alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subpart 7.3 - Contractor Versus Government

Performance

Parent topic: Part 7 - Acquisition Planning

7.300 [Reserved]

7.301 Definitions.

Definitions of "inherently governmental activity" and other terms applicable to this subpart are set

forth at Attachment D of the Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76 (Revised),

Performance of Commercial Activities, dated May 29, 2003 (the Circular).

7.302 Policy.

(a) The Circular provides that it is the policy of the Government to-

(1) Perform inherently governmental activities with Government personnel; and

(2) Subject commercial activities to the forces of competition.

(b) As provided in the Circular, agencies shall-

(1) Not use contractors to perform inherently governmental activities;

(2) Conduct public-private competitions in accordance with the provisions of the Circular and, as

applicable, these regulations;

(3) Give appropriate consideration relative to cost when making performance decisions between

agency and contractor performance in public-private competitions;

(4) Consider the Agency Tender Official an interested party in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3551 to

3553 for purposes of filing a protest at the Government Accountability Office; and

(5) Hear contests in accordance with OMB Circular A-76, Attachment B, Paragraph F.

(c) When using sealed bidding in public-private competitions under OMB Circular A-76, contracting

officers shall not hold discussions to correct deficiencies.

7.303 [Reserved]
7.304 [Reserved]

7.305 Solicitation provisions and contract clause.

(a) The contracting officer shall, when soliciting offers and tenders, insert in solicitations issued for

standard competitions the provision at 52.207-1, Notice of Standard Competition.

(b) The contracting officer shall, when soliciting offers, insert in solicitations issued for streamlined

competitions the provision at 52.207-2, Notice of Streamlined Competition.

(c) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.207-3, Right of First Refusal of Employment,

in all solicitations which may result in a conversion from in-house performance to contract

performance of work currently being performed by the Government and in contracts that result from

the solicitations, whether or not a public-private competition is conducted. The 10-day period in the

clause may be varied by the contracting officer up to a period of 90 days.
Waiver	of	Pilots	license	under	the	333	exemption	ruling

The	purpose	of	this	request	under	the	FAA	333	exemption	ruling	is	to	petition	for	a	

waiver	for	the	required	pilots	license.	Under	the	2015	333	exemption	ruling,	By	law,	

any	aircraft	operation	in	the	national	airspace	requires	a	certificated	and	registered	

aircraft,	a	licensed	pilot,	and	operational	approval.	

Brian	Morris,	owner	and	chief	pilot	of	Morning	Star	Photography	(DBA	Morning	Star	

Creative	Group,	or	MSCG)	is	requesting	a	waiver	of	a	licensed pilot,	the	second	

section	of	the	333	as	one	of	the	requirements	of	the	lawful	operation	of	drone	

aircraft	flown	by	MSCG	.		To	substantiate	this	request,	Brian	Morris	and	MSCG	is	

offering	the	following	area	of	expertise	and	knowledge	that	will	allow	Brian	Morris	

to	safety	and	legally	operate	a	drone,	as	requested	in	the	333	exemption	filed	by	

MSCG:

• Brian	Morris	has	flown	various	drones	for	the	past	3	years	as	both	a	hobbyist	

and	also	within	the	legal	boundaries	of	non-commercial	use	of	a	drone.	

• Brian	Morris	has	logged	over	1800	hours	of	flight	time	as	a	drone	pilot.	

• Brian	Morris	is	fully	knowledgeable	with	the	working	of	drones	currently	

being	used	by	MSCG,	including	but	not	limited	to	quad	copters	and	hex	

copters.	

• Brian	Morris	is	fully	aware	and	knowable	of	all	current	FAA	rules,	guidelines	

and	laws	regarding	the	legal	operation	of	drones	within	US	airspace.	

• Brian	Morris	is	current	licensed	student	pilot.	(certificate	#	zz	334548)

• Brian	Morris	has	previously	flown	over	30,000	miles	with	both	instructional	

and	commercial	pilots	

• Brian	Morris	has	completed	pilots	Ground	School	Training	With	Jeppesen	

Flight	School.	

As	per	current	rulings	and	considerations	by	the	FAA,	Brian	Morris	and	MSCG	is

requesting	a	waiver	for	the	need	of	a	licensed	pilot	and	in	lie	of	this	requirement,	

offering	both	experience	and	flight	time	as	a	drone	pilot.	

Brian	Morris

Morning	Star	Photography

4329	SE	3rd Street,

Renton,	WA	98059

206-914-8054

brian@mscgstudio.com
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of O2 Secure Wireless, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the “Company”), does
hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:




1.  The
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) of the
Company complies in all material respects 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.






/s/
      Keith A. GreavesKeith
      A. Greaves, Secretary and acting Chief Financial Officer




Date:
August 13, 2008
#### § 29.2551 Special factor.

A symbol or term authorized to be used with specified grades. Tobacco to which a special factor is applied may meet the general specifications but has a peculiar side or characteristic which tends to modify the grade. (See Rule 10, § 29.2626.)

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984 and 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert J. Krakauer, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ Robert J. Krakauer               
|Robert J. Krakauer                   
|President and Chief Financial Officer
|May 13, 2008
#### § 42.101 Meaning of words.

Words used in this part in the singular form shall be considered to import the plural, or vice versa, as the case may demand.

[31 FR 4687, Mar. 19, 1966; 31 FR 4949, Mar. 25, 1966; Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977 and at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981]
Order entered Oc t ober 21, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00369
- CR
JAMES EDWARD GRUMBLE S, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. F11
- 70745
- Y



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether ap pellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial co urt shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effect ive representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, and Despard & Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Ataka & Co. et al., Intervenors-Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Order entered December 16,1968, granting respondents leave to intervene and to be added as parties defendant in this action for a declaratory judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motion denied. Under the common law, the New York statutory law and by virtue of the terms of the policy of Excess Marine Protection *&*Indemnity insurance covering the S. S. San Patrick, the respondent cargo claimants have no standing to sue or to intervene in the action by the plaintiff-appellant insurer. *(Jackson*v. *Citizens Cas. Co.,*277 N. Y. 385, 389; Insurance Law, § 167, subd. 4; § 112, subd. 2, par. [c], cl. [2]; § 46, subd. 21; *Meridian Trading Corp.*v. *National Auto & Cas. Ins. Co.,*45 Misc 2d 847.) Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, McGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Roberts, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 19, 1978, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimony of an accomplice and two other witnesses established defendant’s identity as one of the three men who robbed the victim. Within moments of the crime the victim experienced the symptoms of a heart attack. Within one hour of the crime, the victim’s personal physician took an electrocardiogram and ascertained that the victim had suffered damage to the entire anterior portion and part of the lateral portion of his heart. The victim died the following day, and after an autopsy the associate medical examiner determined the cause of death to be recent myocardial infarction caused by stress. Thus, the evidence clearly established that defendant’s conduct caused the victim’s death (see *Cox v People,*80 NY 500, 516; cf. *People v Stewart,*40 NY2d 692). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CERTIFICATION  I, Denise Smith, certify
that:  1. I have reviewed this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Silver Pearl Enterprises, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this
quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the
financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly
report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this quarterly report;  4. The registrants other
certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and
15d-14) for the registrant and we have:  a) designed such disclosure
controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness
of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any
change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The registrants other
certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies
and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and    b)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.   Date: May 15, 2008        /s/
Denise Smith    Denise
Smith     President
and Chief Executive Officer
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:96-cr-00012-MP

JAMES WILEY NICHOLS,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 33, Motion for Reconsideration of Doc. 16, the 

Judgment and Sentence of this Court, sentencing Mr. Nichols to 84 months imprisonment. Mr.

Nichols was convicted and sentenced in 1996 and now files a motion asking the Court to

reconsider his sentence. The motion does not set forth any legal basis to reconsider the sentence,

however, and is therefore denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of October, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:96-cr-00012-MP Document 34 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 1
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSE Y APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 2056

- 18T1 VERICREST FINANCIAL, INC., F/B/O VERICREST O PPORTUNITY LOAN TRUST 2011

- NPL1,
Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v. AKIL K. KHALFANI,
Defendant

- Appellant , and MRS. KHALFANI, wife of AKIL K. KHALFANI , and JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendants.

Submitted October 22, 2019

- Decided Before Judges Fisher and Accurso. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. F

028224

- 12

.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36

- 3.

November 18, 20192 A

- 2056

- 18T1 Akil K. Khalfani, appellant pro se. Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones PC, attorneys f or respondent ( Brian J. Yoder , on the brief).
PER CURIAM In this residential foreclosure action, defendant Akil K. Khalfani appeals
from a December 21 , 2018 order denying his motion to vacate the sheriff's

sa le. Finding no error, we affirm. By way of background, defendant borrowed $ 388 ,000 in 200 7 from plaintiff's predecesso r , secured by a non

- purchase money mortgage, and failed to make any payments after August 2010

. Final judgment of foreclosure was

entere d in July 2017. Although defendant filed two unsuccessful motions in an attempt to vacate final judgment, he did not appeal. The property was offered at sheriff's sale in November 2018 and struck
off to plaintiff. Defendant filed a timely motion to vacate the sale, arguing plaintiff "and the Essex County Sheriff department must be held accountable for establishing the corresponding authorities which sanction the 'buy

back'/credit bid of collateral (subject real property) to t he plaintiff/mortgage assignee in a County Sheriff auction process." Defendant also argued the sale should be set aside because plaintiff submitted its proof of amount due in support of final judgment by certification instead of affidavit. T he Chancery3 A

- 2056

- 18T1

j udge denied the motion , noting she had twice before rejected defendant's
argument that defendant's proof of amount due contravened Rule 4: 64

- 2, and defendant presented no proof of impropriety in the sheriff's sale. Defendant reprises the same arguments on appeal, which we reject as
without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion

. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E). Although the Chancery court has the power to vacate a sheriff's sale, its exercise is limited to situations where there is "fraud, accident, surprise, irregularity in the sale, and the like, making confirmation inequitable and unjust to one or more of the parties." Crane v. Bielski , 15 N.J. 342, 346 (1954) (quoting Karel v. Davis , 122 N.J. Eq. 526, 530 (E. & A. 1937)).

Because defen dant failed to demonstrate such circumstances here, and he is obviously grossly out of time to challenge the entry of the final judgment, we
affirm the denial of his motion to vacate the sale.
Affirmed.
Directors
Quipp, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 of Quipp, Inc. of our report dated March 8, 1996, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Quipp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31,
1995 and 1994, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholder's equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1995, which report appears in the December 31, 1995
annual report on Form 10-K of Quipp, Inc.




KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

March 28, 1996
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NOS. 4:97cr76-RH 

4:06cv359-RH/WCS

TERRY LEE PRESLEY,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING §2255 MOTION

This motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255 is before the court on the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation (document 129), which concludes the motion

is untimely. Defendant has filed objections (document 130), but they merely

incorporate by reference defendant’s positions as set forth in the original motion. 

Objections of this nature assist the court not at all in reviewing the magistrate

judge’s conclusions, and such objections are not sufficient to trigger the court’s

obligation to review objections de novo. In any event, it is clear that the §2255

motion is untimely and that defendant has alleged no facts that would support

equitable tolling. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

Case 4:97-cr-00076-RH-WCS Document 131 Filed 11/06/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:97cr76-RH and 4:06cv359-RH/WCS

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. The clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Defendant’s motion for relief

under 28 U.S.C. §2255 (document 124) is DENIED as untimely.” The clerk shall

close the file.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of November, 2006.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:97-cr-00076-RH-WCS Document 131 Filed 11/06/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

SELECTED QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       1996                                             1997
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unaudited (In thousands,           FIRST      SECOND        THIRD      FOURTH        FIRST      SECOND        THIRD      FOURTH
except per-share data)           QUARTER     QUARTER      QUARTER   QUARTER(2)     QUARTER     QUARTER      QUARTER   QUARTER(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                            <C>          <C>         <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>          <C>        <C>
Revenues                       $ 208,522   $ 206,665    $ 219,618   $ 248,462    $ 215,522   $ 219,572    $ 241,710  $  264,817
Operating income (loss)        $  45,311   $  46,653    $  49,803   $  69,238    $  50,452   $  51,027    $  51,075  $ (121,456)
Income (loss) before
   income tax
   expense (benefit)           $  34,256   $  36,542    $  40,215   $  60,235    $  42,054   $  42,011    $  40,693  $ (131,981)
Net income (loss)              $  19,487   $  20,877    $  23,005   $  34,453    $  24,055   $  24,030    $  23,226  $  (75,444)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic earnings (loss)
   per share (3)                    $.29        $.30         $.34        $.50         $.35        $.34         $.33      $(1.09)
Diluted earnings (loss)
   per share (3)                    $.27        $.29         $.32        $.47         $.33        $.33         $.32      $(1.09)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cash Flow (4)        $  50,732   $  48,035    $  50,475   $  62,129    $  51,824   $  52,722    $  54,214  $   54,892
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>


(1)  Reduction in value of intangible assets of approximately $170,982,000 was
     charged to operating expenses ($99,347,000 net of taxes), or $1.37 to loss
     per share for the year.
(2)  Nonrecurring gains contributed approximately $12,000,000 to revenues and
     $.10 to earnings per share.
(3)  Under generally accepted accounting principles, when earnings (loss) per
     share are computed under the treasury stock method, the total of four
     quarters' earnings (loss) per share may not equal the earnings (loss) per
     share for the year.
(4)  Net income (loss) plus amortization, depreciation and the reduction in
     value of intangible assets, net of taxes.