alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 51.307 Application of tolerances. The contents of individual packages in the lot, are subject to the following limitations: *Provided,* That the averages for the entire lot are within the tolerances specified for the grade: ( a ) Packages which contain more than 10 pounds: ( 1 ) Shall have not more than one and one-half times a specified tolerance of 10 percent or more and not more than double a tolerance of less than 10 percent, except that at least one apple which is seriously damaged by insects or affected by decay or internal breakdown may be permitted in any package.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) Packages which contain 10 pounds or less: ( 1 ) No package may have more than 3 times the tolerance specified, except that at least three defective apples may be permitted in any package: *Provided,* That not more than three apples or more than 18 percent (whichever is the larger amount) may be seriously damaged by insects or affected by decay or internal breakdown.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
§ 520.7 Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). ( a ) *Actions requiring EIS.* An EIS will normally be prepared for: ( 1 ) Proposals for legislation which are determined to be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment; or,
( 2 ) Other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In the experience of ARS, an environmental impact statement shall normally be required in situations when a research project has advanced beyond the laboratory and small plot testing to full scale field testing over a very large area and involving the introduction of control agents.
( b ) *Notice of intent.* If the responsible official recommends the preparation of an EIS, then the public shall be apprised of the decision. This notice shall be prepared according to 40 CFR 1508.22.
( c ) *Draft and final EIS.* The process of preparing the draft and final EIS, as well as the format, shall be according to 40 CFR parts 1502-1506.
( d ) *Decisionmaking and implementation.* The responsible official may make a decision no sooner than thirty days after the notice of availability of the final EIS has been published in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency (40 CFR 1506.10). The decision will be documented in a Record of Decision required by 40 CFR 1502.2, and monitoring and mitigation activities will be implemented as required by 40 CFR 1505.3.
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(SM) 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, 2018 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 2019.



|By:    | /s/ David Duclos | 
|------ | ---------------- | 
|Name:  | David Duclos     | 
|Title: | Vice President   |
#### § 59.400 OMB control number assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The information collection and recordkeeping requirements of this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 and have been assigned OMB Control Number 0581-0186.
# L_2014136EN.01002501.xml

| 9.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 136/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 136/25

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUBAM LIBYA/3/2014

of 30 April 2014

extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya)

(2014/258/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2013/233/CFSP of 22 May 2013 on the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Decision 2013/233/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission upon a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Decision 2013/233/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission upon a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).

| (2) | On 24 May 2013, the PSC adopted Decision EUBAM Libya/1/2013 (2) appointing Mr Antti Juhani Hartikainen as Head of Mission of EUBAM Libya for the period from 22 May 2013 until 21 May 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 24 May 2013, the PSC adopted Decision EUBAM Libya/1/2013 (2) appointing Mr Antti Juhani Hartikainen as Head of Mission of EUBAM Libya for the period from 22 May 2013 until 21 May 2014.

| (3) | On 14 April 2014, the HR proposed the extension of the mandate of Mr Antti Juhani Hartikainen as Head of Mission of EUBAM Libya until 21 May 2015, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 14 April 2014, the HR proposed the extension of the mandate of Mr Antti Juhani Hartikainen as Head of Mission of EUBAM Libya until 21 May 2015,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The mandate of Mr Antti Juhani Hartikainen as Head of Mission of EUBAM Libya is hereby extended until 21 May 2015.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 30 April 2014.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

W. STEVENS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 138, 24.5.2013, p. 15.

1

(2)  Political and Security Committee Decision EUBAM LIBYA/1/2013 of 24 May 2013 on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) (OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 13).

2

---
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have examined management's assertion,  included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance  with SEC Regulation AB Servicing  Criteria,  that U.S.
Bank National Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
for the Corporate  Trust Asset Backed  Securities  platform (the Platform) as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2006,  except for criteria 1122 (d)(1)(iii),
1122 (d)(4)(i),  1122 (d)(4)(ii),  and 1122 (d)(4)(iv) through 1122 (d)(4)(xiv),
which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities  performed
by  them  with  respect  to the  servicing  platform  covered  by  this  report.
Management is  responsible  for the Company's  compliance  with those  servicing
criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about  the  Company's  compliance  with  the  servicing  criteria  based  on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis,  evidence  about the Company's  compliance  with the applicable
servicing  criteria  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as we  considered
necessary in the  circumstances.  Our examination  included testing of less than
all of the individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the
Platform,  testing of less than all of the servicing  activities  related to the
Platform,   and  determining   whether  the  Company  processed  those  selected
transactions  and performed  those  selected  activities in compliance  with the
servicing  criteria.  Furthermore,  our procedures  were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report.  Our procedures  were not designed to determine  whether
errors may have  occurred  either prior to or  subsequent  to our tests that may
have  affected  the  balances or amounts  calculated  or reported by the Company
during the period  covered by this report for the selected  transactions  or any
other transactions.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal  determination on the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
aforementioned  servicing  criteria  as of and for the year ended  December  31,
2006, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 26, 2007
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-239-AW-MJF

TCH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND 

DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

I have carefully considered the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

(ECF No. 63), to which no party has objected. I agree with the magistrate judge’s 

analysis and adopt the report and recommendation in full. The motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 54) is DENIED. The magistrate judge will conduct further 

appropriate proceedings.

SO ORDERED on July 5, 2022. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 5:20-cv-00239-AW-MJF Document 64 Filed 07/05/22 Page 1 of 1
5.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policies and procedures for publicizing contract opportunities and award

information.

Parent topic: Part 5 - Publicizing Contract Actions
Exhibit 32.2

Statement of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, as the and chief financial officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2003, that:

      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.


                                         /s/ R. ALAN MILLER
                                         --------------------------
                                         R. Alan Miller
                                         Chief Financial Officer


Date:  November 11, 2005
#### City of New York, Appellant, v. Corporation of the Era, Respondent.

Order entered February 2, 1968 reversed on the law and the facts without costs or disbursements, and summary judgment granted to the City of New York to the extent of awarding a judgment of foreclosure and directing a judicial sale of the property at public auction pursuant to the Administrative Code (§ D17-12.0; *City of New York*v. *Chapman Docks Co.,*1 A D 2d 895). Order entered January 15, 1968, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In an in rem tax foreclosure action plaintiff, the City of New York, appeals from the orders denying its motion, and motion to renew, to strike out the defendant’s answer and for summary judgment, and granting defendant summary judgment dismissing the action insofar as it relates to defendant’s tax parcel. The city seeks in rem foreclosure of a tax delinquent property known as Pier 18, Hudson River, Borough of Manhattan. Taxes owed for the years 1961/ 62 and thereafter, total approximately $178,000. Eight days after the institution of this in rem proceeding, the city became the optionee under an option dated December 14, 1966 to purchase the subject property. Pursuant thereto the city had embarked on the complex proceedings prerequisite to the exercise of the option. An extension of the option was- granted on August 5, 1967, after the city had amended the capital budget to include the sums necessary for exercise of the option and the Mayor and the City Planning Commission had approved the plan to acquire the property. Committees of the City Council had likewise approved the purchase and the Board of Estimate resolved to approve the new budget line. On July 7, 1967, the Mayor certified the expense to the Comptroller and directed the Commissioner of Marine and Aviation to acquire the property. We hold that the action taken by the city was not the equivalent of the exercise of the option. It is well to note that the decision of the learned court below assumed facts not in the record when it determined that the option had been fully exercised since the option itself was not before the court and might well have been conditioned in limitless ways. The propriety of ordering a judicial sale of the property at public auction is best demonstrated by the fact that the city obviously considered the purchase of this property under the option granted for $435,000. The city taxing authority assessed it at $630,000. At a judicial sale the city will realize the delinquent taxes or the property itself. It will be fully protected thereby. The taxpayer will have the opportunity of protecting its equity. Assuming the validity of the defendant’s contention that the equity powers of the court include the right to consider the unpleaded option and circumstances surrounding it, argued in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the result is unaltered. The facts negate the contention that the alleged option was exercised and demonstrate the contrary. Settle order on notice. Concur—-Stevens, P. J., Eager, McGivern, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Winifred Johnson, Respondent, v. K. R. J. Management Corporation et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which found an employee relationship between claimant and appellant employer and coverage by appellant iifeuranee company. Claimant was injured in her work as a housekeeper at the home of Dr. Green. She was on the payroll of K. R. J. Management Corporation, one of three corporations in which Dr. Green was the principal. These corporations apparently handled various business aspects of Dr. Green’s medical clinic. K. R. J. Management Corporation employed approximately 37 persons, primarily these were receptionists employed at the various offices. Also employed were maintenance men and domestics. These employees were supplied to Dr. Green and he paid the corporation for such services. Appellant carrier issued a compensation policy to the three corporations listing an address of “ 40 New York Avenue, P. 0. Box 262, Huntington, N. Y.” for locations in *“*Suffolk County & Elsewhere in New York State.” It audited the employer’s payroll which listed claimant and it collected premiums thereon. The board found that claimant was under the control of K. R. J. Management Corporation as to employment, work performed and payment. The record discloses that claimant was listed on the payroll as a domestic and was paid by K. R. J. Management Corporation. This payroll was audited by appellant carrier without objection and its premiums were at least in part based upon the wages paid claimant (see *Matter of Black*v. *Swetnick,*281 App. Div. 997). The board’s decision is a factual one which is supported by substantial evidence. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision by Aulisi, J.
#### § 51.1829 Well colored.

*Well colored* means that a good yellow or better ground color predominates over the green color on the entire fruit surface with no distinct green color present, and that some portion of the surface has a reddish tangerine blush, or characteristic color for the variety.
32.909 Contractor inquiries.

(a) Direct questions involving-

(1) Delinquent payments to the designated billing office or designated payment office; and

(2) Disagreements in payment amount or timing to the contracting officer for resolution. The

contracting officer must coordinate within appropriate contracting channels and seek the advice of

other offices as necessary to resolve dis-agreements.

(b) Small business concerns may contact the agency’s local small business specialist or

representative from the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization to obtain additional

assistance related to payment issues, late payment interest penalties, and information on the Prompt

Payment Act.

Parent topic: Subpart 32.9 - Prompt Payment
36.505 Material and workmanship.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.236-5, Material and Workmanship, in

solicitations and contracts for construction contracts.

Parent topic: Subpart 36.5 - Contract Clauses
#### § 550.102 Applicability.

This part applies to all REE non-assistance cooperative agreements awarded under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 3318(b).
# 27.404-6 Inspection of data at the contractor’s facility.

*Contracting officers**may* obtain the right to inspect *data* at the contractor’s facility by use of the clause at 52.227-14 with its *Alternate* V, which adds paragraph (j) to provide that right. Agencies *may* also adopt *Alternate* V for general use. The *data* subject to *inspection**may* be *data* withheld or withholdable under paragraph (g)(1) of the clause. *Inspection**may* be made by the *contracting officer* or designee (including nongovernmental personnel under the same conditions as the *contracting officer*) for the purpose of verifying a contractor’s assertion regarding the *limited rights* or *restricted rights* status of the *data*, or for evaluating work performance under the contract. This right *may* be exercised up to 3 years after acceptance of all items to be delivered under the contract. The contract *may* specify *data* items that are not subject to *inspection* under paragraph (j) of the *Alternate*. If the contractor demonstrates to the *contracting officer* that there would be a possible conflict of interest if *inspection* were made by a particular representative, the *contracting officer**shall* designate an *alternate* representative.

**Parent topic:**27.404 Basic rights in data clause.
Subpart 1.5 - Agency and Public Participation

Parent topic: Part 1 - Federal Acquisition Regulations System

1.501 Solicitation of agency and public views.

1.501-1 Definition.

Significant revisions, as used in this subpart, means revisions that alter the substantive meaning of

any coverage in the FAR System and which have a significant cost or administrative impact on

contractors or offerors, or significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the issuing

agency. This expression, for example, does not include editorial, stylistic, or other revisions that

have no impact on the basic meaning of the coverage being revised.

1.501-2 Opportunity for public comments.

(a) Views of agencies and nongovernmental parties or organizations will be considered in

formulating acquisition policies and procedures.

(b) The opportunity to submit written comments on proposed significant revisions shall be provided

by placing a notice in the Federal Register. Each of these notices shall include-

(1) The text of the revision or, if it is impracticable to publish the full text, a summary of the

proposal;

(2) The address and telephone number of the individual from whom copies of the revision, in full

text, can be requested and to whom comments thereon should be addressed; and

(3) When 1.501-3(b) is applicable, a statement that the revision is effective on a temporary basis

pending completion of the public comment period.

(c) A minimum of 30 days and, normally, at least 60 days will be given for the receipt of comments.

1.501-3 Exceptions.

(a) Comments need not be solicited when the proposed coverage does not constitute a significant

revision.

(b) Advance comments need not be solicited when urgent and compelling circumstances make

solicitation of comments impracticable prior to the effective date of the coverage, such as when a

new statute must be implemented in a relatively short period of time. In such case, the coverage

shall be issued on a temporary basis and shall provide for at least a 30 day public comment period.
1.502 Unsolicited proposed revisions.

Consideration shall also be given to unsolicited recommendations for revisions that have been

submitted in writing with sufficient data and rationale to permit their evaluation.

1.503 Public meetings.

Public meetings may be appropriate when a decision to adopt, amend, or delete FAR coverage is

likely to benefit from significant additional views and discussion.
Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 21 Filed 08/18/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 21 Filed 08/18/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 21 Filed 08/18/20 Page 3 of 3