alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 389 

Commemorating the commissioning of the USS Omaha. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2018 

Mrs. FISCHER (for herself and Mr. SASSE) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the commissioning of the USS Omaha. 

Whereas the great city of Omaha, Nebraska, was founded on 

July 4, 1854; 

Whereas the Lone Tree Ferry bringing pioneers across the 

Missouri River into Omaha caused Omaha to become 

known as the ‘‘Gateway to the West’’; 

Whereas Nebraska is the only triply landlocked State in the 

Union; 

Whereas the first USS Omaha was a screw sloop launched 

in 1869, 2 years after Nebraska became a State on 

March 1, 1867; 

Whereas the second USS Omaha (CL–4) was an Omaha 

class light cruiser commissioned on February 24, 1923; 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 389 ATS 

Whereas the USS Omaha (CL–4) served in both the Pacific 

and Atlantic theaters and captured a German blockade 

runner a month before World War II officially began; 

Whereas the Nebraska Admirals Association, formed in 1931, 

has had thousands of Admirals commissioned in the Nebraska Navy to promote ‘‘The Good Life’’; 

Whereas the Big Red Sub Club— 

(1) was formed to support the crews of the USS Nebraska (SSBN–739); and 

(2) is the most active State organization supporting 

the submarine fleet of the United States; 

Whereas the Navy League of the United States, Nebraska 

Council, strongly supports a strong United States Navy 

for national security; 

Whereas on June 11, 2012, Secretary of the Navy Ray 

Mabus announced that an Independence class littoral 

combat ship would be named the United States Ship 

Omaha; 

Whereas on November 20, 2015, the United States Navy 

launched the USS Omaha; 

Whereas on December 19, 2015, the USS Omaha was christened in Mobile, Alabama, sponsored by Omaha philanthropist Susie Buffett; and 

Whereas on February 3, 2018, the USS Omaha will be commissioned: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate commemorates— 

2 (1) the commissioning of the United States 

3 Ship Omaha (LCS–12); and 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 389 ATS 

1 (2) the mission of the USS Omaha as a 

2 networked, agile, stealthy surface combatant capable 

3 of defeating antiaccess and asymmetric threats in 

4 the littorals. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
31.205-7 Contingencies. ( a ) *Contingency,* as used in this subpart, means a possible future event or condition arising from presently known or unknown causes, the outcome of which is indeterminable at the present time.
( b ) Costs for contingencies are generally unallowable for historical costing purposes because such costing deals with costs incurred and recorded on the contractor's books. However, in some cases, as for example, terminations, a contingency factor may be recognized when it is applicable to a past period to give recognition to minor unsettled factors in the interest of expediting settlement.
( c ) In connection with estimates of future costs, contingencies fall into two categories: ( 1 ) Those that may arise from presently known and existing conditions, the effects of which are foreseeable within reasonable limits of accuracy; e.g., anticipated costs of rejects and defective work. Contingencies of this category are to be included in the estimates of future costs so as to provide the best estimate of performance cost.
( 2 ) Those that may arise from presently known or unknown conditions, the effect of which cannot be measured so precisely as to provide equitable results to the contractor and to the Government; e.g., results of pending litigation. Contingencies of this category are to be excluded from cost estimates under the several items of cost, but should be disclosed separately (including the basis upon which the contingency is computed) to facilitate the negotiation of appropriate contractual coverage. (See, for example, 31.205-6(g) and 31.205-19.)
[69 FR 34243, June 18, 2004]
**EXHIBIT 31.1** **CERTIFICATIONS**     I, David H. Murdock, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive    Officer, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on    Form 10-Q    of Dole Food Company, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any    untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material    fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the    circumstances under which such statements were made, not    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and    other financial information included in this report, fairly    present in all material respects the financial condition,    results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,    and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are    responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls    and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(e)    and    15d-15(e))    for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or    caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed    under our supervision, to ensure that material information    relating to the registrant, including its consolidated    subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those    entities, particularly during the period in which this report is    being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report    our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure    controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by    this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably    likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal    control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I    have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s    auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation of internal control over financial    reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the    registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. /s/  David    H. Murdock    David H. Murdock*Chairman and Chief Executive Officer*     November 21, 2006
#### 31.205-23 Losses on other contracts.

An excess of costs over income under any other contract (including the contractor's contributed portion under cost-sharing contracts) is unallowable.
The performance period for this program is five years.

Institutional Service Home

|Last Modified: 09/30/2014
|-------------------------
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications NOAA-NMFS-NWFSC TM-5: Seasonal Changes in the Intertidal and Subtidal Macrobenthic Invertebrate Community Structure in Baker Bay, Lower Columbia River Estuary 
Figure 4. Monthly changes (1980-81) in the densities (A) and weights (B) of macrobenthic invertebrates on middle-low sites (Stations 3-10) in Baker Bay, columbia River estuary. 

Use your browser's BACK button to return to the text.

Return to Table of Contents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Flava Works, Inc., )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 1:12-cv-05844

)

) 

)

)

John Doe Nos. 1 to 26, )

FF Magnat Limited d/b/a Oron.com, )

Earnwell Hong Kong LTD d/b/a Filesonic.com, )

Maxim Bochenko a/k/a Roman Romanov, )

)

Defendants. )

RE-NOTICE OF MOTION

To: Defendant, FF Magnat Limited d/b/a Oron.com,

c/o Agent Maxim Bochenko 

2392 Sunset Bluff Drive

Jacksonville, Florida 32216

Please take notice that on December 10, 2012 at 9:00 a.m., I shall appear before 

the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman in the courtroom usually occupied by him in Room 1703 of 

the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 219 South Dearborn Street, 

Chicago, Illinois, and shall then and there present Plaintiff=s Motion for Entry of Default Order, a 

copy of which is served upon you.

Dated: December 6, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Meanith Huon

Meanith Huon

PO Box 441

Chicago, Illinois 60690

Phone: (312) 405-2789

E-mail: huon.meanith@gmail.com

IL ARDC. No.: 6230996

Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 30 Filed: 12/06/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1471
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing RENotice of Plaintiff=s Motion for Entry of Default Order against Defendant, FF Magnat Limited 

d/b/a Oron.com by causing copies of same to be filed electronically on December 6, 2012 and by 

serving Defendant, FF Magnat Limited c/o its agent, Maxim Bochenko, 2392 Sunset Bluff Drive

Jacksonville, Florida 32216, via U.S. Mail, by depositing same, postage prepaid, from a U.S. 

Post Office Box in Chicago, Illinois on December 7, 2012 before 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Meanith Huon

Meanith Huon

PO Box 441

Chicago, Illinois 60690

Phone: (312) 405-2789

E-mail: huon.meanith@gmail.com

IL ARDC. No.: 6230996

Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 30 Filed: 12/06/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1472
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 57 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.J.Res.57

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                            Joint Resolution

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer 
Financial Protection relating to ``Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance 
                with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating 
to ``Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit 
Opportunity Act'' (CFPB Bulletin 2013-02 (March 21, 2013), and printed 
in the Congressional Record on December 6, 2017, on pages S7888-S7889, 
along with a letter of opinion from the Government Accountability 
Office dated December 5, 2017, that the Bulletin is a rule under the 
Congressional Review Act), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.4

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is filed with respect to the quarterly
report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended March 22, 2003 of
Dole Food Company, Inc. (the Issuer). I, Richard J. Dahl,
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my
knowledge:



| |      |                                                                                                                                                              
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i)  | the Form 10-Q 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-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Issuer.       

Dated: July 29, 2003

| |  |                                                                 
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ RICHARD J. DAHL                                             
| |  |                                                                 
| |  | Richard J. DahlSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### 3.404 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.203-5, Covenant Against Contingent Fees, in all solicitations and contracts exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, other than those for commercial products or commercial services (see parts 2 and 12).

[61 FR 39188, July 26, 1996, as amended at 86 FR 61020, Nov. 4, 2021]
29.303 Application of State and local taxes to Government contractors and subcontractors. ( a ) Prime contractors and subcontractors shall not normally be designated as agents of the Government for the purpose of claiming immunity from State or local sales or use taxes. Before any activity contends that a contractor is an agent of the Government, the matter shall be referred to the agency head for review. The referral shall include all pertinent data on which the contention is based, together with a thorough analysis of all relevant legal precedents.
( b ) When purchases are not made by the Government itself, but by a prime contractor or by a subcontractor under a prime contract, the right to an exemption of the transaction from a sales or use tax may not rest on the Government's immunity from direct taxation by States and localities. It may rest instead on provisions of the particular State or local law involved, or, in some cases, the transaction may not in fact be expressly exempt from the tax. The Government's interest shall be protected by using the procedures in 29.101.
( c ) Frequently, property (including property acquired under the progress payments clause of fixed-price contracts or the Government property clause of cost-reimbursement contracts) owned by the Government is in the possession of a contractor or subcontractor. Situations may arise in which States or localities assert the right to tax Government property directly or to tax the contractor's or subcontractor's possession of, interest in, or use of that property. In such cases, the contracting officer shall seek review and advice from the agency-designated counsel on the appropriate course of action.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Alan
Vituli, Chief Executive Officer of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 27, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ ALAN VITULI                                  
|Alan Vituli                                      
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|November 4, 2009
#### Fred Ley et al., Appellants, v. Henry Flessel, Individually and as Executor of Emma L. Flessel, Deceased, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Elizabeth Adams, Heretofore Known as Elizabeth Ley, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Motion by appellants for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, and for a stay, denied. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7375

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RODERICK WILLIAMS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CR-97-41-3, CA-99-3-4)

Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roderick Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Roderick Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 1999) and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See

United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-97-41-3; CA-99-3-4 (E.D. Va.

Sept. 22 & Oct. 25, 1999). We deny leave to appeal in forma pauperis and 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
28.102-1 General. ( a ) 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter III, Bonds (formerly known as the Miller Act), requires performance and payment bonds for any construction contract exceeding $150,000, except that this requirement may be waived— ( 1 ) by the contracting officer for as much of the work as is to be performed in a foreign country upon finding that it is impracticable for the contractor to furnish such bond, or
( 2 ) As otherwise authorized by the Bonds statute or other law.
( b ) ( 1 ) Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 3132, for construction contracts greater than $35,000, but not greater than $150,000, the contracting officer shall select two or more of the following payment protections, giving particular consideration to inclusion of an irrevocable letter of credit as one of the selected alternatives: ( i ) A payment bond.
( ii ) An irrevocable letter of credit (ILC).
( iii ) *A tripartite escrow agreement.* The prime contractor establishes an escrow account in a federally insured financial institution and enters into a tripartite escrow agreement with the financial institution, as escrow agent, and all of the suppliers of labor and material. The escrow agreement shall establish the terms of payment under the contract and of resolution of disputes among the parties. The Government makes payments to the contractor's escrow account, and the escrow agent distributes the payments in accordance with the agreement, or triggers the disputes resolution procedures if required.
( iv ) *Certificates of deposit.* The contractor deposits certificates of deposit from a federally insured financial institution with the contracting officer, in an acceptable form, executable by the contracting officer.
( v ) A deposit of the types of security listed in 28.204-1 and 28.204-2.
( 2 ) The contractor shall submit to the Government one of the payment protections selected by the contracting officer.
( c ) The contractor shall furnish all bonds or alternative payment protection, including any necessary reinsurance agreements, before receiving a notice to proceed with the work or being allowed to start work.
[48 FR 42286, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 31652, June 20, 1996; 70 FR 57454, Sept. 30, 2005; 71 FR 57368, Sept. 28, 2006; 75 FR 53134, Aug. 30, 2010; 79 FR 24210, Apr. 29, 2014; 80 FR 38298, July 2, 2015]
October 21, 2015

Mr. Matthew Duhon

413 Steeple Chase Drive

Lafayette, LA 70506

Dear Mr. Duhon:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request, posted to the public docket on July 21, 2015, filed in 

Docket No. FAA−2015−3060, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your 

petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider 

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4