alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Morris Somers, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

January 7, 1965.

*John G. Bonomi*of counsel *(Raymond*P. *Whearty*with him on the brief), for petitioner.

*Jacob H. Weinstock*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in this Department in December, 1926. A Referee has found that charges that respondent grossly neglected to prosecute a client’s action, in which he had been substituted, and that he had failed to co-operate with the Committee on Grievances of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, have been sustained. Our review of the record convinces us that the evidence supports the findings of the Referee.

While, as the Referee reported, the client may have contributed to the neglect of his cause, there is no question but that respondent’s neglect was the dominant factor in the client’s eventual predicament. Respondent’s failure to reply to inquiries by the Grievance Committee was admitted by him. We have given due consideration to respondent’s explanation that he did not willfully disregard the committee but that he was then preoccupied with the serious deterioration of the health of his daughter. Nevertheless, the record shows that this was not the first instance in which he had failed to co-operate with the Grievance Committee.

The respondent has previously been censured by this court. *(Matter of Somers,*12 A D 2d 9.)

Under all of the circumstances, respondent’s conduct indicates a failure to conform to the standards expected of an attorney, and requires us to find him guilty of professional misconduct. *326Respondent should be suspended for a period of one year. Botein, P. J., Rabir, Valerte, Stevens and Eageb, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of one year effective February 7, 1965. , .
#### Barbara W. Cross et al., Respondents, v. Star Super Markets, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. (Appeals from a judgment, as amended, and from an order of Monroe Trial Term for plaintiffs, in an action under a claimed breach of warranty to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff Barbara Cross as the result of the explosion of a Coca-Cola bottle. The order denied a motion by defendant Star Super Markets, Inc., for a new trial.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Form 10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended March 30,
2008

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 Briggs & Stratton Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John S. Shiely, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ John S. Shiely     
|John S. Shiely         
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 9, 2008            

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro MAGDALENO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10598

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 17, 2008.

Alan M. Buie, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard Alley, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ramiro Magdaleno appeals his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana and aiding and abetting. He argues that he was deprived of due process and his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because he was sentenced based on facts not admitted by him or found by a jury. Because Magdaleno did not raise this issue in the district court, review is limited to plain error. *See United States v. Green,*324 F.3d 375, 381 (5th Cir.2003). Magdaleno has not shown any error, plain or otherwise, as this court has held that after *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the Sixth Amendment does not prevent a sentencing judge from finding all facts relevant to sentencing. *See United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 553 (5th Cir.2006).

Magdaleno avers that the district court reversibly erred in failing to sua sponte conduct a Fed.R.Crim.P. 44(c)(1)(B) & (2) hearing to determine whether a conflict of interest existed. Magdaleno has failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest. *See United States v. Lyons,*703 F.2d 815, 820 (5th Cir.1983). Therefore, the district court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 44(c). *See id.*The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### 1915.106-70 Key personnel and facilities.

Whenever contractor selection has been substantially predicated on the contractor's possession of special capabilities (i.e., personnel and/or facilities) the contracting officer shall include the clause at 1952.215-70 in the awarded contract.
EXHIBIT C

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 438-4 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:6525
Case 1:15-md-02599-FAM Document 3632 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2020 Page 1 of 3 Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 438-4 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:6526
Case 1:15-md-02599-FAM Document 3632 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2020 Page 2 of 3 Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 438-4 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:6527
Case 1:15-md-02599-FAM Document 3632 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2020 Page 3 of 3 Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 438-4 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:6528
Sunday, March 06, 2016

Petition for Exemption

Brandon Roberts

Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

800 Independence Ave. S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

Mr. Roberts.

To keep our lines of communications open and keep this request open I would like to add more 

information.

On occasion we subcontract our planes out to the military and their special ops groups. These 

groups include, but are not limited to; the Navy Seals and Para Rescue teams. In their operations 

all they need is a ground reference to determine the correct spot over the DZ to jump. We are 

requesting the same leeway regarding cloud clearances. 

The military is granted this exemption despite the infrequency of their training and the 

unfamiliarity that many of their jumpers have at our dropzone. We are requesting the same 

exemption for our own staff who each conduct hundreds of jumps a year at our facility with no 

incidents. 

Please briefly read over in the Australian Jumping through cloud procedures pages 17. 18. & 19. 

There is some interesting information there.

Thank you for taking the time to consider our request.

Sincerely,

Randy Pacheco

Chief Pilot/USPA Safety & Training Advisor

68-615 Farrington Hwy. 14A

Waialua, HI 96791

(916) 765-6516 emailrandypacheco@yahoo.com

ATP # 3134763 other pilots to be added later
211.274-2 Policy for item unique identification. ( a ) It is DoD policy that DoD item unique identification, or a DoD recognized unique identification equivalent, is required for all delivered items, including items of contractor-acquired property delivered on contract line items (see PGI 245.402-71 for guidance when delivery of contractor acquired property is required)— ( 1 ) For which the Government's unit acquisition cost is $5,000 or more;
( 2 ) For which the Government's unit acquisition cost is less than $5,000 when the requiring activity determines that item unique identification is required for mission essential or controlled inventory items; or
( 3 ) Regardless of value for any— ( i ) DoD serially managed item (reparable or nonreparable) or subassembly, component, or part embedded within a subassembly, component, or part;
( ii ) Parent item (as defined in 252.211-7003(a)) that contains the embedded subassembly, component, or part;
( iii ) Warranted serialized item;
( iv ) Item of special tooling or special test equipment, as defined at FAR 2.101, for a major defense acquisition program that is designated for preservation and storage in accordance with the requirements of section 815 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417); and
( v ) High risk item identified by the requiring activity as vulnerable to supply chain threat, a target of cyber threats, or counterfeiting.
( b ) *Exceptions.* The contractor will not be required to provide DoD item unique identification if— ( 1 ) The items, as determined by the head of the contracting activity, are to be used to support a contingency or humanitarian or peacekeeping operation; to facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; to facilitate the provision of international disaster assistance; or to support response to an emergency or major disaster; or
( 2 ) A determination and findings has been executed concluding that it is more cost effective for the Government requiring activity to assign, mark, and register the unique item identifier after delivery, and the item is either acquired from a small business concern, or is a commercial product acquired under FAR part 12 or 8. ( i ) The determination and findings shall be executed by— ( A ) The Component Acquisition Executive for an acquisition category (ACAT) I program; or
( B ) The head of the contracting activity for all other programs.
( ii ) The DoD Unique Identification Policy Office must receive a copy of the determination and findings required by paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this subsection. Follow the procedures at PGI 211.274-2.
[70 FR 20836, Apr. 22, 2005, as amended at 76 FR 33168, June 8, 2011; 77 FR 52257, Aug. 29, 2012; 78 FR 76071, Dec. 16, 2013; 83 FR 24889, May 30, 2018; 88 FR 6581, Jan. 31, 2023]
EXHIBIT 99.4
                      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 on Form 10-K of Modern Technology
Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, being Arthur Seidenfeld, 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;

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/ Arthur Seidenfeld

    Arthur Seidenfeld
    President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer and Director
    September 3, 2003
#### 22.1009 Place of performance unknown.
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

Alaska Department of Education and Early Development801 West 10th Street, Suite 200P.O. Box 110500Juneau, AK 99811-0500Phone: (907) 465-2800Fax: (907) 465-4685Website: http://education.alaska.gov/

### State Higher Education Agency

Alaska Commission on Postsecondary EducationP.O. Box 110505Juneau, AK 99811-0505Phone: (907) 465-2962Toll-Free: (800) 441-2962Fax: (907) 465-5316Website: http://acpe.alaska.gov/

### Special Education Agency

Special Education OfficeAlaska Department of Education and Early Development801 West 10th Street, Suite 200P.O. Box 110500Juneau, AK 99811-0500Phone: (907) 465-2972Fax: (907) 465-2806Website: http://education.alaska.gov/TLS/#SPED

### State Adult Education Agency

Department of Labor and Workforce DevelopmentEmployment and Training ServicesAlaska Adult Education/ GED OfficeP.O. Box 11509 Juneau, AK 99811-5509 Phone: (907) 465-8714Fax: (907) 465-4186 Website: https://jobs.alaska.gov/aae/

Back to state map
#### 2152.246-70 Quality assurance requirements.

As prescribed by 2146.270-1 insert the following clause:

# Quality Assurance Requirements (OCT 2005)

(a) The Contractor shall develop and apply a quality assurance program as directed by the Contracting Officer pursuant to LIFAR 2146.270.

(b) The Contractor must keep complete records of its quality assurance procedures and the results of their implementation and make them available to an authorized Government entity during contract performance and for 5 years after the end of the contract term to which the records relate.

(c) The Contracting Officer or his or her representative has the right to inspect and test all services called for by the contract, to the extent practicable, at all times and places during the term of the contract and for as long afterward as the contract requires. The Contracting Officer or his or her representative shall perform any inspections and tests in a manner that will not unduly delay the work.

(End of clause)

[58 FR 40381, July 28, 1993, as amended at 70 FR 41157, July 18, 2005]
209.403 Definitions. *Debarring and suspending official.* ( 1 ) For DoD, the designees are— (i) Army—Director, Soldier & Family Legal Services. (ii) Navy/Marine Corps—The Assistant General Counsel (Acquisition Integrity). (iii) Air Force—Deputy General Counsel (Contractor Responsibility). (iv) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency—The Director. (v) Defense Health Agency—The Principal Deputy General Counsel. (vi) Defense Information Systems Agency—The General Counsel. (vii) Defense Intelligence Agency—The Senior Procurement Executive. (viii) Defense Logistics Agency—The Special Assistant for Contracting Integrity. (ix) Defense Threat Reduction Agency—The Director. (x) Missile Defense Agency—The General Counsel. (xi) National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency—The General Counsel. (xii) National Security Agency—The Senior Acquisition Executive. (xiii) United States Cyber Command—The Staff Judge Advocate. (xiv) Overseas installations—as designated by the agency head.
( 2 ) Overseas debarring and suspending officials— ( i ) Are authorized to debar or suspend contractors located within the official's geographic area of responsibility under any delegation of authority they receive from their agency head.
( ii ) Debar or suspend in accordance with the procedures in FAR subpart 9.4 or under modified procedures approved by the agency head based on consideration of the laws or customs of the foreign countries concerned.
( iii ) In addition to the bases for debarment in FAR 9.406-2, may consider the following additional bases— ( A ) The foreign country concerned determines that a contractor has engaged in bid-rigging, price-fixing, or other anti-competitive behavior; or
( B ) The foreign country concerned declares the contractor to be formally debarred, suspended, or otherwise ineligible to contract with that foreign government or its instrumentalities.
( 3 ) The Defense Logistics Agency Special Assistant for Contracting Integrity is the exclusive representative of the Secretary of Defense to suspend and debar contractors from the purchase of Federal personal property under the Federal Property Management Regulations (41 CFR 101-45.6) and the Defense Materiel Disposition Manual (DoD 4160.21-M).
[56 FR 36313, July 31, 1991, as amended at 56 FR 67212, Dec. 30, 1991; 59 FR 27669, May 27, 1994; 60 FR 61593, Nov. 30, 1995; 61 FR 50452, Sept. 26, 1996; 63 FR 11528, Mar. 9, 1998; 64 FR 51075, Sept. 21, 1999; 64 FR 62985, Nov. 18, 1999; 68 FR 7439, Feb. 14, 2003; 70 FR 14573, Mar. 23, 2005; 74 FR 42780, Aug. 25, 2009; 74 FR 52895, Oct. 15, 2009; 76 FR 11367, Mar. 2, 2011; 76 FR 76319, Dec. 7, 2011; 77 FR 23631, Apr. 20, 2012; 77 FR 52253, Aug. 29, 2012; 84 FR 18155, Apr. 30, 2019; 88 FR 37794, June 9, 2023]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1

Eastern Division

Michelle Holt

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−02571

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

MRS BPO, L.L.C.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, April 14, 2014:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin:Plaintiff's motion in

limine [89] is denied for the reasons stated orally. Jury trial begun on 4/14/2014. Jury

Trial continued to 4/15/2014 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice(srn, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-02571 Document #: 91 Filed: 04/14/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1078
225.370 Contracts requiring performance or delivery in a foreign country. ( a ) If the acquisition requires the performance of services or delivery of supplies in an area outside the United States, follow the procedures at PGI 225.370(a).
( b ) For work performed in Germany, eligibility for logistics support or base privileges of contractor employees is governed by U.S.-German bilateral agreements. Follow the procedures at Army in Europe Regulation 715-9, available at *http://www.eur.army.mil/g1/content/CPD/docper/docper_germanyLinks.html* under “AE Regs & Resources.”
( c ) For work performed in Japan or Korea, see PGI 225.370(b) for information on bilateral agreements and policy relating to contractor employees in Japan or Korea.
( d ) For work performed in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, follow the procedures for theater business clearance/contract administration delegation instructions at PGI 225.370(d).
[80 FR 36901, June 26, 2015, as amended at 80 FR 56930, Sept. 21, 2015]
#### 1352.227-70 Rights in data, assignment of copyright.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1327.404-4(a), insert the following clause:

# Rights in Data, Assignment of Copyright (APR 2010)

In accordance with 48 CFR 52.227-17, Rights in Data—Special Works, the contractor agrees to assign copyright to data, including reports and other copyrightable materials, first produced in performance of this contract to the United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of Commerce.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
#### Irving F. Krause v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co. et al.

Motion for an enlargement of time granted insofar as to extend the appellant’s time to serve and file the record on appeal and appellant’s points to and including December 5, 1960, with notice of argument for the January 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. The order of this court, entered on September 29, 1960, is modified accordingly. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2600

www.ed.gov 

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

October 20, 2020

Honorable Wayne Mandiola 

Acting Secretary of Education 

Federated States of Micronesia 

P.O. Box PS 87 

Palikir, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia 96941 

wmandiola@dss.edu.fm

Dear Acting Secretary Mandiola: 

This letter grants final approval under Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions 

Act for grant award H027A180005. 

The Department received your July 17, 2020 request on behalf of the Federated States of 

Micronesia for a waiver extending the period of availability for Federal fiscal year 

(FFY) 2018 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grant award funds. 

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant award funds will be available for 

obligation through September 30, 2021 and may be liquidated through December 30, 2021. 

Please contact your Office of Special Education Programs State Lead, Genee Norbert at 

Genee.Norbert@ed.gov, if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

Mark Schultz 

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration 

Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties 

of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

cc: State Director
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrence Hamlin, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 144]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered February 25, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

*362The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to give an adverse inference instruction concerning the fact that a police officer discarded a photograph of the victim. The officer testified that he did so because the photo was too dark to show anything about the victim’s physical condition, and the victim also testified to the poor quality of the photo. Since there is nothing in the record to suggest that this photo might have undermined the victim’s testimony that defendant choked him during the robbery causing scratches to his neck, there was no prejudice to defendant *(see e.g. People v Adams,*300 AD2d 92 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 625 [2003]). Moreover, defense counsel exploited the disappearance of the photograph in cross-examination and summation and defendant’s conviction was predicated on the presence of an accomplice actually present, not injury. The evidence overwhelmingly established that this incident was a robbery of a cab driver, and not a dispute over an unpaid fare, as claimed by defendant. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.
#### Molly C. Abelson, Respondent, v. Max M. Abelson, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In an action to declare, that plaintiff is the lawful wife of the defendant Max M. Abelson, and for other relief, the said defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 8, 1963, which directed him to pay to plaintiff the sum of $250 and the cost of printing her brief in order to enable her to defend the appeal taken by him from an order of that court, dated June 25, 1963, which granted her motion for counsel fees and awarded her the sum of $750. [See *Abelson*v. *Abelson,*19 A D 2d 840.] Order of August 8, 1963 affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiff. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.