alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2021132EN.01002301.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 132/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 132/23

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/631

of 12 April 2021

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Budaörsi őszibarack’ (PGI))

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)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Budaörsi őszibarack’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Budaörsi őszibarack’ 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 ‘Budaörsi őszibarack’ 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 ‘Budaörsi őszibarack’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Budaörsi őszibarack’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. – Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, 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, 12 April 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 447, 23.12.2020, p. 21.

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

---
19.1307 Price evaluation preference for

HUBZone small business concerns.

(a) The price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns shall be used in

acquisitions conducted using full and open competition. The preference shall not be used-

(1) Where price is not a selection factor so that a price evaluation preference would not be

considered (e.g., Architect/Engineer acquisitions); 

(2) Where all fair and reasonable offers are accepted (e.g., the award of multiple award schedule

contracts); or

(3) For the reserved portion of a solicitation for a multiple-award contract (see 19.503).

(b) The contracting officer shall give offers from HUBZone small business concerns a price

evaluation preference by adding a factor of 10 percent to all offers, except-

(1) Offers from HUBZone small business concerns that have not waived the evaluation preference;

or

(2) Otherwise successful offers from small business concerns.

(c) The factor of 10 percent shall be applied on a line item basis or to any group of items on which

award may be made. Other evaluation factors, such as transportation costs or rent-free use of

Government property, shall be added to the offer to establish the base offer before adding the factor

of 10 percent.

(d) When the two highest rated offerors are a HUBZone small business concern and a large

business, and the evaluated offer of the HUBZone small business concern is equal to the evaluated

offer of the large business after considering the price evaluation preference, the contracting officer

shall award the contract to the HUBZone small business concern.

Parent topic: Subpart 19.13 - Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1923

WILLIAM K. AVERY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SUPERIOR BANK, FSB,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-00-3785-AW)

Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 30, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William K. Avery, Appellant Pro Se. Alison E. Goldenberg, GORDON,

FEINBLATT, ROTHMAN, HOFFBERGER & HOLLANDER, Baltimore, Maryland;

Ava Elaine Lias-Booker, David Eugene Ralph, SAUL EWING, L.L.P.,

Baltimore, Maryland; Hugo A. Zia, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William K. Avery filed a complaint alleging race

discrimination in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1691 (2000), and related state law claims. The case was

tried before a jury and the district court entered judgment as a

matter of law in favor of the Defendant as to all counts. Avery

appeals. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

statements from the bench. The court properly found that Avery

failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and that,

in any event, the Defendant presented legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reasons for the denial of credit. Accordingly, we affirm. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Catherine Miller, appellee, v. Henry Levy, trading as Levy Exchange, appellant.

Gen. No. 37,802.

Opinion filed November 19, 1934.

Edward H. Kubitz, for appellant. Gordan Quinn, for appellee.

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LAZARUS ADSIDE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5571/LAC/EMT

LIEUTENANT STOKES,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on April

27, 2021 (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff was 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). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

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

19) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1);
Page 2 of 2

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with

this order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5571/LAC/EMT
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. 1:90-cr-01007-MMP

ALAIN STRONG,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 298, Motion for Remission of Fine, filed by the

United States of America. In the motion, the Government moves, under 18 U.S.C. § 3573, for

remission of all the unpaid portion of the fine imposed on June 17, 1996, against Defendant

Alain Strong. The Court has considered the Petition and the pertinent parts of the record, and

finds that there is no reasonable likelihood that expending further efforts to collect this fine

would produce any revenue to the United States. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Petition is granted and all of the unpaid portion of the $25,000.00 fine, plus interest

and penalties, if any, imposed June 17, 1996, is hereby vacated and remitted.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of July, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:90-cr-01007-MP Document 299 Filed 07/09/08 Page 1 of 1
#### § 503.11 Pets.

No pets or animals of any kind may be brought to the PIADC.
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 LAUREN STEWART-BRUNELLE,

8 Plaintiff-Appellant,

9 v. NO. 31,084

10 WAL-MART STORES, INC., a 

11 foreign company doing business in 

12 the State of New Mexico, and

13 OUDALOM SOUMPHOLPHAKDY,

14 Pharm. D. RPH,

15 Defendants-Appellees.

16 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

17 Carl J. Butkus, District Judge

18 Roger Eaton

19 Albuquerque, NM

20 for Appellant

21 Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.

22 Alex C. Walker

23 Tiffany L. Roach

24 Albuquerque, NM 

25 for Appellees
2

1 MEMORANDUM OPINION

2 VANZI, Judge.

3 Plaintiff appeals an order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

4 on Plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. In this Court’s

5 notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to affirm. Defendants have

6 filed a memorandum in support. Plaintiff has not filed a memorandum in opposition,

7 and the time to do so has passed. “Failure to file a memorandum in opposition

8 constitutes acceptance of the disposition proposed in the calendar notice.” Frick v.

9 Veazey, 116 N.M. 246, 247, 861 P.2d 287, 288 (Ct. App. 1993). Because no party

10 opposes our proposed summary disposition, we affirm for the reasons provided in our

11 notice. 

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 __________________________________

14 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

15 WE CONCUR:

16 _________________________________

17 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
3

1 _________________________________

2 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
First Department,

April, 1969

(April 2, 1969)

#### Lasker-Goldman Corporation, Respondent, v. Delma Engineering Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Order entered December 17, 1968, granting plaintiff partial summary judgment against defendant under the first cause of action unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and the motion for summary judgment denied. Plaintiff’s claim against defendant under this cause is based upon a straight indemnity clause whereby defendant agreed to hold plaintiff “ harmless from all liability, loss, cost or damage” arising out of defendant’s performance as plaintiff’s subcontractor on a portion of certain construction work. Third parties have made claims for damage arising out of a mishap on the job, but, as far as is disclosed by the record, at the time of institution of the action, matters had not gone further •than the filing of claims with plaintiff. This is not an action for declaration of the rights of the parties, but is, in effect, a claim over by plaintiff against defendant. Plaintiff is as yet entitled to nothing from defendant, and the cause is asserted prematurely. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Markewich and Steuer, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                 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

     I, Craig J. Kaufmann, Controller and Treasurer of SkyTerra
Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

   (1) The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended
      March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the date hereof (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.


                                  By:   /s/ CRAIG J. KAUFMANN
                                        ----------------------------------
                                        Name: Craig J. Kaufmann
                                        Title:  Controller and Treasurer
                                                (Principal Accounting Officer)
                                        Date: November 10, 2005


     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**INDEMNITY AND GUARANTY AGREEMENT**

 

THIS INDEMNITY AND GUARANTY AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), made as of the 1st day of August, 2001, by SUNWOOD VILLAGE, INC., a Nevada corporation (“Indemnitor”), whose address is c/o SPECS, Inc., Suite LH-06, 4200 Blue Ridge Boulevard, Kansas City, Missouri 64133, in favor of FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK, a national banking association, whose address is 201 South Tryon Street, Suite 130, PMB Box #4, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 (“Lender”).

 

W I T N E S S E T H:

 

WHEREAS, SUNWOOD VILLAGE JOINT VENTURE, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership (“Borrower”), has obtained a loan in the principal amount of TEN MILLION EIGHTY THOUSAND AND 001100 DOLLARS ($10,080,000.00) (the “Loan”) from Lender; and

 

WHEREAS, the Loan is evidenced by a Promissory Note dated of even date herewith (the “Note”), executed by Borrower and payable to the order of Lender in the stated principal amount of TEN MILLION EIGHTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($10,080,000.00) and is secured by a Deed of Trust and Security Agreement dated of even date herewith (the “Deed of Trust”) from Borrower, as grantor, to Lender, as beneficiary, encumbering that certain real property situated in the City of Las Vegas, County of Clark, State of Nevada, as more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, together with the buildings, structures and other improvements now or hereafter located thereon (said real property, buildings, structures and other improvements being hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Property”) and by other documents andinstruments (the Note, the Deed of Trust and such other documents and instruments, as the same may from time to time be amended, consolidated, renewed or replaced, being collectively referred to herein as the “Loan Documents”) and

 

WHEREAS, as a condition to making the Loan to Borrower, Lender has required that Indemnitor indemnify Lender from and against and guarantee payment to Lender of those items for which Borrower is personally liable and for which Lender has recourse against Borrower under the terms of the Note and the Deed of Trust; and

 

WHEREAS, the extension of the Loan to Borrower is of substantial benefit to Indemnitor and, therefore, Indemnitor desires to indemnify Lender from and against and guarantee payment to Lender of those items for which Borrower is personally liable and for which Lender has recourse against Borrower under the terms of the Note and the Deed of Trust.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, to induce Lender to extend the Loan to Borrower and in consideration of the foregoing premises and for other good and valuable 

 

----
# 13.404 Contract clause.

The *contracting officer**shall* insert the clause at 52.213-1, Fast Payment Procedure, in *solicitations* and contracts when the conditions in 13.402 are applicable and it is intended that the fast payment procedure be used in the contract (in the case of BPAs, the *contracting officer**may* elect to insert the clause either in the BPA or in orders under the BPA).

**Parent topic:**Subpart 13.4 - Fast Payment Procedure
Case 1:97-cr-00013-MW-GRJ Document 1338 Filed 09/08/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:02cr52-SPM

ERIC EUGENE BALCOM,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the court upon the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation dated April 2, 2008 (doc. 101). Defendant has been

furnished a copy and has 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 that

the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 101) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s § 2255 motion (doc. 77) is denied without prejudice to

Defendant’s opportunity to refile if his state convictions are vacated. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of May, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00052-RH-CAS Document 105 Filed 05/12/08 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof 155 East Tropicana, LLC and 155 East Tropicana Finance Corp. (the “Company”)for the three months ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Deborah J. Pierce, as ChiefFinancial Officer of 155 East Tropicana, LLC, a Nevada limited-liabilitycompany and 155 East Tropicana Finance Corp., a Nevada corporation, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
| /s/ Deborah J. Pierce                                              |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Deborah J. Pierce,   Chief Financial Officer  August 15, 2005 |

 

The foregoing certifications are being furnishedsolely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and are not being filed as part of theReport or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
#### § 3430.203 Eligibility.

Eligible applicants for the grant program implemented under this subpart include: Federal agencies, national laboratories; colleges and universities (offering associate's or higher degrees); research institutions and organizations; private organizations or corporations; State agricultural experiment stations; individuals; and groups consisting of 2 or more entities identified in this sentence.
May 19,2015

U.S. Department ofTra:nsportation 

### Office ofAviation

### Ana1ysis Essential Air Service (EAS) Washington D.C Attn: Michael 

### Martin 

# City ofHydaburg g:n Street Extension P.O. Box 49 Hydaburg, AK 99922-0049 (907) 285-376l(voice) (907) 285-3760(fax)

Re: DOCKET DOT-OST-1999-6245 Proposal to Provide EAS at Hydaburg


### Dear Sir, Since 2000, Taquan

### Air has 

### prov1ded excellent Hoatplane service to Hydaburg, AK. This 

### service is vital 

### to our community. Living and working in SoutheastAlaska presents many challenges, including difficult weather conditions, but TaquM has proven to

### be reliable, safe and committed to serving 

### our cominunity. 

### It 

### is ourrecommendation that 

### a continued 

### EAS be issuedto TaquanAir for Hydaburg; AK. Thanks fm your consideration and time.

Sincerely,



## .,.
§ 4279.1 Introduction. ( a ) As of October 1, 2020, this subpart is specifically applicable to and only contains regulations for Business and Industry loans under the authority of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) (Pub. L. 116-136) to provide B&I guarantees for loans needed as a result of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic for working capital loan purposes to support business operations and facilities in rural areas (B&I CARES Act Program Loans). Some of the requirements of this subpart are waived or altered for B&I CARES Act Program Loans. The waivers and alterations are provided in § 4279.190 of this subpart. Other than B&I CARES Act Program Loans, this subpart is no longer used for making Business and Industry (B&I) loans guaranteed by the Agency. Subpart B of part 4287 of this chapter is retained for servicing B&I CARES Act Program Loans and B&I loans guaranteed by the Agency prior to October 1, 2020. Requirements for B&I loans guaranteed by the Agency after October 1, 2020 (other than B&I CARES Act Loans) may be found at 7 CFR part 5001.
( b ) The lender is responsible for ascertaining that all requirements for making, securing, servicing, and collecting the loan are complied with.
( c ) Whether specifically stated or not, whenever Agency approval is required, it must be in writing. Copies of all forms and regulations referenced in this subpart may be obtained from any Agency office and from the USDA Rural Development Web site at *http://www.rd.usda.gov/publications .* Whenever a form is designated in this subpart, it is initially capitalized and its reference includes predecessor and successor forms, if applicable.
[81 FR 35997, June 3, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 31040, May 22, 2020; 85 FR 62196, Oct. 2, 2020]
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Kohlberg Capital Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the
“Report”), I, Dayl W. Pearson, President and Chief Executive 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:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 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:
      March 25, 2009
                      
                      By
                      /
      S / Dayl W. PearsonDayl
      W. Pearson
                        President
      and Chief Executive Officer
                        (Principal
      Executive
Officer)