alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:99cr22-RH/WCS

4:06cv187-RH/WCS

DANIEL WRIGHT,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING “RULE 60(b)” MOTION

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 208) and the objections thereto (document 209). I

have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections. Upon consideration, 

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. Defendant Daniel Wright's motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(6) and motion for judicial notice (documents 205 and 206) are DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 31st day of July, 2006.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:99-cr-00022-RH-WCS Document 210 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 1
16.603-4 Contract clauses.       (a) 						            The contracting officer shall	include in each letter contract the clauses required by this regulation	for the type of definitive contract contemplated and any additional	clauses known to be appropriate for it.                                          (b) 						            In addition,	the contracting officer shall insert the following clauses in solicitations	and contracts when a letter contract is contemplated:                                                         (1) 								                The	clause at 52.216-23, Execution and	Commencement of Work, except that this clause may be omitted from letter	contracts awarded on SF 26;                                                            (2) 								                The clause	at 52.216-24, Limitation	of Government Liability, with dollar amounts completed in a manner	consistent with 16.603-2(d);	and                                                            (3) 								                The clause	at 52.216-25, Contract Definitization,	with its paragraph (b) completed in a manner consistent with 16.603-2(c). If at the	time of entering into the letter contract, the contracting officer	knows that the definitive contract will be based on adequate price	competition or will otherwise meet the criteria of 15.403-1 for not requiring	submission of certified cost or pricing data, the words "and certified	cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.408, Table  15-2 supporting	its proposal" may be deleted from paragraph (a) of the clause. If	the letter contract is being awarded on the basis of price competition,	the contracting officer shall use the clause with its Alternate	I.                                                                             (c) 						            The contracting	officer shall also insert the clause at 52.216-26, Payments of	Allowable Costs Before Definitization, in solicitations and contracts	if a cost-reimbursement definitive contract is contemplated, unless	the acquisition involves conversion, alteration, or repair of ships.    **Parent topic:** 16.603 Letter contracts.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OFTHE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

The undersigned executive officer of Alliance Bancorp,Inc, of Pennsylvania (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies that the Registrant’sForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatthe information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| Date: March 30, 2007 |   | /s/ Peter J. Meier      |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                 |   | Peter J. Meier          |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2542 

To suspend temporarily the duty on tricholorobenzene. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5, 2006 

Mr. TALENT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on tricholorobenzene. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TRICHOLOROBENZENE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.06.03 Tricholorobenzene (CAS No. 

120–82–1) (provided for in 

subheading 2903.69.10) ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 


HMoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 2542 IS 

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


HMoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
#### § 51.1872 Reasonably well formed.

*Reasonably well formed* means that the tomato is not decidedly kidney-shaped, lop-sided, elongated, angular, or otherwise decidedly deformed.
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas EmissionsMeeting Documentation: Microchip Technology Inc.DateStaff Contact Information(Name, email, phone #)Name of Organization (Attachlist of all attendees names andemails if possible)Summary of Discussion(e.g.,applicability, reporting requirements, etc.)WrittenCommentsProvided?Did they alsosubmit toDocket?Date sentto EPACCDApril 27, 2010Tempe, AZKirsten Cappel(202) 343-9556cappel.kirsten@epa.govJeff Thomasjeff.thomas@microchip.comAlan Abbottalan.abbot@microchip.comJoy Jonesjoy.jones@microchip.comXia Suxia.su@microchip.comMike Sherer, ShererConsulting Services, Inc.Msherereng@aol.comMicrochip provided a generaloverview of their manufacturingoperations. Microchip identifiedquestions and concerns with theproposed rule, ElectronicsManufacturing, subpart I (seeMicrochips public comments in thedocket).Meeting included a tour of thefacility.Microchip didsubmit publiccomments to thedocket.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 VS CASE NO. 1:02-CR-43-03 MMP 

 DEMETRIUS G. KENNEDY

FINANCIAL REFERRAL AND ORDER

Regarding release of funds for: X Fine, Restitution, Filing Fee, Attorney Admission Fee,

 Copy Fee, Bond, Other (Specify) 

By: Demetrius G. Kennedy #20159-017 (Payee)

Address: FCI Talladega

PO Box 1000

Talladega, AL 35160

Receipt Number 802-111690-29 & 802-111941-03 Date of Receipt 8/11/06 & 9/13/06 

Motion: N/A

Explanation: A review of the payment records for Mr. Kennedy indicates an overpayment of $25.00. 

According to the court dockets and financial records, Mr. Kennedy does not owe any additional money

and should be reimbursed $25.00.

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, Clerk of Court

Prepared by: ___s/Philip Detweiler___________

 Philip Detweiler, Financial Specialist Date: September 14, 2006

Referred by: ,Deputy Clerk

ORDER OF COURT

It is ORDERED this 15th day of September , 2006, that the Clerk refund the identified

funds to the payee.

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 MAURICE M. PAUL, SENIOR 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Adopted: 12/03/99

Case 1:02-cr-00043-MP-GRJ Document 394 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Western International Hotels Company and/or St. Francis Hotel Corp., Doing Business as Hotel St. Francis, Appellants, v. Arista Student Travel Association, Inc., Respondent.

Order, entered on February 8, 1968, granting defendant’s motion to stay prosecution of this action pending final resolution of an action commenced by plaintiffs’ insurance company, as subrogee, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, unanimously reversed on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion and motion denied, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants. Plaintiffs have no standing in, or control over, the prosecution of the Federal action and their rights should not be made to await the termination of that action. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Markewieh, McNally and Steuer, JJ.; McGrivern, J., dissents in the following memorandum: Unfortunately, I cannot reconcile this disposition with what we have almost simultaneously said in *Krisel*v. *Phillips Petroleum Co.*(32 A D 2d 628), to wit, that “the progression of two actions of such common identity against the same defendant in separate forums, is indefensible. Such a course would place an undue burden on Phillips and constitute a waste of judicial energies. (See *Greenwich Marine*v. *S. S. Alexandra,*339 F. 2d 901, 905.) ” The same over-riding principle is involved here. The reason assigned by the majority for reversal is not adequate. Accordingly, I agree with Special Term that the complaints in both actions predicate liability on the same theory, involving the same incident, and for all *631practical consideration the same parties inasmuch as the plaintiff insurance company in the Federal action sues as subrogee of the plaintiffs in this action following payment to plaintiffs of the damages incurred by them by virtue of the conduct of the defendant. The substantial identity of the parties and the issues is recognized by the concession in the brief of the plaintiffs-appellants that a final determination in either action would be *res judicata*as to the other. I would affirm.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Mingo, Appellant.

Submitted June 25, 2007;

decided June 27, 2007

Reported below, 37 AD3d 854.

*833Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
29.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policies and procedures for (a) using tax clauses in contracts (including foreign

contracts), (b) asserting immunity or exemption from taxes, and (c) obtaining tax refunds. It explains

Federal, State, and local taxes on certain supplies and services acquired by executive agencies and

the applicability of such taxes to the Federal Government. It is for the general information of

Government personnel and does not present the full scope of the tax laws and regulations.

Parent topic: Part 29 - Taxes
EX-10.4.2







Exhibit 10.4.2




Schedule identifying agreements, entered into between GLG Partners, Inc. and each of

the following persons, substantially identical to the Non-Competition Agreement

constituting Exhibit 10.4.1.





	1.	 	Pierre Lagrange
	 
	2.	 	Emmanuel Roman
19.1305 HUBZone set-aside procedures.

(a) The contracting officer-

(1) Shall comply with 19.203 before deciding to set aside an acquisition under the HUBZone

Program;

(2) May set aside acquisitions exceeding the micro-purchase threshold for competition restricted to

HUBZone small business concerns when the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section can be

satisfied; and

(3) Shall consider HUBZone set-asides before considering HUBZone sole-source awards (see

19.1306) or small business set-asides (see subpart 19.5).

(b) To set aside an acquisition for competition restricted to HUBZone small business concerns, the

contracting officer must have a reasonable expectation that-

(1) Offers will be received from two or more HUBZone small business concerns; and

(2) Award will be made at a fair market price.

(c) If the contracting officer receives only one acceptable offer from a HUBZone small business

concern in response to a set aside, the contracting officer should make an award to that concern. If

the contracting officer receives no acceptable offers from HUBZone small business concerns, the

HUBZone set-aside shall be withdrawn and the requirement, if still valid, set aside for small business

concerns, as appropriate (see 19.203).

(d) The procedures at 19.202-1 and, at 19.402 apply to this section.

(1) When the SBA intends to appeal a contracting officer’s decision to reject a recommendation of

the SBA procurement center representative (or, if a procurement center representative is not

assigned, see 19.402(a)) to set aside an acquisition for competition restricted to HUBZone small

business concerns, the SBA procurement center representative shall notify the contracting officer, in

writing, of its intent within 5 business days of receiving the contracting officer’s notice of rejection.

(2) Upon receipt of notice of SBA’s intent to appeal, the contracting officer shall suspend action on

the acquisition until the head of the contracting activity issues a written decision on the appeal,

unless the head of the contracting activity makes a written determination that urgent and

compelling circumstances, which significantly affect the interests of the Government, exist.

(3) Within 15 business days of SBA’s notification to the contracting officer, SBA must file its formal

appeal with the head of the agency, or the appeal will be deemed withdrawn. The head of the agency

shall reply to SBA within 15 business days of receiving the appeal. The decision of the head of the

agency shall be final.

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

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

AssignmentsComputer Uses in EducationElementary Secondary EducationHomeworkMathematics EducationParent ParticipationParent RoleScience EducationStudy HabitsStudy SkillsTime Management

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2516 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2516

          To suspend temporarily the duty on Beta-cyfluthrin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2006

  Mr. Talent introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on Beta-cyfluthrin.

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

SECTION 1. BETA-CYFLUTHRIN.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.10.68      Reaction mixture    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         comprising the                                                     31/2009
                         enantiomeric pair
                         (R)-a-cyano-4-
                         fluoro-3-
                         phenoxybenzyl
                         (1S,3S)-3-(2,2-
                         dichlorovinyl)-2,
                         2-
                         dimethylcycloprop
                         anecarboxylate
                         and (S)-a-cyano-4-
                         fluoro-3-
                         phenoxybenzyl
                         (1R,3R)-3-(2,2-
                         dichlorovinyl)-2,
                         2-
                         dimethylcycloprop
                         anecarboxylate in
                         ratio 1:2 with
                         the enantiomeric
                         pair (R)-a-cyano-
                         4-fluoro-3-
                         phenoxybenzyl
                         (1S,3R)-3-(2,2-
                         dichlorovinyl)-2,
                         2-
                         dimethylcycloprop
                         anecarboxylate
                         and (S)-a-cyano-4-
                         fluoro-3-
                         phenoxybenzyl
                         (1R,3S)-3-(2,2-
                         dichlorovinyl)-2,
                         2-
                         dimethylcycloprop
                         anecarboxylate (b-
                         Cyfluthrin) (CAS
                         No. 68359-37-5)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2926.90.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### §§ 4284.943-4284.949 [Reserved]
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:19-cv-03620-MCR-HTC Document 1-2 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 3:19-cv-03620-MCR-HTC Document 1-2 Filed 10/02/19 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:97cr44-RH/WCS

JOHANN ROSHE WOLMARANS,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM

NOBIS AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 147). No objections have been filed. I conclude that

the defendant is not entitled to relief, and I find that any appeal will not be taken in

good faith. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the

court’s opinion. 

2. The motion for a writ of error coram nobis (document 146) is DENIED.

3. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The motion for a writ of error

coram nobis (document 146) is denied with prejudice.”
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:97cr44-RH/WCS

4. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (document 145) is

DENIED. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied for on any past appeal or

for any appeal that may be filed from the judgment that will be entered based on

this order.

SO ORDERED on May 3, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
#### The State ex rel. Heard, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Heard v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 358.]

(No. 97-1342

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*359
      *Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A, Stewart R. Jaffy, Marc J. Jaffy*and *Eric S. Bravo,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *William D. Haders,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,

dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
#### § 502.5 Nuisances.

The use of loud, abusive or otherwise improper language, unwarranted loitering, sleeping, or assembly, the creating of any hazard to persons or things, improper disposal of rubbish, spitting, prurient prying, the commission of any obscene or indecent act, or any other unseemly or disorderly conduct, throwing articles of any kind from a building, or climbing upon any part of a building is prohibited. Further, conduct which obstructs the usual use of entrances, foyers, corridors, office elevators, stairways and parking lots, or which otherwise tends to impede or disturb BARC employees in the performance of their duties or which otherwise impedes the general public from obtaining the administrative services provided by BARC is prohibited.

[61 FR 51211, Oct. 1, 1996]
#### Richard C. Cortellessa, Respondent, v Starch Inra Hooper, Inc., Appellant.

— In an action on an employment contract, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 4, 1978, which, after a nonjury trial, was in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The record supports the conclusion that the agreement contemplated at least one year’s employment. Hollen, P. J., Damiani, Lazer and Hargett, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20940

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFREDO LERMA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-87-1

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alfredo Lerma has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Lerma has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
#### § 51.1561 Serious damage.

“Serious damage” means any defect, or any combination of defects, which seriously detracts from the edible or marketing quality, or the internal or external appearance of the potato, or any external defect which cannot be removed without a loss of more than 10 percent of the total weight of the potato. See Tables III, IV, V and VI in § 51.1564 and Table VII in 5§ 1.1565.

[76 FR 31789, June 2, 2011]
Case 4:99-cr-00071-RH-HTC Document 268 Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:99-cr-00071-RH-HTC Document 268 Filed 05/21/21 Page 2 of 2