alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1775.20 Reporting. ( a ) Grantees shall constantly monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met, projected work by time periods is being accomplished, and other performance objectives are being achieved.
( b ) SF-425,” Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance activity report will be required of all grantees on a quarterly basis, due 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter.
( c ) A final project performance report will be required with the last SF-425 due 90 days after the end of the last quarter in which the project is completed. The final report may serve as the last quarterly report.
( d ) All multi-State grantees are to submit an original of each report to the National Office. Grantees serving only one State are to submit an original of each report to the State Office. The project performance reports should detail, preferably in a narrative format, activities that have transpired for the specific time period and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: ( 1 ) A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period (i.e. number of meetings held, number of people contacted, results of activity);
( 2 ) Analysis of challenges or setbacks that occurred during the grant period;
( 3 ) Copies of fliers, news releases, news articles, announcements and other information used to promote services or projects;
( 4 ) Problems, delays, or adverse conditions which will affect attainment of overall project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular project work elements during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation; and
( 5 ) Activities planned for the next reporting period.
[70 FR 70878, Jan. 7, 2004, as amended at 79 FR 76005, Dec. 19, 2014]
#### § 15.115 Affidavits.

An affidavit, intended to be used as evidence without cross-examination of the affiant, will be filed and served on the parties at least 15 days prior to the hearing; and not less than seven days prior to hearing a party may file and serve written objections to any affidavit on the ground that he believes it necessary to test the truth of assertions therein by cross-examination. In such event, the affidavit objected to will not be received in evidence unless the affiant is made available for cross-examination at the hearing or otherwise as prescribed by the hearing officer. In absence of an objection being filed within the time specified, such affidavit will be received in evidence.
#### Robert A. Drennan et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Great American Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and third-party complaint dismissed, with costs. Memorandum: A milk truck owned by Drennan had left the highway and overturned in a field. Platt, an employee of Drennan, called Market Street Garage to extricate the milk truck. Employees of Market, including Evans, attached a chain to the front axle of the milk truck, then attached a cable from a tow truck to the chain and winched the milk truck onto the highway. Thereafter the cable was disconnected from the chain and the tow truck moved up the road some distance. Platt, the operator of the milk truck, then turned off the engine, got out of the truck and walked around it. A little later he saw some traffic coming up the road and, inasmuch as the milk truck was blocking traffic," he got back into the milk truck to drive it out of the way; in so doing he ran over Evans who was removing the chain which had been put around the axle. Evans brought a personal injury action against Drennan and its employee, Platt, and others, all of whom are third-party plaintiffs. Market Street Garage was insured against liability by the third-party defendant, Great American Insurance Company. The third-party plaintiffs, through Merchants Mutual Insurance Co., called upon Great American to defend them in the action brought by Evans on the ground that they are additional insureds under Market’s policy. The critical question is whether, upon the facts above stated, the insurance policy issued to Market provided additional insurance to Platt, the driver of the milk truck, at the time of the accident. Although the policy defines *“*insured ” as including *“*any person while using an automobile covered by this policy, and any person or organization legally responsible for the use thereof” and includes within the definition of *“*automobile ”, *“*equipment for use therewith ”, we do not agree with Special Term that Platt was covered by Market’s policy for the injuries sustained by Evans. Even if it were to be assumed that the towing operation had not been completed at the time of the accident (see *Wagman*v. *American Fid. & Cas. Co.,*304 N. Y. 490), nevertheless the cause of the accident did not arise from an act or omission related to the towing. The act of Platt, driver of the milk truck, in moving the latter was an independent act on his own account, neither incidental nor necessary to the towing operation. In this circumstance there is no coverage by the policy issued to Market. *(Cosmopolitan Mut. Ins. Co.*v. *Baltimore & Ohio*R. R. *Co,,*18 A D 2d 460,) (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua Trial *642Term for third-party plaintiffs in an action on garage liability policy; appeal from order denying motion for a new trial.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Del Veeehio and Marsh, JJ.
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                      |   |   |                                             |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
| By:              /s/ Li              Zhang                                                      |   |   | Dated:              August 21,              2006 |
|                                                                                                           |   |   |                                                  |
| Li                ZhangChief                Executive Officer(Principal                Executive Officer) |   |   |                                             |
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: SK Plymouth, LLC and SK E&P Operations America, LLC and Joey

Jun v. Jean Elizabeth Simmons

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00433

- CV

Trial court case number: 2019

- 03233

Trial court: 189th District Court of Harris County

This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order denying appellants, SK Plymouth, LLC and SK E&P Operations America, LLC, and Joey Jun’s, motion to compel arbitration. Appellants f

iled a motion to stay proceedings in the trial court pending this appeal. Appellee, Jean Elizabeth Simmons, filed a response, asking that we limit the stay to trial proceedings.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.5 prohibits a trial court from making a n order that “interferes with or impairs the jurisdiction of the appellate court or effectiveness of any relief sought or that may be granted on appeal.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 29.5(b). Rule 29.3 allows an appellate court to make any temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties’ rights until disposition of the appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 29.3. After consideration of the parties’ arguments, we grant the motion to stay.

Further proceedings in the trial court are STAYED pending disposition of this appeal or

fur ther order of this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

__

/s/ Richard Hightower

_____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ October 22, 20 19

__
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.69 Agency point of contact.

Grantees must submit packages to the appropriate Agency office serving the designated county and/or colonias. Packages for Single Family Housing loans/grants are submitted to the appropriate County Office. All other packages are submitted to the appropriate District Office. The applicable forms required to develop a package can be obtained in any District or County Office. Packagers should coordinate their packaging activity with the appropriate District and County Offices.

[58 FR 58643, Nov. 3, 1993, as amended at 61 FR 39851, July 31, 1996]
**Exhibit31.2**

**Certification**

I, Jack Pearlstein, ChiefFinancial Officer of Solera Holdings, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Solera Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: June 25, 2007
|            | /s/ Jack Pearlstein         |
|------------|-----------------------------|
| ** ** | **Jack Pearlstein**         |
| ** ** | **Chief Financial Officer** |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6599

MICHAEL G. KESELICA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTIN VAN EVANS; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04- 410-AMD) Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 6, 2005 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael G. Keselica, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael G. Keselica, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable 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 both that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional c laims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (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 Keselica has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Keselica’s motion for 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
§ 1784.26 Planning, development, and procurement. ( a ) If RUS is the lead agency and will provide oversight for the project, a certification should be obtained from the State agency, or the Environmental Protection Agency if the State does not have primacy, stating that the proposed improvements will be in compliance with requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and/or Clean Water Act and the applicable requirements of 2 CFR part 200 and 2 CFR part 400.
( b ) Applicants that will bid and construct a project in phases, must provide assurance that the full scope of each specific phase of the project will be functional. In the event that the actual cost is anticipated to exceed the funding originally allocated for the project, all potential options will be reviewed and considered, including but not limited to acquiring additional funds or a reduction in project scope. RUS, ANTHC, and VSW will ensure that all items that were funded and within the scope of the project, including all phases, are functional when all funds have been disbursed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>        0000793024
<NAME>       KENT ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                          25,050
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,091
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,256
<INVENTORY>                                     94,494
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               212,402
<PP&E>                                         116,405
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,515
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 325,594
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,518
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,371
<OTHER-SE>                                     221,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   325,594
<SALES>                                        516,757
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               516,757
<CGS>                                          396,054
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  396,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   409
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,479
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,621
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,621
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000793322
<NAME>                        PSS, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 NOV-03-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                             313
<SECURITIES>                     4,459
<RECEIVABLES>                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                         0
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     0
<PP&E>                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   4,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            4,393
<BONDS>                         37,627
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                             0
<OTHER-SE>                     (37,191)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     4,829
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   446
<CGS>                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  (104)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                (2,265)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              (2,546)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (2,265)
<INCOME-TAX>                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (2,265)
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                    (2,265)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0
        


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 1951
Editorial Notes: 1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1951.708 Notification to recipient. ( a ) Upon determination that unauthorized assistance was received, Rural Development will send a demand letter to the recipient that: ( 1 ) Specifies the amount of unauthorized assistance, including any accrued interest to be repaid, and the standards for imposing accrued interest;
( 2 ) States the amount of penalties and administrative costs to be paid, the standards for imposing them, and the date on which they will begin to accrue;
( 3 ) Provides detailed reason(s) why the assistance was determined to be unauthorized;
( 4 ) States the amount is immediately due and payable to Rural Development;
( 5 ) Describes the rights the recipient has for seeking review of Rural Development's determination pursuant to 7 CFR part 11;
( 6 ) Describes the Agency's available remedies regarding enforced collection, including referral of debt delinquent more than 180 days for Federal salary, benefit, and tax offset under the Department of Treasury Offset Program (TOP); and
( 7 ) Provides an opportunity for the recipient to meet with Rural Development to provide facts, figures, written records, or other information which might refute Rural Development's determination.
( b ) If the recipient meets with Rural Development, Rural Development will outline to the recipient why the assistance was determined to be unauthorized. The recipient will be given an opportunity to provide information to refute Rural Development's findings. When requested by the recipient, Rural Development may grant additional time for the recipient to assemble documentation. Such extension of time for payment will be valid only if Rural Development documents the extension in writing and specifies the period in days during which period the payment obligation created by the demand letter (but not the ongoing accrual of interest) will be suspended. Interest and other charges will continue to accrue pursuant to the demand letter during any extension period unless the terms of the demand letter are modified in writing by Rural Development.
( c ) Unless Rural Development modifies the original demand, it will remain in full force and effect.
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3653-1 Filed 01/30/23 Page 1 of 2
1

Betsy Williams

From: Nomellini, Mark J. <mnomellini@kirkland.com>

Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 11:46 AM

To: Bryan Aylstock

Cc: Jennifer Hoekstra; Shelley Hutson; Betsy Williams

Subject: RE: 3M - Touhy

Bryan, 

This is fine, provided that you send us an unsealed, unredacted copy. 

Thanks. 

Mark 

From: Bryan Aylstock <BAylstock@awkolaw.com>  

Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 11:28 AM 

To: Nomellini, Mark J. <mnomellini@kirkland.com> 

Cc: Jennifer Hoekstra <JHoekstra@awkolaw.com>; Shelley Hutson <SHutson@triallawfirm.com>; Betsy Williams 

<BWilliams@awkolaw.com> 

Subject: [EXT] 3M ‐ Touhy 

Hi Mark, 

Sure you are fine with it but we need your consent to file the list of names under seal.  Good with that? 

Thanks! 

bryan 

This electronic message and/or its attachments contain legally privileged and confidential information intended 

only for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby 

notified that any reading, dissemination, disclosure, distribution, or copying of this transmission or its 

attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please immediately notify the 

sender by electronic mail, and delete this message, its attachments and all copies and backups. 

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only 

for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Kirkland & Ellis LLP or Kirkland & Ellis International LLP. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of 

this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 

immediately by return email or by email to postmaster@kirkland.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. 

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3653-1 Filed 01/30/23 Page 2 of 2
§ 18.2 Purpose, applicability and coverage. ( a ) *Purpose.* This part provides a cooperative procedure involving the President and Secretary to assure that the Cooperative Extension Service provides equal opportunity in employment to each individual without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, or religion.
( b ) *Applicability.* The regulations in this part apply to every Land-Grant University operating a Cooperative Extension Service.
( c ) *Coverage.* This part applies to all positions in all units of the Cooperative Extension Service but does not apply to employees provided by county and other political subdivisions in support of Cooperative Extension Service programs.
[33 FR 12173, Aug. 29, 1968, as amended at 38 FR 14154, May 8, 1973]