alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
28.101-4 Noncompliance with bid guarantee requirements. ( a ) In sealed bidding, noncompliance with a solicitation requirement for a bid guarantee requires rejection of the bid, except in the situations described in paragraph (c) of this subsection when the noncompliance shall be waived.
( b ) In negotiation, noncompliance with a solicitation requirement for a bid guarantee requires rejection of an initial proposal as unacceptable, if a determination is made to award the contract based on initial proposals without discussion, except in the situations described in paragraph (c) of this subsection when noncompliance shall be waived. (See 15.306(a)(2) for conditions regarding making awards based on initial proposals.) If the conditions for awarding based on initial proposals are not met, deficiencies in bid guarantees submitted by offerors determined to be in the competitive range shall be addressed during discussions and the offeror shall be given an opportunity to correct the deficiency.
( c ) Noncompliance with a solicitation requirement for a bid guarantee shall be waived in the following circumstances unless the contracting officer determines in writing that acceptance of the bid would be detrimental to the Government's interest when— ( 1 ) Only one offer is received. In this case, the contracting officer may require the furnishing of the bid guarantee before award;
( 2 ) The amount of the bid guarantee submitted is less than required, but is equal to or greater than the difference between the offer price and the next higher acceptable offer;
( 3 ) The amount of the bid guarantee submitted, although less than that required by the solicitation for the maximum quantity offered, is sufficient for a quantity for which the offeror is otherwise eligible for award. Any award to the offeror shall not exceed the quantity covered by the bid guarantee;
( 4 ) The bid guarantee is received late, and late receipt is waived under 14.304;
( 5 ) A bid guarantee becomes inadequate as a result of the correction of a mistake under 14.407 (but only if the bidder will increase the bid guarantee to the level required for the corrected bid);
( 6 ) An otherwise acceptable bid bond was submitted with a signed offer, but the bid bond was not signed by the offeror;
( 7 ) An otherwise acceptable bid bond is erroneously dated or bears no date at all; or
( 8 ) A bid bond does not list the United States as obligee, but correctly identifies the offeror, the solicitation number, and the name and location of the project involved, so long as it is acceptable in all other respects.
[54 FR 48985, Nov. 28, 1989, as amended at 60 FR 34739, July 3, 1995; 62 FR 51271, Sept. 30, 1997; 81 FR 83099, Nov. 18, 2016]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

Each Tuesday of the month of February 2021 at 5:00 p.m.

# PLACE: 

The meetings will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

# STATUS: 

The meetings will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meetings. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

                        In the event that the time, date, or location of meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at                         *https://www.sec.gov.*

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:

Matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: February 1, 2021.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-02373 Filed 2-1-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### BOSSERT, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW ORK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate livision, Second Department.

March 2, 1906.)

.ction by Charles Bossert against the city of few York.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, dth costs.
| Fiscal Year           | Amount |
|-----------------------|--------|
| $45,481,000           |
| $53,481,000           |
| $53,481,000           |
| $53,133,373           |
| $52,819,515           |
| $52,396,448           |
| $48,903,030           |
| $48,903,000           |
| $48,048,664           |
| $48,549,000           |
| $54,345,000           |
| $48,806,000           |
| $54,781,000           |
| $44,345,000           |
| $44,345,000           |
| $54,345,000           |
| $44,345,000           |
| $54,345,000 (Request) |
|                  |
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of

Chief Executive Officer

of Wyndham International, Inc.



This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and
accompanies this annual report on Form 10-K (the Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004 of Wyndham International, Inc. (the Issuer).



I, Fred J. Kleisner, Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 16, 2005.



/S/    FRED J.
KLEISNERName:    Fred J. Kleisner




Subscribed and sworn to before me

this 16th day of May 2005.



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|                                            
|/S/    VITA
BRANCH                          
|Name:    Vita Branch Title:    Notary Public



My
commission expires: 12-6-08



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### 3009.171-1 General.

Except as provided in (HSAR) 48 CFR 3009.171-6 and 3009.171-7, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) contracting officers shall not enter into a contract for guard services under the Federal Protective Service (FPS) guard services program with any business concern owned, controlled, or operated by an individual convicted of a serious felony.

[74 FR 58856, Nov. 16, 2009]
Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 12-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:686
Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 12-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:687
Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 12-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:688
Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 12-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:689
Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 12-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:690
Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 12-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:691
Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 12-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:692
Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 12-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:693
Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 12-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:694
Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 12-1 Filed: 10/11/12 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:695
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

EASTERN DIVISION

AF HOLDINGS LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 4244

)

JOHN DOE, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

AF Holdings LLC (“AF”) has filed a copyright infringement action against an unidentified

defendant (understandably designated as “John Doe”) “whose name Plaintiff expects to ascertain

during discovery.” Although this Court recognizes the potential of a chicken-and-egg problem here

– Complaint ¶ 4 states in part that “Plaintiff cannot ascertain Defendant’s actual identity without

limited expedited discovery”) – it is not prepared to entertain an action in this anonymous form

without a further showing by AF’s counsel.

This is not a new problem. In another era (at least in technological terms) this Court among

others was confronted with such “John Doe” actions brought by entertainment groups such as

“REO Speedwagon, which anticipated the likelihood of knockoff artists attempting to capitalize on

an entertainer’s popularity by (for example) selling unauthorized t-shirts at upcoming gigs. This

Court was one of those that refused to entertain such actions against anonymous defendants until

an identified infringer came into the plaintiff’s crosshairs.

It may be that the situation here is not parallel in that respect – this Court is not sufficiently

aware of the technology involved to opine on that score. But it would at least seem that before the

assertedly necessary discovery can proceed it must do so against a known target, and AF has not
explained why a pending lawsuit is essential to pursuing an inquiry to disclose the identity of the

asserted infringer revealed by an Internet Protocol address.

This situation also appears to pose such possible problems as the potential for issuance

of a subpoena reaching beyond the geographical boundaries within this Court’s purview, or the

potential for haling into court here a “John Doe” not subject to in personam jurisdiction in this

district. Accordingly this action will not be entertained unless and until AF presents a showing in

response to the issue identified here. In the absence of a satisfactory filing in that respect on or 1

before June 15, 2012, both the Complaint and this action will be dismissed (without prejudice, of

course). 

___________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 5, 2012

To this Court’s recollection, earlier lawsuits assigned to its calendar, presenting 1

substantive claims identical to the current one, have named names. If so, some explanation must

be provided as to why that is not feasible here.

2
Wegener Corporation and
subsidiary




EXHIBIT
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





Wegener
Corporation


Johns
Creek, Georgia





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (No. 333-08017 and 333-27527) and Form S-8 (No. 33-45390, 33-42007,
333-29887, 333-51205 and 333-29889) of Wegener Corporation of our reports dated
November 15, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended September 3, 2010. Our report relating to the consolidated financial
statements contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to
continue as a going concern.




Atlanta,
      Georgia
            Habif,
      Arogeti & Wynne, LLP.November
      15, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                               
<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>                         
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  unaudited  financial  statements for the year ended September 30,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>                        
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
                                     
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Sep-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                 13,867
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             345
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       14,212
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         15,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     950
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             14,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           15,719
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       16,278
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         63
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        15,956
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    15,956
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           15,956
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          452.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                          452.25
        

</TABLE>
April 3, 1975.

M. P. No. 1911.

#### Janet G. Swanson *et al. v.*Israel Moses, *Esquire.*

*Israel Moses,*respondent, pro se.

Motion to vacate the order of disbarment is assigned to the May 1975 calendar for oral argument on the motion.

Roberts, C. J. is of the opinion the motion should be denied.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2102

___________________________ Raymond D. Elliott, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant ,

v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee .

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City

____________ Submitted: March 2, 2020 Filed: March 5, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Raymond Elliott appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. On appeal, we review whether the district court abused its discretion in

1 The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.denying the Rule 60(b) motion, not the underlying judgment. See Noah v. Bond Cold

Storage , 408 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir. 2005). Reversing the denial of such a motion is rare, because Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only the most exceptional cases. Id. Upon careful review of the record, including the well-reasoned opinion of the district court and the arguments on appeal, we conclude there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of post-judgment relief. Elliott’s motions for summary judgment and for an injunction pending appeal are denied as moot, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
#### Michael Bufano, Respondent, v. Martin Bletscher, Appellant.

Judgment entered September 9, 1963, in the sum of $10,842.50 in favor of plaintiff, unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, the verdict vacated, and a new trial granted, with $50- costs to defendant-appellant, unless plaintiff stipulates to accept $3,000 plus $650 special damages in lieu of the award by verdict, in which event the judgment is modified to that extent, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $50 costs to defendant-appellant. The verdict of the jury in this personal injury negligence action is made up of two parts — general and special damages. The latter finding in the sum of $650 can be sustained. However, that portion which represents compensation for injuries is grossly excessive and an award in excess of $3,000 cannot be justified by the record. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 7292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01810]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies Extension of Comment Period

    The companies listed in this notice applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portion of the application listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated below and at 
the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    The comment period for this application has been extended for good 
cause, in order to provide additional opportunity for interested 
persons to submit comments. Comments regarding the application must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001; or https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/ContactUs/feedback.aspx, not later than 
February 22, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. Comments can 
also be sent electronically to [email protected]:
    1. First Citizens BancShares, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina; to 
acquire CIT Group, Inc., New York, New York, and thereby indirectly 
acquire CIT Bank, National Association, Pasadena, California.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 21, 
2021.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-01810 Filed 1-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, C. Troy Woodbury,  Jr., the Chief  Financial  Officer of Wegener  Corporation
(the "Company"),  in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  hereby certify that, to the
best of my knowledge,  the  Company's  Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period
ended  August 29, 2003 (the  "Report")  filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission:

     o    fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     o    the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

                                        /s/ C. Troy Woodbury, Jr.

                                        NAME:  C. TROY WOODBURY, JR.
                                        TITLE: TREASURER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
                                               OFFICER (PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
                                               OFFICER)
                                        DATE:  NOVEMBER 26, 2003
25.606 Postaward determinations. ( a ) If a contractor requests a determination regarding the inapplicability of section 1605 of the Recovery Act or the Buy American statute after contract award, the contractor must explain why it could not request the determination before contract award or why the need for such determination otherwise was not reasonably foreseeable. If the contracting officer concludes that the contractor should have made the request before contract award, the contracting officer may deny the request.
( b ) The contracting officer must base evaluation of any request for a determination regarding the inapplicability of section 1605 of the Recovery Act or the Buy American statute made after contract award on information required by paragraphs (c) and (d) of the applicable clause at 52.225-21 or 52.225-23 and/or other readily available information.
( c ) If a determination, under 25.603(a), is made after contract award that an exception to section 1605 of the Recovery Act or to the Buy American statute applies, the contracting officer must negotiate adequate consideration and modify the contract to allow use of the foreign construction material. When the basis for the exception is the unreasonable cost of a domestic construction material, adequate consideration is at least the differential established in 25.605(a).
[74 FR 14626, Mar. 31, 2009, as amended at 79 FR 24209, Apr. 29, 2014]
#### 3032.006 Reduction or suspension of contract payments upon finding of fraud.
#### 2427.305 Administration of patent rights clauses.
#### 2124.104 Contract clauses.
#### 225.7901-1 Definitions.

“Export-controlled items,” as used in this section, is defined in the clause at *252.225-7048.*
#### DOW, Respondent, v. SYRACUSE, L. & B. RY., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

Action by Adelaide Dow against the Syracuse, Lakeside & Baldwinsville Railway.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

STOVER, J., not voting.