alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Moore *vs.*Hawkins.

Attachment

[Messrs. Morehead & Brown for plaintiff: Mr. John Trimble for defendant.]

From the Cirouit Court eor Harrison County.

*April*23.

That tho defendant in an attachment *had not absconded,*is matter of abatement only : so no error in refusing a continuance to enable him to prove that fact, when it was notpleaded, as the proof could not be admitted.

No declarations required in an attachment case; the warrant serves for count, as well as process.

Ten days between the levy of an attachment returnable to the circuit court, and *the day it is set for trial,*is sufficient to entitle the plt'f to a trial at th6 first term.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered tlje Opinion of the Court.

This writ of error calls in question a judgment by default, rendered by the Circuit Court, on an attachment returned executed, and replevied; and presents three questions : *first*— did the Court err in overruling a motion for a continuance? *Second*— was a declaration necessary? and, *third*— was the'case properly triable at the return .term, there not having been ten days between the levy and the first day of the term, but more than ten days between the levy and the day for which the case was set for trial?

*First.*As there was no plea, the Circuit judge did not err in overruling an application to continue the case, for evidence to prove facts conducing to show that the defendant in that Court had not absconded. Such a defence, if pleaded, might have abated the attachment. But to entitle the party to make it, a plea in abatement was necessary; and having filed no plea, he had no right to continue the case for the purpose of procuring the testimony of witnesses to prove an inadmissible fact.

*Second.*The statute regulating attachments against *absconding*debtors does not require, or seem to contemplate, the filing of a declaration. The warrant of attachment seems to have been intended both as *process*and *count.*

*Third.*The statute prescribing the mode of proceeding by attachment against *absconding debtors,*does not require that such an attachment shall be made returnable to a particular day; but, when returnable to the Circuit Court, the law directs merely that it be returned to the *next Court;*and the statute of 1810, for regulating “proceedings in suits at law and in chancery” — and which *290requires process *“in actions at common*law” to be made returnable “to the first day of the term next after they issue” — does not apply to the statutory remedy by attachment. And therefore if, by analogy, ten days after the levy of the attachment, should elapse before a trial should be had, without the defendant’s consent, still, as the attachment in this case was made returnable to no particular day, the fact that ten days elapsed from the levy to the day set for the trial, was all-sufficient.

Wherefore, as the Circuit judge decided according to the foregoing conclusions, the judgment must be affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1




               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     We  have  issued  our  report dated May 5, 2003, accompanying the financial
statements  included  in  the Annual Report of APA Optics, Inc. on Form 10-K for
the  year  ended  March  31,  2003.  We  hereby  consent to the incorporation by
reference  of  said report in the Registration Statements of APA Optics, Inc. on
Forms  S-8 (File No. 333-74214, effective November 30, 2001; File No. 333-44500,
effective  August  25,  2000; File No. 333-44488, effective August 25, 2000; and
File  No.  333-44486,  effective  August  25,  2000).



/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP


Minneapolis,  Minnesota
June  27,  2003


<PAGE>
#### §§ 3565.58-3565.99 [Reserved]
#### §§ 4285.4-4285.23 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32

                 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                 PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VPGI Corp.
 (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
 Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
 Patrick A. Custer, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
 of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S1350, as adopted pursuant to
 S906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

      1.  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.


 February 13, 2004

                               /s/ PATRICK A. CUSTER
                               -------------------------
                               Patrick A. Custer
                               Chief Executive Officer
                               and Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) of Community Bankers Trust Corporation (the Company), the undersigned Executive Vice President, who is acting as the Companys principal executive officer,
and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge:

(1) 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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of
the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.



/s/ Rex L. Smith, IIIRex L. Smith, IIIExecutive Vice President(principal executive officer)/s/ Bruce E. ThomasBruce E. ThomasExecutive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer


Date: May 13, 2011
§ 3430.58 Prior approvals. ( a ) *Subcontracts.* No more than 50 percent of the award may be subcontracted to other parties without prior written approval of the ADO except contracts to other Federal agencies. Any subcontract awarded to a Federal agency under an award must have prior written approval of the ADO. To request approval, a justification for the proposed subcontractual arrangements, a performance statement, and a detailed budget for the subcontract must be submitted to the ADO.
( b ) *No-cost extensions of time* — ( 1 ) *General.* Awardees may initiate a one-time no-cost extension of the expiration date of the award of up to 12 months unless one or more of the following conditions apply: the terms and conditions of the award prohibit the extension; the extension requires additional Federal funds; and the extension involves any change in the approved objectives or scope of the project. For the first no-cost extension, the awardee must notify NIFA in writing with the supporting reasons and revised expiration date at least 10 days before the expiration date specified in the award.
( 2 ) *Additional requests for no-cost extensions of time before expiration date.* When more than one no-cost extension of time or an extension of more than 12 months is required, the extension(s) must be approved in writing by the ADO. The awardee should prepare and submit a written request (which must be received no later than 10 days prior to the expiration date of the award) to the ADO. The request must contain, at a minimum, the following information: the length of the additional time required to complete the project objectives and a justification for the extension; a summary of the progress to date; an estimate of the funds expected to remain unobligated on the scheduled expiration date; a projected timetable to complete the portion(s) of the project for which the extension is being requested; and signature of the AR and the PD.
( 3 ) *Requests for no-cost extensions of time after expiration date.* NIFA may consider and approve requests for no-cost extensions of time up to 120 days following the expiration of the award. These will be approved only for extenuating circumstances, as determined by NIFA. The awardee's AR must submit the requirements identified under paragraph (b)(2) of this section as well as an “extenuating circumstance” justification and a description of the actions taken by the awardee to minimize these requests in the future.
( 4 ) *Other requirements.* No-cost extensions of time may not be exercised merely for the purpose of using unobligated balances. All extensions are subject to any statutory term limitations as well as any expiring appropriation limitations under § 3430.63.
# 12.602 Streamlined evaluation of offers.

(a) When evaluation factors are used, the *contracting officer**may* insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 52.212-2, Evaluation-*Commercial Products* and *Commercial Services*, in *solicitations* for *commercial products* or *commercial services* or comply with the procedures in 13.106 if the *acquisition* is being made using *simplified acquisition procedures*. When the provision at 52.212-2 is used, paragraph (a) of the provision *shall* be tailored to the specific *acquisition* to describe the evaluation factors and relative importance of those factors. However, when using the *simplified acquisition procedures* in part  13, *contracting officers* are not required to describe the relative importance of evaluation factors.

(b)*Offers**shall* be evaluated in accordance with the criteria contained in the *solicitation*. For many *commercial products* or *commercial services*, the criteria need not be more detailed than technical (capability of the item offered to meet the agency need), price, and *past performance*. Technical capability *may* be evaluated by how well the proposed *products* or services meet the Government requirement instead of predetermined subfactors. *Solicitations* for *commercial products* or *commercial services* do not have to contain subfactors for technical capability when the *solicitation* adequately describes the intended use of the *commercial product* or *commercial service*. A technical evaluation would normally include examination of such things as product or service literature, product samples (if requested), technical features, and *warranty* provisions. *Past performance**shall* be evaluated in accordance with the procedures in section 13.106 or subpart  15.3, as applicable. The *contracting officer**shall* ensure the instructions provided in the provision at 52.212-1, Instructions to *Offerors*—*Commercial Products* and *Commercial Services*, and the evaluation criteria provided in the provision at 52.212-2, Evaluation—*Commercial Products* and *Commercial Services*, are in agreement.

(c) Select the *offer* that is most advantageous to the Government based on the factors contained in the *solicitation*. Fully document the rationale for selection of the successful *offeror* including discussion of any trade-offs considered.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 12.6 - Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Products and Commercial Services
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:94-cr-01036-MP All Defendants

JAMES R YOUNG,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 163, Motion to Correct Judgment, filed by

Defendant James R. Young. As Mr. Young has done various times before, he is attempting in

Doc. 163 to attack his judgment of conviction or sentence without calling his filing a motion

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and without first securing permission to file a successive § 2255 motion

from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. This is improper. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motion to correct judgment, Doc. 163, is summarily denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of October, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:94-cr-01036-MW-GRJ Document 164 Filed 10/04/11 Page 1 of 1
#### § 4284.906 State laws, local laws, regulatory commission regulations.

If there are conflicts between this subpart and State or local laws or regulatory commission regulations, the provisions of this subpart will control.
#### Francesa Parilla et al., Respondents, v Albert W. Cook, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In a medical malpractice action, defendant Cook appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 11,1980, which denied his motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. There are triable issues of fact presented. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:94cr4026-WS

FRANK ANTHONY HAROLD, 4:06cv38-WS

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 119)

docketed June 28, 2006. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

request to preserve his Booker claim (doc. 118) be denied. The defendant has filed

objections (doc. 119) to the report and recommendation.

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

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

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 119) is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:94-cr-04026-WS-WCS Document 121 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 94cr4026-WS

2. The defendant’s request to preserve his Booker claim (doc. 118) is DENIED. 

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall close Case No. 

4:06cv38-WS.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of August , 2006.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:94-cr-04026-WS-WCS Document 121 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2
§ 5001.401 Interest rate provisions. Interest rates, interest rate caps, and incremental interest rate adjustment limitations on a guaranteed loan are negotiated between the Lender and the borrower. The interest rate for a guaranteed loan can be either fixed or variable, or a combination thereof, as long as it is a legal rate. Interest rates cannot be more than those rates the lender customarily charges its borrowers for non-guaranteed loans in similar circumstances in the ordinary course of business. The Agency encourages each lender to use the secondary market and pass interest-rate savings on to the borrower. ( a ) *Different rates on guaranteed and unguaranteed portion of the* guaranteed *loan.* It is permissible to have different interest rates on the guaranteed and unguaranteed portions of the loan.
( b ) *Variable interest rates.* A variable interest rate must be an interest rate that is tied to a published base rate, as published in a national or regional financial publication, and is agreed to by the Agency. ( 1 ) The variable interest base rate must be specified in the promissory note along with any interest factors (*e.g.,* National Prime plus 1.0 percent).
( 2 ) The lender may adjust the variable interest rate at different intervals during the term of the loan, but not more often than quarterly.
( 3 ) The lender must incorporate, within the variable rate promissory note, a provision for adjustment of payment installments to fully amortize the loan by its maturity date.
( c ) *Multi-rates.* When multi-rates are used, the lender must provide the Agency with the overall effective Interest rate for the entire loan.
( d ) *Interest rate changes.* Any change in the base rate or fixed interest rate between issuance of the conditional commitment and loan closing must be approved by the Agency. Approval of such a change must be shown as an amendment to the conditional commitment and must be reflected on the guaranteed loan closing report form.
[85 FR 42518, July 14, 2020, as amended at 86 FR 70357, Dec. 10, 2021]
EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
          REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
                       OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350

     I, Eric Bello, Treasurer (principal financial officer) of Quipp, Inc., a
Florida corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:

    (1) The Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December
        31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
        13(a) 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.

                                      * * *

                                                  Eric Bello
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  ERIC BELLO
                                                  Treasurer
                                                  (principal financial officer)

Date: March 25, 2004
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 the Treasury

      ( print page 73164)    

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before December 29, 2010 to be assured of consideration. 

## Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

*OMB Number:*                     1545-0199.                 

*Type of Review:*                     Extension without change to a currently approved collection.                 

*Title:*                     Application for Approval of Prototype Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) or Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees of Small Employers (SIMPLE IRA Plan).                 

*Form:*                     5306-A.                 

*Abstract:*                     This form is used by banks, credit unions, insurance companies, and trade or professional associations to apply for approval of a Simplified Employee Pension Plan or Savings Incentive Match Plan to be used by more than one employer. The data collected is used to determine if the prototype plan submitted is an approved plan.                 

*Respondents:*                     Private sector: Businesses or other for-profits.                 

*Estimated Total Burden Hours:*                     94,400 hours.                 

*Bureau Clearance Officer:*                     Allan Hopkins, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224; (202) 622-6665.                 

*OMB Reviewer:*                     Shagufta Ahmed, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; (202) 395-7873.                 

Dawn D. Wolfgang, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010-29931 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# 16.205 Fixed-price contracts with prospective price redetermination.

- 16.205-1 Description. 
- 16.205-2 Application. 
- 16.205-3 Limitations. 
- 16.205-4 Contract clause. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 16.2 - Fixed-Price Contracts
§ 4274.321 Ineligible loan purposes. ( a ) *Agency IRP loans.* The intermediary cannot use Agency IRP loan funds to pay for its administrative costs and expenses.
( b ) *IRP revolving loan fund loans.* IRP revolving loan fund loans cannot be used for any of the purposes identified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section. ( 1 ) Assistance in excess of what is needed to accomplish the purpose of the ultimate recipient's project.
( 2 ) Distribution, payment, or loans to the owner, partners, shareholders, or beneficiaries of the ultimate recipient or members of their families when such persons will retain any portion of their equity, or control, in the ultimate recipient. This is not intended to prevent the sale of a business among immediate family members as long as the selling immediate family member does not retain an ownership interest and the price paid is deemed to be reasonable. This type of transaction is not an arm's length transaction and reasonableness of the price paid will be based upon an appraisal acceptable to the Agency.
( 3 ) Charitable institutions and fraternal organizations that would not have revenue from sales, fees, or stable revenue source to support their operation and repay the loan.
( 4 ) Assistance to Federal government employees, active-duty military personnel, employees of the intermediary, or any organization for which such persons are directors or officers or have 20 percent or more ownership.
( 5 ) A loan to an ultimate recipient that has an application pending with or a loan outstanding from another intermediary involving an IRP revolving loan fund if the total Agency IRP loans would exceed the limits established in § 4274.331(c).
( 6 ) Agricultural production. For the purposes of this program, Agricultural production does not include those activities specifically listed as eligible uses of IRP revolving loan fund loans in § 4274.320(b)(15) through (19).
( 7 ) The transfer of ownership unless the loan will keep the business from closing, prevent the loss of employment opportunities in the area, or provide expanded job opportunities.
( 8 ) Community antenna television services or facilities.
( 9 ) Any illegal activity.
( 10 ) Any project that is in violation of either a Federal, State, or local environmental protection law or regulation or an enforceable land use restriction unless the assistance given will result in curing or removing the violation.
( 11 ) Loans to lending and investment institutions and insurance companies.
( 12 ) Golf courses, racetracks, or gambling facilities.
( 13 ) An entity is ineligible if it derives more than 15 percent of its annual gross revenue (including any lease income from space or machines) from gambling activity, excluding State-authorized lottery proceeds or Tribal-authorized gambling proceeds, as approved by the Agency, conducted for the purpose of raising funds for the approved project.
19.502-7 Inclusion of Federal Prison

Industries, Inc.

When using competitive procedures in accordance with 8.602(a)(4), agencies shall include Federal

Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI), in the solicitation process and consider a timely offer from FPI.

Parent topic: 19.502 Setting aside acquisitions.
#### JONES, Respondent, v. MOSS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Ann Eliza Jones against Courtlandt D. Moss.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.