alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
239.7305 Exclusion and limitation on disclosure. Subject to 239.7304, the individuals authorized in 239.7303 may, in the course of procuring information technology, whether as a service or as a supply, that is a covered system, is a part of a covered system, or is in support of a covered system— ( a ) Exclude a source that fails to meet qualification standards established in accordance with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 3243, for the purpose of reducing supply chain risk in the acquisition of covered systems;
( b ) Exclude a source that fails to achieve an acceptable rating with regard to an evaluation factor providing for the consideration of supply chain risk in the evaluation of proposals for the award of a contract or the issuance of a task or delivery order;
( c ) Withhold consent for a contractor to subcontract with a particular source or direct a contractor for a covered system to exclude a particular source from consideration for a subcontract under the contract; and
( d ) Limit, notwithstanding any other provision of law, in whole or in part, the disclosure of information relating to the basis for carrying out any of the actions authorized by paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, and if such disclosures are so limited— ( 1 ) No action undertaken by the individual authorized under such authority shall be subject to review in a bid protest before the Government Accountability Office or in any Federal court; and
( 2 ) The authorized individual shall— ( i ) Notify appropriate parties of action taken under paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section and the basis for such action only to the extent necessary to effectuate the action;
( ii ) Notify other Department of Defense components or other Federal agencies responsible for procurements that may be subject to the same or similar supply chain risk, in a manner and to the extent consistent with the requirements of national security; and
( iii ) Ensure the confidentiality of any such notifications.
[78 FR 69271, Nov. 18, 2013, as amended at 80 FR 67251, Oct. 30, 2015; 87 FR 76996, Dec. 16, 2022]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

** **

I, John P. D. Cato, Chairman, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of The Cato Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that on the date of this Certification:

 

1.  theForm 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended April 30, 2011 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

Dated:June 8, 2011

|   |                    |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | /s/ John P. D. Cato     |
|   | John P. D. Cato         |
|   | Chairman, President and |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

 

31

 

----
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors
DNB Financial Corporation:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-78913, 333-121145, 333-125999, 333-126610 and
333-138214 on Form S-8 and 333-131954 on Form S-3 of DNB Financial Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated March 31, 2009,
with respect to the consolidated statement of financial condition of DNB Financial Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of DNB
Financial Corporation.

Our
report on the consolidated financial statements refers to the adoption of by DNB Financial Corporation of FASB Statement No. 157,Fair Value
Measurements(included in FASB ASC Subtopic 820-10,Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures), effective
January 1, 2008.

/s/ KPMG LLP Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 26, 2010


---



QuickLinks
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 17 (Thursday, January 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 7452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01907]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice:11336 ]

Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Hockney-Van Gogh: The Joy of 
Nature'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Hockney-Van Gogh: The Joy of 
Nature'' at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, in Houston, Texas, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of 
cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or 
display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: [email protected]). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000.

Matthew R. Lussenhop,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-01907 Filed 1-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
225.7011-2 Waiver. The Secretary of the department responsible for acquisition may waive this restriction, on a case-by-case basis, by certifying to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that— ( a ) Adequate U.S. or Canadian supplies are not available to meet DoD requirements on a timely basis; and
( b ) The acquisition must be made in order to acquire capability for national security purposes.
[68 FR 15627, Mar. 31, 2003]
232.703-1 General. ( 1 ) A fixed-price contract may be incrementally funded only if— ( i ) The contract (excluding any options) or any exercised option— ( A ) Is for severable services;
( B ) Does not exceed one year in length; and
( C ) Is incrementally funded using funds available (unexpired) as of the date the funds are obligated; or
( ii ) The contract uses funds available from multiple (two or more) fiscal years and— ( A ) The contract is funded with research and development appropriations; or
( B ) Congress has otherwise authorized incremental funding.
( 2 ) An incrementally funded fixed-price contract shall be fully funded as soon as funds are available.
[71 FR 18673, Apr. 12, 2006]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Foreman, Appellant.

Consolidated appeals by defendant: (1) from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered December 1, 1961 on his prior plea of *guilty to*robbery in the second degree (unarmed), resentencing him as a first felony offender to serve a term of 7% to 15 years in lieu of the original sentence of 9 to 18 years previously imposed upon him as a second felony offender on May 15, 1959; and (2) from an order of said former County Court, made November 8, 1962 in a *coram nobis*proceeding, which denied after a hearing his application to vacate the said judgment on resentence. Defendant’s resentence on December 1, 1961 as a first felony offender was occasioned by this court’s reversal of an earlier judgment, rendered June 24, 1948, convicting him of rape in the first degree (see 13 A D 2d 500, 12 A D 2d 489). Judgment on resentenee and order denying *coram nobis*application affirmed. No opinion. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Cascade Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Richard S. Anderson, Chief Financial 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)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Richard  S. Anderson  |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Richard S.  Anderson      |
| *Chief Financial Officer* |
| December 15,  2003        |

 

----
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

SORL Auto Parts, Inc.

No. 1169 Yumeng Road

Ruian Economic Development Zone

Ruian City, Zhejiang Province

People’s Republic of China

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-8 dated October 19, 2005, of our report dated April 1, 2004 relating to the audit of the consolidated financial statements of Ruili Group Corporation China (now known as SORL Auto Parts, Inc.) for the year ended December 31, 2003, included in the 2005 Amended Annual Report (Form 10-K amendment #3). as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

| /s/  Clancy and Co., P.L.L.C. |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
|                                    |   |
| Scottsdale,   AZ                   |   |
|                               |   |
| August 21,   2006                  |   |
|                               |   |
|                                    |
#### 22.404-7 Correction of wage determinations containing clerical errors.

Upon the Department of Labor's own initiative or at the request of the contracting agency, the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, may correct any wage determination found to contain clerical errors. Such corrections will be effective immediately, and will apply to any solicitation or active contract. Before contract award, the contracting officer must follow the procedures in 22.404-5(b)(1) or (2)(i) or (ii) in sealed bidding, and the procedures in 22.404-5(c)(3) or (4) in negotiations. After contract award, the contracting officer must follow the procedures at 22.404-6(b)(5), except that for contract modifications to exercise an option to extend the term of the contract, the contracting officer must follow the procedures at 22.404-6(d)(2).

[66 FR 53480, Oct. 22, 2001]
[J-57-2016] 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

IN RE: OBJECTION TO NOMINATION 

PETITIONS OF JARED SOLOMON TO 

BE A CANDIDATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

NOMINATION FOR OFFICE MEMBER 

OF THOSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FOR 202ND DISTRICT 

APPEAL OF: MARK COHEN 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 11 EAP 2016 

Appeal from the order entered on March 

18, 2016 in the Commonwealth Court at 

No. 116 M.D. 2016. 

SUBMITTED: March 24, 2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 2016, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is 

hereby affirmed in part and vacated in part. The portion of the order denying the 

Petition to Set Aside the Nomination Petition of Jared Solomon is affirmed. The portion 

of the order imposing costs against Mark Cohen is vacated and remanded. See In re 

Nomination Petition of Farnese, 17 A.3d 357 (Pa. 2011). On remand, we direct that the 

Commonwealth Court’s final order assessing costs shall reference costs by category 

and the amounts assessed, and shall include a rationale for the imposition of such 

costs.
Exhibit 32 (a)



UNITED FINANCIAL BANKING COMPANIES, INC.



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Form 10-KSB of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004, I, Harold C. Rauner, President and Chief Executive Officer of United Financial Banking Companies,
Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) | such Form 10-KSB, 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 such Form 10-KSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of United Financial Banking Companies,
Inc.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Harold C. Rauner                 
|Harold C. Rauner                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
#### 22.1101 Applicability.

The Service Contract Act of 1965, now codified at 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, Service Contract Labor Standards, was enacted to ensure that Government contractors compensate their blue-collar service workers and some white-collar service workers fairly, but it does not cover bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employees.

[79 FR 24207, Apr. 29, 2014]
Protecting StudentsRace, Color, or National Origin DiscriminationIssues

*OCR works to ensure that schools,  districts, colleges, and universities satisfy their Title VI obligation to give students of every race, color, and national origin equal access to high-rigor academic courses and programs, extracurricular activities, and other educational opportunities.*

 

 

----

 

              - Policy Guidance
              - Case Resolutions
              - Publications

### Policy Guidance
#### KING v HAMMOND.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Brokers—Variance—Action on Contract—Proof of Customs. "

Plaintiff in an action on an express contract to pay a certain commission for procuring a certain sale may not recover, ■ failing to prove the contract, on proof of a custom to pay such a commission to persons procuring such a sale.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District. •

Action by Robert S. King against James Hammond. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

Steuer, Hoffman & Wahle, for appellant.

James J. Fitzgerald, for respondent.

*122PER CURIAM.

The judgment in this action in favor of the plaintiff should be reversed. It is against the weight of evidence. The plaintiff sued upon an express contract alleged to have been made between himself and the defendant, whereby the defendant agreed to pay plaintiff a commission of 10 per cent, as a broker in procuring.the sale of five carriages by defendant to one Wechster. The plaintiff not only failed to prove any express contract as alleged, but was permitted, over objection and exception by defendant, to show a custom existing among carriage dealers of paying a commission of 10 per cent, to persons making sales for and on their behalf. Inasmuch as there must be a new trial, it may as well be said also that the plaintiff failed to show that he was employed by the defendant to make any sale, or was the procuring cause of the sale that was made.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
#### JEWELL, Appellant, v. JEWELL, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by James A. Jewell against Caroline L. Jewell.

H. B. Closson, for appellant.

W. Tharp, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 34 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 34

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications 
    Commission relating to ``Protecting the Privacy of Customers of 
           Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to 
``Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other 
Telecommunications Services'' (81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016)), 
and such rule shall have no force or effect.

            Passed the Senate March 23, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 34

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications 
    Commission relating to ``Protecting the Privacy of Customers of 
           Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services''.
```
#### 1632.171 Clause—community-rated contracts.

The clause at 1652.232-70 shall be inserted in all community-rated FEHBP contracts.

[57 FR 14360, Apr. 20, 1992]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ALEXIAN BROTHERS MEDICAL )

CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 3517

)

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL )

WORKER UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS )

MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Defendant, which for convenience has shortened its self-reference to "Health Benefits Fund"

(a usage that this Court will also employ), has filed its Answer and an Affirmative Defense ("AD")

to the ERISA-based Complaint brought against it by Alexian Brothers Medical Center. This sua

sponte memorandum order is triggered by some problematic aspects of that responsive pleading.

To begin with, Health Benefits Fund's counsel has ignored, and has therefore not complied

with, the mandate of this District Court's LR 10.1. Even apart from the obvious salutary purpose of

that LR, litigants are duty bound to comply with it.

Next, Answer ¶ 10 declines to respond to the corresponding allegation of Alexian's

Complaint on the predicate that it "alleges a conclusion of law." Nonsense – see, e.g., App'x ¶ 2 to

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Answer ¶ 10 is

therefore stricken. 
Finally, Health Benefits Fund's AD is totally at odds with the principle that an AD must

accept the complaint's allegations as true – see App'x ¶ 5 to State Farm. Here the AD flatly

contradicts Complaint ¶ 19, so it too is stricken.

Because of the first flaw identified in this memorandum order, the responsive pleading is

stricken in its entirety. Health Benefits Fund is of course granted leave to file an Amended Answer

(but without an AD) on or before July 9, 2012.

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 22, 2012.

- 2 -
EXHIBIT 23

Carter-Wallace, Inc.
1345 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY   10105

REGISTRATION STATEMENT NO.   333-00499

With respect to the subject registration statement, we acknowledge our awareness
of the use therein of our report dated August 10, 2001 related to our review of
interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

KPMG LLP
New York, New York
August 10, 2001
Certifications:

I, Joseph F. Kruy, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10QSB of Cambex Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date: November 15, 2004

/s/ Joseph F. Kruy
Joseph F. Kruy
President and Treasurer
(principal executive officer and principal financial officer)