alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
3.909-2 Representation by the offeror.       (a)                    						            In order to be eligible for contract award, an offeror must represent that it will not require its employees or subcontractors to sign internal confidentiality agreements or statements prohibiting or otherwise restricting such employees or subcontractors from lawfully reporting waste, fraud, or abuse related to the performance of a Government contract to a designated investigative or law enforcement representative of a Federal department or agency authorized to receive such information (e.g., agency Office of the Inspector General). Any offeror that does not so represent is ineligible for award of a contract.                                          (b)                    						            The contracting officer may rely on an offeror's representation unless the contracting officer has reason to question the representation.    **Parent topic:** 3.909 Prohibition on providing funds to an entity that requires certain internal confidentiality agreements or statements.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:94-cr-01009-MP-AK-2

CLAUDE LOUIS DUBOC,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1168, Motion for Reconsideration by Claude

Louise Duboc. On August 22, 2011, the government submitted a motion to amend the order of

forfeiture of the assets belonging to defendant, Claude Louis Duboc. On September 12, 2011,

the Court granted the government's motion to amend the order of forfeiture. On September 27,

2011, defendant filed a motion for enlargement of time to respond to the government’s motion to

amend the order of forfeiture, which the Court denied. 

Defendant now moves the Court for reconsideration of its order denying him an

enlargement of time to respond to the government’s motion. Defendant states that he did not

receive a complete copy of the government’s motion until September 19, 2011, which was after

the deadline to timely respond. Upon reconsideration, the Court will allow defendant to file a

response out of time. However, the Court will not vacate or stay the final order of forfeiture at

this time but will consider defendant’s response when filed. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, Doc. 1168, is GRANTED.
Page 2 of 2

2. Defendant may respond to the government’s motion to amend the order of

forfeiture on or before November 11, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:94-cr-01009-MP-AK-1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

LEON ALAN BLAIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-21-AW-GRJ

WILLISTON CROSSING EAST, LLC, 

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,

REMANDING TO STATE COURT, AND AWARDING FEES

I have considered the magistrate judge’s February 28, 2020 Report and 

Recommendation. ECF No. 21. I have also considered de novo the issues raised in 

Plaintiff’s objections. ECF No. 25. I have determined the Report and 

Recommendation should be adopted. It is now ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) is adopted and 

incorporated into this order.

2. Defendants’ motion to remand (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. The clerk 

will take necessary steps to remand the removed complaint (ECF No. 10) to the 

Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, in and for Levy County.

3. Defendants’ request for fees is GRANTED. The magistrate judge will 

conduct proceedings to determine an appropriate amount.
2

4. The clerk will not close the file. The first amended complaint (ECF No. 

7) remains pending.

SO ORDERED on March 29, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge
# L_2022096DE.01005001.xml

| 24.3.2022 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 96/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2022

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 96/50

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2021/235 der Kommission vom 8. Februar 2021 zur Änderung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2015/2447 im Hinblick auf Formate und Codes gemeinsamer Datenanforderungen, bestimmte Vorschriften für die Überwachung und die zuständige Zollstelle für die Überführung von Waren in ein Zollverfahren

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 63 vom 23. Februar 2021
  )

Seite 388, Artikel 1 Nummer 3 zur Änderung von Artikel 221 Absatz 4 der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2015/2447:

Anstatt:

„‚(4)   Ab dem in Artikel 4 Absatz 1 Unterabsatz 4 der Richtlinie (EU) 2017/2455 genannten Zeitpunkt ist die Zollstelle, die für die Überlassung von Waren in den zollrechtlich freien Verkehr zuständig ist, die in einer Sendung enthalten sind, für die eine Befreiung von den Einfuhrabgaben gemäß Artikel 23 Absatz 1 oder Artikel 25 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1186/2009 im Rahmen einer anderen Mehrwertsteuerregelung als der Sonderregelung für Fernverkäufe von aus Drittgebieten oder Drittländern eingeführten Waren nach Titel XII Kapitel 6 Abschnitt 4 der Richtlinie 2006/112/EG gilt, eine Zollstelle in dem Mitgliedstaat, in dem die Versendung oder Beförderung der Waren endet.‘“

muss es heißen:

„‚(4)   Ab dem in Artikel 4 Absatz 1 Unterabsatz 4 der Richtlinie (EU) 2017/2455 genannten Zeitpunkt ist die Zollstelle, die für die Überlassung von Waren in den zollrechtlich freien Verkehr zuständig ist, die in einer Sendung enthalten sind, für die eine Befreiung von den Einfuhrabgaben gemäß Artikel 23 Absatz 1 oder Artikel 25 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1186/2009 im Rahmen einer anderen Mehrwertsteuerregelung als der Sonderregelung für Fernverkäufe von aus Drittgebieten oder Drittländern eingeführten Waren nach Titel XII Kapitel 6 Abschnitt 4 der Richtlinie 2006/112/EG gewährt wird, eine Zollstelle in dem Mitgliedstaat, in dem die Versendung oder Beförderung der Waren endet.‘“

---
#### § 3565.104 Application requirements.

Eligible lenders must submit a lender approval application, in a format prescribed by the Agency. The lender approval application submission must occur at the time the lender submits its first application for a loan guarantee, or its first application to purchase a guaranteed loan. The application must include documentation of lender compliance with § 3565.103. A non-refundable application fee will be charged for each review of a lender's application.

[63 FR 39458, July 22, 1998, as amended at 84 FR 55036, Oct. 15, 2019]
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

SEC RELEASE NO. 33-8124



I, Keith A. Greaves, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of O2 Secure Wireless, 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 officers 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 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure 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 recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

(6) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

|                    |                                          
|------------------- | -----------------------------------------
|Dated: May 15, 2006 | /s/ Keith A. Greaves                     
|                    | Keith A. Greaves, Chief Financial Officer





{A0032170.DOC}
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Brian A.Lutes, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewedthis Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TWC Holding LLC;

 

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 myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods 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 Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)           Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)           Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based 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’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe 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:  August 16, 2005

 

 
|   | By:                                       | /s/ Brian A. Lutes |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|   |    Brian A. Lutes          |
|   |    Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1435

NANCY M. TAYLOR; JAMES TAYLOR,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

Spartanburg. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (7:16-cv-03316-DCC)

Submitted: November 30, 2018 Decided: February 6, 2019

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul C. Rathke, THE JOEL BIEBER FIRM, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellants.

Doc Morgan, Jr., Greenville, South Carolina, Helen F. Hiser, MCANGUS, 

GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Nancy and James Taylor (“the Taylors”) appeal the district court’s 

order granting summary judgment in favor of Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC (“Lowe’s),

and the resulting judgment dismissing with prejudice the Taylors’ removed civil action. 

In this suit, the Taylors sought compensation for injuries and loss of consortium resulting 

from Nancy Taylor’s September 2015 fall in a Lowe’s store in Spartanburg, South 

Carolina. We have reviewed the Taylors’ arguments on appeal in conjunction with the 

record and find no reversible error.*

 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. See Taylor v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, No. 7:16-cv-03316-DCC 

(D.S.C. Mar. 22, 2018). 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

 * We conclude that the Taylors have waived appellate review of the first two 

arguments raised in their brief by failing to fully and properly present these issues to the 

district court. We further conclude that this case presents no extraordinary circumstances 

that would warrant our consideration of these issues for the first time on appeal. See In re 

Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Our settled rule is simple: absent 

exceptional circumstances, we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” 

(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
#### § 28.512 Leaf Grade No. 2.

Leaf grade No. 2 shall be American Pima cotton which in leaf is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Pima, Leaf Grade No. 2, effective July 1, 1986.”

[65 FR 36601, June 9, 2000]
#### § 3565.353 Affirmative fair housing marketing.

As a condition of the guarantee, the lender must ensure that the lender and borrower are in compliance with the approved Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan. This plan must be reviewed annually by the lender to ensure that the borrower remains in compliance and to recommend modifications, as necessary.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-6263 on Form S-4, No. 333-161838 on Form S-3, No. 333-95343 on Form S-8 and No. 333-171376 on Form S-8 of Alliance Financial Corporation of our report dated March14, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements and effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Alliance Financial Corporation, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

New York, New York 

March 14, 2011
#### § 3560.619 Supplemental requirements for manufactured housing.

On-farm labor housing loan funds used for manufactured housing must comply with § 3560.70. Manufactured housing located on-farm may consist of individual units.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:92cr4013-WS

ERROL MORRISON, 4:09cv223-WS

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc.

1896) docketed July 10, 2009. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

"Writ of Error Audita Querela" (doc. 1891) be summarily dismissed. The defendant has

filed objections (doc. 1028) to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record in light of the defendant’s objections, the court has

determined that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 1896) is adopted

and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

2. The defendant’s "Writ of Error Audita Querela" (doc. 1891) is summarily

DISMISSED as an attempt to file an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion.
Page 2 of 2

Case No 4:92cr4013-WS

3. The clerk shall close Case No. 4:09cv223-WS.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of August , 2009.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
(December 28, 1966)

#### In the Matter of the Claim of Nathaniel Heyward, Respondent, v. Power Service Station et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The claimant was employed as an automobile mechanic at the employer’s station in The Bronx, New York. On January 16, 1965, Julio Rodriguez, a eoemployee, picked up the payroll checks from the employer for delivery to the men working in the Bronx station. On Monday, January 18, 1965, the claimant requested a coemployee to open the safe to see if his cheek was there. The check was not there so the claimant, who worked until 4:00 p.m., waited for Rodriguez to come to work. He arrived at 6:30 p.m. and, when he was asked about the check, an argument ensued. Rodriguez got mad, tore up the cheek, went out to his car, got a shotgun and shot the claimant in the stomach. The testimony indicates that the argument developed over the refusal of Rodriguez to deliver the check unless the claimant paid him $50 for having damaged his car in an accident about two weeks prior to January 18, 1965. The appellants contend that claimant’s injury did not arise out of and in the course of bis employment. “ The overwhelming weight of modern authority holds that assaults are compensable where the injury arises out of quarrels over the manner of doing the work of the employer * * * or over the use of tools or facilities for performing that work * * * or over shirking or sharing work * * * or over work matters * * * as distinguished from purely personal quarrels”. *(Matter of Commissioner of Taxation & Finance*v. *Bronx Hosp.,*276 App. Div. 708, 712.) While it is true that the argument arose out of a dual relationship between the parties, one being personal, the other as a coemployee, the record sufficiently indicates that it was the failure of Rodriguez to deliver claimant’s paycheck which precipitated the argument in the first instance. There would have been no argument if Rodriguez had left the check at the place of employment for the plaintiff, since then the claimant would not have waited for Rodriguez. Further, “ when an injury is sustained in the course of employment it will be presumed as a matter of law that it did arise out of the employment in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary.” *(Matter of Humphrey*v. *Tietjen & Steffin Milk Co.,*235 App. Div. 470, 471.) The record indicates that this presumption has not been overcome by substantial evidence. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur with Staley, Jr., J.
§ 3560.610 Security. ( a ) Security instruments must meet the requirements established under § 3560.560.
( b ) When feasible, the on-farm labor housing will be located on a tract of land that is surveyed such that, for security purposes, it is considered separate and distinct from the farm. The security for the loan must include a lien on the tract of land where the on-farm labor housing is located and the security must have adequate value to protect the Federal government's interest. The Agency will seek a first or parity lien position on Agency-financed property in all instances, however, the Agency may accept a junior lien position if the Federal government's interests are adequately secured.
( c ) The Agency will determine the value of the security for the loan in accordance with 7 CFR part 1922, subpart B if the farm is used as security or in accordance with section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949, if only the on-farm labor housing and related land is used for security.
( d ) If necessary to provide adequate security for the loan, the Agency may require that any household furnishings purchased with loan funds also be secured.
( e ) Personal liability and recourse will be required of all borrowers, including the individual members, stockholders or partners of an association of farmers, family farm corporations or partnerships, respectively.
4.1804 Solicitation provisions and contract

clause.

(a) Insert the provision at 52.204-16, Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting, in all

solicitations that include–

(1) 52.204-6, Unique Entity Identifier; or

(2) 52.204-7, System for Award Management.

(b) Insert the provision at 52.204-17, Ownership or Control of Offeror, in all solicitations that include

the provision at 52.204-16, Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting.

(c) Insert the clause at 52.204-18, Commercial and Government Entity Code Maintenance, in all

solicitations and contracts when the solicitation contains the provision at 52.204-16, Commercial

and Government Entity Code Reporting.

(d) Insert the provision at 52.204-20, Predecessor of Offeror, in all solicitations that include the

provision at 52.204-16, Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting.

Parent topic: Subpart 4.18 - Commercial and Government Entity Code