alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
50.205-3 Authorization of offers contingent upon SAFETY Act designation or certification before contract award.       (a) 						            Contracting officers may authorize such contingent offers, only if-                                                         (1) 								                DHS has issued-                                                                           (i) 										                    For offers contingent upon SAFETY Act designation, a pre-qualification designation notice or a block designation; or                                                                              (ii) 										                    For offers contingent upon SAFETY Act certification, a block certification;                                                                                                           (2) 								                To the contracting officer’s knowledge, the Government has not provided advance notice so that potential offerors could have obtained SAFETY Act designations/ certifications for their offered technologies before release of any solicitation; and                                                            (3) 								                Market research shows that there will be insufficient competition without SAFETY Act protections or the subject technology would be sold to the Government only with SAFETY Act protections.                                                                             (b) 						            Contracting officers shall not authorize offers contingent upon obtaining a SAFETY Act certification (as opposed to a SAFETY Act designation), unless a block certification applies to the class of technology to be acquired under the solicitation.    **Parent topic:** 50.205 Procedures.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Klein, Appellant. Klein,

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County, entered December 21, 1979, which revoked the defendant’s probation and imposed sentence. The defendant was convicted on January 10, 1978 upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree and sentenced to 4 years, 10 months probation plus 60 days incarceration. On December 14, 1979 a violation of probation hearing was held and resulted in a decision by the County Court on December 19, 1979 that the defendant was guilty of a violation of probation. On December 21, 1979 the defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the maximum of which was four years. On this appeal the defendant argues (1) that the testimony adduced at the violation of probation hearing failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was guilty of violating the conditions of probation and (2) that the defendant could not be legally sentenced on a felony conviction without a presentence investigation and report. Sufficient evidence of violation of conditions of his previously imposed probationary sentence was adduced at the hearing held herein to permit the trial court to find that the violation was supported by a preponderance of the. evidence (CPL 410.70, subd 3; *People v Fish,*52 AD2d 778; *People v Crandall,*51 AD2d 841). The defendant had notice of the probation violation charged (CPL 410.10, subd 2; *People v Petersen,*53 AD2d 935). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the violation hearing was properly conducted. We agree, however, with the defendant that the trial court’s failure to require the preparation of the new presentence report prior to imposing its sentence on the felony charge after the violation of probation had been found and his prior probation revoked violates CPL 390.20 (subd 1) and mandates a vacatur of the sentence imposed and a remittal to the County Court of Sullivan County for resentencing *(People v Halaby,*77 AD2d 717). Judgment modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence, and matter remitted to the County Court of Sullivan County for resentencing in accordance herewith, and, as so modified, affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Mikoll, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
exv10w7




 

Form 10-Q
Page 50


Exhibit 10.7




The Timberland Company




Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation




     Effective January 1, 2009, The Timberland Company (the “Company”) pays fees to its
non-employee directors in connection with their service as a director as follows: $50,000 annual
retainer to each director; an additional $15,000 annual retainer to the Lead Director; $2,000 for
each Board of Directors meeting attended; an additional $12,500 annual retainer to each committee
chairperson; and $1,000 for each committee meeting attended.



     Effective January 1, 2009, under the Company’s 2007 Incentive Plan, newly elected or appointed
non-employee directors receive an initial award on the date of the annual meeting of stockholders
at which the director is first elected (or, if the director is first elected or appointed by the
Board, on the date of the first annual meeting of stockholders occurring after such director is
elected or appointed) of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) having a value equal to $200,000 on the
date of grant based upon the closing price of the Company’s Class A Common Stock quoted on the New
York Stock Exchange on such date, which grant vests in three (3) equal annual installments.
Re-elected directors receive an award, on the date of the annual meeting of stockholders at which
such directors are re-elected, of RSUs having a value equal to $100,000 on the date of grant based
upon the closing price of the Company’s Class A Common Stock quoted on the New York Stock Exchange
on such date, which grant vests in full on the first anniversary of the date of grant.
# 9.206-2 Contract clause.

The *contracting officer**shall* insert the clause at 52.209-1, Qualification	Requirements, in *solicitations* and contracts when the *acquisition*	is subject to a *qualification requirement*.

**Parent topic:**9.206 Acquisitions subject to qualification requirements.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Israel Rodriguez, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 12, 1978, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. The record reveals that the Trial Judge, in his charge, failed to instruct the jury that, in order to return a verdict of guilty, it was necessary to find that defendant was aware that the property which he allegedly possessed was stolen (see *Matter of Tony M.,*44 NY2d 899; 2 CJI [NY] PL 165.15 [1], p 1047). Since the omission related to an important element of the crime charged, which had to some extent been placed in issue by the defendant’s case, we believe that the trial court’s error deprived defendant of a fair trial. Therefore, even though no exception to the charge was taken, a new trial is required. Because reversal is clearly required in view of the erroneous charge, we find it unnecessary to reach the remaining issue raised on appeal. Gibbons, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
44.000 Scope of part.

(a) This part prescribes policies and procedures for consent to subcontracts or advance notification

of subcontracts, and for review, evaluation, and approval of contractors’ purchasing systems.

(b) The consent and advance notification requirements of subpart 44.2 are not applicable to prime

contracts for commercial supplies or commercial services acquired pursuant to part 12.

Parent topic: Part 44 - Subcontracting Policies and Procedures
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1





                      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE
                  OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
                              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS



         I, Steven A. Schumm, the Chief Administrative Officer of Enstar Income
Program II-2, L.P. (the "Partnership") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that, the Partnership's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission:

            -  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            -  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
               all material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.



                                         /s/  Steven A. Schumm
                                         ---------------------
                                         Steven A. Schumm
                                         Chief Administrative Officer
                                         November 14, 2003
§ 51.19 Issuance of certificates. ( a ) ( 1 ) A separate certificate shall be issued for each lot inspected, except that when an application covers more than one lot a single certificate may be issued to cover all such lots. The person signing and issuing the certificate shall be one of the following: ( i ) The inspector who performed the inspection;
( ii ) An inspector designated by the Administrator as the “inspector in charge,” when the certificate represents composite inspection of several persons;
( iii ) Another employee of the Inspection Service who has been authorized by the Administrator to act in a supervisory capacity; or
( iv ) With the approval of the administrator, the signature of the person performing the inspection or that of an employee of the Inspection Service who has been authorized to act in a supervisory capacity may be affixed by computer to an official certificate.
( 2 ) *Provided,* That in all cases the inspection certificate shall be prepared in accordance with the official memoranda of the inspector or inspectors who performed the inspection.
( b ) When the inspection is made for the purpose of determining whether food products for use by the applicant comply with contract specifications therefor, a formal certificate need not be issued, but the fact of such compliance or noncompliance may be indicated by affixing an appropriate stamp or mark on such products or the containers thereof, at the discretion of the inspector.
[35 FR 13571, Aug. 26, 1970. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981; 51 FR 8478, Mar. 12, 1986; 84 FR 8590, Mar. 11, 2019]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brett Cabrera, Appellant.

Submitted July 16, 2007;

decided September 6, 2007

Reported below, 40 AD3d 1139.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Gerald Orseck, Esq., 1924 State Route 52, Liberty, New York 12754 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
30.201-3 Solicitation provisions.       (a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.230-1, Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certification, in solicitations for proposed contracts subject to CAS as specified in 48 CFR 9903.201.                                          (b) If an award to an educational institution is contemplated prior to July 1, 1997, the contracting officer shall insert the basic provision set forth at 52.230-1 with its Alternate I, unless the contract is to be performed by a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) (see 48 CFR 9903.201-2(c)(5)), or the provision at 48 CFR 9903.201-2(c)(6)applies.                                          (c) Insert the provision at FAR 52.230-7, Proposal Disclosure-Cost Accounting Practice Changes, in solicitations for contracts subject to CAS as specified in 48 CFR 9903.201.    **Parent topic:** 30.201 Contract requirements.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2659 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2659

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the eligibility 
  of Indian tribal organizations for grants for the establishment of 
                  veterans cemeteries on trust lands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2006

 Mr. Akaka (for himself and Mr. Inouye) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the eligibility 
  of Indian tribal organizations for grants for the establishment of 
                  veterans cemeteries on trust lands.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Native American Veterans Cemetery 
Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF INDIAN TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS FOR GRANTS FOR THE 
              ESTABLISHMENT OF VETERANS CEMETERIES ON TRUST LANDS.

    Section 2408 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(f)(1) The Secretary may make grants under this subsection to any 
tribal organization to assist the tribal organization in establishing, 
expanding, or improving veterans' cemeteries on trust land owned by, or 
held in trust for, the tribal organization.
    ``(2) Grants under this subsection shall be made in the same 
manner, and under the same conditions, as grants to States are made 
under the preceding provisions of this section.
    ``(3) In this subsection:
            ``(A) The term `tribal organization' has the meaning given 
        that term in section 3764(4) of this title.
            ``(B) The term `trust land' has the meaning given that term 
        in section 3764(1) of this title.''.
                                 <all>
```
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. 1:97-cr-00015-MP

ROBERT L. KING,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

On May 24, 2006, the undersigned ordered that a warrant be issued for the defendant’s

arrest. The court has now learned that defendant has voluntarily checked himself into the Detox

Unit at Meridian Behavioral Healthcare. Accordingly, the warrant for defendant’s arrest is

hereby rescinded. The Clerk is directed to issue a summons requiring the defendant to appear

before this court on Thursday, July 6, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. Furthermore, the Clerk is directed to

forward a certified copy of this order to the United States Marshals Office. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of May, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:97-cr-00015-MP Document 39 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 1
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Adult EducationCareer AwarenessCareer DevelopmentCareer EducationEducation Work RelationshipEmployer Employee RelationshipEmployment PatternsTechnological AdvancementWork Environment

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
§ 51.2711 U.S. Runner Splits. “U.S. Runner Splits” consists of shelled Runner type peanut kernels of similar varietal characteristics which are split or broken, but which are free from foreign material, damage and minor defects, and which will not pass through a screen having 17 ⁄ 64 inch round openings. ( a ) In order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and handling, the following tolerances, by weight, shall be permitted: ( 1 ) 2 percent for other varieties of peanuts;
( 2 ) 2 percent for damaged or unshelled peanuts and minor defects;
( 3 ) 0.2 percent for foreign material;
( 4 ) 2 percent for sound portions of peanuts which will pass through the prescribed screen; and,
( 5 ) 4 percent for sound whole peanuts.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Wentworth IV, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin R. Keating,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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/
                  Kevin R. KeatingKevin
                  R. KeatingPrincipal
                  Executive Officer
                Principal
                  Financial Officer
                March
                  28, 2007
#### § 51.1449 Uniform in size.

*Uniform in size* means that, in a representative sample of 100 halves, the 10 smallest halves weigh not less than 25 percent as much as the 10 largest halves.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alliance Financial Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Daniel Mohr,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Alliance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Alliance.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 14, 2011



/s/ J. Daniel MohrJ. Daniel MohrExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2005-1802.

#### Morrow Cty. Airport Auth. v. Whetstone Flyers, Ltd.

Morrow App. No. 04 CA 6, 162 Ohio App.3d 624, 2005-Ohio-4314. On motion to participate in oral argument. Motion denied. On motion for relief from S.Ct.Prac.R. VI(7). Motion granted.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Everett McCreedy, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on May 16, 1979, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). No opinion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Markewich, Yesawich and Carro, JJ.
#### § 48.5 False report or statement.

Any person receiving produce in interstate commerce or in the District of Columbia for or on behalf of another shall be considered to have violated the Act if, knowingly and with intent to defraud, he makes any false report or statement to the person from whom such produce was received concerning the handling, condition, quality, quantity, sale, or disposition thereof.
§ 51.1312 Tolerances for standard pack. ( a ) In order to allow for variations incident to proper sizing, not more than 5 percent of the pears in any lot may fail to meet the size requirements: *Provided,* That when the maximum and minimum sizes are both stated, an additional 10 percent tolerance shall be allowed for pears which are larger than the maximum size stated.
( b ) In order to allow for variations incident to proper packing, not more than 10 percent of the containers in any lot may fail to meet these requirements but no part of this tolerance shall be allowed for bridge packs, or for packs with different sizes and arrangements such as layers of 195 size and arrangement, and layers of 180 size and arrangement packed in the same box.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2530 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2530

  To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Methyl-5-n-propoxy-2,4-dihydro-
                          1,2,4-triazol-3-one.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2006

  Mr. Talent introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Methyl-5-n-propoxy-2,4-dihydro-
                          1,2,4-triazol-3-one.

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

SECTION 1. 4-METHYL-5-N-PROPOXY-2,4-DIHYDRO-1,2,4-TRIAZOL-3-ONE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.38.25       4-Methyl-5-n-      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         propoxy-2,4-                                                       31/2009
                         dihydro-1,2,4-
                         triazol-3-one
                         (CAS No. 145027-
                         96-9) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         3824.90.28)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```