterinary medicine or a State agricultural experiment station that conducts animal health and disease research;

(2) the term "dean" means the dean of an accredited school or college of veterinary medicine;

(3) the term "director" means the director of a State agricultural experiment station which qualifies as an eligible institution; and

(4) the term "animal health research capacity" means the capacity of an eligible institution to conduct animal health and disease research, as determined by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1430, Sept. 29, 1977, 91 Stat. 1002; Pub. L. 97–98, title XIV, §1427, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1309; Pub. L. 105–185, title VI, §606(d)(1), June 23, 1998, 112 Stat. 604.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pars. (3) to (5). Pub. L. 105–185 inserted "and" at end of par. (3), redesignated par. (5) as (4), and struck out former par. (4) which read as follows: "the term 'Board' means the Animal Health Science Research Advisory Board; and".

1981—Par. (1). Pub. L. 97–98 substituted "an accredited school or college of veterinary medicine or a State agricultural research experiment station that conducts animal health and disease research" for "any college or university having an accredited college of veterinary medicine or a department of veterinary science or animal pathology, or a similar unit conducting animal health and disease research in a State agricultural experiment station".

Par. (2). Pub. L. 97–98 substituted "an accredited school or college of veterinary medicine" for "a college or university which qualifies as an eligible institution".

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

#### Effective Date of 1981 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–98 effective Dec. 22, 1981, see section 1801 of Pub. L. 97–98, set out as an Effective Date note under section 4301 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1977, see section 1901 of Pub. L. 95–113, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 1307 of this title.
§ 855.11 Insurance requirements. Applicants must provide proof of third-party liability insurance on a DD Form 2400, with the amounts stated in US dollars. The policy number, effective date, and expiration date are required. The statement “until canceled” may be used in lieu of a specific expiration date. The geographic coverage must include the area where the Air Force airfield of proposed use is located. If several aircraft or aircraft types are included under the same policy, a statement such as “all aircraft owned,” “all aircraft owned and or operated,” “all non-owned aircraft,” or “all aircraft operated,” may be used in lieu of aircraft registration numbers. To meet the insurance requirements, either split limit coverage for bodily injury (individuals outside the aircraft), property damage, and passengers, or a single limit coverage is required. The coverage will be at the expense of the user with an insurance company acceptable to the Air Force. Coverage must be current during the period the Air Force airfield will be used. The liability required is computed on the basis of aircraft maximum gross takeoff weight (MGTOW) and passenger or cargo configuration. Minimum coverage will not be less than the amount indicated in Table 2 to this part. ( a ) Any insurance presented as a single limit of liability or a combination of primary and excess coverage will be an amount equal to or greater than the each accident minimums indicated in Table 2 to this part for bodily injury (individuals outside the aircraft), property damage, and passengers.
( b ) The policy will specifically provide that: ( 1 ) The insurer waives any right of subrogation it may have against the US by reason of any payment made under the policy for injury, death, or property damage that might arise, out of or in connection with the insured's use of any Air Force airfield.
( 2 ) The insurance afforded by the policy applies to the liability assumed by the insured under DD Form 2402.
( 3 ) If the insurer or the insured cancels or reduces the amount of insurance afforded under the listed policy before the expiration date indicated on DD Form 2400, the insurer will send written notice of policy cancellation or coverage reduction to the Air Force approving authority at least 30 days before the effective date of the cancellation or reduction. The policy must state that any cancellation or reduction will not be effective until at least 30 days after such notice is sent.
No. 725.

#### Walter M. Reeder et al. *v.*United States.

March 15, 1920.

*Mr. John W. Scoihorn*for petitioners.

*Mr. Assistant Attorney General Stewart*and *Mr. W. C. Herron*for the United States.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
##### 



Exhibit 12
 
 Fiscal Year2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005Computation
of Earnings:Income before income taxes
    
    $
    32,239
    
    
    $
    31,160
    
    
    $
    38,752Add:Minority interest
    
    
    2,003
    
    
    
    3,218
    
    
    
    4,097Interest expense
    
    
    47,670
    
    
    
    47,648
    
    
    
    47,312Amortization of debt
premium/discount and expenses
    
    
    2,678
    
    
    
    2,638
    
    
    
    1,967Interest portion of rent expense
    
    
    1,299
    
    
    
    1,199
    
    
    
    1,056Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    85,889
    
    
    $
    85,863
    
    
    $
    93,184Computation of Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    47,670
    
    
    $
    47,648
    
    
    $
    47,312Capitalized interest
    
    
    405
    
    
    
    531
    
    
    
    218Amortization of debt premium/discount and expenses
    
    
    2,678
    
    
    
    2,638
    
    
    
    1,967Interest portion of rent expense
    
    
    1,299
    
    
    
    1,199
    
    
    
    1,056Fixed charges
    
    $
    52,052
    
    
    $
    52,016
    
    
    $
    50,553Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    1.65
    
    
    
    1.65
    
    
    
    1.84
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BILL BEIGL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 150

)

NORTHWEST COLLECTORS, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This Court has previously granted the motion for sanctions

filed by defendant Northwest Collectors, Inc. (“Northwest”)

against plaintiff Bill Beigl (“Beigl”) for having violated the

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Northwest’s counsel have

filed two submissions in support of their request seeking Beigl’s

payment of its attorney’s fees and expenses, and this memorandum

order is issued following Beigl’s failure to respond.

Although Northwest’s October 4 submission requests an

aggregate payment of $25,227.50 in fees and $1,024.50 in

expenses, this Court’s review of the time records and invoices

attached as exhibits reveals that such a claim is excessive. 

That is so because at a point when Northwest’s total obligation

to its counsel aggregated $10,000, all further bills submitted by

Northwest’s law firm were rendered not to its client but to The

Travelers Companies, Inc.

It appears clear that Northwest’s insurance coverage had a

$10,000 deductible, with the excess being paid by the insurer. 
Accordingly Beigl is ordered to pay to Northwest a sum of

$9,801.25 (the $10,000 billed by the law firm to Northwest, less

$198.75 in expenses disallowed by this Court).

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: November 13, 2012

2