alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9.206-3 Competition. ( a ) *Presolicitation.* If a qualification requirement applies to an acquisition, the contracting officer shall review the applicable QPL, QML, or QBL or other identification of those sources which have met the requirement before issuing a solicitation to ascertain whether the number of sources is adequate for competition. (See 9.204(a) for duties of the agency activity responsible for establishment of the qualification requirement.) If the number of sources is inadequate, the contracting officer shall request the agency activity which established the requirement to— ( 1 ) Indicate the anticipated date on which any sources presently undergoing evaluation will have demonstrated their abilities to meet the qualification requirement so that the solicitation could be rescheduled to allow as many additional sources as possible to qualify; or
( 2 ) Indicate whether a means other than the qualification requirement is feasible for testing or demonstrating quality assurance.
( b ) *Postsolicitation.* The contracting officer shall submit to the agency activity which established the qualification requirement the names and addresses of concerns which expressed interest in the acquisition but are not included on the applicable QPL, QML, or QBL or identified as meeting the qualification requirement. The activity will then assist interested concerns in meeting the standards specified for qualification (see 9.202(a) (2) and (4)).
[50 FR 35476, Aug. 30, 1985, as amended at 60 FR 34737, July 3, 1995]
(April 18, 1967)

#### Memorial Hospital, Appellant, v. Georgianna Marrion, Respondent.

— Motion for a stay denied, without costs. (See CPLR 5519, subd. [a], par. 2.) Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


RULE
15d-14(b)


and


18 U.S.C.
§1350,





AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Sequiam Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark L. Mroczkowski,
Senior Vice President, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer & Principal
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





(2)  The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the periods covered therein.





/s/
      Mark L. MroczkowskiMark
      L. MroczkowskiSenior
      Vice President, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer &Principal
      Financial OfficerApril
      15, 2005
From: Yanca, Catherine

To: "Colby Cooley" Subject: RE: Tier III Vehicle Question

Date: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 4:24:00 PM

Hi Colby,

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the effects of burning higher sulfur gasoline in Tier 3

vehicles. As discussed in the Tier 3 proposal, the proposed gasoline sulfur limits are necessary to enable newly-designed vehicles to meet the more stringent Tier 3 vehicle

emissions standards. We do not expect that operating on higher sulfur fuel would result in permanent damage to the emission control technologies that enable vehicles to meet the Tier 3 standards; however, while operating on higher sulfur fuel, these vehicles will have higher emissions than what can be achieved with the Tier 3 sulfur controls in place. For more detailed information on the impact of sulfur control on the feasibility of the vehicle standards, please see Section IV.A.6 of the Tier 3 NPRM preamble ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-21/pdf/2013-08500.pdf ) and Section 1.2.3.1 in Chapter 1 of our Regulatory Impact Analysis ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05- 21/pdf/2013-08500.pdf ).

Regards,
Cay

Catherine (Cay) A. Yanca US EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality

Assessment and Standards Division

2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Phone: 734.214.4769

From: Colby Cooley [mailto:98cooley@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 8:02 PM To: Ball, Joel; Wehrly, Linc; Yanca, Catherine Subject: Tier III Vehicle Question

Hello,

My name is Colby Cooley, and I am a student at the University of Utah. I have been tasked with doing some research on Tier III Vehicles and Gasoline and have run into a difficult question:

Will burning Tier II gasoline in any way harm a Tier III vehicle (once they are available), short or long term?

If I could be pointed in the direction of information on this topic, I would appreciate it,Best,

Colby Cooley Government Relations Intern | Parsons Behle & Latimer Vice President | Gamma Beta Chapter of Beta Theta Pi 801.859.7295 98cooley@gmail.com ccooley@parsonsbehle.com
EXHIBIT 99(b)

Independent Accountants'Report

The Board of Directors

HSBC Finance Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion that the servicing of consumer automobile finance receivables owned by Household Automotive Trust VI, Series 2000-3has been conductedby HSBC Finance Corporation, successor by merger to Household Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer,in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in Articles IV and V of the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement dated August 28, 2000 (the Agreement), as supplemented, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004. HSBC Finance Corporation's management is responsible for the assertion.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting that the servicing of receivables has been conducted in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in Articles IV and V of the Agreement, as supplemented, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion,management's assertion thatthe servicing of the receivables has been conducted by HSBC Finance Corporation,successor by merger to Household Finance Corporation,as Master Servicer, in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in Articles IV and V of the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement dated August 28, 2000, as supplemented,as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the addressee and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than this specified party.



/s/ KPMG LLP

March 1, 2005



Management Assertion





As of and for the year ended December 31, 2004, the servicing of consumer automobile finance receivables owned by Household Automotive Trust VI, Series 2000-3 has been conducted by HSBC Finance Corporation, successor by merger to Household Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer, in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in Articles IV and V of the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement dated August 28, 2000, as supplemented.



|/s/ Steve Smith
Steve Smith
Servicing Officer
HSBC Finance Corporation
March 1, 2005
Date
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Joan Coppenrath
Joan Coppenrath
Controller
HSBC Finance Corporation - Auto FinanceMarch 1, 2005
Date | /s/ Craig Peters
Craig Peters
Group Director - Asset Management
HSBC Finance Corporation - Auto FinanceMarch 1, 2005
Date
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1211 

To prohibit the mass cancellation of student loans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2023 

Mr. DESJARLAIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the mass cancellation of student loans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student Loan Account5 ability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) Statutory authority has not been provided 

9 to the executive branch of the Federal Government 

10 to cancel student loans on a mass scale. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1211 IH

1 (2) It is unfair for taxpayers who paid student 

2 loans or did not attend college to pay for those who 

3 chose to take student loans. 

4 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON MASS CANCELLATION OF STU5 DENT LOANS. 

6 (a) PROHIBITION.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

8 provision of law, the Secretary of Education, the 

9 Secretary of the Treasury, or the Attorney General 

10 shall not take any action to cancel or forgive the 

11 outstanding balances, or portion of balances, of cov12 ered loans, except as provided in paragraph (2). 

13 (2) EXEMPTION.—The prohibition described in 

14 paragraph (1) shall not apply to targeted Federal 

15 student loan forgiveness, cancellation, or repayment 

16 programs carried out under the Higher Education 

17 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), under final 

18 regulations as in effect on March 12, 2020. 

19 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the term ‘‘covered 

20 loan’’ means— 

21 (1) a loan made, insured, or guaranteed under 

22 part B, D, or E of title IV of the Higher Education 

23 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.; 1087a et seq.; 

24 1087aa et seq.) before, on, or after the date of en25 actment of this Act; or 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1211 IH

1 (2) a loan under the Health Education Assist2 ance Loan Program under title VII of the Public 

3 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292 et seq.) made be4 fore, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

5 (c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary of Education, the 

6 Secretary of the Treasury, or the Attorney General may 

7 not implement, or publish in any form, any regulation, or 

8 take any action, that modifies, alters, amends, cancels, 

9 discharges, forgives, or defers the repayment of any stu10 dent debt not expressly permitted within statute or regula11 tion as in effect on March 12, 2020, regarding covered 

12 loans, except to the extent that such regulation or action 

13 reflects the clear and unequivocal intent of Congress in 

14 legislation. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Cintron, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 13, 1977, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and *1008imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, indictment dismissed, and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. The defendant was indicted for assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. He admitted shooting the complainant. The only issue for the jury was whether he did so in self-defense. The jury acquitted him of assault but, nevertheless, convicted him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (possession of a weapon with the intent to use it unlawfully against another). Since the prosecution evidently failed to prove any unlawful intent to injure the complainant and no other evidence of unlawful intent was present in the case, appellant alleges the two verdicts are irreconcilable and cannot stand. We agree. (See, e.g., *People v Perez,*60 AD2d 656; cf. *People v Haymes,*34 NY2d 639, 640.) Since there is no conceivable version of the facts which would support such a verdict, the judgment must be reversed and the indictment dismissed. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
§ 1.132 Definitions. As used in this subpart, the terms as defined in the statute under which the proceeding is conducted and in the regulations, standards, instructions, or orders issued thereunder, shall apply with equal force and effect. In addition and except as may be provided otherwise in this subpart: *Administrator* means the Administrator of the Agency administering the statute involved, or any officer or employee of the Agency to whom authority has heretofore been delegated, or to whom authority may hereafter be delegated, to act for the Administrator.
*Complainant* means the party instituting the proceeding.
*Complaint* means the formal complaint, order to show cause, or other document by virtue of which a proceeding is instituted.
*Decision* means: ( 1 ) The Judge's initial decision made in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557, and includes the Judge's ( i ) findings and conclusions and the reasons or basis therefor on all material issues of fact, law or discretion,
( ii ) order, and
( iii ) rulings on proposed findings, conclusions and orders submitted by the parties; and
( 2 ) The decision and order by the Judicial Officer upon appeal of the Judge's decision.
*Hearing* means that part of the proceeding which involves the submission of evidence before the Judge for the record in the proceeding.
*Hearing Clerk* means the Hearing Clerk, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.
*Judge* means any Administrative Law Judge appointed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3105 and assigned to the proceeding involved.
*Judicial Officer* means an official of the United States Department of Agriculture delegated authority by the Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant to the Act of April 4, 1940 (7 U.S.C. 450c-450g) and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 (5 U.S.C. App. (1988)), to perform the function involved (§ 2.35(a) of this chapter), or the Secretary of Agriculture if the authority so delegated is exercised by the Secretary.
*Mail* means to deposit an item in the United States Mail with postage affixed and addressed as necessary to cause it to be delivered to the address shown by ordinary mail, or by certified or registered mail if specified.
*Petitioner* means an individual who has filed a petition for review of a determination that the individual is responsibly connected to a licensee within the meaning of 7 U.S.C. 499a(b)(9).
*Re-mail* means to mail by ordinary mail to an address an item that has been returned after being sent to the same address by certified or registered mail.
*Respondent* means the party proceeded against.
[42 FR 743, Jan. 4, 1977, as amended at 55 FR 30673, July 27, 1990; 60 FR 8455, Feb. 14, 1995; 61 FR 11503, Mar. 21, 1996; 68 FR 6340, Feb. 7, 2003]
#### § 1209.3 Consumer information.

*Consumer information* means information and programs that will assist consumers and other persons in making evaluations and decisions regarding the purchase, preparation, and use of mushrooms.
#### 9904.415-10 [Reserved]
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: How to Make a Pinhole Camera      

# Resource: How to Make a Pinhole Camera

This webpage contains a step-by-step guide for making a pinhole camera to watch a solar eclipse safely and easily. **Learn more.**
#### Lorich Building Corp., Respondent, v Insurance Corporation of New York, Appellant, and Nationwide Insurance *582Co., Respondent.

[776 NYS2d 500]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant Insurance Corporation of New York is obligated to defend the plaintiff in an underlying personal injury action entitled *Parzych v 109-Suffolk Corp.,*pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 22627/01, the defendant Insurance Corporation of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated January 16, 2003, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment declaring that it is obligated to defend the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action and denied its cross motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, for change of venue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant Insurance Corporation of New York is obligated to defend the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant Insurance Corporation of New York (hereinafter Inscorp) was obligated to defend the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action. The plaintiff satisfied its burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, Inscorp failed to raise a triable issue of fact to sustain either of its grounds for disclaiming coverage *(see General Acc. Ins. Group v Cirucci,*46 NY2d 862, 864 [1979]).

Inscorp’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Since this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court should have directed the entry of a judgment declaring that Inscorp is obligated to defend the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action entitled *Parzych v 109-Suffolk Corp.,*pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 22627/01 *(see Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], *appeal dismissed*371 US 74 [1962], *cert denied*371 US 901 [1962]). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.
#### § 1006.11 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 36 (Thursday, February 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 11496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03907]



[[Page 11496]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-10-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 49--Newark and Elizabeth, New Jersey; 
Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Celgene Corporation 
(Biopharmaceuticals); Warren and Summit, New Jersey

    Celgene Corporation (Celgene) submitted a notification of proposed 
production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities in Warren and 
Summit, New Jersey. The notification conforming to the requirements of 
the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on 
February 12, 2021.
    A separate application has been submitted for FTZ designation at 
the company's facilities under FTZ 49. The facilities are used for the 
production of cell therapy products. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ 
activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material and 
specific finished product described in the submitted notification (as 
described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Celgene from customs 
duty payments on the foreign-status material used in export production. 
On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status material noted below, 
Celgene would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry 
procedures that applies to cell therapy products (duty-free). Celgene 
would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status material which becomes 
scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced 
on foreign-status production equipment. The material sourced from 
abroad is human primary cells (``T-cells'') (duty-free).
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7b1a3ad97a3a5b6b3b2f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a3c2e201a2e283b3e3f743d352c">[email protected]</span></a>. The closing period for their receipt is April 6, 2021.
    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection 
in the ``Reading Room'' section of the Board's website, which is 
accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    For further information, contact Diane Finver at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e3a78a828d86cda58a8d958691a39791828786cd848c95"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b4f626a656e254d62657d6e794b7f796a6f6e256c647d">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: February 22, 2021.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03907 Filed 2-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Southern Surety Company, appellant, v. The Peoples State Bank of Astoria, appellee.

Gen. No. 7,945.

Opinion filed December 19, 1928.

Original opinion reported in full in 243 Ill. App. 195.

Gillespie & Gillespie, for appellant; Hugh J. Dobbs and Louis F. Gillespie, of counsel. Glenn Ratcliff and Robert E. White, for appellee.

Per curiam.
§ 1126.71 Payments to the producer-settlement fund. Each handler shall make payment to the producer-settlement fund in a manner that provides receipt of the funds by the market administrator no later than the 16th 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 to the handler for the month as determined pursuant to § 1126.60.
( b ) The sum of: ( 1 ) An amount obtained by multiplying the total hundredweight of producer milk as determined pursuant to § 1000.44(c) by the producer price differential as adjusted pursuant to § 1126.75;
( 2 ) An amount obtained by multiplying the total pounds of protein, other solids, and butterfat contained in producer milk by the protein, other solids, and butterfat prices respectively;
( 3 ) The total value of the somatic cell adjustment to producer milk; and
( 4 ) An amount obtained by multiplying the pounds of skim milk and butterfat for which a value was computed pursuant to § 1126.60(i) by the producer price differential as adjusted pursuant to § 1126.75 for the location of the plant from which received.
[64 FR 48004, Sept. 1, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 82841, Dec. 28, 2000; 68 FR 7069, Feb. 12, 2003]