alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3430.59 Review of disallowed costs. ( a ) *Notice.* If the NIFA determines that there is a basis for disallowing a cost, NIFA shall provide the awardee written notice of its intent to disallow the cost. The written notice shall state the amount of the cost and the factual and legal basis for disallowing it.
( b ) *Awardee response.* Within 60 days of receiving written notice of NIFA's intent to disallow the cost, the awardee may respond with written evidence and arguments to show the cost is allowable, or that , for equitable, practical, or other reasons, shall not recover all or part of the amount, or that the recovery should be made in installments. The 60-day time period may be extended for an additional 30 days upon written request by the awardee; however, such request for an extension of time must be made before the expiration of the 60-day time period specified in this paragraph. An extension of time will be granted only in extenuating circumstances.
( c ) *Decision.* Within 60 days of receiving the awardee's written response to the notice of intent to disallow the cost, NIFA shall issue a management decision stating whether or not the cost has been disallowed, the reasons for the decision, and the method of appeal that has been provided under this section. If the awardee does not respond to the written notice under paragraph (a) of this section within the time frame specified in paragraph (b) of this section, NIFA shall issue a management decision on the basis of the information available to it. The management decision shall constitute the final action with respect to whether the cost is allowed or disallowed. In the case of a questioned cost identified in the context of an audit2 CFR 200.521, the management decision will constitute the management decision under 7 CFR 3052.405(a).
( d ) *Demand for payment.* If the management decision under paragraph (c) of this section constitutes a finding that the cost is disallowed and, therefore, that a debt is owed to the Government, NIFA shall provide the required demand and notice pursuant to 7 CFR 3.11.
( e ) *Review process.* Within 60 days of receiving the demand and notice referred to in paragraph (d) of this section, the awardee may submit a written request to the NIFAOffice of Grants and Financial Management (OGFM) Deputy Director for a review of the final management decision that the debt exists and the amount of the debt. Within 60 days of receiving the written request for a review, the NIFA Deputy Administrator (or other senior NIFA official designated by the NIFA Office of Grants and Financial Management (OGFM) Deputy Director) will issue a final decision regarding the debt. Review by the NIFA Office of Grants and Financial Management (OGFM) Deputy Director or designee constitutes, and will be in accordance with, the administrative review procedures provided for debts under 7 CFR part 3, subpart F.
[74 FR 45740, Sept. 4, 2009, as amended at 79 FR 76001, Dec. 19, 2014]
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C SECTION 350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Oakmont Acquisition Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert J. Skandalaris, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 14, 2007



|                                  
|----------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Skandalaris         
|Robert J. Skandalaris             
|Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
#### Grundy *vs.*Edwards.

Covenant. Case 121.

Error to the Union Circuit; ‘Shackleford, Judge.

*Covenant. Measure of Damages. Parol Proof.*

The sum paid or acreed to be paid, is the damages for breach of covthereof. *368P.ll'O t.O-'i m > ' tint '«I. nn-'d>l fo c.)<it> nd<ct a .Y t’cn instriuneut.

*367May 11.

Judge Nicholas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This writ of error is prosecuted to reverse a judgment obtained by Grundy against Edwards in an action on a covenant for the conveyance of the moiety of a tan yard. Judgment went, by default, against Edwards.

On the enquiry as to the damages, after Grundy had read in evidence the covenant, reciting a consideration of six hundred dollars, the court permitted Edwards to prove that the property was at the time of sale of less value than six hundred dollars, and that, according to the agreement and understanding of the parties, the consideration was payable in notes of the Commonwealth’s bank, then at a great depreciation. The court also refused, at the instance of the plaintiff, to instruct the jury that the covenant was conclusive evidence between the parties of what was agreed to be paid, and the jury thereupon found a verdict for Grundy for only #372.

The measure of damages for a breach of a covenant to convey, is the sum paid or agreed to be paid by the covenantee, and not the actual value 0f the property at the date ox the sale. ' lhe sum recited in the covenant, as having been paid or agreed to be paid, must, in the absence of other written evidence, be ever taken and held in a court of com*368moti law to be the true sum. It was evidently improper in the court to prevent parol testimony to ho used either to shew that the term dollars meant bank paper, or that the covenant did not correctly recito the agreement between the parties as to tlie consideration.

*Brown,*for plaintiff; *Crittenden,*for defendant.

Wherefore, judgment reversed, and cause remanded, for further proceedings consistent herewith. Plaintiff in error must recover costs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSEPH F. LIGON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 207 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
§ 322.25 Notice of arrival. At least 2 business days prior to the expected date of arrival of restricted organisms at a port in the continental United States for in-transit movement, you or your shipper must contact the port to give the following information: ( a ) The name of each U.S. airport where the shipment will arrive;
( b ) The name of the U.S. airport where the shipment will be transloaded (if applicable);
( c ) The date of the shipment's arrival at each U.S. airport;
( d ) The date of the shipment's departure from each U.S. airport;
( e ) The names, phone numbers, and addresses of both the shipper and receiver;
( f ) The number of units in the shipment (*i.e.*, number of queens or number of cages of package bees); and
( g ) The name of the airline carrying the shipment.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0207)
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CARLOS PURIFOY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20-cv-5394-LC-MJF

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

/

ORD ER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report

and Recommendation dated July 27, 2021 (ECF No. 21). The parties have been

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this action is

DISMISSED.

Case 3:20-cv-05394-LC-MJF Document 22 Filed 08/26/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. JUDGMENT is entered, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §

405(g), AFFIRMING the decision of the Commissioner. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2021.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3:20-cv-5394-LC/MJF

Case 3:20-cv-05394-LC-MJF Document 22 Filed 08/26/21 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  26  LLC  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ended
March  31,  2010,  as  filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report"), the  undersigned,
Robert  P.  Johnson, President of AEI Fund Management XXI,  Inc.,
the  Managing Member of the Company, and Patrick W. Keene,  Chief
Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc., each 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.


                          /s/ ROBERT P JOHNSON
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing Member
                              May 12, 2010



                          /s/ PATRICK W KEENE
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing Member
                              May 12, 2010
Exhibit 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Trex Company, Inc. 
  
 Description of Non-Employee Director Compensation 
  
 Non-employee directors of Trex Company, Inc. (the “Company”) receive cash and equity-based fees pursuant to the Trex Company, Inc. Amended and
Restated 1999 Incentive Plan for Outside Directors (the “Outside Director Plan”). The Outside Director Plan is administered by a committee consisting of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and the Company’s Chief Financial
Officer. All stock options awarded as fees to non-employee directors are issued pursuant to the Trex Company, Inc. Amended and Restated 1999 Stock Option and Incentive Plan. 
  
 Each non-employee director receives, as an annual fee for service on the board of directors, $20,000, stock options to
purchase 2,000 shares of common stock, $1,000 for each board meeting attended in person and $500 for each board meeting attended via teleconference. In addition, each member of the audit committee (other than the chairman) receives an annual
committee fee of $5,500, each member of the compensation and the nominating/corporate governance committees (other than their respective chairmen) receives an annual committee fee of $3,500, the chairman of the audit committee receives an annual
committee fee of $10,000, and the chairmen of the compensation and the nominating/governance committees receive an annual committee fee of $7,500. The monetary portion of the annual director fee and the annual committee fees are paid in the form of
cash, stock options (based on the Black-Scholes valuation model), or a combination of cash and stock options, based on the percentages of these forms of consideration elected by the serving director. The monetary portion of the annual director fee
and the annual committee fees are paid in four equal quarterly installments in arrears on the first business day following each quarter of the fiscal year in which the eligible director completes board or committee service. The stock options for
2,000 shares are granted on the date of the first regularly scheduled board of directors meeting after June 30 of each year. 
  
 The Company’s current policy is to grant non-employee directors options to purchase 1,500 shares of common stock upon their initial appointment to
the board of directors. The exercise price per share under each option granted to a non-employee director upon appointment or in payment of annual director fees and annual committee fees is the fair market value of the common stock on the option
grant date. Each such option awarded in 2004 and in subsequent periods vests on the first anniversary of the option grant date. No option is exercisable more than ten years after the option grant date. Upon the termination of a non-employee
director’s service for any reason (other than for cause), any options granted to the director will vest, and the director will have the right, at any time within five years after the date of termination of service and prior to termination of
the options, to exercise any options held by the director on the service termination date.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00348-CV

Isabel Carolina VAZQUEZ,

Appellant

v.

SACATAR PROPERTIES,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022-CV-0071

Honorable Kirsten Legore, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. We ORDER that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal 

because she qualifies as indigent.

SIGNED August 3, 2022.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
#### § 29.3508 Color.

The third factor of a grade based on the relative hues, saturations or chromas, and color values common to the type.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, Paul A. Kruger, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Dirt Motor Sports, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresas of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the“Evaluation Date”); andc) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any materialweaknesses in internal controls; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly reportwhether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors thatcould significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.     Date: December 29, 2005 /s/ Paul A. Kruger     Paul A. Kruger,    Chairman of the Board    Chief Executive Officer and President
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2407 

To reauthorize the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2013 

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York (for himself, Mr. GIBSON, and 

Mrs. LOWEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Hudson River Valley National Heritage 

Area. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF HUDSON RIVER VALLEY 

4 NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA. 

5 Section 910 of the Hudson River Valley National 

6 Heritage Area Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public 

7 Law 104–333; 127 Stat. 420) is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2022’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                             Exhibit 10.2.2



                             NRG Energy, Inc.
                            1221 Nicollet Mall
                                 Suite 700
                              Minneapolis, MN

                              April 30, 1996

                                     
O'Brien Environmental Energy, Inc.
225 South Eighth Street
Philadelphia, PA  19106
                                     

Gentlemen/Ladies:

Reference is made to that certain Chapter 11 Financing  Agreement dated as
of August 30, 1995, as amended by letter Agreement dated February 20, 1996,
(the "DIP Loan Agreement") between O'Brien Environmental Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") and NRG Energy, Inc. ("NRG") and the Amended and Restated Stock
Purchase and Reorganization Agreement dated as of January 31, 1995 (the
"Acquisition Agreement") by and between the Company and NRG.  This will
confirm our agreement to amend the DIP Loan Agreement by (i) striking the
proviso that appears beginning in the seventh line of Section 1.9 of the
DIP Loan Agreement and (ii) deleting the words "making or incurring
Specified Development Costs" beginning in the fifth line of Section 6(b) of
the DIP Loan Agreement and replacing them with the following: "making
capital contributions or incurring development costs in connection with the
projects commonly referred to as Edgeboro or Grays Ferry" (it being agreed
and understood that, in view of the possible increase to the Cash Purchase
Price (as defined in the Acquisition Agreement) provided for in Section 2.5
of the Acquisition Agreement in the event the Company makes capital
contributions or incurs development costs in connection with Edgeboro or
Grays Ferry using funds provided to the Company under the DIP Loan
Agreement, any provision in the DIP Loan Agreement providing for a
reduction in the amount to be repaid in respect of any DIP Loan would be
duplicative of or otherwise inconsistent with Section 2.5 of the
Acquisition Agreement.  Except as expressly set forth above herein, this
letter amendment does not amend or otherwise affect the DIP Loan Agreement,
which shall continue in full force and effect.

If the foregoing accurately sets forth our agreement with respect to the
subject matter hereof, please sign in the place indicated below and return
an original of this letter agreement, as signed, to the undersigned.

<PAGE>

O'Brien Environmental Energy, Inc.
[Dated as of the Closing Date]
Page 2


                         NRG Energy, Inc.
                              
                              By: /s/ Craig A. Mataczynski
                              Title:  Vice President
                              
                              
ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

O'BRIEN ENVIRONMENTAL ENERGY, INC.

By: /s/ John B. Kelly

As of the date set forth above.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ERIC NORDQUIST,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv4286/MCR/EMT

ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on 

December 3, 2020. ECF No. 14. The parties were furnished a copy of the Report 

and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of 

all timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-04286-MCR-EMT Document 15 Filed 01/19/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv4286/MCR/EMT

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 

14, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with an order of the court.

3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of January 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-04286-MCR-EMT Document 15 Filed 01/19/21 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.24

Lazard Group LLC

February 23,
2011

Mr. Scott D. Hoffman

Lazard Frères & Co. LLC

30 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, NY 10020

Re: Amendment to Retention Agreement to Extend its Term

Dear Mr. Hoffman,

As you are aware, certain provisions of the Agreement
Relating to Retention and Noncompetition and Other Covenants, dated as of May 4, 2005 and amended as of May 7, 2008, by and among Lazard Group LLC, Lazard Ltd and you (the Agreement) will expire pursuant to the terms of
the Agreement on March 31, 2011. Lazard Group LLC, Lazard Ltd and you wish to extend such provisions so that they expire on March 23, 2013, contemporaneously with similar provisions applicable to certain other executive officers of Lazard
Group LLC and Lazard Ltd.

Accordingly, Lazard Group LLC, Lazard Ltd and you hereby agree that:



| | 1. | References to March 31, 2011. All references to March 31, 2011 in the Agreement are hereby replaced with references to March 23, 2013.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Full Force and Effect. Except as specifically set forth herein, this letter amendment shall not, by implication or otherwise, alter, amend or modify in any way
any terms of the Agreement, all of which shall continue in full force and effect.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Very truly yours, 
LAZARD GROUP LLC,by

/s/ Kenneth M. JacobsName:
Title:




LAZARD LTD,by

/s/ Kenneth M. JacobsName:
Title:




|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:                 
|                                        
|/s/ Scott D. Hoffman                    
|Scott D. Hoffman Date:
February 23, 2011