alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
36.500 Scope of subpart.

(a) This subpart prescribes provisions and clauses for insertion in solicitations and contracts for—

(1) Construction; and

(2) Dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements contracts.

(b) Provisions and clauses prescribed elsewhere in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) shall

also be used in such solicitations and contracts when the conditions specified in the prescriptions for

the provisions and clauses are applicable.

Parent topic: Subpart 36.5 - Contract Clauses
March 24, 1998


VIA FAX 847-215-5282

Thomas Fraerman, Esq.
Joseph Freed & Associates, Inc.
1400 South Wolf Road
Building 100
Wheeling, Illinois 60090

     Re:  Sale of Evanston Plaza, Evanston, Illinois

Dear Tom:

     Pursuant to our letter dated February 24, 1998, that date for satisfaction
of the conditions precedent was extended to March 30, 1998.  This letter is
intended to provide you with written notice of Seller's exercise of its right
to extend the date for satisfaction of the conditions precedent contained in
Paragraphs 29.1, 29.2, 29.3 and 29.4 of the Agreement of Sale for another
30-day period.  Consequently, the date for satisfaction of the conditions
precedent shall be April 29, 1998.

                              Very truly yours,

                              /s/ M.Meghan Macnamara

                                  M. Meghan Macnamara

cc:  Daniel J. Perlman, Esq.
     Michael Conter
     Glen R. Cornblath, Esq.
#### § 51.55 Premises.

The premises shall be free from conditions objectionable to packing operations, including, but not limited to litter, waste and refuse within the immediate vicinity of the plant buildings, excessively dusty roads, yards or parking lots, and poorly drained areas.
Case 4:20-cr-00045-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 4
Case 4:20-cr-00045-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 08/04/20 Page 2 of 4
Case 4:20-cr-00045-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 08/04/20 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:20-cr-00045-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 08/04/20 Page 4 of 4
#### § 4280.40 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of Elberta K. Black, Respondent, v. Thomas Brown, Appellant.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the respondent from an order of filiation of the Family Court of Broome County, and from an order of support. The only testimony in this case bearing on sexual relations comes from the petitioner who is a married woman. She testified that she and her husband had not lived together since March of 1963 and, according to her testimony, they were last alone in privacy in the Summer of 1963. However, he continued to reside within a few blocks of her and as of the apparent time of conception she often saw him on the streets in the city where they resided. There had been no contractual or court order of separation, but she denied any sexual relations with her husband since March of 1963. The petitioner testified that she met the respondent about June 17 of 1964 and that they severed relation» ships in the latter half of August. Sexual relation commenced some three days after they first met and the child was born on April 13, 1965. The respondent did not take the stand and the only witness on his behalf tried to establish that he had seen the petitioner at her apartment window with someone othel than the respondent during the time when she must have conceived. The record does not negate access and petitioner’s testimony does not constitute clear and convincing proof of appellant’s responsibility. Orders reversed, *684on the law and the facts, and petition dismissed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Herlihy, J.
46.805 Contract clauses.       (a)                   *Contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.* The contracting officer shall insert the appropriate clause or combination of clauses specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section in solicitations and contracts when the contract amount is expected to be in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold and the contract is subject to the requirements of this subpart as indicated in 46.801:                                                         (1) 								                In contracts requiring delivery of end items that are not high-value items, insert the clause at 52.246-23, Limitation of Liability.                                                            (2) 								                In contracts requiring delivery of high-value items, insert the clause at 52.246-24, Limitation of Liability-High Value Items.                                                            (3) 								                In contracts requiring delivery of both high-value items and other end items, insert both clauses prescribed in (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, AlternateI of the clause at 52.246-24, and identify clearly in the contract schedule the line items designated as high-value items.                                                            (4) 								                In contracts requiring the performance of services, insert the clause at 52.246-25, Limitation of Liability-Services.                                                            (5) 								                In contracts requiring both the performance of services and the delivery of end items, insert the clause prescribed in paragraph (a)(4) of this section and the appropriate clause or clauses prescribed in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, and identify clearly in the contract schedule any high-value line items.                                                                             (b)                   *Acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold.* The clauses prescribed by paragraph (a) of this section are not required for contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold. However, in response to a contractor’s specific request, the contracting officer may insert the clauses prescribed in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(4) of this section in a contract at or below the simplified acquisition threshold and may obtain any price reduction that is appropriate.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 46.8 - Contractor Liability for Loss of or Damage to Property of the Government
33.203 Applicability.       (a) 						            Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to any express or implied contract covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation.                                          (b) 						            This subpart does not apply to any contract with-                                                         (1) 								                A foreign government or agency of that government; or                                                            (2) 								                An international organization or a subsidiary body of that organization, if the agency head determines that the application of the Disputes statute to the contract would not be in the public interest.                                                                             (c) 						            This part applies to all disputes with respect to contracting officer decisions on matters "arising under" or "relating to" a contract. Agency Boards of Contract Appeals (BCAs) authorized under the Disputes statute continue to have all of the authority they possessed before the Disputes statute with respect to disputes arising under a contract, as well as authority to decide disputes relating to a contract. The clause at 52.233-1, Disputes, Disputes, recognizes the "all disputes" authority established by the Disputes statute and states certain requirements and limitations of the Disputes statute for the guidance of contractors and contracting agencies. The clause is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of the parties as provided by the Disputes statute or to constrain the authority of the statutory agency BCAs in the handling and deciding of contractor appeals under the Disputes statute.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 33.2 - Disputes and Appeals
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7696** 
JOSEPH DICKERSON, a/k/a Joseph L. Dickerson, a/k/a Joseph Lee Dickerson , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN WAYNE MCCABE, Lieber Correctional Institution , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 8:11

- cv - 01412

- RBH )

Submitted : March 29, 2013 Decided: April 10, 2013

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Joseph Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Dickerson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) peti tion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional ri ght.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatabl e or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is deb atable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dickerson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny the pending motion to hold this case in abeyance, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument wo uld not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 51.686 U.S. No. 2. “U.S. No. 2” consists of oranges which meet the following requirements: ( a ) Basic requirements: ( 1 ) Discoloration: Not more than one-half of the surface, in the aggregate, may be affected by discoloration. (See § 51.700.);
( 2 ) Fairly firm;
( 3 ) Mature;
( 4 ) Not more than slightly misshapen;
( 5 ) Not more than slightly rough texture;
( 6 ) Reasonably well colored; and
( 7 ) Similar varietal characteristics.
( b ) Free from: ( 1 ) Bruises;
( 2 ) Decay;
( 3 ) Growth cracks;
( 4 ) Unhealed skin breaks; and
( 5 ) Wormy fruit.
( c ) Free from serious damaged caused by: ( 1 ) Ammoniation;
( 2 ) Buckskin;
( 3 ) Caked melanose;
( 4 ) Creasing;
( 5 ) Dirt or other foreign material;
( 6 ) Disease;
( 7 ) Dryness or mushy condition;
( 8 ) Green spots;
( 9 ) Hail;
( 10 ) Insects;
( 11 ) Oil spots;
( 12 ) Scab;
( 13 ) Scale;
( 14 ) Scars;
( 15 ) Skin breakdown;
( 16 ) Split, rough or protruding navels;
( 17 ) Sprayburn;
( 18 ) Sunburn;
( 19 ) Thorn scratches; and
( 20 ) Other means.
( d ) For tolerances see § 51.689.
[85 FR 68426, Oct. 29, 2020]
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2549 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the use of health 

savings accounts for the payment of health insurance premiums for 

high deductible health plans purchased in the individual market. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5, 2006 

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

the use of health savings accounts for the payment of 

health insurance premiums for high deductible health 

plans purchased in the individual market. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Health Savings Ac5 count Affordability Act’’. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
2 

•S 2549 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF USE OF HEALTH SAVINGS AC2 COUNTS FOR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 

3 PAYMENTS FOR CERTAIN HIGH DEDUCTIBLE 

4 HEALTH PLANS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (C) of section 

6 223(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

7 to qualified medical expenses) is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ 

8 at the end of clause (iii), by striking the period at the 

9 end of clause (iv), and by adding at the end the following 

10 new clause: 

11 ‘‘(v) any high deductible health plan 

12 other than a group health plan (as defined 

13 in section 5000(b)(1)).’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

16 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
28.103-3 Payment bonds.       (a) 						            A payment bond is required only when a performance bond is required, and if the use of payment bond is in the Government’s interest.                                          (b) 						            When a contract price is increased, the Government may require additional bond protection in an amount adequate to protect suppliers of labor and material.    **Parent topic:** 28.103 Performance and payment bonds for other than construction contracts.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ISRAEL CAMACHO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv472-MW/MJF

CENTURION OF FLORIDA, LLC,

et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

and Recommendation. ECF No. 23. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 23, is accepted and adopted as 

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

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 

court orders.” The Clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED on March 15, 2022.

s/Mark E. Walker ____

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00472-MW-MJF Document 24 Filed 03/15/22 Page 1 of 1
# L_2021284EN.01001401.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 284/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 284/14

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/1309

of 2 August 2021

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [‘Värmländskt skrädmjöl’ (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Sweden’s application to register the name ‘Värmländskt skrädmjöl’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Sweden’s application to register the name ‘Värmländskt skrädmjöl’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Värmländskt skrädmjöl’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Värmländskt skrädmjöl’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Värmländskt skrädmjöl’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 August 2021.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 136, 19.4.2021, p. 8.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
#### § 54.1031 Errors in service.

When a design review specialist, supervisor, or other responsible employee of the Branch has evidence of inaccurate evaluation, or of incorrect certification or other incorrect determination or identification as to the compliance of a piece of equipment or utensil, such person shall report the matter to the Chief. The Chief will investigate the matter and, if deemed advisable, will report any material errors to the owner or the owner's agent. The Chief shall take appropriate action to correct errors found in the determination of compliance of equipment or utensils, and the Chief shall take adequate measures to prevent the recurrence of such errors.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

LLOYD GOODNOW,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20cv267-MW/GRJ

THIRD CONGRESSIONAL

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Recommendation, ECF No. 19, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections, 

ECF No. 20, and amended objections, ECF No. 21. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 19, is accepted and adopted, over 

the Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. This case shall be 

TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Clerk shall 

take all step necessary to effect the transfer and close the file. 

SO ORDERED on July 13, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge
32.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policies and procedures for contract financing and other payment matters. This

part addresses-

(a) Payment methods, including partial payments and progress payments based on percentage or

stage of completion;

(b) Loan guarantees, advance payments, and progress payments based on costs;

(c) Administration of debts to the Government arising out of contracts;

(d) Contract funding, including the use of contract clauses limiting costs or funds;

(e) Assignment of claims to aid in private financing;

(f) Selected payment clauses;

(g) Financing of purchases of commercial products and commercial services;

(h) Performance-based payments; and

(i) Electronic funds transfer payments.

Parent topic: Part 32 - Contract Financing
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

v. Case No. 3:20cr91/MCR

ANDRE PIERRE FRANK

______________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 

Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of the 

Defendant, ANDRE PIERRE FRANK, to Count One of the Indictment is hereby 

ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of April 2021.

/s/M. Casey Rodgers

CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00091-MCR Document 28 Filed 04/22/21 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JUAN MIGUEL TORRES,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:03-cv-00287-MP-EMT

JOSE M VAZQUES,

MONICA WETZEL,

Respondents.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 14, Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Kornblum, recommending that Petitioner's habeas petition, Doc. 1, be DISMISSED with

prejudice. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on Wednesday, March 30,

2005. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been

afforded an opportunity to file objections. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo review of those portions to which an objection has

been made. Neither party has filed an objection. Having considered the Report and

Recommendation and lack of objections thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report

and Recommendation should be ADOPTED.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated

by reference in this order.

Case 5:03-cv-00287-MP-EMT Document 15 Filed 05/05/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 5:03-cv-00287-MP-EMT

2. Petitioner's habeas petition, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED with prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of May, 2005.

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-00287-MP-EMT Document 15 Filed 05/05/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:96cr56-RH

RENEE M. PATTERSON

 /

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

COMES NOW the United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant

United States Attorney, and files this Notice of Appearance for the government in the above

styled cause and requests that all future pleadings be forwarded to the address given below.

Respectfully submitted,

GREGORY R. MILLER

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

S/ Winifred L. Acosta NeSmith 

Winifred L. Acosta NeSmith

Assistant U.S. Attorney

111 N. Adams Street, 4th Floor

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(850) 942-8430

DC Bar No. 0076333

Case 4:96-cr-00056-RH-WCS Document 751 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was sent via US

Postal Service to Renee M. Patterson, 2636 Mission Road # 73; Tallahassee, FL 32304, this 28th

day of September, 2006.

s// Winifred L. Acosta NeSmith 

Winifred L. Acosta NeSmith

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 4:96-cr-00056-RH-WCS Document 751 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2