alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9.104-7 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.       (a)                    						             The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.209-5, Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters, in solicitations where the contract value is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.                                          (b)                    						             The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.209-7, Information Regarding Responsibility Matters, in solicitations where the resultant contract value is expected to exceed  							$600,000.                                          (c)                    						             The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.209-9, Updates of Publicly Available Information Regarding Responsibility Matters-                                                         (1)                          								                 In solicitations where the resultant contract value is expected to exceed  									$600,000; 								 and                                                            (2)                          								                 In contracts in which the offeror checked "has" in paragraph (b) of the provision at 52.209-7.                                                                             (d)                    						             The contracting officer shall insert the provision 52.209-11, Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law, in all solicitations.                                          (e)                    						             For agencies receiving funds subject to section 523 of Division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) and similar provisions in subsequent appropriations acts, the contracting officer shall insert the provision 52.209-12, Certification Regarding Tax Matters, in solicitations for which the resultant contract (including options) may have a value greater than  							$5.5 million. 						 Division B of the Consolidated and Continuing Further Appropriations Act, 2015 appropriates funds for the following agencies: the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science Foundation, the Commission on Civil Rights, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Legal Services Corporation, the Marine Mammal Commission, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and the State Justice Institute.    **Parent topic:** 9.104 Standards.
(3) Designated Representatives and Alternate Designated

Representatives Sections 97.413 through 97.418, 97.513 through 97.518, 97.613 through 97.618, and 97.713 through 97.718 establish the procedures for certifying and authorizing the designated repres entative, and alternate designated representative, of the owners and operators of a source and the units at the source and for changing the designated representative and alternate designated representative. These sections also describe the designated

repr esentative’s and alternate designated representative’s responsibilities and the process through which he or she can delegate to an agent the authority to make electronic submissions to the Administrator. Except as discussed herein, the provisions in the final rules are the essentially same as in the proposed rules and for each of the Transport Rule trading programs. The designated representative is the individual (i.e., the natural person) authorized to represent the owners and operators of each covered s ource and covered unit at the source in matters pertaining to all Transport Rule trading programs to which the source and units were subject. One alternate designated representative (also an individual) can be selected to act on behalf of, and legally bin d, thedesignated representative and thus the owners and

operators. Because the actions of the designated representative and alternate legally bind the owners and operators, the designated representative and alternate must submit a certificate of represen tation certifying that each was selected by an agreement binding on all such owners and operators and is authorized to act on their behalf. In the final rules (like in the proposed rules), the certificate of representation must contain: specified identifying information for the covered source (including location) and the covered units at the source and for the designated representative and alternate; the name of every owner and operator of the source and units; and certification language and signatures of the designated representative and alternate. The final rules require an additional piece of identifying information, i.e., whether the unit is located in Indian country. This is necessary in order for the Administrator to implement the above

described In dian country new unit set

- aside. All submissions (e.g., monitoring plans, monitoring system certifications, and allowance transfers) under the final

rules for a covered source or covered unit must be submitted, signed, and certified by the designatedrepr esentative or alternate, except that electronic

submission may be delegated. In order to change the designated representative or alternate, a new certificate of representation must be received by the Administrator. A new certificate of representation must also be submitted to reflect changes in the owners and operators of the source and units involved. The new certificate must be submitted within 30 days of such changes.
EXHIBIT 32.2



November 5, 2007

Securities and Exchange
Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Lazard Group
LLC (the Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                            
|----------------------------
|                            
|/s/    Michael J. Castellano
|Michael J. Castellano       
|Chief Financial Officer     



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### In the Matter of 401 East 138th Street Wine & Liquor Corp., Respondent, v New York State Liquor Authority, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered March 28, 1979, annulling respondent’s determination, dated October 20, 1978, and ordering a hearing *de novo,*reversed, on the law, petition dismissed and determination reinstated and confirmed, without costs. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that it presented its relevant evidence at the hearing held pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 54 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. At that hearing, it was permitted to make oral argument before the hearing officer (9 NYCRR 52.6). However, the petitioner did not have the right to be present at the original or subsequent meeting held by the board in considering and voting upon its application. *(Matter of Moltzen v Hostetter,*24 AD2d 1018, affd 18 NY2d 629; *Matter of Fredette v Hostetter,*36 AD2d 891; *Matter of Rochester Colony v Hostetter,*19 AD2d 250.) The overriding question presented upon this appeal is whether the respondent acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying a liquor license to the petitioner *(Matter of Wager v State Liq. Auth.,*4 NY2d 465, 468). The respondent found that the four "package stores” in the area adequately served the community. Furthermore, the respondent noted that the gross annual sales volume of two of the existing "package stores” was on the decline. These grounds support the respondent’s determination that the public convenience and advantage would not be served by the issuance of a license to the petitioner. *(Matter of Mandee Liqs. v Roth,*57 AD2d 961, affd 44 NY2d 653; *Matter of Greco’s Liq. & Wine Cellar v New York State Liq. Auth.,*28 AD2d 1138.) Concur— Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Fein and Lynch, JJ.
§ 51.1148 U.S. No. 2. “U.S. No. 2” consists of oranges which meet the following requirements: ( a ) Basic requirements: ( 1 ) Discoloration: Not more than one-half of the surface, in the aggregate, may be affected by discoloration. (See § 51.1161.)
( 2 ) Fairly firm;
( 3 ) Mature;
( 4 ) Reasonably well colored;
( 5 ) Similar varietal characteristics;
( 6 ) Not more than slightly misshapen; and
( 7 ) Not more than slightly rough texture.
( b ) Free from: ( 1 ) Decay;
( 2 ) Unhealed skin breaks; and
( 3 ) Wormy fruit.
( c ) Free from serious damage caused by: ( 1 ) Ammoniation;
( 2 ) Bruises;
( 3 ) Buckskin;
( 4 ) Caked melanose;
( 5 ) Creasing;
( 6 ) Dirt or other foreign material;
( 7 ) Disease;
( 8 ) Dryness or mushy condition;
( 9 ) Green spots;
( 10 ) Hail;
( 11 ) Insects;
( 12 ) Oil spots;
( 13 ) Riciness or woodiness;
( 14 ) Scab;
( 15 ) Scale;
( 16 ) Scars;
( 17 ) Skin breakdown;
( 18 ) Split, rough or protruding navels;
( 19 ) Sprayburn;
( 20 ) Sunburn;
( 21 ) Thorn scratches; and
( 22 ) Other means.
( d ) For tolerances see § 51.1151.
( e ) Internal quality: Lots meeting the internal requirements for “U.S. Grade AA Juice (Double A)” or “U.S. Grade A Juice” may be so specified in connection with the grade. (See §§ 51.1176-51.1179.)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6387
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TREVOR PLACIDO BENJAMIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:96-cr-00217-DKC; 8:07-cv-00148-DKC) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 22, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Trevor Placido Benjamin, Appellant Pro Se. Chan Park, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Trevor Placido Benjamin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Benjamin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### CANNICE, Appellant, v. TILDEN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department,

May 16, 1906.)

Action by Iacuzza Cannice, as, etc., against George T. Tilden and another.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

NASH, J., not sitting.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-196-AW-GRJ

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

THE TREASURY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is one of the many frivolous pro se cases Christopher Jon Pergrossi has 

recently filed in this court. I have considered the magistrate judge’s omnibus order 

to show cause and report and recommendation. ECF No. 4. No objections were 

filed.* I agree with the magistrate judge that the action is frivolous and has wasted 

court resources. On the issue of sanctions, the judge in the first-filed case found it to 

be a close call but did not impose sanctions. See No. 1:20-cv-181-MW-GRJ, ECF 

No. 7. I will likewise not impose sanctions at this time.

The clerk will enter judgment that says, “This case is DISMISSED without 

leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).” The clerk will close the file.

* In another of his cases, Pergrossi filed an objection to the omnibus Report 

and Recommendation. See No. 1:20-cv-181-MW-GRJ, ECF No. 6. Although he did 

not file that objection (or any objection) in this case, I have nonetheless considered 

de novo the issues raised in that objection. 

Case 1:20-cv-00196-AW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED on October 5, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00196-AW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 10/05/20 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. 4:98cr44-RH/WCS

KATONYA CHISHOLM,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER SETTING PROCEDURES ON MOTION FOR

EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

Upon consideration of defendant’s motion for early termination of

supervised release, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Probation Office shall provide a memorandum to the court (hereafter

referred to as a “fact memorandum”) setting forth the date when defendant’s

supervised release commenced and is scheduled to terminate, indicating whether

defendant is and has been in compliance with the terms of her supervised release,

and setting forth such additional information as the Probation Office deems

appropriate. The Probation Office shall provide a copy of the fact memorandum to

the parties. 

Case 4:98-cr-00044-RH Document 305 Filed 09/21/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:98cr44-RH/WCS

2. The Probation Office may include any recommendation in the fact

memorandum or, at its option, in a separate memorandum (hereafter referred to as

a “recommendation memorandum”) that will not be disclosed to the parties. No

action adverse to a party will be taken based on factual information included in a

recommendation memorandum without affording the party an opportunity to

respond. 

3. The government shall file a response to defendant’s motion for early

termination of supervised release within 14 days after service of the Probation

Department’s fact memorandum in accordance with paragraph 1 above.

SO ORDERED this 21st day of September, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:98-cr-00044-RH Document 305 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 72825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29714]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Revocation

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the 
following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked 
pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 
409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing 
of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515, effective on 
the corresponding date shown below:

    License Number: 016769N.
    Name: Galaxy Shipping Company, Inc.
    Address: 304 Queens Gate Court, Las Vegas, NV 89145.
    Date Revoked: October 31, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 017572F.
    Name: Impex of Doral Logistics, Inc.
    Address: 7850 N.W. 80th Street, Unit 3, Medley, FL 33166.
    Date Revoked: October 30, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 018516N.
    Name: K.E.I. Enterprise dba KEI Logix.
    Address: 1815 West 250th Street, Suite 306, Torrance, CA 90501.
    Date Revoked: October 30, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 019813N.
    Name: Cross Country Van Lines, LLC.
    Address: 450 Murray Hill Parkway, Unit E, East Rutherford, NJ 
07073.
    Date Revoked: October 30, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 021600F.
    Name: LTH Logistics, Inc. dba LTH Express.
    Address: 837 East Sandhill Avenue, Carson, CA 90746.
    Date Revoked: October 30, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 021890N.
    Name: Empire Global Logistics, LLC.
    Address: 160-51 Rockaway Blvd., Suite 206, Jamaica, NY 11434.
    Date Revoked: October 31, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 022146N.
    Name: Premier Projects International, LLC.
    Address: 24707 W. Hardy Road, Spring, TX 77373.
    Date Revoked: October 27, 2010.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 2010-29714 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
17.208 Solicitation provisions and contract

clauses.

(a) Insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 52.217-3, Evaluation Exclusive of

Options, in solicitations when the solicitation includes an option clause and does not include one of

the provisions prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.

(b) Insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 52.217-4, Evaluation of Options

Exercised at Time of Contract Award, in solicitations when the solicitation includes an option clause,

the contracting officer has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the option will be

exercised, and the option may be exercised at the time of contract award.

(c) Insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options, in

solicitations when-

(1) The solicitation contains an option clause;

(2) An option is not to be exercised at the time of contract award;

(3) A firm-fixed-price contract, a fixed-price contract with economic price adjustment, or other type

of contract approved under agency procedures is contemplated; and

(4) The contracting officer has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the option will

be exercised. For sealed bids, the determination shall be in writing.

(d) Insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.217-6, Option for Increased Quantity, in

solicitations and contracts, other than those for services, when the inclusion of an option is

appropriate (see 17.200 and 17.202) and the option quantity is expressed as a percentage of the

basic contract quantity or as an additional quantity of a specific line item.

(e) Insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.217-7, Option for Increased QuantitySeparately Priced Line Item, in solicitations and contracts, other than those for services, when the

inclusion of an option is appropriate (see 17.200 and 17.202) and the option quantity is identified as

a separately priced line item having the same nomenclature as a corresponding line item.

(f) Insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, in

solicitations and contracts for services when the inclusion of an option is appropriate. (See 17.200,

17.202, and 37.111.)

(g) Insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the

Contract, in solicitations and contracts when the inclusion of an option is appropriate (see 17.200

and 17.202) and it is necessary to include in the contract any or all of the following:

(1) A requirement that the Government must give the contractor a preliminary written notice of its

intent to extend the contract.

(2) A statement that an extension of the contract includes an extension of the option.

(3) A specified limitation on the total duration of the contract.
Parent topic: Subpart 17.2 - Options
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1027 KA 11-00807 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL J. KEITZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

PETER O. EINSET, GENEVA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JASON A. MACBRIDE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered January 5, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [7]). Defendant contends that he did not plead guilty or admit guilt and thus that he was not convicted of the charge brought against him. At the start of the plea proceeding, defendant agreed that he would plead guilty to assault in the second degree. He indicated that he was pleading guilty of his own free will and after having had sufficient time to discuss it with his attorney. When County Court asked defendant “[h]ow do you plead,” defendant responded “[y]es.” Thereafter, the court asked defendant specific questions about the charge, and defendant made various admissions. We conclude that the plea allocution as a whole establishes that “defendant understood the charges and made an intelligent decision to enter a plea” ( People v Goldstein , 12 NY3d 295, 301).

To the extent that defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives his guilty plea ( see People v Bethune , 21 AD3d 1316, 1316, lv denied 6 NY3d 752), we conclude that it lacks merit. Defendant “receive[d] an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” ( People v Ford , 86 NY2d 397, 404).

Entered: October 5, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court