alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1740.46 The Buy American preference and the Buy American requirement (Amended). The domestic content preference under this Program applies differently to two classes of awardees: those that are defined as Non-Federal Entities under 2 CFR 200.1 and those that are not. ( a ) *Non-Federal Entity awardees.* Funding to Non-Federal Entities, defined pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1 as any State, local government, Indian Tribe, Institution of Higher Education, or nonprofit organization, shall be governed by the requirements of section 70914 of the Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) within the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
( b ) *All other awardees.* Awardees shall use in connection with the expenditure of loan and grant funds only such unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies, as have been mined or produced in the United States or in any eligible country, and only such manufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been manufactured in the United States or in any eligible country, substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States or in any eligible country. For purposes of this section, an “eligible country” is any country that applies with respect to the United States an agreement ensuring reciprocal access for United States products and services and United States suppliers to the markets of that country, as determined by the United States Trade Representative. The Buy American regulations may be found at, and any requests for waiver must be submitted pursuant to, 7 CFR part 1787.
[88 FR 5726, Jan. 30, 2023]
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PUSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respect the financial condition and results of operations of Vitro Diagnostics, Inc.   Date:  February 13, 2012. By: _/s/ James R. Musick Name:  James R. Musick Title: President, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer Vitro Diagnostics, Inc.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 18 - 00113 - CV GERALD E. GILBERT, A PPELLANT V. ELLEN S. COPELAND, A PPELLEE On Appeal from the 223rd District Court

Gray County, Texas Trial Court No. 38,591, Honorable Phil N. Vanderpool, Presiding



### J uly 9 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER , JJ. Appellant , Gerald E. Gilbert, an inmate proceeding pro se , attempts to appeal the trial court’s j udgment dismissing his claims against appellee, Ellen S. Copeland, pursuant to chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code . We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The trial court signed the Final J udgment on Ma rch 14, 2017. Because Gilbert did not file any post - judgment motions extend ing the notice of appeal deadline, his notice of appeal was due within thirty days after the judgme nt was signed, by April 13, 2017. See2

T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1( a) ( A notice of appeal is due within thirty days after a judgment is signed or within ninety days if a motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for fin dings of fact and conclusions of law is timely filed.). Gilbert did not file a notice of appeal until a year later, on April 9 , 2018. A timely - filed notice of appeal is required to invoke this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 616 - 17 (Tex. 1997). By letter dated May 28, 2019, we notified Gilbert that his notice of app eal appeared to have been filed untimely and directed him to file a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal or the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Gilbert filed a response , a Motion to Establish Jurisdiction of Court of Appe als , and a Motion to Extend Post - Judgment Deadline . In his response and motions, Gilbert claim s that he mailed several post - judgment motions, including a “ m otion for r econsideration , ” to the district clerk for filing on March 24, 2017, but that the motion s w ere returned to him unfiled. Assuming, for argument’s sake, that Gilbert had timely filed a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal deadline would have been extended by ninety days to June 12 , 2017. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1(a). Th erefor e , Gilbert’s notice of appeal filed on April 9 , 2018, would still be untimely. Because Gilbert’ s late notice of appeal failed to invoke the jurisdiction of this C ourt, we deny his motions and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdictio n . T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3( a) . Per Curiam
#### The Commonwealth *vs.*Bailey,

Caso 70.

Error to the Bourbon Circuit; French, Judge.

*Challenge, peremptory. Commonwealth.*

On an indic<7 inent against a tavern keeper for permitting anlatvfal gaming in his house, the , Commonwealth has no right of per-omplory ohall- i.ge to *Oen&rb*man.

*Morehead, Attorney General,*for Commonwealth.

April 20.

Judge Nicholas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The only question presented in this case is, whether under an indictment against a tavern keeper, for permitting unlawful gaming in his house, the Commonwealth has any right of peremptory challenge, to the venire men. The circuit-court decided that she had not, and we think correctly. The case of Montee vs. Commonwealth, III J. J. Marshall, 149, to which we have been referred, does not determine the existence of any such right. The I8(h section of the act of 1796, I. Dig. 408, declares in substance, that in no inquest on the part of the Commonwealth, shall she be allowed a peremptory challenge.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2123 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2123

 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend the Medicaid 
rules regarding supplemental needs trusts for Medicaid beneficiaries to 
               trusts established by those beneficiaries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2013

 Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. Pallone) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend the Medicaid 
rules regarding supplemental needs trusts for Medicaid beneficiaries to 
               trusts established by those beneficiaries.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Special Needs Trust Fairness Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. FAIRNESS IN MEDICAID SUPPLEMENTAL NEEDS TRUSTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1917(d)(4)(A) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(4)(A)) is amended by inserting ``the individual,'' 
after ``for the benefit of such individual by''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to trusts established on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1980.1201 Purpose.

This subpart establishes policies and procedures for the review, approval and servicing of projects authorized to use funding for broadband and smart utility facilities (Special Broadband Authority) in select Rural Development programs. This special broadband authority will leverage the federal resources available for the deployment broadband services in rural areas. The Secretary has discretion to allow recipients of RD grants, loans, or loan guarantees to use a limited amount of funds for broadband purposes.
exv10w1



 










Exhibit 10.1




STEWART INFORMATION SERVICES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES




Executive Officers’ Bonus Plans

December 31, 2004




The following summarizes the terms of the bonus arrangements approved by our Compensation Committee
with respect to our executive officers:




MALCOLM S. MORRIS, as Chairman of the Board and Co-Chief Executive Officer, shall receive in
addition to his salary, 1% on the first $20,000,000 of the consolidated income before taxes of
Stewart Title Guaranty Company as reported to its stockholder, .75% of the pretax profits from
$20,000,001 to $40,000,000, .50% of the pretax profits from $40,000,001 to $60,000,000 and .25% of
the pretax profits exceeding $60,000,000. For the calendar year 2004, Mr. Malcolm S. Morris shall
receive no less than $250,000 in bonus compensation.




STEWART MORRIS, JR., as President and Co-Chief Executive Officer, shall receive in addition to his
salary, 1% on the first $20,000,000 of the consolidated income before taxes of Stewart Title
Guaranty Company as reported to its stockholder, .75% of the pretax profits from $20,000,001 to
$40,000,000, .50% of the pretax profits from $40,000,001 to $60,000,000 and .25% of the pretax
profits exceeding $60,000,000. For the calendar year 2004, Mr. Stewart Morris, Jr. shall receive
no less than $250,000 in bonus compensation.




CARLOSS MORRIS, as Chairman of the Executive Committee of Stewart Title Guaranty Company, shall
receive in addition to his salary, 1% of the first $16,500,000 of the consolidated income before
taxes of Stewart Title Guaranty Company as reported to its stockholder. For the calendar year
2004, Mr. Carloss Morris shall receive no more than $165,000 in bonus compensation.




STEWART MORRIS, as Chairman of the Executive Committee of Stewart Title Company, shall receive in
addition to his salary, 1% of the first $16,500,000 of the consolidated income before taxes of
Stewart Title Guaranty Company as reported to its stockholder. For the calendar year 2004, Mr.
Stewart Morris shall receive no more than $165,000 in bonus compensation.




MAX CRISP, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, shall receive in addition to
his salary, .50% of the first $50,000,000 of the consolidated income before taxes of Stewart Title
Guaranty Company as reported to its stockholder, .40% of the pretax profits from $50,000,001 to
$75,000,000, .30% of the pretax profits from $75,000,001 to $100,000,000 and .20% of the pretax
profits exceeding $100,000,000. For the calendar year 2004, Mr. Max Crisp shall receive no less
than $135,000 in bonus compensation, and his bonus may not exceed 75% of the total base salary plus
bonus earned by a Chief Executive Officer.




MATTHEW W. MORRIS, as Senior Vice President-Planning and Development, shall receive in addition to
his salary, a minimum bonus of $75,000 for the calendar year 2004.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000793322
<NAME>                        PSS, Inc.

<MULTIPLIER>                          1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               OCT-28-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    OCT-28-1995
<CASH>                                   11
<SECURITIES>                          5,840
<RECEIVABLES>                            76
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        5,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 5,420
<BONDS>                              32,413
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                          (31,906)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          5,927
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        582
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       (374)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     (1,674)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   (2,765)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (4,231)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (4,231)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         (4,231)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0
        


</TABLE>
SHARON KELLER PRESIDING JUDGE

BARBARA P. HERVEY BERT RICHARDSON KEVIN P. YEARY DAVID NEWELL MARY LOU KEEL SCOTT WALKER MICHELLE M. SLAUGHTER JESSE F. MCCLURE, III JUDGES 

# C OURT OF 

# C RIMINAL 

# A PPEALS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 DEANA WILLIAMSON CLERK (512) 463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB GENERAL COUNSEL (512) 463-1597

S UPREME C OURT B UILDING , 201 W EST 14 TH S TREET , R OOM 106, A USTIN , T EXAS 78701 W EBSITE WWW

. TXCOURTS

. GOV / CCA 

## Wednesday, May 12, 2021
11th Court of Appeals Clerk Sherry Williamson P. O. Box 271 Eastland, TX 76448 * Delivered Via E-Mail *

Re: Coppler, Noah Job CCA No. PD-1009-19 COA No. 11-19-00146-CR Trial Court Case No. 12719
The court has issued an opinion on the above referenced cause number.
Sincerely,

Deana Williamson, Clerk

cc: Presiding Judge 32nd District Court (Delivered Via E-Mail) District Clerk Nolan County (Delivered Via E-Mail) District Attorney Nolan County (Delivered Via E-Mail) Stacey M. Soule (Delivered Via E-Mail) Noah Job Coppler
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7412

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN HENRY JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:17-cr-00108-BHH-26)

Submitted: April 29, 2021 Decided: May 12, 2021

Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Henry Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Justin William Holloway, Assistant United States

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Henry Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Johnson, No. 4:17-cr-00108-BHH-26 (D.S.C. Sept. 9, 2020). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
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 Quarterly Report of Chardan South China
Acquisition Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
March 31, 2006 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Dr. Richard D. Propper, Chief Financial
Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and

         2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Richard D. Propper                                    Dated: August 21, 2006
------------------------------------------------
Dr. Richard D. Propper
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
98-1523.

#### Hall v. Forsyth.

Montgomery App. No. 17014. On motion for injunctive relief and emergency motion for temporary restraining order. Motions denied.

Lundberg Stratton, J., would dismiss the cause.
(114 App. Div. 857)

#### WEINBERG v. ELY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

Landlord and Tenant—Injury to Tenant’s Goods—Failure to Repair— Liability of Landlord.

A lease provided that if the building should be damaged by fire repairs should be made at the landlord’s expense. A fire occurred and destroyed the roof. The landlord was notified at once, but neither he nor the tenant made any repairs. Six days later a heavy rain damaged the tenant’s goods. *Held,*that the landlord was not liable therefor, as it was the tenant’s duty to protect his goods or make repairs himself at the landlord’s expense.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 32, Cent. Dig. Landlord and Tenant, §§ 540, 649.]

Appeal from Trial Term, Richmond County.

Action by Pesach Weinberg against Smith Ely. From a judgment in his favor, and an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The action was for damages to a tenant by breach of contract to repair by a landlord. The defendant let an entire building of five stories to the plaintiff’s assignor by a written lease for a term of three years. The *284lease provided that if the building “shall be partially damaged by fire the same shall be repaired as speedily as possible at the expense of the party of the first part” (the lessor), and that if the damage should be “so extensive as to render the building untenantable,” the rent should cease until the building was repaired. The tenant occupied the building for business purposes. A fire entirely destroyed the roof, and also burned holes through every floor. Next day the tenant notified the landlord of the damage to the building. The fire was on February 15th, and on February 21st there was a heavy rain which damaged the tenant’s goods in the building. Neither landlord nor tenant had made any repairs in the meantime.

The court excluded all evidence of damage to the tenant’s goods by the rain. The plaintiff thereupon asked to withdraw a juror. The court refused, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff for six cents. The plaintiff offered evidence of no other damage.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, HOOKER, and GAYNOR, JJ.

Abraham B. Schleimer, for appellant

Henry W. Simpson, for respondent.

GAYNOR, J.

Counsel for the appellant persisted on the argument in criticising the summary disposition of the case by the learned trial judge as arbitrary, and the like. Such criticism was unfounded and out of place. It was for the tenant to protect his goods after the fire by covering them, moving them out, or by making the repairs himself at the landlord’s expense. ' The law did not tie his hands. The law is not that he could neglect his goods, and recover of the landlord for damage done to them by the landlord’s neglect to repair. Cook v. Soule, 56 N. Y. 420. Nor did the lease bind the landlord to repair; it only provided that the repairs should be done at his expense.

The judgment and order should be affirmed.

Judgment and order affirmed,- with costs. All concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDesign and fabrication of the NASA HL-20 full scale research modelA full-scale engineering model of the HL-20 Personnel Launch System (PLS) was constructed for systems and human factors evaluation. Construction techniques were developed to enable the vehicle to be constructed with a minimum of time and cost. The design and construction of the vehicle are described.Document ID19910006695Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsDriver, K. Dean*(North Carolina State Univ. Raleigh, NC, United States)*Vess, Robert J.*(North Carolina State Univ. Raleigh, NC, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 25, 1991Subject CategoryAircraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-187801NAS 1.26:187801Accession Number91N16008Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAGW-1331Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910006695.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-individual-development.htm**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-individual-development.htm**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
EXHIBIT 32.2





SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





CERTIFICATION OF W. RANDALL FOWLER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


OF EPE HOLDINGS, LLC, THE GENERAL PARTNER OF


ENTERPRISE GP HOLDINGS L.P.





In connection with this quarterly report of Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, W. Randall Fowler, Chief Financial Officer of EPE Holdings, LLC, the General Partner of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.








/s/ W. Randall FowlerName:
W. Randall FowlerTitle:
Chief Financial Officer of EPE Holdings, LLCthe General Partner of Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.





Date:        May 10, 2010
###### Editorial Note on Part 1948

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1948 appear at 80 FR 9888, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1948.71 [Reserved]
#### Enterprise Window Cleaning Co. et al., Appellants, v. Pete Slowuta, as President of the Window Cleaners Protective Union Local No. 2, Respondent.

Order entered on September 14, 1966 vacating final decree dated April 3, 1933, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to abide the event, and the matter remanded for hearing. Prima facie respondent makes out a persuasive case for the requested vacatur. The papers in opposition, however, contain some conflicting allegations regarding the current situation which in our judgment preclude a determination on affidavits alone. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ. [51 Misc 2d 482.]