alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subpart 25.9 - Customs and Duties

Parent topic: Part 25 - Foreign Acquisition

25.900 Scope of subpart.

This subpart provides policies and procedures for exempting from import duties certain supplies

purchased under Government contracts.

25.901 Policy.

United States laws impose duties on foreign supplies imported into the customs territory of the

United States. Certain exemptions from these duties are available to Government agencies. Agencies

must use these exemptions when the anticipated savings to appropriated funds will outweigh the

administrative costs associated with processing required documentation.

25.902 Procedures.

For regulations governing importations and duties, see the Customs Regulations issued by the U.S.

Customs Service, Department of the Treasury (19 CFR Chapter 1). Except as provided elsewhere in

the Customs Regulations (see 19 CFR 10.100), all shipments of imported supplies purchased under

Government contracts are subject to the usual Customs entry and examination requirements. Unless

the agency obtains an exemption (see 25.903), those shipments are also subject to duty.

25.903 Exempted supplies.

(a) Subchapters VIII and X of Chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19

U.S.C. 1202) list supplies for which exemptions from duty may be obtained when imported into the

customs territory of the United States under a Government contract. For certain of these supplies,

the contracting agency must certify to the Commissioner of Customs that they are for the purpose

stated in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (see 19 CFR 10.102-104, 10.114, and 10.121 and 15 CFR

Part 301 for requirements and formats).

(b) Supplies (excluding equipment) for Government-operated vessels or aircraft may be withdrawn

from any customs-bonded warehouse, from continuous customs custody elsewhere than in a bonded

warehouse, or from a foreign-trade zone, free of duty and internal revenue tax as provided in 19

U.S.C. 1309 and 1317. The contracting activity must cite this authority on the appropriate customs

form when making purchases (see 19 CFR 10.59 - 10.65).
Amendment No. 1 to 2004 Incentive Plan


 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 
 2004 INCENTIVE PLAN 
 OF 
 DRIL-QUIP, INC. 
 WHEREAS, Dril-Quip,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), established the 2004 Incentive Plan of Dril-Quip, Inc. (as amended and restated, the “Plan”) on March 18, 2004 and amended and restated the Plan effective as
of December 31, 2008; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has determined that certain amendments to the Plan to
reflect changes to share numbers resulting from the Company’s two-for-one stock split in October 2006 are appropriate and in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company does hereby amend the Plan as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Paragraph 5 of the Plan is hereby amended to change each of the references to “1,348,147” to “2,696,294.” 

  

	 	2.	Paragraph 8(b)(i) of the Plan is hereby amended to change the reference to “300,000” to “600,000.” 

  

	 	3.	Paragraph 8(b)(ii) of the Plan is hereby amended to change the reference to “10,000” to “20,000.” 

  

	 	4.	Except as expressly modified and amended herein, all of the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed and delivered this Amendment No. 1 as of the 7th day of May, 2009. 
  

			
	
		
	By:	 	/s/ Gary D. Smith
	 Name:
 Title:
	 	 Gary D. Smith
 Co-Chief Executive Officer and
Co-Chairman of the Board
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">S &amp; R Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Hivit Rafailov, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>NYCTA-MABSTOA, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Foley, Smit, O'Boyle &amp; Weisman (Aaron E. Meyer of counsel), for appellant.Fuld &amp; Karp, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered December 22, 2014. The order granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action had been commenced after the expiration of the three-year limitation period of CPLR 214 (2), which, defendant contended, was applicable to self-insurers such as defendant. By order entered December 22, 2014, the Civil Court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's cross motion.</p><p>As the action was not commenced until more than three years after the cause of action had accrued, the action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 214 (2) (<i>see Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth.</i>, 31 NY3d 187 [2018]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is reversed, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: November 09, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
# L_2014189EN.01026001.xml

| 27.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 189/260 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 189/260

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2014 to 2020) and repealing Decisions No 1718/2006/EC, No 1855/2006/EC and No 1041/2009/EC

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 347 of 20 December 2013
  )

On page 233, Article 24(6):

for:

‘6.   By way of derogation from Article 130(2) of the Financial Regulation, and in duly justified cases, the Commission may consider costs directly linked to the implementation of the supported actions and activities as eligible even if they are incurred by the beneficiary before the submission of the grant application.’,

read:

‘6.   In accordance with Article 130(1) of the Financial Regulation, and in duly justified cases, the Commission may consider costs directly linked to the implementation of the supported actions and activities as eligible even if they are incurred by the beneficiary before the submission of the grant application.’.

---
25.002 Applicability of subparts.

The following table shows the applicability of the subparts. subpart 25.5 provides comprehensive

procedures for offer evaluation and examples.

Subpart Supplies For Use Construction Services

Performed

Inside

U.S.

Outside

U.S.

Inside

U.S.

Outside

U.S.

Inside

U.S.

Outside

U.S.

25.1 Buy AmericanSupplies X - - - - -

25.2 Buy AmericanConstruction

Materials

- - X - - -

25.3 Contracts

Performed Outside

the United States

- X - X - X

25.4 Trade

Agreements X X X X X X

25.5 Evaluating

Foreign OffersSupply ContractsX X - - - -

25.6 American

Recovery and

Reinvestment ActBuy American

statute-Construction

Materials

X

25.7 Prohibited

Sources X X X X X X

25.8 Other

International

Agreements and

Coordination

X X - X - X
Subpart Supplies For Use Construction Services

Performed

Inside

U.S.

Outside

U.S.

Inside

U.S.

Outside

U.S.

Inside

U.S.

Outside

U.S.

25.9 Customs and

Duties X - - - - -

25.10 Additional

Foreign Acquisition

Regulations

X X X X X X

25.11 Solicitation

Provisions and

Contract Clauses

X X X X X X

Parent topic: Part 25 - Foreign Acquisition
**Railroad Accident Brief**[PDFversion]

**LAX 97 FR 003****DERAILMENT****BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE****THERMOPOLIS, WYOMING****JANUARY 11, 1997**

**Accident Description**

On January 11, 1997, at approximately 6:00 a.m., mountain standard time,a Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad freight train, Extra 8520 West,derailed 22 cars at milepost (MP) 326.5. The crew was uninjured. Estimateddamages were $72,800. 

Extra 8520 West originated at Casper, Wyoming, MP 202.2. When the locomotivespassed MP 327.25 at 30 mph, the train experienced an emergency brake application.The conductor inspected the train and discovered that the 36thcar through the 57th car derailed. Two tank cars slid down thebank towards the river and came to rest with one end of a tank car touchingthe water. The tank car touching the water contained molasses. The remainingcars were either on their sides, parallel to the track, or upright. 

Several pieces of broken rail were found at the point of derailment.These sections were sent to a laboratory for analysis. The rail had brokenat an angle from the top of the rail to the base at two locations. Smallpoints of discoloration were noted just inside the gage side of the ballof the rail at the fracture surfaces. 

Evidence of shelling appeared on the gage side of the rail at the derailmentsite. The broken rail that displayed signs of battering had a detail fractureas a result of the shelling. The battering meant the rail had been brokenduring the passage of several trains. This alone would not have resultedin the derailment; however, with the rail broken, it added vertical stressand a lever/fulcrum effect across the nearest crosstie, breaking the railat the second location. When the second break in the rail occurred thetrain derailed. 

The electronic inspection performed over this section of rail 5 monthsearlier was unable to detect the defect in the rail. This may be a resultof the shelling and the inability of the detection system to accuratelyscan the internal portion of the rail with a disfigured surface. 

**Probable Cause**

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probablecause of this accident was the rail breaking as a result of an internaldefect referred to as a detail fracture. Contributing to the cause of theaccident was the inability of the ultrasonic rail detection equipment toreadily identify internal defects in rail with surface defects. 

**Adopted: August 18, 1998**

****
**
NTSB Home | Publications
**
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Alliance Financial Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack H. Webb, Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 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, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 13, 2008



/s/ Jack H. WebbName: Jack H. WebbTitle: Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer




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.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn implementation plan for priorities in solar-system space physicsThe scientific objectives and implementation plans and priorities of the Space Science Board in areas of solar physics, heliospheric physics, magnetospheric physics, upper atmosphere physics, solar-terrestrial coupling, and comparative planetary studies are discussed and recommended programs are summarized. Accomplishments of Skylab, Solar Maximum Mission, Nimbus-7, and 11 other programs are highlighted. Detailed mission plans in areas of solar and heliospheric physics, plasma physics, and upper atmospheric physics are also described.Document ID19900004838Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsKrimigis, Stamatios M.*(Johns Hopkins Univ. Columbia, MD., United States)*Athay, R. Grant*(National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder, CO., United States)*Baker, Daniel*(Los Alamos National Lab. NM., United States)*Fisk, Lennard A.*(TRW Defense and Space Systems Group Houston, TX., United States)*Fredricks, Robert W.*(Kitt Peak National Observatory Tucson, AZ., United States)*Harvey, John W.*(Arizona Univ. Tucson., United States)*Jokipii, Jack R.*(California Univ. Los Angeles., United States)*Kivelson, Margaret*(Boston Univ. MA., United States)*Mendillo, Michael*(National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council Washington, DC, United States)*Nagy, Andrew F.*(Michigan Univ. Ann Arbor., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1985Subject CategorySpace Sciences (General)Report/Patent NumberNASA-CR-185375NAS 1.26:185375Accession Number90N14154Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NASW-3482Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900004838.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
(May 6, 1969)

#### Milton Seaman, Appellant, v. Helen Seaman, Respondent.

Order entered October 18, 1968, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint, ■unanimously reversed on the law, the motion denied, and the complaint is reinstated, without costs or disbursements. The motion was brought pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 7). The granting of the motion is without support in the record. Both causes of action contain sufficient specificity to render a repleading a circuitous waste of time, particularly in view of the repetitive and needlessly contentious background of this litigation. The first cause of action based on cruel and inhuman treatment adequately sets forth the time wherein the defendant’s first action was brought for separation, the grounds therefor and the date of the entry of judgment, together with a summary statement of the disposition and findings. There are also sufficient details set forth in the second cause of action concerning the alleged lock-outs and the abandonment and refusal to live and cohabit with plaintiff. The grounds asserted are sufficient for the relief requested. *(Diemer*v. *Diemer,*8 N Y 2d 206, 211; *Fox*v. *Fox,*17 Misc 2d 998, affd. 17 A D 2d 939.) After nearly 10 years of dismal litigation it is difficult to appreciate how the defendant at this stage could ever lack knowledge of any of the details relied on by plaintiff. Since the defendant is not prejudiced in any way, the complaint is sufficient. *(Lane*v. *Mercury Record Corp.,*21 A D 2d 602, affd. 18 N Y 2d 889.) Concur— Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, McGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.
#### § 51.1322 Seriously misshapen.

*Seriously misshapen* means that the pear is excessively flattened or elongated for the variety, or is constricted or deformed so it will not cut three fairly uniform good quarters, or is so badly misshapen that the appearance is seriously affected.
#### § 400.206 Financial qualifications for acceptability.

The financial statement of an entity must show total allowable assets in excess of liabilities and the ability of the entity to meet current liabilities by the use of current assets.
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5699/MCR/EMT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PATRICK ANTHONY RIBBING,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5699/MCR/EMT

WALMART, et al., 

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on October 

14, 2020. ECF No. 14. The parties were 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). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05699-MCR-EMT Document 18 Filed 11/13/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5699/MCR/EMT

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

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

14, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s 

failure to comply with an order of the court and failure to keep the Court apprised of 

his mailing address.

3. All pending motions are DENIED.

4. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of November 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05699-MCR-EMT Document 18 Filed 11/13/20 Page 2 of 2
ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA



The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A.(collectively,
the "Company")  provides this  platform-level  assessment of compliance with the
servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following  servicing  criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform:  Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required
under  the   Securities   Exchange   Act  of  1934,   as  amended)   residential
mortgage-backed  securities and other mortgage-related  asset-backed  securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind  transactions  issued prior to
January  1,  2006)  for  which  the   Company   provides   trustee,   securities
administration,  paying agent or custodial services.  The platform includes like
kind   transactions   for  which  the  Company  provided   trustee,   securities
administrator,  paying agent or custodial  services as a result of the Company's
acquisition  as of October 1, 2006 of portions of  JPMorgan  Chase Bank,  N.A.'s
corporate  trust  business,   including  structured  finance  agency  and  trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d),
to  the  extent  required  by  the  related  transaction  agreements  as to  any
transaction,  except for the following criteria:  1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii), (iv),
(4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.
------

With respect to the Platform and the Period,  the Company provides the following
assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

o The Company is responsible  for assessing its  compliance  with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

o The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

o As of  December  31,  2006 and for the  Period,  the  Company  was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.



Ernst & Young LLP, an independent  registered public accounting firm, has issued
an  attestation  report with respect to the  Company's  foregoing  assessment of
compliance.



         The Bank of New York                  The Bank of New York
         The Bank of New York Trust            The Bank of New York Trust
      Company, N.A.                         Company, N.A.



          /s/ Robert L. Griffin                         /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
          ---------------------                         --------------------
          Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
          Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer

March 1, 2007
8.1104 Contract clauses.       Insert the following clauses in solicitations and contracts	for leasing of motor vehicles, unless the motor vehicles are leased in	foreign countries:                                       (a)                    						            The	clause at 52.208-4, Vehicle Lease	Payments.                                          (b)                    						            The clause	at 52.208-5, Condition of	Leased Vehicles.                                          (c)                    						            The clause	at 52.208-6, Marking of Leased	Vehicles.                                          (d)                    						            A clause	substantially the same as the clause at 52.208-7, Tagging of Leased	Vehicles, for vehicles leased over 60 days (see subpart B of 41 CFR part 102-34).                                          (e)                    						            The provisions	and clauses prescribed elsewhere in the FAR for solicitations and	contracts for supplies when a fixed-price contract is contemplated,	but excluding-                                                         (1)                          								                The clause at 52.211-16, Variation in	Quantity;                                                            (2)                          								                The clause	at 52.232-1, Payments;                                                            (3)                          								                The clause	at 52.222-20, Contracts for	Materials, Supplies, Articles, and Equipment; and                                                            (4)                          								                The clause	at 52.246-16, Responsibility	for Supplies.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 8.11 - Leasing of Motor Vehicles
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 5464

_____________________________
H ORACE C UMMINGS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Bruce R. Anderson, Jr. , Judge

. April 13, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and B ILBREY and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Horace Cummings, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.