alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NJ Home |                   Services                   A to Z | Departments/Agencies                   | FAQsNJ Army             GuardNJ Air             GuardVeterans             AffairsAdministrationYouth ChalleNGeOnline             ServicesSite             Map            DMAVA         Publications            General PublicationsBlank             FormsDepartmental             DirectivesDepartmental             Staff Memorandums Letters             of Instruction State             General OrdersNJ Admin             Code NJ             Veterans GuideState             Recognition AwardsState             Budget 2010Future             Reach Plan 2003-2013TAG             Report to the Legislature on the NJ Naval Militia Joint             Command            BulletinsArmyAirDepartmentalJointVeterans                         TAG Policy Letters2009200820072005200420032002            TAG Memorandums20102009200820072006            Other PublicationsEnvironmental             Publications            Veterans JournalFall             2009Spring             2009Fall             2008Spring             2008Winter             2007Fall             2007Summer             2007Winter             2006Fall             2006Spring             2006Winter             2005Fall             2005Summer             2005Summer             2004Fall             2003Fall             2002Winter             2002Summer             2001Spring             2001            Guardlife MagazineVolume             34 No. 5Volume             34 No. 4 Volume             34 No. 3 Volume             34 No. 2 Volume             34 No. 1 Volume             33 No. 6 Volume             33 No. 5 Volume             33 No. 4 Volume             33 No. 3 Volume             33 No. 2 Volume             33 No. 1 Volume             32 No. 6 Volume             32 No. 5 Volume             32 No. 4 Volume             32 No. 3Volume             32 No. 2Volume             32 No. 1Volume             31 No. 6Volume             31 No. 5Volume             31 No. 4Volume             31 No. 3Volume             31 No. 2Volume             31 No. 1Volume             30 No. 3Volume             30 No. 2Volume             30 No. 1Volume             29 No. 3 Volume             29 No. 2Volume             29 No. 1Volume             28 No. 4Volume             28 No. 3Volume             28 No. 2Volume             28 No. 1Volume             27 No. 2Volume             27 No. 1Volume             26 No. 3Contact Us |       Privacy Notice | Legal Statement | Accessibility StatementDepartment: Home | Army | Air | Veterans | Online Services             | Admin | Sitemap | LinksStatewide:             NJ Home | Services             A to Z | Departments/Agencies             | FAQsState of             New Jersey © 2006 - NJDMAVA, P.O. Box 340, TRENTON, NJ             08625-0340Updated: April 19, 2010             11:28
#### 2132.770 Insurance premium payments and special contingency reserve.

Insurance premium payments and a special contingency reserve are made available to FEGLI Program contractors in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 8712 and 8714.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7161
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME WILLIAM STONE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-80, CA-96-336-R) Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: January 9, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome William Stone, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying as premature his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. The district court's order is modified to reflect that Appellant's motion is denied without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1994). Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability and affirm on the reasoning of the district court, as modified. United States v. Stone , Nos. CR-94-80; CA-96-336-R (W.D. Va. June 14, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Douglas H. Miller, Chief Executive Officer of EXCO Resources, Inc.
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of EXCO Resources, Inc.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                          
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|Date: January 24, 2011 |  | /s/ DOUGLAS H. MILLER                    
|                       |  | Douglas H. Miller Chief
Executive Officer
210.002 Procedures. ( e ) ( i ) When contracting for services, see PGI 210.070 for the “Market Research Report Guide for Improving the Tradecraft in Services Acquisition”.
( ii ) See PGI 210.002(e)(ii) regarding potential offerors that express an interest in an acquisition.
( iii ) Follow the procedures at PGI 210.002(e)(iii) regarding contract file documentation.
[80 FR 21657, Apr. 20, 2015, as amended at 81 FR 65563, Sep. 23, 2016]
217.7103-3 Solicitations for job orders. ( a ) When a requirement arises within the United States or its outlying areas for the type of work covered by the master agreement, solicit offers from prospective contractors that— ( 1 ) Previously executed a master agreement; or
( 2 ) Have not previously executed a master agreement, but possess the necessary qualifications to perform the work and agree to execute a master agreement before award of a job order.
( b ) Follow the procedures at PGI 217.7103-3 when preparing solicitations for job orders.
[56 FR 36345, July 31, 1991, as amended at 63 FR 55052, Oct. 14, 1998; 63 FR 56290, Oct. 21, 1998; 70 FR 35545, June 21, 2005; 71 FR 27642, May 12, 2006]
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

VetBiz Corp, LLC ) ASBCA No. 61978

)

Under Contract No. W91151

- 16

- D

- 0003 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Sarah C. Reida

, Esq.

Legal Meets Practical, LLC

Naperville, IL

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

Army Chief Trial Attorney

Dana J. Chase, Esq.

MAJ Ronald M. Herrmann, JA

Trial Attorneys

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: September 10, 2020

I certi fy that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61978

, Appeal of VetBiz Corp, LLC

, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: September 10, 2020 JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

We hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-QSB of Reliability Incorporated (the Issuer) for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2008 (the Periodic Report):



| | 1. | 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Larry Edwards      
|Larry Edwards          
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 13, 2008
| Name                                                                    |   | Percentage                  Owned                                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Fushi                  Holdings, Inc.( Fushi Holdings)                  |   | 100%                                                                                      |
| Fushi                  International (Dalian) Bimetallic Cable Co., Ltd |   |                                                                                      |
| (Fushi                  International (Dalian))                         |   | 100%                                                                                      |
| Dalian                  Fushi Bimetallic Wire                           |   |                                                                                      |
| Manufacturing,                  Co., Ltd. (Dalian Fushi)                |   | 0%                  (control is through a contractual relationship                  only) |

----
#### Mary L. King, Appellant, v. Edward A. McCormick et al., Respondents.

Order [No. 6561], entered on July 15, 1963, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant, and motion of plaintiff granted to the extent of directing that, with respect to the demand of defendant Gerber, the plaintiff shall serve her .bill of particulars 30 days after completion of her examination of said defendant and of defendant Charles E. Murphy. The complaint contains allegations of breach of trust by alleged fiduciaries and of an alleged fraudulent conspiracy whereby plaintiff was divested of control of a corporation, also made defendant. Where, as here, the demand in this type of action, seeks considerable data and detail presently unknown to plaintiff and peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendants, then, in the interest of orderly procedure, the plaintiff should not be required to serve her bill of particulars until after the completion of the examination of the defendants. (See *Lustig*v. *Longehamps, Ine.,*279 App. Div. 928; *Carney*v. *Liebmann Breweries,*8 Mise 2d 1064; cf. *Penn-Texas Corp.*v. *Gliekman,*9 A D 2d 749.) Order [No. 6562], entered' on July 15, 1963; unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $10 costs •and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant, and motion of plaintiff granted to the "extent of directing that, with respect to the demand of defendant Charles E. Murphy, the plaintiff shall serve her bill of particulars 30 days after completion of her examination of said defendant and of defendant Gerber. The complaint contains allegations of breach of trust by alleged fiduciaries and of an alleged fraudulent conspiracy whereby plaintiff was divested of control of a corporation, also made defendant. Where, as here, the demand in this type of action, seeks considerable data and detail .presently unknown to plaintiff and peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendants, then, in the interest of orderly procedure, the plaintiff should not be required to serve her bill of particulars until after the completion of the examination of the defendants. (See *Lustig*v. *Longehamps, Inc.,*279 App. Div. 928; *Garney*v. *Liebmann Breweries,*8 Mise 2d 1064; cf., *Penn-Texas Corp.*v. *Gliekman,*9 A D 2d 749.) Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, iStevens and Eager, JJ.
#### CITY OF NEW YORK v. KEENER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 16, 1903.)

Action by the city of New York against William A. Keener.

No opinion. Motion denied.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice
 On January 14, 2021, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent 
                    ( print page 6367)
                    Decree with the District Court of the Southern District of New York in a lawsuit entitled 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Toyota Motor Corporation, et al.,*
                     Civil Action No. 21-323. In this action the United States seeks, as provided under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), civil penalties and injunctive relief from defendants in connection with violation of emission-defect reporting regulations promulgated at 40 CFR part 85, subpart T. The proposed Consent Decree resolves the United States' claims, requires defendants to pay $180 million, and imposes injunctive relief. The publication of this notice opens the public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Toyota Motor Corporation, et al.,*
                     Civil Action No. 21-323, D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-11477. All comments must be submitted no later than 30 days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By email
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.*By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website: 
                    *http://www.usdoj.gov/​enrd/​Consent_​Decrees.html.*
                     We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please email your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ-ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $9.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. Henry S. Friedman, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2021-01233 Filed 1-19-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

EMERY J. YOST, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 1074

)

CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On June 22, 2012 this Court granted orally the motion of the Chicago Park District

("District") to dismiss this employment discrimination action brought against it by Emery Yost

("Yost"), with each of Yost's several claims hinging on his having been the purported victim of

discrimination on the basis of his race (white) and his national origin (in the United States). As

the District's motion to dismiss demonstrated, Yost's entire Complaint foundered because the

person who received the promotion that Yost had sought was also white and a United States

citizen.

This Court has gone back to Yost's Complaint to look at Yost's situation vis-a-vis the

other named defendant, the City of Chicago ("City") itself. It turns out that despite Yost's

targeting of two defendants, the Complaint speaks only of "Defendant" in the singular, with no

allegations at all referring to conduct by the City rather than the District -- and of course the

District is an entirely separate and (suable) entity -- see 70 ILCS 1505/0.01 to 1505/26.11. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01074 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:87
Accordingly this Court also dismisses the City as a defendant. And that being the case,

the Complaint and this action are dismissed in their entirety.

_________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 26, 2012.

- 2 -

Case: 1:12-cv-01074 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:88
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

 

**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 Annual Report ofAXCESS International Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “***Report***”),I, Allan Griebenow, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

                (1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as applicable; and

 

                (2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periodsindicated.

 

 

 
| /S/ ALLAN GRIEBENOW                                                 |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Allan Griebenow                                                     |
| President, Chief Executive  Officer and Principal Executive Officer |

 

Dated: April 15, 2003

 

 

----

 

**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 Annual Report ofAXCESS International Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “***Report***”),I, Allan L. Frank, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary andPrincipal Accounting and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

                (1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as applicable; and

 

                (2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periodsindicated.

 

 

 
| /S/ ALLAN L. FRANK                                                                                 |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Allan L. Frank                                                                                     |
| Vice President, Chief  Financial Officer, Secretary and Principal Accounting and Financial Officer |

 

Dated: April 15, 2003

 

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10347 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NICOLAS CANTU-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:00-CR-106-1-C

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

August 23, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nicolas Cantu-Gonzalez appeals the 71-month term of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of

being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. Cantu-Gonzalez argues that his sentence should

not have exceeded the two-year maximum term of imprisonment

prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Cantu-Gonzalez acknowledges

that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision

in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but
No. 01-10347 

-2-

seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of

the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). CantuGonzalez’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has

filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The Government’s motion

to dismiss is DENIED. However, in light of our decision to

affirm the district court’s judgment, the Government need not

file an appellee’s brief. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED.