alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4279.136 Insurance. The lender is responsible for ensuring that required insurance is maintained by the borrower. ( a ) *Hazard.* Hazard insurance with a standard clause naming the lender as mortgagee or loss payee, as applicable, is required for the life of the guaranteed loan. The amount must be at least equal to the replacement value of the collateral or the outstanding balance of the loan, whichever is the greater amount.
( b ) *Life.* The lender may require a collateral assignment of life insurance to insure against the risk of death of persons critical to the success of the business. When required, coverage must be in amounts necessary to provide for management succession or to protect the business. The Agency may require life insurance on key individuals for loans where the lender has not otherwise proposed such coverage. The cost of insurance and its effect on the applicant's working capital must be considered, as well as the amount of existing insurance that could be assigned without requiring additional expense.
( c ) *Worker compensation.* Worker compensation insurance is required in accordance with State law.
( d ) *Flood.* National flood insurance is required in accordance with applicable law.
( e ) *Other.* The lender must consider whether public liability, business interruption, malpractice, and other insurance is appropriate to the borrower's particular business and circumstances and must require the borrower to obtain such insurance as is necessary to protect the interests of the borrower, the lender, or the Agency.
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.3015 Evaluation and selection of Non-leveraged RBICs. ( a ) *General.* Notwithstanding any other provision in this part, when selecting applications for non-leveraged status, the Agency may select one or more applications, or none, for further consideration based on the evaluation criteria of this part.
( b ) *Eligibility and completeness.* In addition to the requirements specified in § 4290.350, an Applicant under this subpart must complete a written application that includes information not otherwise exempted by the Agency, in its sole discretion. The Agency may, on its own initiative, exempt material from a Non-leveraged RBIC application where the Agency determines it impedes an expedited process without a commensurate benefit to the program. To the extent that the Agency's exemption applies to the entire program, an announcement of the exemption will be published in the Federal Register. The Agency shall make a decision as to licensing an Applicant after the receipt of a complete application and will enter into a Participation Agreement with the RBIC if approved.
( c ) *Effect of a RBIC license.* Paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of § 4290.390 do not apply to Non-leveraged RBICs.
**Exhibit 32.2**

** ****Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350** 

				The undersigned, Phillip C. Scott, Chief Financial Officer of SurgiCare, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certifies that: 

(1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

 

Date:            November 19, 2003
|   |                                             |                                      |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
| By:    |          | */s/ Phillip C. Scott*                    |
|   |          | Phillip C. Scott, Chief Financial Officer |
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00240-CR

PAUL SPENCER JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District 

Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (1588781D)

November 23, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice 

Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Order No. 1722]

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

The Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) has considered the request submitted by the Greater Detroit Foreign Trade Zone, Inc, grantee of FTZ 70 in Detroit, Michigan and current sponsor of Subzone 70M at the General Motors Corporation (GM) facilities in Lansing, Michigan, for reissuance of the grant of authority for subzone status at the GM facilities to the Capital Region Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 275 in Lansing, Michigan, which has accepted such reissuance subject to approval by the FTZ Board. Upon review, the Board finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest.

Therefore, the Board approves the application and recognizes the Capital Region Airport Authority as the grantee of the General Motors Corporation subzone, which is hereby re-designated as Subzone 275A, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, on November 15, 2010.

Ronald K. Lorentzen,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-29832 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### §§ 4279.257-4279.258 [Reserved]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20-cr-42-MCR

KIESHA TAYLON MANDEL

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. 

R. Crim. P., and has entered a plea of guilty to Counts One, Two, Three, and Four 

of the indictment. After cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath 

concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined the guilty plea 

was knowing and voluntary and the offense charged is supported by an independent 

basis in fact containing each of the essential elements thereof. I therefore 

recommend the plea of guilty be accepted and the Defendant be adjudicated guilty 

and have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated: August 31, 2020.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00042-MCR Document 31 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 2
3:20-cr-42-MCR

Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed 

within twenty-four (24) hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different 

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use 

only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the 

magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate 

judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 

3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cr-00042-MCR Document 31 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 2
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, a Georgia corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:



1.     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the "Form 10-QSB") 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Keith A. Greaves

Keith A. Greaves, Chief Executive Officer



Date: May 15, 2006





{A0032168.DOC}
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 5:03-cr-5-MCR-GRJ

STACY L. BUTLER,

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 126, Petitioner’s “Application to Proceed

for Transcript in Forma Pauperis and Declaration in Support of Application.” Petitioner

previously filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was

dismissed on October 8, 2008. (Doc. 84.) Petitioner requests copies of his docket

sheet, his sentencing transcript, discovery in his case, and several Federal Rules. 

Petitioner’s motion includes a financial affidavit in support of his request to obtain such

copies at no cost. 

Congress has addressed the circumstances under which the Clerk may provide

copies of documents from the Court’s record to a petitioner without cost in a federal

habeas proceeding:

If on any application for a writ of habeas corpus an order has been made

permitting the petitioner to prosecute the application in forma pauperis, the clerk

of any court of the United States shall furnish to the petitioner without cost

certified copies of such documents or parts of the record on file in his office as

may be required by order of the judge before whom the application is pending.

28 U.S.C. § 2250.

Here, § 2250 is inapplicable because Petitioner’s habeas petition is no longer
Page 2 of 2

pending, and was indeed resolved several years ago. Moreover, even if the Court

granted Petitioner leave to proceed as a pauper for the purpose of requesting copies,

the Court would deny his request for free copies because he has made no showing of

specific need for the requested documents. Indigent petitioners are not automatically

entitled to free copies, and whether to order the Clerk to provide free copies rests within

the Court’s discretion. See id. Here, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has made

any effort to obtain copies of the requested documents, such as the sentencing

transcript and discovery in his criminal case, from his counsel.

If Plaintiff wishes to receive copies of any pleadings from the Clerk, he must

tender the Clerk’s standard copying fee of fifty cents (.50) per page. Petitioner may

forward a check from a penal institution, a cashier’s check, or a money order in the

appropriate amount, payable to “Clerk, U.S. District Court.” The payment must include

Plaintiff’s name, inmate number, and the case number, as well as a specific description

of the documents to be copied. The Court will direct the Clerk to provide Plaintiff with a

copy of the docket sheet in this case.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

That Petitioner’s “Application to Proceed for Transcript in Forma Pauperis and

Declaration in Support of Application,” Doc. 126, is DENIED except to the extent

that the Clerk shall send Defendant one copy of the docket..

DONE AND ORDERED this 24 day of October 2012.

th

 

s/ Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 5:03cr5-MCR-GRJ
#### SILVERMAN et al., Respondents, v. MILLER et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 10, 1906.)

Action by Levi L. Silverman and another against Charles R. Miller and another.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### §§ 3565.306-3565.349 [Reserved]
# L_2021344EN.01000101.xml

| 29.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 344/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 344/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/1723

of 22 September 2021

entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Salată tradițională cu icre de crap (TSG))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Romania’s application to register the name ‘Salată tradițională cu icre de crap’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Romania’s application to register the name ‘Salată tradițională cu icre de crap’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Salată tradițională cu icre de crap’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Salată tradițională cu icre de crap’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Salată tradițională cu icre de crap’ (TSG) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.7. Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 September 2021.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 222, 11.6.2021, p. 31.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 246 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 246

      To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
    Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the expansion of the 
           adoption credit and adoption assistance programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2005

   Mr. Bunning (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. DeMint, Mr. 
Craig, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Coleman, 
 and Mr. Domenici) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
                and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
    Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the expansion of the 
           adoption credit and adoption assistance programs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``The Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF APPLICABILITY OF SUNSET OF THE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND 
              TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 WITH RESPECT TO 
              ADOPTION CREDIT AND ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 
Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the amendments 
made by section 202 (relating to expansion of adoption credit and 
adoption assistance programs).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Marilyn T. Dale, Respondent, v Arthur M. Sherman, Appellant.

In a malpractice action, the defendant appeals from an order of Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 30, 1979, which (1) denied that branch of his motion which was to vacate the plaintiff’s note of issue and statement of readiness, and (2) granted that branch of his motion which was to compel the plaintiff to furnish certain medical and hospital authorizations only to the extent of directing that the records and reports in question be delivered to the court for a preliminary determination of whether they concern matters which are in controversy in the action. Order modified by deleting the final two paragraphs thereof. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries resulting from the alleged malpractice of the defendant, a licensed chiropractor. Upon plaintiff’s refusal to provide authorizations for records and reports relating to her previous hospitalizations and medical treatment, the defendant moved for an order vacating plaintiff’s note of issue and statement of readiness, and compelling her to provide the requested authorizations. Special Term denied that branch of the motion which was to vacate the note of issue and statement of readiness but granted the request to compel the plaintiff to provide the authorizations. However, the court ordered that the records and reports in question be delivered in the first instance to the Justice presiding at Special Term for a preliminary determination of whether they concern matters which are in controversy in the action. The court directed that an *in camera*examination be conducted to be followed by such proceedings as may be appropriate to determine the relevancy of the records. In our view the court should have ordered unconditional disclosure of the records requested. Having broadly placed her physical *613condition in issue, the plaintiff has waived any claim to a physician-patient privilege with respect to the records (see *Prink v Rockefeller Center,*48 NY2d 309; *Koump v Smith,*25 NY2d 287; *Goldstein v Kamen,*73 AD2d 685). Accordingly, New York’s liberal disclosure policy (see *Allen v CrowellCollier Pub. Co.,*21 NY2d 403) required that the defendant’s request for discovery be granted (see *Myers v Schneider,*59 AD2d 736; *Moses v Wood-bury,*54 AD2d 961). Moreover, we can discern no legitimate need for confidentiality which might otherwise make appropriate a preliminary *in camera*examination for relevancy (cf. *Cirale v 80 Pine St. Corp.,*35 NY2d 113, 119; *Austin v Calhoon,*51 AD2d 958; *Wood-Muller v Provident Loan Soc. of N. Y.,*47 AD2d 514). Titone, J. P., Mangano, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
24.104 Contract clauses.

When the design, development, or operation of a system of records on individuals is required to

accomplish an agency function, the contracting officer shall insert the following clauses in

solicitations and contracts:

(a) The clause at 52.224-1, Privacy Act Notification.

(b) The clause at 52.224-2, Privacy Act.

Parent topic: Subpart 24.1 - Protection of Individual Privacy
159 So.2d 286

#### Ethel Lee LAFLEUR v. ALL AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 47029.

Jan. 20, 1964.

In re: All American Assurance Company applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Evangeline. 157 So.2d 254.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
§ 3550.119 WWD eligibility requirements. In addition to the eligibility requirements of § 3550.103, WWD applicants must meet the following requirements: ( a ) An applicant need not be 62 years of age or older.
( b ) Own and occupy a dwelling located in a colonia. Evidence of ownership will be presented as outlined in § 3550.107.
( c ) Have a total taxable income from all individuals residing in the household that is below the most recent poverty income guidelines established by the Department of Health and Human Services.
( d ) Must not be delinquent on any Federal debt.
( e ) The household income must be verified at the time they apply for assistance through verification of employment and benefits. Federal tax returns are used as further verification of household income.
[61 FR 59779, Nov. 22, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 78331, Dec. 24, 2002]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Mireya Patino Garcia v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00939

- CR

Trial court case number: 1952529

Trial court: Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No 9 of Harris County

Appellant has not responded to a Notice from this Court dated April 14, 2015 requesting

arrangements be made for obtaining the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record has not been

filed. Pursuant to our notice, we will consider this ap peal without the reporter’s record, and are

considering the record to be complete. Appellant’s brief is due 30 days from the date of this

order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c), 38.6.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: / s / Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 21, 2015