alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3201.112 Intermediates—Foams. ( a ) *Definition.* Intermediates—Foams are dry polymer foams used for non-construction purposes, such as cushions for furniture.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 22 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 10, 2019, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased Intermediates—Foams. By that date, Federal agencies responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased Intermediates—Foams.
[83 FR 31848, July 10, 2018]
§ 550.115 Payment. Reimbursement is the standard method of payment for non-assistance cooperative agreements. All payments to the Cooperator will be made in U.S. dollars by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT), utilizing the Cooperator's DUNS number and current SAM registration information. The method of payment will be identified on the Award Face Sheet and includes: ( a ) *Electronic payment system.* The Agency-accepted electronic payment system is the default method of payment.
( b ) *EFT/Treasury Check.* When the payment method identified on the Award Face Sheet is “EFT/Treasury Check,” the Cooperator must submit invoices to the Agency on the OMB-approved SF-270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement.” In addition to the SF-270, the Cooperator must provide: ( 1 ) Total dollar amount requested for reimbursement itemized by approved budget categories, including the indirect cost rate for the award, when applicable.
( 2 ) Name, phone number, email address, and the Cooperator's financial contact, should the ADO or Agency PI have any invoice questions.
(May 27, 1980)

#### 860 West Tower,Inc., Respondent, v Norman A. Levy et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 5, 1979, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, for the reasons stated by Kassal, J., at Special Term. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Fein, Sandler and Carro, JJ. [99 Misc 2d 377.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            1908
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        8
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1916
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              106
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1810
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1916
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    69
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (66)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (66)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (66)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.79)


</TABLE>
[Cite as Missig v. Cleveland Civ. Serv. Comm., 123 Ohio St.3d 239, 2009-Ohio-5256.] 

MISSIG, APPELLANT, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND CIVIL SERVICE 

COMMISSION ET AL., APPELLEES. 

[Cite as Missig v. Cleveland Civ. Serv. Comm., 

 123 Ohio St.3d 239, 2009-Ohio-5256.] 

Discretionary appeal accepted, court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the 

authority of Lima v. State, and cause remanded to apply Lima v. State. 

(No. 2009-0790 — Submitted September 1, 2009 — Decided October 6, 2009.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 91699, 

2009-Ohio-966. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted. 

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of 

Lima v. State, 122 Ohio St.3d 155, 2009-Ohio-2597, 909 N.E.2d 616, and the 

cause is remanded to the court of appeals to apply Lima v. State. 

 MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Joseph W. Diemert Jr. & Associates Co., L.P.A., Joseph W. Diemert Jr., 

Thomas M. Hanculak, and Daniel A. Powell, for appellant. 

______________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations
     and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such schedules.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                         448,069
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               886,779
<PP&E>                                         10,774,132
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,702,123
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,236,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          489,352
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,054,835
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,236,034
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,565,280
<CGS>                                          492,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  733,603
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (16,324)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             346,629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                9,231
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            9,231
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   9,231
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .54
        


</TABLE>
#### § 51.1167 Fairly firm.

*Fairly firm* as applied to common oranges and tangelos, means that the fruit may be slightly soft, but not bruised; as applied to oranges of the Mandarin group (Satsumas, King, Mandarin), means that the skin of the fruit is not extremely puffy or extremely loose.
9.109-4 Certification by the offeror.

(a) In order to be eligible for contract award, an offeror is required to—

(1)

(i) Certify that it does not engage and has not engaged in any activity that contributed to or was a

significant factor in the President's or Secretary of State's determination that a foreign country is in

violation of its obligations undertaken in any arms control, nonproliferation, or disarmament

agreement to which the United States is a party, or is not adhering to its arms control,

nonproliferation, or disarmament commitments in which the United States is a participating state.

The determinations are described in the most recent unclassified annual report provided to

Congress pursuant to section 403 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act (22 U.S.C. 2593a). The

report is available at

https://www.state.gov/bureaus-offices/under-secretary-for-arms-control-and-international-security-aff

airs/bureau-of-arms-control-verification-and-compliance/; and

(ii) Similarly certify with regard to any entity owned or controlled by the offeror; or

(2) Provide with its offer information that the President of the United States has–

(i) Waived application under 22 U.S.C. 2593e(d) or (e); or

(ii) Determined under 22 U.S.C. 2593e(g)(2) that the entity has ceased all activities for which

measures were imposed under 22 U.S.C. 2593e(b).

(b) If certifying in accordance with 52.209-13(b)(1), the Offeror is required to submit the

certification with the offer. It is not included in the annual representations and certifications in the

System for Award Management.

(c) The contracting officer may rely on an offeror's certification unless the contracting officer has

reason to question the certification.

(d) Upon the determination of a false certification under 52.209-13, an offeror will be subject to such

remedies as suspension or debarment under subpart 9.4 shall be for a period of not less than 2

years, inclusive of any suspension period, if suspension precedes a debarment (see 9.406-4(a)(1)(iii)

and (a)(2)).

Parent topic: 9.109 Prohibition on contracting with an entity involved in activities that violate arms

control treaties or agreements with the United States.
#### § 51.3202 Similar varietal characteristics.

*Similar varietal characteristics* means that the onions in any container are similar in color, shape and character of growth.
27.402 Policy.

(a) To carry out their missions and programs, agencies acquire or obtain access to many kinds of

data produced during or used in the performance of their contracts. Agencies require data to-

(1) Obtain competition among suppliers;

(2) Fulfill certain responsibilities for disseminating and publishing the results of their activities;

(3) Ensure appropriate utilization of the results of research, development, and demonstration

activities including the dissemination of technical information to foster subsequent technological

developments;

(4) Meet other programmatic and statutory requirements; and

(5) Meet specialized acquisition needs and ensure logistics support.

(b) Contractors may have proprietary interests in data. In order to prevent the compromise of these

interests, agencies shall protect proprietary data from unauthorized use and disclosure. The

protection of such data is also necessary to encourage qualified contractors to participate in and

apply innovative concepts to Government programs. In light of these considerations, agencies shall

balance the Government’s needs and the contractor’s legitimate proprietary interests.

Parent topic: Subpart 27.4 - Rights in Data and Copyrights
#### § 51.3061 Clean.

*Clean* means that the avocado is practically free from dirt, staining or other foreign material.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:97cr84-RH

SHARON JONES, DOCKET NO. 4:06mj010-WCS

Defendant.

 / 

O R D E R

The Defendant appeared before the undersigned on a first appearance today

to answer to the charges of violating her supervised release. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant shall appear before Judge

Hinkle on March 1, 2006, beginning at 9:00 A.M., for a revocation hearing.

Until that appearance, Defendant will remain subject to the conditions of supervised

release. 

DONE AND ORDERED on January 24, 2006.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:97-cr-00084-RH Document 75 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of CNE Group, Inc. (the "Registrant") on
Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony
S. Conigliaro, Chief Financial 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.


                                        /s/ Anthony S. Conigliaro
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Anthony S. Conigliaro
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        April 14, 2004


                                       75
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alfred Carl Juhl, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Cayuga County 'Court for a hearing in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant’s petition asserts that after being received at Elmira Reformatory, pursuant to his sentence, he was on at least three occasions prevented from mailing a notice of appeal within the 30-day period. He categorically states that he had prepared a notice of appeal which the Principal Keeper and the correspondence department refused to permit him to mail. The reasons given, for denial of his right to serve the notice, petitioner states, were that he had “no stamps on deposit”, -that the court and Cayuga County District Attorney were “not on an approved list of correspondence” and that further he had “ not been granted permission to correspond with addressee ”. Defendant maintains that had he not been so prevented from mailing his notice of appeal it would have been timely served. *People*v. *Hairston*(10 N Y 2d ,92) held that the circumstances alleged by defendant require that a hearing be had to determine if defendant was wrongfully prevented from serving a notice of appeal (cf. *People*v. *Calloway,*24 N Y 2d 127; *People*v. *Montgomery,*24 N Y 2d 130 [Feb. 27, 1969]; *People*v. *Hill,*9 A D 2d 451; *People*v. *Guhr,*5 A D 2d 688). (Appeal from order of Cayuga County Court denying, without a hearing, motion to vacate judgment of conviction for grand larceny, second degree, rendered March 18, 1963;) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Henry, JJ.
Page 1 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cr82-MCR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20cr82-MCR

CHRISTOPHER E. MILES

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. 

R. Crim. P., and has entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects 

mentioned in Rule 11, I determined the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and 

the offense charged is supported by independent basis in fact containing each of the 

essential elements thereof. I therefore recommend the plea of guilty be accepted and 

the Defendant be adjudicated guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated this 22nd day of January 2021.

/s/ Charles J. Kahn, Jr. 

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00082-MCR Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cr82-MCR

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed 

within twenty-four hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different 

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use 

only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the 

magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate 

judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 

3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cr-00082-MCR Document 37 Filed 01/22/21 Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 12a0013p.06 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

_________________ In re: O HIO E XECUTION P ROTOCOL L ITIGATION ,

_____________________________________ B ENNIE A DAMS , et al., Plaintiffs , C HARLES L ORRAINE , Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. J OHN KASICH , Governor, State of Ohio; G ARY M OHR , Director, ODRC; D ONALD M ORGAN , Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility; A NONYMOUS E XECUTION T EAM M EMBERS 1-50, c/o Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellants. X - - - -> , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N No. 12-3035

Filed: January 13, 2012 Before: NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

_________________ ORDER

_________________ Before this Court is the State of Ohio’s emergency motion to vacate the district court’s order staying the execution of Charles Lorraine, scheduled for January 18, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. On January 11, 2012, District Judge Gregory Frost issued a lengthy written opinion granting the stay, based on persis tent failure or refu sal of the State to follow its own written execution protocol.
1No. 12-3035 In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litigation Page 2 Based upon the analysis of the district court’s January 11, 2012 Opinion and Order granting a preliminary injunction and a stay of execution, as well as the district court’s July 8, 2011 Opinion and Order entered in this same litigation and reported at 801 F. Supp.2d 623 (S.D. Ohio 2011), we concludethat the State’s arguments in support of the emergency motion to vacate the stay are not well-taken. We agree with the district court that the State should do what it agreed to do: in other words it should adhere to the execution protocol it adopted. As the distri ct court found, whether slight or significant deviations from the protocol occur, th e State’s ongoing conduct requires the federal courts to monitor every execution on an ad hoc basis, because the State cannot be trusted to fulfill its otherwise lawful duty to execute inmates sentenced to death. The State’s emergency motion to vacate the stay is DENIED. The stay will remain in place until further order from the district court on the hearing set for February 24, 2012. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

/s/ Leonard Green

______________ ___________________________ Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ABILITY OPTIONS, LLC,

 Appellant,

v.

CRYSTAL MUNOZ,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00196-CV

Appeal from

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2017DCV1736)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ability Options, LLC is attempting to appeal from a final judgment entered by the trial 

court in favor of Crystal Munoz. Finding that Appellant did not timely file its notice of appeal, 

we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

The trial court signed the final judgment on August 15, 2018. Appellant did not file any 

post-judgment motions or requests which would have operated to extend the deadline for filing 

notice of appeal. Thus, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed no later than September 

14, 2018. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1. Appellant did not file its notice of appeal until November 13, 

2018. On that date, the Clerk of the Court sent Appellant a letter informing it that the notice of 

appeal had not been timely filed and the Court lacked jurisdiction of the appeal. The letter notified 

Appellant that the Court intended to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless any party 

filed a response within ten days establishing grounds for the appeal to be continued. The Court 
- 2 -

granted Appellant’s request for an extension of time in which to file its response to the 

jurisdictional inquiry, but Appellant did not file any response. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3(a).

December 19, 2018

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
27.501 General.

Agencies shall provide necessary policy and procedures regarding foreign technical assistance

agreements and license agreements involving intellectual property, including avoiding unnecessary

royalty charges.

Parent topic: Subpart 27.5 - Foreign License and Technical Assistance Agreements
#### Rob Tess Restaurant Corp., Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Determination of respondent, State Liquor Authority, dated February 2, 1979, canceling petitioner’s liquor license, unanimously annulled, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded to respondent for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. This matter first came to us on a proceeding to review the determination of the State Liquor Authority canceling petitioner’s liquor license. Although we dismissed the proceeding as moot because, under the applicable statute (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 67, subd 1, par [b]) the license had expired automatically, we noted that the appropriate sanction would have been a 30-day suspension (68 AD2d 821). Upon a request for clarification by both of the parties we adhered to our original determination noting that disposition "should suffice to allow the State Liquor Authority to proceed on any renewal application as if we had reduced the penalty to a 30-day suspension” (68 AD2d 874). A further motion resulted in our treating the license as an ongoing license and modifying the penalty imposed by the authority to a *74130-day suspension (69 AD2d 798). The Court of Appeals, by a divided court, modified (49 NY2d 874) and remitted the matter to us "with directions to remand it to the authority for the imposition of an appropriate penalty other than cancellation”. In its *Per Curiam*opinion the Court of Appeals indicated that "A reviewing court is free to state the maximum penalty the record will sustain, but should leave the exact nature of the penalty to be imposed to the discretion of the agency” (49 NY2d 874, 876). Accordingly, and in conformity with our prior decisions, we indicate that any penalty in excess of a suspension for 30 days is not sustainable upon the record before us. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan and Bloom, JJ. us.