alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
227.7006 Investigation and administrative disposition of claims. An investigation and administrative determination (denial or settlement) of each claim shall be made in accordance with instructions and procedures established by each Department, subject to the following: ( a ) When the procurement responsibility for the alleged infringing item or process is assigned to a single Department or only one Department is the purchaser of the alleged infringing item or process, and the funds of that Department only are to be charged in the settlement of the claim, that Department shall have the sole responsibility for the investigation and administrative determination of the claim and for the execution of any agreement in settlement of the claim. Where, however, funds of another Department are to be charged, in whole or in part, the approval of such Department shall be obtained as required by 208.7002. Any agreement in settlement of the claim, approved pursuant to 208.7002 shall be executed by each of the Departments concerned.
( b ) When two or more Departments are the respective purchasers of alleged infringing items or processes and the funds of those Departments are to be charged in the settlement of the claim, the investigation and administrative determination shall be the responsibility of the Department having the predominant financial interest in the claim or of the Department or Departments as jointly agreed upon by the Departments concerned. The Department responsible for negotiation shall, throughout the negotiation, coordinate with the other Departments concerned and keep them advised of the status of the negotiation. Any agreement in the settlement of the claim shall be executed by each Department concerned.
#### 25.703 Prohibition on contracting with entities that engage in certain activities or transactions relating to Iran.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The consolidated Balance Sheet on the Form 10-K for the period ended November
30, 1997 and the consolidated statement of operations as filed on Form 10-K for
the period ended November 30, 1997
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,042
<SECURITIES>                                    28,892
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                       411
<INVENTORY>                                        696
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,062
<PP&E>                                          11,728
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,624
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,916
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,759
<SALES>                                         46,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,660
<CGS>                                           18,238
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,238
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,425
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   187
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    778
<INCOME-TAX>                                       161
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                617
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       617
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.07
        

</TABLE>
#### 252.222-7003 Permit from Italian Inspectorate of Labor.

As prescribed in 222.7201(b), use the following clause:

# Permit From Italian Inspectorate of Labor (JUN 1997)

Prior to the date set for commencement of work and services under this contract, the Contractor shall obtain the prescribed permit from the Inspectorate of Labor having jurisdiction over the work site, in accordance with Article 5g of Italian Law Number 1369, dated October 23, 1960. The Contractor shall ensure that a copy of the permit is available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Contracting Officer or an authorized representative. Failure to obtain such permit may result in termination of the contract for the convenience of the United States Government, at no cost to the United States Government.

(End of clause)

[62 FR 34129, June 24, 1997]
');
	document.write('

April 1, 2009

Dear Member of Congress:

In order to ensure accountability for the use of these  funds, the recipients of these funds will be required to report on the number  of education jobs that are saved, the uses of funds, and the amount of State  and local tax increases averted because of the ARRA. The SFSF application package also requires each State receiving  funds to provide baseline data on education reforms embodied in the law. Our goal is to be absolutely transparent  about how we invest this funding, educate our children, evaluate our teachers, and measure success.

The  guidance documents and SFSF application are available on the Department of  Education Web site (www.ed.gov/recovery). This site also provides information about allocations under the American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act. Department staff are reaching out directly  to educators, State educational agencies, and State and local leaders to answer  questions and move the process forward. Finally, staff from our Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs are available to answer any questions you or your staff may have, and they may be reached at (202) 401-0020.

This is an  extraordinary time for our country – a time of great challenges and even  greater opportunities. Thanks to  leadership in Congress and the President's deep commitment to education, we  have the resources to boost our economy in the short term and strengthen it for  the long term. I look forward to  working with you to meet both of these goals.

| | Sincerely, 
| | -----------
| | /s/        
| | Arne Duncan
Interested in learning about how to get and manage a grant from ED?

Grantmaking at EDPDF (721K)

*Grantmaking at ED* provides a non-technical summary of ED's discretionary grant process and the laws and  regulations that govern it. This document has been updated to include as of April 2021 applicable laws and regulations governing discretionary grants at ED. Additional updates, to keep this document current, will be provided as needed. 

This publication is intended for individuals and organizations that are interested in applying to ED for discretionary grants and cooperative agreements, have received an award, or are interested in knowing more about ED's discretionary grant process. It describes how grant programs are administered by ED, and the process for the public to apply for and receive discretionary grants.

This document does not contain information about ED programs that give student  financial assistance or funding through formula grant programs. Information  about federal student aid is available at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grants-college.html. Information about all ED grants is available at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/find/title/index.html.  Readers may also refer to "Other Information" at the end of this publication to locate information on other types of assistance. 

We hope you find this publication helpful. We appreciate your interest in our grant programs and look forward to working with you to promote educational excellence and equity in the United States.

Grantmaking at ED, April 2021  PDF (721K)
# C_2017039EN.01000102.xml

| 7.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8074 — Schneider Electric/DB Energie/inno2grid JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 39/02)

On 19 January 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8074. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8074. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### FEUER v. BROOKLYN, Q. C. & S. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 17, 1906.)

1. Evidence—Verdicts against Evidence—Numerical Preponderance of Witnesses.

In an action against a street railroad for injuries to a passenger, a verdict for plaintiff, supported by his uncorroborated testimony and opposed by the testimony of three eyewitnesses, two of whom were disinterested, as to the substantial details of the accident, and by three other witnesses in relation to circumstances existing after the accident and the condition of plaintiff, was against the weight of the evidence.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 20, Cent. Dig. Evidence, §§ 2437, 2450.]

2. Courts—Municipal Courts—Review op Facts—Verdicts against Evidence.

Under Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, p. 1583, c. 580, § 326, requiring the appellate court to render judgment on the merits and to affirm or reverse for errors of law or of fact, and to order a new trial where the judgment is contrary to the weight of the evidence, the Appellate Term may, on appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court, review the facts, for the purpose of determining whether the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, although there is no appeal from an order denying a new trial.

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

Action by Meyer Feuer against the Brooklyn, Queens County & Suburban Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, P. T., and BLANCHARD and DOW-LING, JJ.

Geo. D. Yeomans (H. F. Ives, of counsel), for appellant.

I. Henry Harris, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff. The action was brought to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff while alighting from one of the defendant’s cars.

The plaintiff stands alone and uncorroborated as to his version of the accident. He is contradicted in the substantial details of the accident by three eyewitnesses, two of whom were disinterested. Three other witnesses called by the defendant testified in contradiction of the plaintiff as to circumstances existing after the accident, which tended to throw doubt upon the plaintiff’s version thereof, and particularly as to the condition of the plaintiff. In this state of the testimony, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff seems contrary to the weight of the evi*294dence, and calls for a reversal. Maloney v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 95 App. Div. 393, 88 N. Y. Supp. 638.

The respondent’s contention that this court cannot review the facts for the purpose of determining whether the verdict is contrary to the weight of evidence, because the appellant is appealing from the judgment, and not from an order denying a new trial, is opposed to section 326 of the municipal court act (Laws 1902, p. 1583, c. 580). See, also, Ayvard v. Powers, 25 Misc. Rep. 476, 54 N. Y. Supp. 984.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
#### In the Matter of Holding Corp. et al., Petitioners, v Hilda G. Schwartz, as a Justice of the New York Supreme Court, Respondent.

Application for an order in the nature of a writ of mandamus denied and the petition dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. A stay of execution and enforcement of the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about March 15, 1979, is granted for five days from the date of this court’s order to allow intervenor, 830 Realty Co., an opportunity to apply to vacate the writ of assistance. No opinion. Concur— Birns, J. P., Sandler and Lupiano, JJ.; Markewich, J., dissents in part and would deny stay.
244.201-1 Consent requirements. ( a ) In accordance with section 824 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232), notwithstanding the requirements in FAR 44.201-1(a), the contracting officer shall not withhold consent to subcontract without the written approval of the program manager, or comparable requiring activity official exercising program management responsibilities, if the contractor has an approved purchasing system, as defined in FAR 44.101.
(S-70) In solicitations and contracts for information technology, whether acquired as a service or as a supply, that is a covered system or covered item of supply as those terms are defined at 239.7301, consider the need for a consent to subcontract requirement regarding supply chain risk (see subpart 239.73). For additional guidance see PGI 244.201-1. [80 FR 67252, Oct. 30, 2015, as amended at 84 FR 12141, Apr. 1, 2019]
#### 204.7201 Definition.

As used in this subpart—

*Military installation* means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department or, in the case of an activity in a foreign country, under the operational control of the Secretary of a military department or the Secretary of Defense (see 10 U.S.C. 2801(c)(4)).
#### William Cleveland *vs.*Samuel A. Booth, impleaded, etc.

February 17, 1890.

Mortgage — Coupon Mote — Action by Coupon-Holder to Foreclose.— The holder of overdue coupon interest notes, secured by mortgage, may maintain an aetion to foreclose the mortgage, although the principal debt is not yet mature, and is held by another person, who is made a party to the suit.

Appeal by defendant Booth (impleaded with Mrs. Wm. B. Hamilton) from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, *Hooker,*J., presiding, overruling his separate demurrer to the complaint.

*R. B. Forrest,*for appellant.

*Armstrong Taylor,*for respondent.

Dickinson, J.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action to foreclose a mortgage. For the understanding of the issue of law thus presented, a summary of the facts more fully set forth in the complaint will be sufficient. The mortgage was given to secure a promissory note, together with several coupon notes for the interest to become due on the principal note. It contained a power of sale, to be exercised in case of default in payment of the principal or interest, or of any part thereof. By successive conveyances from the mortgagor, all of which were made subject to the mortgage, the land has come to this defendant Booth, who now owns it subject to the mortgage. The mortgage, through several intermediate assignments, has been transferred to the other defendant, Mrs. Hamilton. But, prior to the assignment to her, a former holder of the mortgage detached several of the coupon notes, which have been assigned to the plaintiff, and which are past due. The principal debt was not mature when the plaintiff, as the holder of such coupon notes, commenced this action to foreclose the mortgage. The defendant Booth alone prosecutes this appeal. The complaint states a cause of action. The plaintiff was entitled to foreclose for the secured interest notes due and unpaid, although the principal was not yet mature. Gen. St. 1878, *c.*81, §§ 3, 4; *Fowler*v. *John*
      *17
      *son,*26 Minn. 338, (3 N. W. Rep. 986, and 6 N. W. Rep. 486.) Neither is the relief of a foreclosure to be denied plaintiff because the principal debt is held by another person. The latter is made a party to this action, and her rights will not be disregarded. In what precise form relief will be granted is a matter not now to be considered.

Order affirmed.
#### ROMANO V. BOYD et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

February 27, 1906.)

Judgment—Conformity to Verdict.

A finding showing that the jury intended to give plaintiff the entire value of the horse in controversy, on the assumption that title and possession would remain in the defendant, will not justify a judgment giving plaintiff the entire value of the horse, with the right to resume possession.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.

Action by Salvatore Romano against Wethered J. Boyd and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Affirmed on condition.

Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GIEGERICH and GREEN-BAUM, JJ.

Berry, Davis & Breen, for appellants.

Palmieri & Wechsler, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment as entered does not appear to represent the finding, of the jury. The latter evidently intended to give plaintiff the entire value of the horse, on the assumption that title and possession would remain in defendant. This is a very different thing from giving plaintiff the whole value of the horse, with the right to resume possession.

The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless plaintiff will stipulate to reduce the judgment by $75, in which case the judgment as so modified will be affirmed, without costs to either party.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549



FORM 10-Q/A



QUARTERLY REPORT

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



For the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005



CENTURY REALTY TRUST

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



|                                                                                                 |                                 |                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|INDIANA
(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation or organization)                           | 0-7716
(Commission File Number) | 35-1284316
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|                                                                                                 |                                 |                                                
|823 Chamber of Commerce Building, Indianapolis, Indiana
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) | 46204
(Zip Code)               



(317) 632-5467

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)



N/A

(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)



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



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer.  See definition of accelerated filer and large accelerated filer in Rule 12b-23 of the Exchange Act.



Large Accelerated Filer  __

Accelerated Filer __

Non-Accelerated Filer  X



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes __ No X



Shares of Beneficial Interest, no par value--1,802,842 shares outstanding as of latest practicable date.





Explanatory Note:

We are amending our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 to revise the officer certifications set forth in Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 to reflect the language exactly as set forth in Item 601(b)(31) of Regulations S-K.



ITEM 15. EXHIBITS



Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications:

31.1 - Certification by Principal Executive Officer

31.2 - Certification by Principal Financial and Accounting Officer





______________________________________________________________________________



SIGNATURE



Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.



CENTURY REALTY TRUST





Date:  June 7, 2006

By:  /s/John I. Bradshaw, Jr.

Name:  John I. Bradshaw, Jr.

Title:  President and Trustee