alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Richard Sharapata, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Arlene Sharapata, et al., Respondents, v Town of Islip, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 21, 1978, which directed it to produce for discovery and inspection certain documents including communications which were made prior to the happening of the accident in question. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Special Term correctly held that communications which preceded the happening of the accident do not constitute "Material prepared for litigation” within the purview of CPLR 3101 (subd [d], par 2) (see *Abrams v Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Co.,*37 AD2d 833; *Bennett v Troy*
      *926
      *Record Co.,*25 AD2d 799; 3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3101.51). Defendant’s other contentions are also without merit. Titone, J. P., Shapiro, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
#### 252.209-7008 Notice of Prohibition Relating to Organizational Conflict of Interest—Major Defense Acquisition Program.

As prescribed in 209.571-8(a), use the following provision:

# Notice of Prohibition Relating to Organizational Conflict of Interest—Major Defense Acquisition Program (DEC 2010)

(a) *Definitions.* “Major subcontractor” is defined in the clause at 252.209-7009, Organizational Conflict of Interest—Major Defense Acquisition Program.

(b) This solicitation is for the performance of systems engineering and technical assistance for a major defense acquisition program or a pre-major defense acquisition program.

(c) *Prohibition.* As required by paragraph (b)(3) of section 207 of the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-23), if awarded the contract, the contractor or any affiliate of the contractor is prohibited from participating as a prime contractor or a major subcontractor in the development or production of a weapon system under the major defense acquisition program or pre-major defense acquisition program, unless the offeror submits, and the Government approves, an Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan.

(d) *Request for an exception.* If the offeror requests an exception to the prohibition of paragraph (c) of this provision, then the offeror shall submit an Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan with its offer for evaluation.

(e) *Incorporation of Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan in contract.* If the apparently successful offeror submitted an acceptable Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan, and the head of the contracting activity determines that DoD needs the domain experience and expertise of the highly qualified, apparently successful offeror in accordance with FAR 209.571-7(c), then the Contracting Officer will incorporate the Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan into the resultant contract, and paragraph (d) of the clause at 252.209-7009 will become applicable.

(End of provision)

[75 FR 81914, Dec. 29, 2010]
#### 252.232-7015 Performance-Based Payments—Representation.

As prescribed in 232.1005-70(b), use the following provision:

# Performance-Based Payments—Representation (DEC 2022)

(a) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 3802(c), the Contractor's financial statements shall be in compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in order to receive performance-based payments.

(b) The Offeror represents that its financial statements are [ ] are not [ ] in compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

(End of provision)

[85 FR 19691, Apr. 8, 2020, as amended at 87 FR 76998, Dec. 16, 2022]
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■

■ ■

★

●

●

●

★

● ●

●

●
# C_2017027EN.01000302.xml

| 27.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8056 — EPH/PPF Investments/Vattenfall Generation/Vattenfall Mining)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 27/03)

On 22 September 2016, 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 English 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 32016M8056. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8056. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
#### 25.301-3 Weapons.

The contracting officer shall follow agency procedures and the weapons policy established by the combatant commander or the chief of mission when authorizing contractor personnel to carry weapons (see paragraph (i) of the clause at 52.225-19, Contractor Personnel in a Designated Operational Area or Supporting a Diplomatic or Consular Mission outside the United States).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00336-CV

Jeffrey Wade TEASDALE,

Appellant

v.

Jeanette Nichole 

Jeanette Nichole MESSER,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13133A

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of 

this appeal are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED July 24, 2013.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
EXHIBIT 32


                            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 MB Software  Corporation  on Form
10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof,  I, Scott A. Haire,  Chief  Executive
Officer and principal financial officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

May 22, 2006

 /S/    Scott A. Haire
-----------------------
Scott A. Haire,
Chairman of the Board,
(Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                                                         5

<S>                                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                      DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                            0
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     3,479,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      54,000
<INVENTORY>                                                       11,017,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  16,974,000
<PP&E>                                                            36,330,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    8,653,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    59,478,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             8,325,000
<BONDS>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                          5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                        28,908,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      59,478,000
<SALES>                                                           82,743,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  82,743,000
<CGS>                                                             66,603,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     76,740,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  (432,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                1,495,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   5,051,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      (2,332,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               7,383,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      7,383,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                     1.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     1.51



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7705

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY GRANDISON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR02-368-JFM; CA-05-870-JFM) Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: April 21, 2006 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Grandison, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, John Francis Purcell, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Anthony Grandison, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grandison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
# C_2017175EN.01000201.xml

| 2.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/2

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

0,00 % on 1 June 2017

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

1 June 2017

(2017/C 175/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1219 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,53 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4394 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87230 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7760 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0883 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4895 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,397 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 307,55 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1830 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5685 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,9715 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5182 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5155 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7419 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5870 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5525 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 258,40 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,6408 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6389 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4130 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 932,49 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8107 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,776 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 63,5329 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,313 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6135 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,9199 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,3235 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1219

JPY

Japanese yen

124,53

DKK

Danish krone

7,4394

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87230

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7760

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0883

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4895

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,397

HUF

Hungarian forint

307,55

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1830

RON

Romanian leu

4,5685

TRY

Turkish lira

3,9715

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5182

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5155

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7419

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5870

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5525

KRW

South Korean won

1 258,40

ZAR

South African rand

14,6408

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6389

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4130

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 932,49

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8107

PHP

Philippine peso

55,776

RUB

Russian rouble

63,5329

THB

Thai baht

38,313

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6135

MXN

Mexican peso

20,9199

INR

Indian rupee

72,3235

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

2

Source

---
USM-285

part form. Fill out the form and p

US. Department of Justice PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN pe
United States Marshals Service See "Instructions for i y US. Ma "

PLAINTIFF COURT CASE NUMBER

U.S. Bank National Association 12-cv-5598

DEFENDANT TYPE OF PROCESS

Capital Realty & Development, LLC and Richard P. Turasky, Jr. Attachment for Contempt

SERVE
AT

NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION. ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN

Richard J. Turasky, Jr., c/o Capital Realty & Development, LLC

ADDRESS (Street or RFD, Apartment No., City, State and ZIP Code)

385 Airport Road., Elgin, IL 60123 OR 126 Boulder Drive, Lake In The Hills, IL 60102

SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO REQUESTER AT NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW

‘Number of process to be

I Vincent T. Borst

served with this Form 285 | 1

Robbins, Salomon & Patt, Ltd. Numbe’ of pertiss tobe 1
180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, Illinois 60601 Check for servige
L on U.S.A. J, $250.00
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE (1

All Telephone Numbers, and Estimated Times Available for Service):

Fold

Fold

Business Address: Capital Realty & Development, LLC, 385 Airport Road, Elgin, Wlinois 60123 JUL 1 1 2013

Residential Address: 26 Boulder Drive, Lake In The Hills, Illinois 60102

THOMAS G BRUTON
CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT

Signature fina Ww~ behalf of:
L

PLAINTIFF ‘TELEPHONE NUMBER DATE
CO DEFENDANT 312-456-0182 5/15/13

SPACE BELOW FOR BSE OF U.S. MARSHAL ONLY-- DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE

Tacknowledge receipt for the total | Total Process

District of | District to

Signature of Authorized USMS Deputy or Clerk Date

number of process indicated. Origin Serve
(Sign only for USM 285 ifmore / ; Zp Th a.
than one USM 285 is submitted) No | no ott SIT «3

Thereby certify and return that I] have personally served ,L] have legal evidence of service, (] have executed as shown in "Remarks", the process described
on the individual , company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above on the on the individual , company, corporation, etc. shown at the address inserted below.

Li thereby certify and return that am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, ete. named above (See remarks below)

“Name and title of individual served (ifnot shown above)

CA person of suitable age and discretion
then resting defendant's usual place

of abode
Address (complete only different than shown above) Date Time o
am
zhfo|] | {om
Signature of BH or Déhuty
pA —
Service Fee Total Mileage Charges| Forwarding Fee Total Charges Advance Deposits Amount owed to UB. Marshal* or \
_ including endeavors) (Amount of Refung*)
Eero) _ 6 é 150.
Me S3.0X WS 3/32 | 50.00
REMARKS:

lL Copenen IS ake
a<The~ OA Dden_Qoasr an

t

Avon

Cares

1, CLERK OF THE COURT

2. USMS RECORD
3. NOTICE OF SERVICE

GO: E WET. ST AGW sien ana

4. BILLING STATEMENT®: To be returned to the U.S. Marshal with payment,
iff any amount is owed. Please remit promptly payable to U.S. Marshal
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT

PRIOR EDITIONS MAY BE USED

Form USM-285
Rev. 12/80
#### 247.301-70 Definition.

“Integrated logistics managers” or “third-party logistics providers” means providers of multiple logistics services. Some examples of logistics services are the management of transportation, demand forecasting, information management, inventory maintenance, warehousing, and distribution.

[65 FR 50145, Aug. 17, 2000]
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 343 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 343

  To authorize testimony, document production, and representation in 
                    Arizona v. Mark Louis Prichard.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 28, 2017

  Mr. McConnell (for himself and Mr. Schumer) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To authorize testimony, document production, and representation in 
                    Arizona v. Mark Louis Prichard.

Whereas, in the case of Arizona v. Mark Louis Prichard, Cr. No. 17-711443, 
        pending in the Justice Court of Pima County, Arizona, the prosecution 
        has requested the production of testimony from Julie Katsel, an employee 
        in the Tucson, Arizona office of Senator Jeff Flake;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent current or former employees of the 
        Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony 
        relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Julie Katsel, an employee in the Office of Senator 
Jeff Flake, and any other current or former employee of the Senator's 
office from whom relevant evidence may be necessary, are authorized to 
testify and produce documents in the case of Arizona v. Mark Louis 
Prichard, except concerning matters for which a privilege should be 
asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
current and former Members, officers, and employees of the Senate in 
connection with the production of evidence authorized in section one of 
this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016391EN.01000101.xml

| 22.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8121 — Triton/Fläkt Woods)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 391/01)

On 22 September 2016, 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 English 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 32016M8121. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8121. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---