alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 552.211-92 Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Using Passive Tags.

As prescribed in 511.204(b)(11), insert the following clause:

# Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Using Passive Tags (JAN 2010)

Radio Frequency Identification shall be required on all non-bulk shipments to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) or Department of Defense (DoD) destinations. Shipments shall be tagged in accordance with 48 CFR clause 252.211-7006. Shipments to GSA Distribution Centers with final destinations to DLA and DoD shall be in compliance to 48 CFR 252.211-7006. Copies may be obtained from *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html.*

(End of clause)

[74 FR 66255, Dec. 15, 2009, as amended at 86 FR 55523, Oct. 6, 2021]
#### Hamlet Zurita, Respondent, v Arthur G. McGinnis et al., Appellants.

[777 NYS2d 161]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant Arthur McGinnis appeals, and the defendant Consolidated Edison of New York separately appeals, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated October 1, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendant Arthur G. McGinnis 48% at fault and the defendant Consolidated Edision of New York 52% at fault in the happening of the accident, and awarding the plaintiff damages in the sums of $3,170,000 for past pain and suffering, $38,000 for economic loss, and $12,500 for funeral expenses, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Consolidated Edison of New York, so much of the complaint as seeks to recover damages for past pain and suffering against the defendant Arthur G. McGinnis is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Arthur G. McGinnis in the principal sum of $50,500.

The decedent was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant Arthur G. McGinnis and was thrown in the vicinity of a work site maintained by the defendant Consolidated Edison of New York (hereinafter Con Ed). Despite the plaintiffs claim that the presence of electric cables and a sign indicating “Danger/AIive” at the work site prevented emergency workers from coming to the decedent’s aid, there was no evidence that anyone with the *619ability to render medical assistance was deterred from doing so by the sign or the cables. On the contrary, the record supported a finding that the decedent died prior to the arrival of police or emergency medical services. Thus, the Supreme Court should have dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against Con Ed. There was no evidence from which a rational juror could have found that the conduct of Con Ed was a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries *(see Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493 [1978]; *Francois v Commercial Hotel,*131 AD2d 540 [1987]).

There was also no evidence presented at trial that the decedent cried out, spoke, or made intentional movements following the impact of McGinnis’s vehicle *(cf. Fa-Shun Ou v New York City Tr. Auth.,*309 AD2d 781 [2003]; *Krumenacker v Gargano,*276 AD2d 750 [2000]). Hence, as there was no evidentiary basis from which a rational juror could have found that the decedent was conscious following the accident, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages for past pain and suffering *(see Cummins v County of Onondaga,*84 NY2d 322 [1994]; *Fiederlein v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*56 NY2d 573, 574-575 [1982]; *Cohen v Hallmark Cards, supra*at 499; *Rivera v Eastern Paramedics,*267 AD2d 1029 [1999]). Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
of Vermont Pure Holdings, Ltd.
Williston, Vermont

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-95908, 333-64044, 333-100310, 333-109882 and 333-118228 on Form S-8 of
Vermont Pure Holdings, Ltd. (the "Company") and the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2004 ("fiscal year 2004") of our
report dated December 13, 2002. We express no opinion as to the fiscal year 2002
information set forth in Note 5 of the Company's consolidated financial
statements for fiscal year 2004.

/s/ GRASSI & CO., CPAS, PC.
New York, New York
January 31, 2005
Exhibit 31.2
                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                               PURSUANT TO 15D-14
                          -----------------------------

I, Mark L. Mroczkowski, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Sequiam Corporation;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.   The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer 's disclosure
controls and procedures presented in this annual report 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.

5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the small
business issuer 's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer 's internal
controls; and

6.   The small business issuer 's other certifying officers and I have indicated
in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 14, 2004


/s/ Mark L. Mroczkowski
-----------------------
Mark L. Mroczkowski
Chief Financial Officer


                                       37
<PAGE>
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 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 
            -           Resource: Violence Prevention - Resources for Action      

# Resource: Violence Prevention - Resources for Action

This webpage contains resources to help states and communities take advantage of the best available evidence to prevent violence. These documents cover a variety of topics impacting young people and families, including: 
                  -  Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)  
                  -  Child Abuse and Neglect  
                  -  Intimate Partner Violence  
                  -  Sexual Violence  
                  -  Suicide  
                  -  Youth Violence  

Frequently asked questions and tips on implementing Resources for Action are provided.**Learn more.**
#### SMITH, Respondent, v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 21, 1906.)

Action by Porter D. Smith, as, etc., against the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

McLennan, P. j.,

dissents.

NASH, J.,

not sitting. .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1999
<CASH>                                             611
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,074
<ALLOWANCES>                                       477
<INVENTORY>                                     88,434
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               149,570
<PP&E>                                          87,821
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,659
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 309,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,620
<BONDS>                                        153,005
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,359
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           192
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   309,744
<SALES>                                        128,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               128,133
<CGS>                                           91,770
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126,964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,776
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   383
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,697
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,275)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,632)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,643)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,643)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)


</TABLE>
#### WORMS et al., Respondents, v. SHERLOCK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Henry Worms and Solomon Worms, co-partners, etc., against Pauline Sherlock.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
#### RAPLEE, Respondent, v. SWORTS PRODUCE CO., Limited, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Action by Ira A. Raplee against the Sworts Produce Company, Limited.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
§ 11.22 Functions. ( a ) *Director.* Provides executive direction for NAD. The Director is responsible for developing and implementing nationwide plans, policies, and procedures for the timely and orderly hearing and disposition of appeals filed by individuals or entities in accordance with subpart A of this part. The Director will respond to all FOIA requests concerning appeal decisions and case records maintained by NAD.
( b ) *Deputy Director for Hearings and Administration.* Responsible for all administrative functions of NAD, including budget, correspondence, personnel, travel, equipment, and regulation review and development.
( c ) *Deputy Director for Planning, Training, and Quality Control.* Responsible for NAD strategic planning, including the organization's compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act, Pub. L. 103-62, employee training, and the establishment and maintenance of a quality assurance program.
( d ) *Assistant Directors for Regions.* Responsible for oversight of the adjudication process for cases filed in the NAD regional offices. Assistant Directors ensure statutory and administrative time frames are met, and oversee the administrative functions, training, and supervision of the support staff located in the regional offices and the large dispersed staff of professional hearing officers located throughout the regions. The three regional offices serve as the custodian for all NAD determinations and case records.
#### Susana Parra et al., Respondents, v 167 Allison Meat Corp. et al., Appellants.

[776 NYS2d 804]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered on or about September 30, 2003, which denied, in part, defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of the evidence indicating that plaintiff slipped on an accumulation of dirty, discolored water on the floor of the produce aisle of defendants’ supermarket, and the testimony of a store employee to the effect that the produce on display was kept fresh with ice, some of which may have fallen to the floor and melted, causing the complained-of hazard, a triable issue is raised as to whether defendants created or otherwise had notice of the hazard *(see Navedo v 250 Willis Ave. Supermarket,*290 AD2d 246 [2002]). We decline to reach defendants’ argument as to the timeliness of plaintiffs’ disclosure of a notice witness since the argument is raised for the first time on appeal. We would note, however, that the notice witness was clearly identified as a potential witness at plaintiff’s deposition, while discovery was still ongoing and before the note of issue was filed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### § 1.134 Docket number.

Each proceeding, immediately following its institution, shall be assigned a docket number by the Hearing Clerk, and thereafter the proceeding shall be referred to by such number.
Exhibit 32.2
                                                       ------------

                          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  AmBase  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
A.  Bianco,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (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.


Date: May 15, 2006                        /s/ Richard A. Bianco
                                          ---------------------
                                          Richard A. Bianco
                                          Chairman, President and
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          AmBase Corporation
#### 9903.201 Contract requirements.
Test ID: 4-24-13 M-5 Run #2

Value

220.00

0.0000

200.00

Coke Plant

4A Weight of Acetone Blank (g)

Volume of Acetone Used in Blank (ml)

4/24/2013

Particulate Analysis Data

Volume of Acetone Used 2A (ml)
Test ID: 4-24-13 M-5 Run #2

Value

1.0869

0.84

20.9

0

28.836

28.72729108

0.0100322

541.3

553.3

29.75

60

1.69

1.067

29.75

240

1.28

146.954

32.8

29.71

0.181

0.00017868354

Value

152.5593680

62.84430

6.3

0.29654

26.5

1.249475

0.010032

0.058813

100.5744

Coke Plant

4/24/2013

Method 5 Parameter

p = Stack gas velocity pressure (avg. sqrt p - in. water)

Cp = Pitot tube calibration coefficient

Md = Stack gas dry molecular weight, (lb/lb-mole)

Ms = Stack gas (wet) molecular weight (lb/lb-mole)

Bws = Stack gas moisture content

% O2 in Gas Stream

%CO2 in Gas Stream

H@ = Orifice meter calibration factor, (in. water)

Y = Dry gas meter calibration factor

Pbar = Barometric pressure, (in. Hg)

Total sampling time required for test (min)

Tm = Absolute average dry gas meter temp (R).

Ts = Stack gas absolute average temperature (R)

Pm = Pressure at orifice meter (in. Hg)

Ta = Sampling site ambient temperature, (°F)

I = % Isokinetic variation

Air Test Calculations 

Havg = average orifice meter differential

Vm = Total sample volume from dry gas meter (dcf)

Vlc Volume collected

Ps = Absolute stack gas pressure (in Hg)

Vwc (std) = converted water volume 

Total silica gel catch (ml)

Vwsg (std) = converted silica gel water volume 

Bws = fraction of gas that is moisture

Vwc(std)

Nozzle diameter (in)

Area of Nozzle (ft^2)

Vm (std) = Volume of sample measured by DGM (dscf) 

Vs = Average stack gas velocity

Total impinger catch (ml)
Value

10.4

0.01040

152.55937

62.844296

553.3

29.75

9.62

0.0100322

2044387.1

24.95 Green Anode Processed Tons/Hr

Value

0.307

7.367

0.0123

Combined Method 5 Parameter and Analytical 

Coke Plant Emission Calculations 

4/24/2013

Air Test Final Results 

Total mg of Particulate

Total g of Particulate

Vm(std) Volume of Air Sampled by DGM (dscf)

Vs Average stack gas velocity

Ts Stack Gas Ro

Pbar Barometric Pressure During Test (in Hg)

Emission Rate of Particulate lb Particulate/hr

Emission Rate of particulate lb particulate/d

Pounds of Particulate per Ton green anode processed

Area of the Coke Scrubber (ft2)

Bws Moisture in Stack Emissions

Qstd Flow of Roof Vent Emissions (dscf/hr)
#### 852.235-75 Scientific and Technical Reports.

As prescribed at 835.010, insert the following clause:

Scientific and Technical Reports (DEC 2022)

The Contractor shall submit an electronic copy of the approved scientific technical reports, not a summary, delivered under this contract to the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) as delineated at FAR 35.010.

(End of clause)

[87 FR 70750, Nov. 21, 2022]
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KIM CARTER MARTINEZ, on behalf of

herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 22

- 35305

D.C. No. 3:21

- cv

- 05725

- MJP

Western District of Washington,

Tacoma

ORDER

MURGUIA , Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a)

and Circuit Rule 35

- 3. The three

- judge panel opinion is vacated. 

# FILED

JAN 18 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

KEITH R. LONG, DOC #079409, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2140 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed April 24, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. Keith R. Long, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
SILBERMAN, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
#### 637.102-71 Safety considerations.

When contracting for services to be performed overseas, always consider 636.513(b) and FAR 36.513(b), and consult with technical representatives to determine whether special precautions are appropriate, such as when the services are for building operations, building maintenance or infrastructure repairs.

[82 FR 58353, Dec. 12, 2017]
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 Annual Report of Bank Mutual Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or
about the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael T. Crowley, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (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 results of operations of the Company. /s/ Michael T. Crowley, Jr.Michael T. Crowley, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
March 11, 2005
 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 Bank Mutual Corporation and will be retained by Bank Mutual Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.