alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
27.404-4 Contractor’s release, publication, and use of data.       (a) 						            In contracts for basic or applied research with universities or colleges, agencies shall not place any restrictions on the conduct of or reporting on the results of unclassified basic or applied research, except as provided in applicable U.S. statutes. However, agencies may restrict the release or disclosure of computer software that is or is intended to be developed to the point of practical application (including for agency distribution under established programs). This is not considered a restriction on the reporting of the results of basic or applied research. Agencies may also preclude a contractor from asserting copyright in any computer software for purposes of established agency distribution programs, or where required to accomplish the purpose for which the software is acquired.                                          (b) 						            Except for the results of basic or applied research under contracts with universities or colleges, agencies may, to the extent provided in their FAR supplements, place limitations or restrictions on the contractor’s exercise of its rights in data first produced in the performance of the contract, including a requirement to assign copyright to the Government or another party. Any of these restrictions shall be expressly included in the contract.    **Parent topic:** 27.404 Basic rights in data clause.
#### § 3565.252 Housing types.

The property may include new construction or rehabilitation of existing structures. The units may be attached, detached, semi-detached, row houses, modular or manufactured houses, or multifamily structures. Manufactured housing must meet Agency requirements contained in 7 CFR part 1924, subpart A. The Agency will guarantee proposals for new construction or acquisition with moderate or substantial rehabilitation of at least $6,500 per dwelling unit. The portion of guaranteed funds available for acquisition with rehabilitation may be limited.

[84 FR 55036, Oct. 15, 2019]
Exhibit 32



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-KSB of Dynatem, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Annual Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.



Dated: August 27, 2004



/s/ Michael HoranMichael Horan, Chief Executive Officer/s/ Belen RamosBelen Ramos, Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 94-2238
IN RE: MICHELE M. FREES, d/b/a From The Heart, a/k/a Michele M. Fries, Debtor - Appellee, MICHELE M. FREES, Individually and as Trustee, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN GIBNEY, Defendant - Appellant, and EDWARD GIBNEY; ELEANOR GIBNEY; STEPHEN SEGALL, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-275-1, BK-91-10359) Submitted: February 13, 1996 Decided: March 4, 1996 Before HALL and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.23 Albert Lee Sneed, Jr., VAN WINKLE, BUCK, WALL, STARNES & DAVIS, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michele M. Frees, Appellee Pro Se; David G. Gray, Jr., WESTALL, GRAY, KIMEL & CONNOLLY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* In light of this disposition, the Appellant's motion to expedite and the Appellee's motion to remand this case to the district court are denied as moot. The Appellee's motion to impose sanctions is hereby denied. 4 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for stay pending appeal of the bankruptcy court's finalorder and denying his motion to withdraw reference to the bankruptcy court. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdictionbecause the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES AND

INVESTMENTS INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs. 5:02-CV-80-SPM/AK

BAGGETT BROTHERS FARM INC, et al.,

Defendants,

_____________________________/

ORDER 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for an Order

finding Stuart Robinson in Contempt of Court (doc. 230), Stuart Robinson’s

Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motion (doc. 234),

the Defendant’s Motion for Contempt of Court against Stuart Robinson’s

Attorneys (doc. 248), Stuart Robinson’s Counsel’s Motion to Stay (doc. 249), and

Stuart Robinson’s Counsel’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause (doc. 250).

Upon consideration, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Defendant’s Motions (docs. 230, 248) are denied.

2. The remaining Motions (docs. 234, 249, 250) are denied as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-third day of September, 2009.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
#### § 301.75-17 Funds for the replacement of certified citrus nursery stock.

Subject to the availability of appropriated funds, a commercial citrus nursery may be eligible to receive funds to replace certified citrus nursery stock in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(a) *Eligibility.* A commercial citrus nursery may be eligible to receive funds to replace certified citrus nursery stock removed to control citrus canker if the nursery stock was removed pursuant to a public order after September 30, 2001, and before January 10, 2006.

(b) *Certified citrus nursery stock payments.* A commercial citrus nursery that is eligible under [paragraph (a)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-301.75-17#p-301.75-17(a)) of this section to receive funds to replace certified citrus nursery stock will, upon approval of an application submitted in accordance with [paragraph (c)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-301.75-17#p-301.75-17(c)) of this section, receive a payment calculated using the following rates:

| Type of certified nursery stock | Payment (dollars) |
| --- | --- |
| Seedlings | 0.18/plant. |
| Liners or rootstock | 1.50/plant. |
| Budded field grown citrus plants | 4.00/plant. |
| Budded container/greenhouse citrus plants | 4.50/plant. |
| Citrus nursery stock in containers for wholesale or retail sale: | |
| 1 gallon | 5.00/container. |
| 3 gallon | 10.00/container. |
| 5 gallon | 15.00/container. |
| 7 gallon | 20.00/container. |
| Larger than 7 gallon | 26.00/container. |

(c) *How to apply for certified nursery stock replacement funds.* The form necessary to apply for funds to replace certified nursery stock may be obtained from any local citrus canker eradication program office in Florida, or from the USDA Citrus Canker Eradication Program, 6901 West Sunrise Boulevard, Plantation, FL 33313. The completed application should be accompanied by a copy of the public order directing the destruction of the trees and its accompanying inventory that describes the number and type of the certified nursery stock removed. If the certified nursery stock was planted in pots, the inventory should specify the size of the container. If the certified nursery stock was bare root plants or in a temporary container, the inventory should specify whether the plant was non-budded or budded. The completed application must be sent to the USDA Citrus Canker Eradication Program, Attn: Commercial Compensation, 10300 Sunset Dr., Suite 150, Miami, FL 33173. Claims for certified nursery stock must be received by August 7, 2006.

[[71 FR 33172](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/71-FR-33172), June 8, 2006]
#### § 3565.550 OMB control number.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no party is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0575-0174.
#### Philip Lanzatella, Respondent, v Donald A. Deming, Appellant, and Irondequoit Press, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs (see *Clark v McGee,*49 NY2d 613). (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
Case 1:02-cr-00034-MP   Document 42   Filed 01/12/06   Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 31.1**

Rule13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification

I, Perry A. Glassgow, certify that:

1.               I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the periodcovered by this report on Form 10-K of Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2006-3(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

2.    Basedon my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.   Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.   Iam responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and basedon my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicercompliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB,and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer hasfulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement; and

5.    Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed inthis report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank of NewYork Trust Company, N.A.

 
|        |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |  /s/ Perry A.  Glassgow |
|   |   |   |   | Perry A. Glassgow |
|   |   |   |   | Vice President and Treasurer |

 

 

March 28, 2007

----
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**HARLEY-DAVIDSON CREDIT CORP.**

I, Perry A. Glassgow, Vice President and Treasurer of Harley-DavidsonCredit Corp. (“HDCC”), certify that:

(i) a review of HDCC’s activities for the period from August 25, 2006(the closing date of the Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2006-3 transactionsubject to the requirements of Regulation AB) through December 31, 2006 (the “ReportingPeriod”) and of HDCC’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement datedas of August 1, 2006 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) among Harley-DavidsonMotorcycle Trust 2006-3, Harley-Davidson Customer Funding Corp., HDCC, and TheBank of New York Trust Company, N.A., has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, HDCC hasfulfilled in all material respects all of its obligations under the Sale andServicing Agreement throughout the Reporting Period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificatein the name of and on behalf of HDCC this 28th day of March 2007.

 
|        |   |                         |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                         |   |
|   | By:    |  /s/ Perry A.  Glassgow |   |
|   |   | Perry A. Glassgow            |   |
|   |   | Vice President and Treasurer |   |
|   |   |                         |   |
|   |   | Harley-Davidson Credit Corp. |   |

 

----
#### § 4280.405 Review or appeal rights.

A person may seek a review of an Agency decision under this subpart from the appropriate Agency official that oversees the program in question or appeal to the National Appeals Division in accordance with 7 CFR part 11.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 74732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30214]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL

[Docket No. AS10-11]


Appraisal Subcommittee Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description: In accordance with Section 1104(b) of Title XI of the 
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, 
as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee 
(ASC) will meet in closed session:
    Location: FDIC Building, 1776 F Street, NW., Room 4085, Washington, 
DC 20429.
    Date: December 8, 2010.
    Time: Immediately following the ASC open session beginning at 11:15 
a.m.
    Status: Closed.
    Matters to be Considered:
    November 10, 2010 minutes--Closed Session.
    Preliminary discussion of State Compliance Reviews.

    Dated: November 26, 2010.
James R. Park,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-30214 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 99.1

            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



         I, Jack L. Messman, Chief Executive Officer of Novell, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

         (1)      The Company's periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period
                  ended April 30, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
                  of 1934, as amended; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.



                                                       * * *

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

/s/ Jack L. Messman
--------------------------------
Jack L. Messman

Date: June 16, 2003


<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



         I, Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Novell, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

         (1)      The Company's periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period
                  ended April 30, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
                  of 1934, as amended; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


                                                       * * *

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

/s/ Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr.
--------------------------------
Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr.

Date: June 16, 2003
**Exhibit 23.2**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-140083 onForm S-8 of our report dated November 13, 2007 (which expressed an unqualified opinion and included an explanatory paragraph relating to the financial statements’ translation of Renminbi amounts into U.S. Dollar amounts), relating to thefinancial statements and financial statement schedule of New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc., appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. for the year ended May 31, 2007.

/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. 

Deloitte ToucheTohmatsu CPA Ltd. 

Beijing, China 

November 13, 2007
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WILLIE BRAZILE,

 PETITIONER

VS CASE NO. 3:96CR5LAC/MD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 RESPONDENT

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Magistrate Judge Davis on JULY 17, 2006 

Type of Motion/Pleading: MOTION FOR WRIT OF AUDITA QUERELA PURSUANT TO

TITLE 28 U.S.C.A. 1651

Filed by: PETITIONER on 6/22/06 Document 65

( ) Stipulated/Consented/Joint Pleading

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Mary Maloy

Deputy Clerk

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 3

rd day of

August, 2006, that:

(a) The requested relief is DENIED.

(b) Defendant’s contention that the district court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction is unfounded. His other arguments are thinly

veiled attempts to circumvent the time limitations on filing

motions pursuant to 28 USC § 2255. Furthermore, writs of audita

querela have been abolished. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:96-cr-00005-LC-CJK Document 66 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 1
4.2004 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-23, Prohibition on Contracting for

Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab Covered Entities, in all

solicitations and contracts.

Parent topic: Subpart 4.20 Prohibition on Contracting for Hardware, Software, and Services

Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab
<PAGE>   1
<TABLE>
                         STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF
                           NET EARNINGS PER SHARE
                (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
<CAPTION>
                                            Year ended December 31,

                                          1995        1994         1993
                                          ----        ----         ----
<S>                                    <C>          <C>          <C>
Weighted Average Number of
  Shares Outstanding:

Common Stock                           3,787,497    3,787,469    3,766,665

Common equivalent shares resulting
  from stock options
  (Treasury Stock Method)                112,432       (a)         174,094

Shares contingently issuable
  based on market price                  324,574      391,829       79,309
                                       ---------    ---------    ---------
                                       4,224,503    4,179,298    4,020,068
                                       =========    =========    =========


Earnings before cumulative effect
  of adopting SFAS No. 109             $     457    $     166    $      98
                                       =========    =========    =========

Net earnings                           $     457    $     166    $     742 
                                       =========    =========    =========

Earnings per common and 
  common equivalent share:

Earnings before cumulative effect
  of adopting SFAS No. 109             $     .11    $     .04    $     .02

Net Earnings                           $     .11    $     .04    $     .18

<FN>

(a)   Dilution is less than 3%; therefore, earnings per share is based
      on weighted average number of shares outstanding and shares
      contingently issuable based on market price.

</TABLE>
                                                                           118
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

RONES SAGESSE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-238-AW-GRJ

WARDEN MILTON HICKS, et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I have considered the magistrate judge’s July 26, 2021 Report and 

Recommendation. ECF No. 34. I have also considered de novo the issues raised in 

Plaintiff’s objections. ECF No. 35.1

I agree with the magistrate judge that Plaintiff has not stated a claim against 

Warden Hicks, and I agree that any amendment would be futile. Read liberally, 

Plaintiff’s objection suggests he could plead additional facts to show a physical 

injury, but even if this were so, he would still fail to state a claim for the other reasons 

the magistrate judge explains.

The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is adopted and incorporated 

into this order. Warden Hicks’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED, and 

1 Plaintiff asks the court to consider his objections although they were 

submitted just beyond the deadline. ECF No. 35 at 2. Based on the mailbox rule, it 

appears that the objections were timely. At any rate, I have treated them as timely.

Case 1:20-cv-00238-AW-GRJ Document 38 Filed 10/04/21 Page 1 of 2
2

Plaintiff’s claims against Warden Hicks are dismissed. The magistrate judge will 

conduct further appropriate proceedings as to the remaining defendants. 

SO ORDERED on October 4, 2021.

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00238-AW-GRJ Document 38 Filed 10/04/21 Page 2 of 2