alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
47.305-16 Shipping characteristics.       (a)                   *Required shipping weights.* The contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts the clause at 52.247-59, F.o.b. Origin-Carload and Truckload Shipments, when it is contemplated that they may result in f.o.b. origin contracts with shipments in carloads or truckloads. This will facilitate realistic freight cost evaluations of offers and ensure that contractors produce economical shipments of agreed size.                                          (b) 						            Guaranteed shipping characteristics.                                                         (1) 								                The contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts, excluding those at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, the clause at 52.247-60, Guaranteed Shipping Characteristics, when shipping and other characteristics are required to evaluate offers as to transportation costs. When all of the shipping characteristics listed in paragraph (a) of the clause at 52.247-60 are not required to evaluate offers as to transportation costs, the contracting officer shall delete the characteristics not required from the clause.                                                            (2) 								                The award document shall show the shipping characteristics used in the evaluation.                                                                             (c)                   *Minimum size of shipments.* When volume rates may apply, the contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts the clause at 52.247-61, F.o.b. Origin-Minimum Size of Shipments.                                          (d) 						            Specific quantities unknown.                                                         (1) 								                When total requirements and destinations to which shipments will be made are known, but the specific quantity to be shipped to each destination cannot be predetermined, solicitations shall state that offers are to be submitted on the basis of delivery "f.o.b. origin" and/or "f.o.b. destination" and that offers will be evaluated on both bases.                                                            (2) 								                The contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts the clause at 52.247-62, Specific Quantities Unknown, when total requirements and destinations to which shipments will be made are known, but the specific quantity to be shipped to each destination cannot be predetermined. This clause protects the interests of both the Government and the contractor during the course of the performance of the contract.    **Parent topic:** 47.305 Solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and transportation factors.
47.104-5 Citation of Government rate tenders.       When 49 U.S.C. 10721 and 1 3712 rates apply, transportation offices or contractors, as appropriate, shall identify the applicable Government rate tender by endorsement on bills of lading.    **Parent topic:** 47.104 Government rate tenders under sections 10721 and 13712 of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 10721 and 13712).
§ 51.2111 U.S. No. 1 Pieces. “U.S. No. 1 Pieces” consists of shelled almonds which are not bitter, which are clean and well dried, and which are free from decay, rancidity, insect injury, foreign material, particles and dust, and free from damage caused by mold, gum, shriveling, brown spot or other means. ( a ) Unless otherwise specified, the minimum diameter shall be not less than 8 ⁄ 64 of an inch (3.2 mm). (See §§ 51.2113 and 51.2114.)
( b ) In order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and handling, the following tolerances, by weight, shall be permitted: ( 1 ) *For bitter almonds mixed with sweet almonds.* 1 percent;
( 2 ) *For foreign material.* Two-tenths of 1 percent (0.20 percent). No part of this percentage shall be allowed for glass and metal;
( 3 ) *For particles and dust.* 1 percent; and
( 4 ) *For other defects.* 5 percent, including not more than three-fifths of this amount, or 3 percent, for serious damage.
#### § 56.16 Identification.

Graders shall have in their possession at all times, and present upon request while on duty, the means of identification furnished to them by the Department.

[71 FR 42008, July 24, 2006]
#### Jennie Tierno, as Administratrix of the Estate of John Bryk, Deceased, Respondent, and Sandra Wiedman et al., Appellants, v. John J. Brennie, Respondent, and William Wiedman, Appellant.

In a consolidated negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death, personal injuries, etc., arising out of a collision between automobiles operated by William Wiedman and John J. Brennie, the appeals are as follows: (1). (a) William Wiedman, as defendant, and (b) Sandra, Brenda, Wayne, Sophie and William Wiedman, as plaintiffs, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 5, 1968, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the jury’s verdict against William Wiedman, after trial on the issue of liability; and (2) William Wiedman, as defendant, appeals from *642an interlocutory judgment of said court, entered June 18, 1968 on the aforesaid verdict, in favor of plaintiff Tierno against him and in favor of defendant Brennie on the latter’s cross complaint against him. Appeals from order dated April 5, 1968 dismissed, without costs. No appeal lies from an order denying a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside a verdict following a trial limited to the issue of liability *(Fortgang*v. *Chase Manhattan Bank,*29 A D 2d 41, 43; see, also, *Leis*v. *Estate of Morris B. Baer, Inc.,*29 A D 2d 547; *Pontrelli*v. *Ferrari,*30 A D 2d 827). Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents jointly. The principal question presented is whether the verdict exonerating Brennie from liability was against the weight of the evidence. It is our opinion that the proof created issues of fact as to the negligence of William Wiedman and the freedom from negligence of Brennie; and that the determination of the jury, as triers of the fact, which resolved those issues in favor of Brennie and against Wiedman, was supported by sufficient evidence. William Wiedman’s other contentions have been examined and we And no merit therein. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LAVAROS DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SGT. DANIELS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:20-cv-5935-HTC-

[CONSENT]

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS CO-COUNSEL

Please take notice that James M. Slater of Slater Legal PLLC 

appears as co-counsel on behalf of Plaintiff Lavaros Davis. The certificate 

of service for all pleadings, orders, and other papers in this action should 

include James M. Slater at Slater Legal PLLC, 113 S. Monroe Street,

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 and james@slater.legal. 

Dated: May 30, 2023. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James M. Slater

James M. Slater (FBN 111779)

SLATER LEGAL PLLC

113 S. Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

james@slater.legal

Tel.: (305) 523-9023

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 3:20-cv-05935-HTC Document 146 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 2
2

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on May 30, 2023, I electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the Clerk by using the CM/ECF system, which will 

serve a copy on all counsel of record.

By: /s/ James M. Slater

James M. Slater

Case 3:20-cv-05935-HTC Document 146 Filed 05/30/23 Page 2 of 2
#### § 52.3188 Work sheet for dried prunes.

| Size and kind of container | |
| Container mark or identification | |
| Label or brand | |
| Varietal type | |
| Style | |
| Size: | |
| Count per pound (Average) | |
| Uniformity | |
| ( ) Extra large | |
| ( ) Large | |
| ( ) Medium | |
| ( ) Small | |
| Moisture content percent; Uniformity | |
| Varietal characteristics: ( ). Similar. ( ) Dissimilar. | |

| Defects and summary of allowances1 | Grade A maximum | Grade B maximum | Grade C maximum | Substandard maximum |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Total of all defects, including off-color | 10 percent | 15 percent | | No limit except as indicated below. |
| Total of all defects, including off-color and poor texture | | | 20 percent | |
| Poor texture, end cracks, skin or flesh damage,3 fermentation, scars, heat damage, insect injury, other means, mold, dirt, foreign material, insect infestation, decay | But no more than 6 percent | But no more than 8 percent | | |
| End cracks,2 skin or flesh damage,3 fermentation, scars, heat damage, insect injury, other means, mold, dirt, foreign material, insect infestation, decay | | | 10 percent2 | |
| Skin or flesh damage,3 fermentation, scars, heat damage, insect injury, other means, mold, dirt, foreign material, insect infestation, decay | | | But no more than 8 percent | |
| Mold, dirt, foreign material, insect infestation, decay | 3 percent | 4 percent | 5 percent | 5 percent. |
| Decay | But no more than 1 percent | But no more than 1 percent | But no more than 1 percent | But no more than 1 percent. |
| Total | | | | |
| U.S. Grade (including all factors) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 Percentages of defects are “by weight.” | | | | |
| 2 Except that each 1 percent of end cracks to, and including 8 percent, by weight, shall be considered as 1/2 percent damaged by end cracks; and any additional end cracks shall be calculated as true percentage, by weight. | | | | |
| 3 Allowances for “skin or flesh damage” apply only to “Whole Unpitted” style. | | | | |

[[21 FR 8177](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/21-FR-8177), Oct. 25, 1956, as amended at [30 FR 11596](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/30-FR-11596), Sept. 10, 1965. Redesignated at [42 FR 32514](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/42-FR-32514), June 27, 1977 and at [46 FR 63203](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/46-FR-63203), Dec. 31, 1981]
Exhibit
31




CERTIFICATIONS




I,
Michael D. Picchi, certify that:




1.           I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Comverge, Inc.;




2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact oromit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made,
not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.









November
9, 2009







/s/ Michael D.
Picchi


Michael
D. Picchi


Interim
President and Chief Executive Officer;


Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| 1. | The Bank is Trustee under the Trust Agreement. |
|----|------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Trust Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Trust. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | A review of the Trustee’s activities during the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2013 and of its performance under the Trust Agreement has been made under my supervision. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Trust Agreement in all material respects throughout such twelve-month period. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:    |    /s/  Laura Cawley                                   |
| Name:  | Laura Cawley                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| Title: | Vice President                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |

----

----
Subpart 31.3 - Contracts with Educational Institutions    **Parent topic:** Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures31.301 Purpose.       This subpart provides the principles for determining the cost of research and development, training, and other work performed by educational institutions under contracts with the Government.31.302 General.       The OMB Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, subpart E and appendix III, provides principles for determining the costs applicable to research and development, training, and other work performed by educational institutions (defined as institutions of higher education in the OMB Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, subpart A, and 20 U.S.C. 1001) under contracts with the Government.31.303 Requirements.       (a) 						            Contracts that refer to this subpart  31.3 for determining allowable costs under contracts with educational institutions (defined as institutions of higher education in the OMB Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, subpart A, and 20 U.S.C. 1001) shall be deemed to refer to, and shall have the allowability of costs determined by the contracting officer in accordance with, the OMB Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, subpart E and appendix III, in effect on the date of the contract.                                          (b) 						            Agencies are not expected to place additional restrictions on individual items of cost.
#### Adolfina Montes, Respondent, v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company, et al., Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs. John J. Montes, Third-Party Defendant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 4, 1979, granting plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the affirmative defense based upon the Statute of Limitations, reversed, on the law, and motion denied, with costs. In pleading an affirmative defense based upon the Statute of Limitations, it is unnecessary for defendant Manufacturers to identify the statutory sections relied upon or to specify the applicable period of limitations *(Immediate v St. John’s Queens Hosp.,*48 NY2d 671, 673). Therefore, its affirmative defense is properly pleaded. With regard to the merits of the defense under CPLR 3211 (subd [b]), plaintiff has exclusive knowledge as to when she discovered her husband was fraudulently withdrawing money from her accounts. Thus, it would be impossible for defendant Manufacturers to develop the merits of this defense until it has had an opportunity to examine the plaintiff. For this reason, it would be premature for this court to consider the merits of Manufacturers’ affirmative defense based upon the Statute of Limitations. *(Newfield v East Riv. Sav. Bank,*263 App Div 983.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Yesawich and Carro, JJ.
Order entered Decem ber 12 , 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 00133

- CV

SKY CAPITAL GROUP, L TD, Appellant

V.

BOMBARDIER, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Tria l Court Cause No. DC

- 08

- 02249



### O RDER

We GRANT the December 11 , 2013 unopposed motion for extension of time to file

appellant’s reply brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than January 23, 2014.

/Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS

JUSTI CE
#### § 51.1442 Meal and flour.

*Meal and flour* means fragments of kernels which will pass through a round opening four sixty-fourths (4/64) of an inch in diameter.
STRATS Trust For News Corporation Securities, Series 2006-4 10-K

Exhibit 35.1



SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

U.S. Bank Trust National Association



The undersigned, a duly authorized officer
of U.S. Bank Trust National Association (the “Trustee”), as Trustee in respect of the STRATS Trust for News Corporation
Securities, Series 2006-4 (the “Trust”), does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | The Bank is Trustee under the Trust Agreement.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant
to the Trust Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Trust.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Item 1123
of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | A review of the Trustee’s activities during the
twelve-month period ended December 31, 2017 and of its performance under the Trust Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 5. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the
Trustee has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Trust Agreement in all material respects throughout such twelve-month period.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
duly executed this Certificate this 20th day of March 2018.





|By:                            | /s/ Amy B. Byrnes | 
|------------------------------ | ----------------- | 
|Name: Amy B. Byrnes            |                  
|Title:   Senior Vice President |
Exhibit 10.24




AMENDMENT NO. 3
 TO
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 
 This Amendment No. 3 (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement, dated August 15, 2003, as amended on June 30, 2005 and December 22, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”), by and between Walco International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”)
and William F. Lacey (the “Executive”) is entered into as of the 3rd day of September, 2009 (“Effective Date”).
 
 WHEREAS the Company and the Executive desire to amend certain terms of the Employment Agreement as set forth herein;
 
 NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
 
 1.           Capitalized Terms.  All capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, shall have the same meaning as prescribed in the Employment Agreement.
 
 2.           Termination following Change of Control Occurring Prior to January 1, 2011.  In the event (i) of a Change of Control prior to January 1, 2011, and
(ii) within the two (2) years following such Change of Control, the Executive’s employment terminates pursuant to either Section 5.4 or 5.5 of the Agreement; then the Separation Pay Period or payment period specified in Section 5.5 (as applicable) shall be increased to include an additional six (6) months.
 
 3.           Entire Agreement.  This Amendment constitutes the sole and entire agreement of the parties with respect to the second amendment of the Agreement;
supersedes all prior verbal and written understandings and agreements between the parties relating to its subject matters; and may not be modified except in a writing signed by both parties.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.
 
  EXECUTIVE
WALCO INTERNATIONAL, INC./s/ William F. Lacey

William F. Lacey
By:  /s/ James C. Robison

Name:  James C. Robison
Title:  President and C.E.O.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2525 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize nonprofit institutions of higher education to provide payment to certain third-party entities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2013 

Mr. SALMON (for himself and Mr. ANDREWS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize 

nonprofit institutions of higher education to provide payment to certain third-party entities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Collaborative College 

5 Services Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PAYMENT FOR CERTAIN THIRD-PARTY ENTITIES. 

7 Section 487(a)(20) of the Higher Education Act of 

8 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(20)) is amended by adding at 

9 the end the following: ‘‘Notwithstanding the preceding 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2525 IH

1 sentence, an institution described in section 101 may pro2 vide payment, based on the amount of tuition generated 

3 by the institution from student enrollment, to a third4 party entity that provides a set of services to the institu5 tion that includes student recruitment services, regardless 

6 of whether the third-party entity is affiliated with an insti7 tution that provides educational services other than the 

8 institution providing such payment, if— 

9 ‘‘(A) the third-party entity is not otherwise 

10 affiliated with the institution providing such 

11 payment; 

12 ‘‘(B) the third-party entity does not make 

13 compensation payments to its employees that 

14 are prohibited under this paragraph; 

15 ‘‘(C) the set of services provided to the in16 stitution by the third-party entity include serv17 ices other than student recruitment services, 

18 and the institution does not pay the third-party 

19 entity solely for student recruitment services 

20 provided by the third-party entity; and 

21 ‘‘(D) any student recruitment information 

22 available to the third-party entity, including 

23 personally identifiable information, will not be 

24 used by, shared with, or sold to any other perVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:21 Jul 02, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2525.IH H2525

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2525 IH

1 son or entity, including any institution that is 

2 affiliated with the third-party entity.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Case 4:02-cv-00182-SPM-AK Document 10 Filed 10/22/02 Page 1 of 11
Case 4:02-cv-00182-SPM-AK Document 10 Filed 10/22/02 Page 2 of 11
Case 4:02-cv-00182-SPM-AK Document 10 Filed 10/22/02 Page 3 of 11
Case 4:02-cv-00182-SPM-AK Document 10 Filed 10/22/02 Page 4 of 11
Case 4:02-cv-00182-SPM-AK Document 10 Filed 10/22/02 Page 5 of 11
Case 4:02-cv-00182-SPM-AK Document 10 Filed 10/22/02 Page 6 of 11
Case 4:02-cv-00182-SPM-AK Document 10 Filed 10/22/02 Page 7 of 11
Case 4:02-cv-00182-SPM-AK Document 10 Filed 10/22/02 Page 8 of 11
Case 4:02-cv-00182-SPM-AK Document 10 Filed 10/22/02 Page 9 of 11
Case 4:02-cv-00182-SPM-AK Document 10 Filed 10/22/02 Page 10 of 11
Case 4:02-cv-00182-SPM-AK Document 10 Filed 10/22/02 Page 11 of 11
157 So.2d 232

#### SUNMASTER PRODUCTS COMPANY v. Louis WELCH, dba Louis Welch Company.

No. 46973.

Nov. 12, 1963.

In re: Sunmaster Products Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 156 So.2d 96.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the ruling complained of.