alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 36.609 Contract clauses.

- 36.609-1 Design within funding limitations. 
- 36.609-2 Redesign responsibility for design errors or deficiencies. 
- 36.609-3 Work oversight in architect-engineer contracts. 
- 36.609-4 Requirements for registration of designers. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 36.6 - Architect-Engineer Services
#### § 51.1156 Firm.

*Firm* as applied to common oranges and tangelos means that the fruit is not soft, or noticeably wilted or flabby; as applied to oranges of the Mandarin group (Satsumas, King, Mandarin), “firm” means that the fruit is not extremely puffy, although the skin may be slightly loose.
#### § 51.693 Mature.

*Mature* shall have the same meaning currently assigned that term in the laws and regulations of the State in which the orange is grown; or as the definition of such term may hereafter be amended.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

XAVIER RIGSBY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv537-MW/MJF

AIDSON and TAYLOR

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 10. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED

for failure to comply with court orders and for want of prosecution.” The Clerk shall 

Case 4:20-cv-00537-MW-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 2
2

close the file. 

SO ORDERED on March 15, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00537-MW-MJF Document 11 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Harry C. Eaton, Appellant, v County of Broome, Respondent.

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered April 16, 1979 in Broome County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to reinstate petitioner, with back pay, to the position of nursing home administrator. Judgment affirmed, without costs, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Zeller at Special Term. Greenblott, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.2(e)



April 13, 2004


Dr. Anil Jain
APA Optics, Inc.
2950 NE 84th Lane
Blaine, MN 55449


Dear Dr. Jain,

The Aberdeen Development Corporation and APA Optics, Inc. acknowledge and agree
to the following terms and conditions regarding the outstanding loans between
the two parties:

     -    Aberdeen Development Corporation acknowledges receipt of $89,305.00
          from APA Optics, Inc. to ADC's Wells Fargo bank account
     -    Aberdeen Development Corporation agrees to the release of the UCC
          Filing in the State of Minnesota #1859487 dated June 24, 1996 on the
          equipment located in Blaine, Minnesota which was renewed August 20,
          2001 ( UCC Filing #20013130900028)
     -    Aberdeen Development Corporation will retain the UCC Filing in the
          State of South Dakota #20013130900028 dated November 9, 2001 on the
          equipment located in Aberdeen, SD
     -    APA Optics, Inc. will pay the Aberdeen Development Corporation
          $140,000 payable in seven equal payments of $20,000 starting June 30,
          2004
     -    The interest rate on the loan will remain at 0% interest
     -    All other terms and conditions of the loan will remain in affect.

The above is correct and accurate and we consent to these terms and conditions.

APA Optics, Inc.                        Aberdeen Development Corporation

By:                                     By:
     -----------------------------           -----------------------------
     Dr. Anil K. Jain                        Larry Frost
     Its:  Chairman and President            Its:  President

                                       By:
                                            ------------------------------
                                            James C. Barringer
                                            Its:  Executive Vice-President


<PAGE>
**ESCROW AGREEMENT**

 

This Escrow Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made this 23rd day of April, 2007 by and among EVEREST PROPERTIES II, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Everest”), EAST WEST BANK, a California banking corporation (“EWB”), and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST, COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2001 -C4 (“Assignor”).

 

Recitals

 

WHEREAS, that certain Promissory Note dated August 1, 2001, executed by SUNWOOD VILLAGE JOINT VENTURE, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership (“Borrower”), and made payable to the order of First Union National Bank, a national banking association (“Original Lender”) in the stated principal amount of TEN MILLION EIGHTY THOUSAND AND 001100 DOLLARS ($10,080,000.00) (the “Assigned Note”) was endorsed by Original Lender to the order of Assignor;

 

WHEREAS, the Assigned Note is secured by that certain Deed of Trust and Security Agreement dated as of August 1, 2001, from Borrower, as Grantor, to United Title of Nevada, as Trustee, for the benefit of First Union National Bank, as Beneficiary, and recorded on August 2, 2001, as Instrument No. 01912, in Book 20010802, in the Clark County Clerk’s Office (the “Assigned Deed of Trust”); as subsequently assigned by First Union National Bank to Assignor hereunder by Assignment of Deed of Trust and Security Agreement and Assignment of Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of November 28, 2001, and recorded on May 3, 2002, as Instrument No. 00257, in Book 20020503, in the Clark County Clerk’s Office (the “First Assignment”);

 

WHEREAS, the Assigned Note is also secured by that certain Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of August 1, 2001 by Borrower, as assignor and First Union National Bank, as assignee (the “Assignment of Leases”) recorded on August 2, 2001, as Instrument No. 01913, in Book 20010802, in the Clark County Clerk’s Office, as subsequently assigned by First Union National Bank to Assignor hereunder by the First Assignment;

 

WHEREAS, Everest and Assignor have agreed that Assignor will endorse the Assigned Note to the order of Everest, Assignor will assign the Assigned Deed of Trust to Everest, Assignor will assign the Assignment of Leases to Everest, and Assignor will assign the other loan documents evidencing and securing the Assigned Note to Everest;

 

WHEREAS, Everest and EWB have agreed to enter into a loan for the purpose of financing Everest’s transactions with Assignor;

 

WHEREAS, an escrow for the foregoing transactions has been opened with STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation (“Escrow Agent”): Escrow No. 07200308 / 207149840; and Everest, EWB and LNR (collectively, the “Parties”) desire to create an escrow agreement in preparation of the closing of such transactions:

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed as follows:

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Annual Report of SoPac Cellular Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending August 31, 2011 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ezra E.
Ezra, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
28th day of November, 2011.


/s/ Ezra E. Ezra, Chief Executive Officer
------------------------------------------------
#### Judith Brion, Respondent, v Robert Brion, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 11, 1979, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded counsel fees to plaintiff in the sum of $5,580. Judgment *836affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The award was reasonable upon the facts and circumstances presented. Any application for additional fees on behalf of plaintiff should be made to Special Term upon presentation of proper supporting affidavits. Rabin, J. P., Cohalan, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
#### § 35.3 Secretary.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States or any officer or employee of the United States Department of Agriculture to whom authority has heretofore been delegated or to whom authority may hereafter be delegated to act in his stead.
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2555

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois,

as the ‘‘Lane Evans Post Office Building’’.

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

2

S 2555 ES

1 SECTION 1. LANE EVANS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

3 Postal Service located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island,

4 Illinois, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lane

5 Evans Post Office Building’’.

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lane Evans Post Of10 fice Building’’.

Passed the Senate August 2, 2006.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2555

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States PostBuilding’’. Island, Illinois, as the ‘‘Lane Evans Post Office al Service located at 2633 11th Street in Rock
Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 33 Filed 09/16/21 Page 1 of 13
Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 33 Filed 09/16/21 Page 2 of 13
Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 33 Filed 09/16/21 Page 3 of 13
Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 33 Filed 09/16/21 Page 4 of 13
Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 33 Filed 09/16/21 Page 5 of 13
Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 33 Filed 09/16/21 Page 6 of 13
Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 33 Filed 09/16/21 Page 7 of 13
Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 33 Filed 09/16/21 Page 8 of 13
Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 33 Filed 09/16/21 Page 9 of 13
Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 33 Filed 09/16/21 Page 10 of 13
Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 33 Filed 09/16/21 Page 11 of 13
Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 33 Filed 09/16/21 Page 12 of 13
Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 33 Filed 09/16/21 Page 13 of 13
47.303 Standard delivery terms and contract

clauses.

Standard delivery terms are listed in 47.303-1 through 47.303-16 (but see 47.300 regarding

applicability to cost reimbursement contracts).

47.303-1 F.o.b. origin.

47.303-2 F.o.b. origin, contractor’s facility.

47.303-3 F.o.b. origin, freight allowed.

47.303-4 F.o.b. origin, freight prepaid.

47.303-5 F.o.b. origin, with differentials.

47.303-6 F.o.b. destination.

47.303-7 F.o.b. destination, within consignee’s premises.

47.303-8 F.a.s. vessel, port of shipment.

47.303-9 F.o.b. vessel, port of shipment.

47.303-10 F.o.b. inland carrier, point of exportation.

47.303-11 F.o.b. inland point, country of importation.

47.303-12 Ex dock, pier, or warehouse, port of importation.

47.303-13 C. & f. destination.

47.303-14 C.i.f. destination.

47.303-15 F.o.b. designated air carrier’s terminal, point of exportation.

47.303-16 F.o.b. designated air carrier’s terminal, point of importation.

47.303-17 Contractor-prepaid commercial bills of lading, small package shipments.

Parent topic: Subpart 47.3 - Transportation in Supply Contracts
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

ArabsCultural AwarenessCultural DifferencesEducational EnvironmentElementary Secondary EducationEthnicityFamily CharacteristicsMinority GroupsMulticultural EducationNorth AmericansProfessional DevelopmentPublic SchoolsRacial DiscriminationStereotypesUrban Schools

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
#### § 51.1346 U.S. No. 1.

“U.S. No. 1” consists of pears of one variety which are mature, handpicked, firm, well formed, free from scald, hard end, black end, internal breakdown, decay, worms and worm holes, and from damage caused by broken skins, limbrubs, sprayburn, sunburn, scab, russeting, bruises, hail, frost, drought spot, disease, insects, mechanical or other means. Unless otherwise specified, the pears shall not be further advanced than yellowish green. Tree-ripened pears and pears grown from late blooms shall not be considered as meeting the requirements of this grade. (See §§ 51.1349 and 51.1350.)
#### § 51.2078 U.S. No. 2 Mixed.

“U.S. No. 2 Mixed” consists of almonds in the shell which meet the requirements of U.S. No. 2 grade, except that two or more varieties of sweet almonds are mixed.
#### Mary L. Campbell, as Administratrix of the Estate of A. C. Campbell, Deceased, Respondent, v. H. S. C. Realty Corporation, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and for conscious pain and suffering, defendant appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and its brief, from so *664much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 14, 1968, as granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside a jury verdict for defendant and granted a new trial. Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, with costs; plaintiff’s motion denied; and verdict reinstated. In our opinion, there was ample evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict for defendant. We do not pass on the charges of misconduct made against defendant’s trial counsel. Based on the entire record, however, it is our view that plaintiff’s belated recognition of the importance of having Hayes’ personal testimony was an afterthought born of the adverse verdict. The record indicates that the trial court too did not regard where Hayes was as a matter of importance until after a verdict was returned which, it seems clear, the court found disagreeable. Defense counsel informed the court on the first day of the jury’s deliberations that Hayes was confined in Kings Park State Hospital, but absolutely nothing was done to indicate that the court regarded this as a significant disclosure. Nothing was put on the record; nor does it appear that plaintiff’s counsel was promptly advised by the court of this new information. Despite a full opportunity to declare a mistrial at the urging of defendant’s counsel because of the prolonged deliberations, the matter was permitted to proceed to verdict. This record of apparent indifference and inaction after Hayes’ whereabouts were disclosed indicates to us that neither counsel nor the court then regarded it as a serious matter. If it was not serious then, it did not become so after the verdict. It is very unlikely that Hayes could contribute anything to plaintiff’s case on a new trial. An inmate of a hospital for the mentally ill since 1966 and already on record in his examination before trial as having testimony highly favorable to defendant, it is doubtful indeed that his appearance at a new trial might change the result. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
#### § 51.1165 Reasonably well colored.

*Reasonably well colored* as applied to common oranges means that the characteristic color predominate over the green color on at least two-thirds of the fruit surface, in the aggregate.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:92-cr-01005-MP

PATRICK LEE FRANK,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 110, Motion to Continue Hearing by Patrick Lee

Frank. In his motion, defendant seeks to continue the hearing presently scheduled for May 23,

2006 because the video-conferencing technician will be out on annual leave the entire week of

May 22, 2006. The Government does not oppose the motion. Accordingly, the motion is

granted. The hearing presently set for May 23, 2006 is cancelled and is hereby reset for

Tuesday, June 20, 2006, at 1:00 p.m. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of May, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:92-cr-01005-MP Document 111 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DENISE KELLEY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

3M COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 7:20-cv-00153-MCR-GRJ

FINAL JUDGMENT

This action came before the Court for a jury trial with the Honorable Thomas 

P. Barber presiding. The issues have been tried, resulting in a jury verdict in 

Defendants’ favor on April 8, 2022. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that final judgment is 

entered in favor of the Defendants, 3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, 

AEARO LLC, and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, and against Plaintiff, 

DENISE KELLEY, together with costs taxed against Plaintiff.

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

April 8, 2022 /s/ Sonya R. Cohn 

DATE Deputy Clerk: Sonya R. Cohn

Case 7:20-cv-00153-MCR-GRJ Document 175 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 12.1CERTIFICATIONI, Li Xiting, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Mindray Medical International Limited;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 thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The company’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe company and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: June 27, 2007/s/ Li Xiting
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MOSES ANTONIO SHEPARD,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-10253

D.C. No. 4:10-cr-01032-CKJ-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2014

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Moses Antonio Shepard appeals from his conviction for interstate

stalking and cyberstalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(1) and (2)(A). We

affirm.

1. The district court did not err in allowing Defendant to invoke his right to

represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). 

FILED

JUN 18 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Assuming without deciding that Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008),

established an affirmative requirement to determine a defendant’s competency to

represent himself, the court did not err in finding Defendant competent to represent

himself after holding a hearing and observing Defendant. Defendant appeared

intelligent and educated, had no history of mental illness and suffered only from

"grandiosity" and some obsessive behavior, clearly understood the proceedings and

procedures, participated extensively in pretrial matters, and chose a rational (if illadvised) trial strategy.

2. The district court set appropriate limitations during trial preparation. 

Defendant had reasonable access to the materials and means necessary to prepare a

defense. For example, Defendant received seven continuances, the assistance of

advisory counsel, and access to sufficient resources.

3. The statutes of conviction are not unconstitutionally vague. United States

v. Osinger, No. 11-50338, 2014 WL 2498131, at *3–7 (9th Cir. June 4, 2014).

AFFIRMED.

2