alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
450044568410/07COMMONWEALTHOFPENNSYLVANIAINVcENO.STD—521REV.12-88PUBLICATIONSAUTHORIZATIONANDINVOICEPUBLICATIONSAUTHORIZATION(Tobecompletedbyagency)(1TO/(NAMEANDADDRESSOFNEWSPAPERIFEDERALID.NO/SOC.SEC.NO.FROM(NAMEANDADDRESSOFAGENCY)AGENCYTELEHONENO,PittsburghPostGazette94—0692700YvetteN.House717—787—9495Attn:LegalDepartmentBureauofAirQualftEy34BoulevardoftheAllies400MarketStreetPittsburgh,PA1522212thFloor.________________________________________________TTprr’hurprPA17105HEREWITHISENCLOSEDCOPYFORPUSUCAT1ONOFADVERTISEMENTFORPROPOSALSTOTYPEOFAEMPLOYPURCHASECONTRACTSELLCLASSIFIEDLEGALNOT/CEPUBUSHADVERTISEMENT(NO.OFTIMES)MAXIMUMNO.OFLINES1DATESOFINSER11ON#8449655October14,2009,Wednesdayediti.You,asvendor,areauthorizedtopublishthisadvertisementinyournewspaper,subjecttothetermsofthisorder,asfollows:Advertisementtobepublishedinregularadvertisingcolumns,nopositionspecified;captionoftwolinesaridsignaturetobeincapitalsandsubjectmatterandtitleofofficer.tobesetsolidintyperegularlyusedbyyournewspaperforpublic(gat)noticeadvertising;chargetobemadeattheratechargedtoandpaidbycommercialadvertisersformattersimilarlysetandoccupyingsimilarspace;advertisementtoberunintheeditionsspecifiedabove.Vendoragreesthat,intheperformanceofanycontractawardedtoithereunder,saidvendorwillnotdiscriminateagainstanyemployeorotherpersonsonaccountofrace,color,sex,religiouscreed,ancestry,ageornationaloriginandthattheCommonwealth,uponreceiptofsatisfactoryevidenceofsuchdiscrimination,shallhavetherighttocancelsaidcontract.Returnthiscopyatonceifyouwillnotacceptthisadvertisementunderthetermssetforth.ProofofadvertisingintheformofatearsheetmustbeincludedonParts1,2&3.Returnoriginalandtwocopies(signedbytheeditororpublisher)toAgencylistedabove.PartImustbenotarized.Part4isyours.Commonwealthtobebilledonlyforactualnumberofprintedlinespublished.ACCOUNTFUNDDEPTAPPYEARLDGORGCOSTFUNCTIONOR)AMOUNTCODE5pp7O9tQO]7€2711(LCI7/7ot’/_INVOICE(Tobecompletedbypublisher):.DATEOFINSERTIONACTUALNO.OFPRINTEDUNESCOSTPERLINETOTALAMOUNTp.,-1stAdOctober14,20092587.501,935.002ndAd3rdAd.GRANDTOTAL—-1,93500PASTE.EARSHEETHERECommonwè,ajthofPennsylvaniaCountyofA11hiWBeforeme,thesubscriber,aNotaryPublicinandforsaidCounty,personallycameJ.Bootwhobeingdulysworn,dothdeposeandsaythathe.is*agentthePittsburghPost—GazetteageneralnewspaperpublishedatPittsburgh,PAthattheadvertisement,ofwhichtearsheetisattachedhereto,waspublishedintheregularadvertisingcolumnsofsaidnewspaper,intheeditionsofsaidnewspaper,inallrespectsasorderedandinvoicedabove;afdthattheCommonwealthisnotchargedthereforataratehigherthanischargedanyordinarycommercialadvertiserforasimilaramountofmatteroccupyingsimilarspaceandsetinasimilarmanner,insaidnewspaper.SwornanclsubscribedbeforemethisdayofC)20O9NOTARYPUBLIC___________________________________________154636Mycmmissionexpires\T,IM3)cñ/J*Thisaffidav,tmustbemadebytheOwner,Publisher,orthedesignatedagentoftheownerorpublisher.PENNSYLVANIANotaiialSealLindaM.Gaertner,NotaiyPubHcCityOfPittsburgh,AlleghenyCountyMvCommissionExoiresJan.31.2011COMPTROLLERMember.Psr”sytvanisAssociationofNotsr!e,.
#### 927.201-1 General.

In certain contracting situations, such as those involving research, development, or demonstration projects, consideration should be given to the impact of third party-owned patents covering technology that may be incorporated in the project which patents may ultimately affect widespread commercial use of the project results. In such situations, Patent Counsel shall be consulted to determine what modifications, if any, are to be made to the utilization of the Authorization and Consent and Patent Indemnity provisions or what other action might be deemed appropriate.
Exhibit32.2

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,ASADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report ofVillageEDOCS (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year endedDecember 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)The information contained in the Annual Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

| Date:  April 14, 2006                                                       | /s/ Michael A. Richard              |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|           ------------------------- | ----------------------------------- |
|                                                                                  | Chief Financial Officer             |

*ASIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHERDOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURETHAT APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTENSTATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO VILLAGEEDOCS AND WILLBE RETAINED BY VILLAGEEDOCS AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.*
816.505 Ordering. ( b ) ( 8 ) Task-order and delivery-order ombudsman. The task-order contract and delivery-order ombudsman for VA is the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary (ADAS) for Procurement Policy, Systems and Oversight. The VA Ombudsman shall review and resolve complaints from contractors concerning all task and delivery order actions. If any corrective action is needed after reviewing complaints from contractors, the VA Ombudsman shall provide a written determination of such action to the contracting officer. Contracting officers shall be notified of any complaints submitted to the VA Ombudsman.
[83 FR 7404, Feb. 21, 2018]
§ 1006.71 Payments to the producer-settlement fund. Each handler shall make a payment to the producer-settlement fund in a manner that provides receipt of the funds by the market administrator no later than the 12th day after the end of the month (except as provided in § 1000.90). Payment shall be the amount, if any, by which the amount specified in paragraph (a) of this section exceeds the amount specified in paragraph (b) of this section: ( a ) The total value of milk of the handler for the month as determined pursuant to § 1006.60; and
( b ) The sum of the value at the uniform prices for skim milk and butterfat, adjusted for plant location, of the handler's receipts of producer milk; and the value at the uniform price, as adjusted pursuant to § 1006.75, applicable at the location of the plant from which received of other source milk for which a value is computed pursuant to § 1006.60(e).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shomari Graddick, Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 884]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered October 22, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not deny him his fundamental right to present a defense because it precluded certain questions regarding the flight of two other men who were in the car with him when he was arrested. The defendant had the opportunity to fully present to the jury the fact that police were unable to apprehend one man who fled when police stopped the defendant’s car, and that codefendant Rudy Sylvain also attempted to flee, but was caught a short distance away. Thus, the defendant fully presented his defense that he did not participate in the robbery of the complainant, and that these other two men robbed the complainant *(see People v Sawyer,*304 AD2d 775 [2003]; *People v Young,*295 AD2d 631 [2002]).

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Taylor,*1 NY3d 174, 177 [2003]; *People v Henry,*95 NY2d 563 [2000]; *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*
      *81290 AD2d 80 [1982]). Ritter, J.P., Townes, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 5.9




AMENDMENT TO PRIVATE PLACEMNT AGREEMENT
  This AMENMENT TO THE PRIVATE PLACEMENT AGREMENT (the "Amendment") dated March 28, 2011, is made between Valcent Products Inc., institute B Development Corporation and Timothy Brock (hereinafter referred to as the "Parties").
  Whereas, the Partiesentered intoa Private Placement Agreement (the "PP Agreement")dated for reference December 14, 2010.
  Whereas, the Parties wish to amend certain terms in the PP Agreement.
  The parties hereto have agreed to replace Schedule A of the PP Agreement with the attached Amended Schedule A.
  Except as expressly set forth herein this Amendment shall not alter, modify, amend or in any way affect any of the terms conditions, covenants, obligations or agreements contained in the PP Agreement.
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this amendment on the day first above written.
#### In the Matter of Maria Lombardi, Respondent, v Anthony Lombardi, Appellant.

— Cross motion to dismiss appeal by respondent-appellant, Anthony Lombardi, from an order of support of the Family Court, New York County, entered November 24, 1978, or, in the alternative, to grant attorney for petitioner-respondent leave to withdraw, is denied, without prejudice as to the alternative relief to an application made on notice to or *897consent of the client. The motion to dismiss the appeal is based on alleged lateness in taking the appeal. Section 1113 of the Family Court Act provides: "An appeal under this article must be taken no later than thirty days after the entry and service of any order from which the appeal is taken.” It does not appear that any copy of the order appealed from was ever served upon appellant. Indeed, the parties are in agreement that all that was ever mailed to appellant in accordance with the procedures of the Family Court was a document entitled "notice of order of support and instructions to petitioner and respondent.” While this document may well be deemed to be notice of entry of an order and contains a statement of the amount of support ordered, the document is clearly not a copy of the order appealed from and thus the time to appeal from the order has not begun to run. As to the application for alternative relief by the attorney to be relieved, there is no indication that a copy of those papers was ever served on the client, nor is there any written consent by the client or even any indication that the client knows about the application. A lawyer cannot terminate his relationship with his client ex parte. (Cf. *People v Hall,*46 NY2d 873). Concur— Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Lane, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.
#### 952.219-70 DOE Mentor-Protege program.

In accordance with 919.7014 insert the following provision in applicable solicitations.

# DOE Mentor-Protege Program (MAY 2000)

The Department of Energy has established a Mentor-Protege Program to encourage its prime contractors to assist firms certified under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act by SBA, other small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions, other minority institutions of higher learning and small business concerns owned and controlled by service disabled veterans in enhancing their business abilities. If the contract resulting from this solicitation is awarded on a cost-plus-award fee basis, the Contractor's performance as a Mentor may be evaluated as part of the award fee plan. Mentor and Protege firms will develop and submit “lessons learned” evaluations to DOE at the conclusion of the contract. Any DOE contractor that is interested in becoming a Mentor should refer to the applicable regulations at 48 CFR 919.70 and should contact the Department of Energy's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.

[65 FR 21371, Apr. 21, 2000, as amended at 75 FR 69014, Nov. 10, 2010]
#### 915.404-4-71-2 Limitations.

Amounts payable under construction and construction management contracts shall not exceed amounts derived from the schedules established for this purpose. Requests to pay fees in excess of these levels shall be forwarded to the Senior Procurement Executive for review and approval.

[63 FR 56851, Oct. 23, 1998, as amended at 74 FR 36378, July 22, 2009]
#### 9904.416-61 Interpretation. [Reserved]
#### 9904.407 Use of standard costs for direct material and direct labor.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7070

MARION GEDDIS, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus JON E. OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC); HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-02-3570-8-24B1) Submitted: October 15, 2003 Decided: November 25, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion Geddis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Marion Geddis seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U. S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (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 Geddis 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
#### Elaine H. Redalieu v. Stanley L. Ettinger et al.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Reports: Federal Programs for Youth      

# Reports: Federal Programs for Youth

The Congressional Research Service has released three reports:
                  - Federal Youth Employment and Job Training Programs  (PDF, 3 pages)
                  - Vulnerable Youth: Employment and Job Training Programs  (PDF, 41 pages)
                  - Youth Labor Force Indicators in the Context of COVID-19  (PDF, 6 pages)
Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 347

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

No. CR-22-746

ROLONDO CUEVAS-FLORES

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered July 26, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE BENTON 

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. 04CR-21-1484]

HONORABLE BRAD L. KARREN, 

JUDGE

CONTEMPT CITATION AND 

SANCTION ISSUED

PER CURIAM

When Rolondo Cuevas-Flores moved this court for the fourth time to enforce a 

writ of certiorari to complete the record on appeal that we first issued to court reporter 

Sharon Fields some seven months ago, this court granted the fourth motion, set a deadline 

of 12 June 2023 for Ms. Fields to file the transcript with this court’s clerk, and ordered her 

to appear before this court on 17 July 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in the courtroom of the Arkansas 

Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and show cause why she should not be held in 

contempt for failing to comply with the original writ of certiorari or any one of the

extensions. See Cuevas-Flores v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 347 (show-cause order). 

Before issuing the show-cause order, we warned Ms. Fields—in the third extension 

she received in April—that the failure to meet the new May deadline “may result in a showcause order being issued.” When Ms. Fields did not produce the transcript in May, this 

court simultaneously issued a show-cause order when it granted the fourth extension (to 

June 12), and scheduled a hearing.
2

Ms. Fields appeared before this court on July 17. She had by then prepared the 

transcript, met the June 12 deadline, and therefore finally complied with the original writ 

we issued mid-December 2022. When the court asked whether Ms. Fields pleaded guilty 

or not guilty to violating this court’s orders, she pleaded guilty, and was given the 

opportunity to speak to the court for the purpose of mitigating the severity of any potential 

sanction. She did so. 

Having considered the docketed filings in this case and the show-cause proceedings 

held on July 17, this court finds Ms. Sharon Fields in willful contempt of the Arkansas Court 

of Appeals. She repeatedly failed to comply with this court’s orders to complete the 

transcripts Mr. Cuevas-Flores designated as necessary to pursue his appeal of a criminal 

conviction. Ms. Fields’s repeated delays in preparing the designated material prejudiced the 

efficient administration of justice. The court acknowledges the many responsibilities that 

circuit courts, and their staff, handle daily. But a busy court schedule alone cannot excuse 

the protracted delay that this criminal case has experienced during the transcript-preparation

phase.

THEREFORE, the court hereby orders Sharon Fields to pay a $1,500 sanction. The 

sanction must be paid to “The Arkansas Court of Appeals” in the form of a cashier’s check 

or money order. The entire sanction must be received by the clerk’s office by close of 

business on 30 August 2023. The clerk of this court will provide a receipt to Ms. Fields

when she tenders full payment.

Contempt citation and sanction issued.
##### 



Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
of CNA Financial Corporation
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 filed
on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Stephen W. LilienthalStephen W. Lilienthal
Chief Executive Officer
#### Joyce I. De Rosa, an Infant by Her guardian ad Litem, Wanda Yenkowski, et al., Appellants, *v.*Anthony W. Pace, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, loss of services and medical expenses, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 18, 1963, which denied their motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur; Beldock, P. J. and Kleinfeld, J., dissent, and vote to reverse the order and to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, with the following memorandum: In our opinion, the undisputed facts raise an inescapable inference of negligence on the defendant’s part *(Gerard*v. *Inglese,*11 A D 2d 381; *Stone*v. *Goldsmith,*18 A D 2d 913; *Savitt*v. *Leeds,*18 A D 2d 913).
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1054

_____________________________
D ANNIE S. H OLDEN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

. August 15, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and O STERHAUS and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Dannie S. Holden, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Tabitha Herrera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
904.804-1 Closeout by the office administering the contract. ( a ) The Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) shall ensure that necessary procedures and milestone schedules are established to meet the requirements of 48 CFR 4.804-1, and that resources are applied to effect the earliest practicable deobligation of excess funds and the timely closeout of all contract files which are physically completed or otherwise eligible for closeout action.
( b ) Quick closeout procedures for cost reimbursable and other than firm fixed price type contracts are covered under 48 CFR 42.708.
[49 FR 11941, Mar. 28, 1984, as amended at 62 FR 53757, Oct. 16, 1997; 74 FR 36361, July 22, 2009; 76 FR 7690, Feb. 11, 2011]
704.404 Contract clauses. ( a ) When the contract includes a requirement for the contractor to access classified (“Confidential”, “Secret”, or “Top Secret”), or administratively controlled (“Sensitive But Unclassified”) information, the contracting officer must insert (48 CFR) FAR clause 52.204-2, Security Requirements and (48 CFR) AIDAR clause 752.204-2, Security Requirements, in the solicitation and award.
( b ) [Reserved]
[79 FR 74991, Dec. 16, 2014, as amended at 89 FR 19758, Mar. 20, 2024]