alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 51.1909 Fairly well formed.

*Fairly well formed* means that the tomato is not decidedly kidney-shaped, lopsided, elongated, angular, or otherwise deformed.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between the Board of Education of the Brentwood Union Free School District, Respondent, and Brentwood Teachers’ Association et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 23, 1979, which granted the petition. Judgment reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, application denied, petition dismissed, and the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration forthwith. Special Term correctly determined that arbitration of the instant grievance, which concerns a dispute as to staffing levels, is not barred by statute or public policy (see *Matter of Susquehanna Val. Cent. School Dist. at Conklin [Susquehanna Val. Teachers’ Assn.],*37 NY2d 614). The court erred, however, in concluding that the grievance did not fall within the scope of the contract’s arbitration clause. The arbitration clause is broad, applying to any "complaint * * * of a violation, a mis-application or misinterpretation” of the contract, and the grievance is grounded on an alleged violation of a specific provision of the contract. It must be presumed that the parties, in drafting the agreement, intended disputes of this sort to be resolved through arbitration (see *Matter of Wyandanch Union Free School Dist. v Wyandanch Teachers Assn.,*48 NY2d 669; *Matter of Board of Educ.*v *Barni,*49 NY2d 311). Damiani, J. P., Margett, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-18-00632-CV

Andrea PEREZ,

Appellant

v.

Santos SPARKMAN,

Appellee

From the County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CV-0246

Honorable Robin V. Dwyer, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 27, 2019

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant Andrea Perez filed a pro se notice of appeal from a judgment of eviction signed 

on August 16, 2018. Appellant’s brief was originally due January 14, 2019. Neither the brief nor 

a motion for extension of time was filed. On January 24, 2019, we ordered appellant to file, not 

later than February 4, 2019, her appellant’s brief and a written response reasonably explaining her

failure to timely file the brief. We advised appellant that if she failed to file a brief and the written 

response by the date ordered, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.8(a). Appellant has not filed a brief or the written response as ordered by this court.
04-18-00632-CV

- 2 -

We therefore order this appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. We further order that no 

costs be assessed against appellant because she is indigent.

PER CURIAM
32.1005 Solicitation provision and contract

clause.

(a) Insert the clause at 52.232-32, Performance-Based Payments, in-

(1) Solicitations that may result in contracts providing for performance-based payments; and

(2) Fixed-price contracts under which the Government will provide performance-based payments.

(b)

(1) Insert the solicitation provision at 52.232-28, invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments,

in negotiated solicitations that invite offerors to propose performance-based payments.

(2) Use the provision with its Alternate I in competitive negotiated solicitations if the Government

intends to adjust proposed prices for proposal evaluation purposes (see 32.1004(e)).

Parent topic: Subpart 32.10 - Performance-Based Payments
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 5:03cr46/MCR

MELVA MELISSA VALLE

 /

ORDER REDUCING SENTENCE

Before the Court is the Government’s Rule 35 motion (doc. 23) advising that

a reduction in Defendant’s sentence may be warranted by her cooperation and

substantial assistance since her sentencing. The Court finds that a reduction is

proper to reward her assistance to the Government in the investigation and

prosecution of others.

Defendant’s sentence of confinement is, therefore, reduced to 36 months.

Further, Defendant’s term of supervised release is reduced to 5 years. In all other

respects, the original sentence imposed in the Judgment and Commitment Order

filed March 23, 2004, shall remain unchanged.

ORDERED this 25th day of April, 2005.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:03-cr-00046-MCR Document 24 Filed 04/25/05 Page 1 of 1
Case 5:00-cr-00004-MCR Document 106 Filed 06/13/05 Page 1 of 7
Case 5:00-cr-00004-MCR Document 106 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 7
Case 5:00-cr-00004-MCR Document 106 Filed 06/13/05 Page 3 of 7
Case 5:00-cr-00004-MCR Document 106 Filed 06/13/05 Page 4 of 7
Case 5:00-cr-00004-MCR Document 106 Filed 06/13/05 Page 5 of 7
Case 5:00-cr-00004-MCR Document 106 Filed 06/13/05 Page 6 of 7
Case 5:00-cr-00004-MCR Document 106 Filed 06/13/05 Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT
10.02


 


[Entercom
Letterhead]


 


	
  TO:

  	
   

  	
  Stephen F.
  Fisher (“Employee”)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FROM:

  	
   

  	
  John C. Donlevie
  [sign
  here]

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  DATE:

  	
   

  	
  January 20,
  2009

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  RE:

  	
   

  	
  Waiver of
  Scheduled CPI Salary Increase

  



 


This Memorandum
will confirm our agreement regarding the schedule 2009 CPI increase to your
salary pursuant to the employment agreement (the “Agreement”)
between you (the “Employee”) and
Entercom Communications Corp. (the “Company”).


 


Waiver.  Employee
hereby agrees that the scheduled CPI increase to Employee’s base salary due
under the Agreement on March 1, 2009 will not take effect.


 


Miscellaneous. 
This Memorandum constitutes the entire agreement and understanding
between Employee and the Company concerning the subject matter hereof.  No other written or oral agreements or
promises have been made with respect to entering into this Memorandum.  All terms and provisions of the Agreement not
expressly modified by this Memorandum remain in full force and effect and are
binding on the Employee and the Company. 
This Memorandum does not, and shall not be deemed to, extend the term of
Employee’s employment with the Company as set forth in the Agreement.


 


For consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and intending to
be legally bound, Employee has executed this Memorandum.


 


ACCEPTED &
AGREED TO:


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Stephen F.
  Fisher

  	
   

  
	
  Print Name:

  	
  Stephen F.
  Fisher

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
  January 20,
  2009
#### § 51.25 Where to file for an appeal inspection and information required.

An appeal inspection may be obtained by the applicant, or other person financially interested in the product, by filing a request (a) with the Inspection Office nearest the point where the product is located, or (b) with the inspector who made the original inspection, or (c) with any district supervisory inspection office, or (d) with the Administrator. The application for the appeal inspection shall state the reasons therefor, and shall be accompanied by a copy of any previous inspection certificate or inspection report, and any other information which the applicant received regarding the quality or condition of the product at the time of the original inspection. Such application may be made orally (in person or by telephone), in writing, or by telegraph. If made orally, written confirmation shall be made promptly.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual report on the militarypower of the People�s Republic of China [electronic resource] : report toCongress pursuant to the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act.**
 
2000 | 2002| 2003 | 2004| 2005 | 2006| 2007 | 2008 | 2009
 
SuDoc Number:D 1.1/12:
Item Number:0306-A-27 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000548758
 
January 30, 2020
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GARY LEE SEYMOUR

DOC # T77153,

 Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-214-TKW-MJF

MARK S. INCH, SECRETARY

OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

 Defendants.

/

 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

 Notice is hereby given that the undersigned counsel enters his appearance as 

counsel of record for Ricky Dixon, Secretary for the Florida Department of 

Corrections. Please send all future pleadings and correspondence in this case to the 

undersigned counsel’s attention.

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 91 Filed 02/16/23 Page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully submitted,

ASHLEY MOODY

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Office of the Attorney General

The Capital, PL-01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Telephone: (850)414-3300

Facsimile: (850)488-4872

/s Erik Kverne

Erik Kverne

Assistant Attorney General

Florida Bar No. 99829

Erik.Kverne@myfloridalegal.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice 

of Appearance was e-filed electronically and served electronically on Plaintiff’s 

counsel of record through CM/ECF on February 16, 2023.

/s Erik Kverne

Erik Kverne

Assistant Attorney General

Florida Bar No. 99829

 

 

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 91 Filed 02/16/23 Page 2 of 2
§ 400.164 Eligibility for a Reinsurance Agreement. FCIC will offer a Reinsurance Agreement to an eligible Company as determined by FCIC. To be eligible and qualify initially or thereafter for a Reinsurance Agreement with FCIC, a Company must: ( a ) Be licensed or admitted in any state, territory, or possession of the United States;
( b ) Be licensed or admitted, or use as a policy-issuing company, an insurance company that is licensed or admitted, in each state where the Company will write policies under a Reinsurance Agreement;
( c ) Have surplus, as reported in its most recent Annual or Quarterly Statutory Financial Statement, that is at least equal to twice the MPUL amount for the Company's estimated retained premium submitted in its plan of operation.
( d ) The Company shall have the financial and operational resources, including but not limited to, organization, experience, internal controls, technical skills, positive assessment of the ratio results appearing in Section 400.162 as well as meet methodologies, data submission requirements and assessment contained in Appendix II (Plan of Operations) of the Reinsurance Agreement to meet the requirements, including addressing reasonable risks, associated with a Reinsurance Agreement, as determined by FCIC.
( e ) The Company shall provide data and demonstrate a satisfactory performance record to obtain a Reinsurance Agreement and continue to hold a Reinsurance Agreement for the reinsurance year as determined by FCIC.
§ 4284.514 Grant closing. ( a ) *Letter of Conditions.* The Agency will notify an approved applicant in writing, setting out the conditions under which the grant will be made.
( b ) *Applicant's intent to meet conditions.* Upon reviewing the conditions and requirements in the letter of conditions, the applicant must complete, sign and return the Agency's “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions,” or, if certain conditions cannot be met, the applicant may propose alternate conditions to the Agency. The Agency must concur with any changes proposed to the letter of conditions by the applicant before the application will be further processed.
( c ) *Grant agreement.* The Agency and the grantee must enter into the Agency's “Agriculture Innovation Center Grant Agreement” prior to the advance of funds.
#### §§ 400.459-400.500 [Reserved]
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40853 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MIGUEL RANGEL

- BAZAN , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12

- CR

- 346

- 1

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Rangel

- Bazan has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rangel

- Bazan h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and t he relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 5, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40853 Document: 00515442946 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2020No. 19

- 40853

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-40853 Document: 00515442946 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2020
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

The undersigned executive officer of Alliance Bancorp,Inc, of Pennsylvania (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies that the Registrant’sForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatthe information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| Date: March 30, 2007 |   | /s/ Dennis D. Cirucci   |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                 |   | Dennis D. Cirucci       |
|                 |   | President and           |
|                 |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### § 51.2084 Fairly bright.

*Fairly bright* means that the shells show good characteristic color.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4290

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

#### § 4290.45 Responsibility for implementing this part 4290.

The Agency has delegated to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), pursuant to an agreement under the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535), the authority to implement the RBIC program, including implementing and enforcing the regulations in this part 4290. Therefore, unless specifically stated otherwise, SBA will exercise on behalf of the Agency all responsibilities and authorities assigned to the Agency in this part 4290.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<LEGEND>
                                                  EXHIBIT 27.1

                          FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                    COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES
                        ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X

          This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Consolidated Balance
Sheets of King World Productions, Inc. and its Subsidiaries and is quali-
fied in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                   <C>
<DESCRIPTION (TAG)>                   ENTRY
<MULTIPLIER>                          1,000
<CURRENCY>                            U.S. DOLLARS
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         1st QUARTER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     08/31
<PERIOD-START>                        09/01/96
<PERIOD-END>                          11/30/96
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                       1
<CASH>                                $344,469
<SECURITIES>                          $0
<RECEIVABLES>                         $76,050
<ALLOWANCES>                          $4,115
<INVENTORY>                           $0
<CURRENT ASSETS>                      $660,174
<PP&E>                                $13,863
<DEPRECIATION>                        $10,738
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        $882,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 $107,575
<BONDS>                               $0
<COMMON>                              $508
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 $0
<PREFERRED>                           $0
<OTHER-SE>                            $774,204
<PAGE 15>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          $882,287
<SALES>                               $0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      $164,287
<CGS>                                 $0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         $98,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      $18,439
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    $0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       $53,923
<INCOME-TAX>                          $18,596
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   $34,967
<DISCONTINUED>                        $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       $0
<CHANGES>                             $0
<NET-INCOME>                          $34,967
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         $0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                         $0.93


        

</TABLE>
(May 27, 1969)

#### Dorothy Telaro, Appellant, v. Rudolph Telaro, Respondent.

Judgment entered January 15, 1969, dismissing complaint, after trial, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. The joint account in question “with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common” was coneededly created in the year 1956; the Customer’s Agreement dated February 10, 1965, and the Joint Account Agreement, dated February 10, 1965, containing the phrase “ on the same terms and conditions as theretofore held”, may fairly be held and regarded legally as referable to the 1956 document. And the proof indicates it was treated by the brokerage house as an old and as the same account, until February 15, 1965, at which time a new account was opened in the name of Rudolph Telaro, himself alone. Accordingly, the Trial Justice was correct in his application of the law as it existed in the year 1956, to the effect that where the parties are husband and wife and the sole source of the fund is the husband, and such was the finding of the trial court on a preponderance of evidence, there is a presumption that by placing it in both names he intended to confer on the wife a right of survivorship only, with no present interest of ownership whatsoever. Although it would 'be hers on his death, until then he could exercise ownership. So run the cases *(Belfac*v. *Belfac,*252 App. Div. 453, affd. 278 N. Y. 563; *Matter of Wachs,*50 Misc 2d 565; *West*v. *McCullough,*123 App. Div. 846, affd. 194 N. Y. 518). Section 3-311 of the General Obligations Law, abrogating the foregoing rule, is of no avail to plaintiff wife as it was not enacted until 1959, and is not retroactive as to any interest, right or survivorship existing prior to April 20, 1959. (See General Obligations Law, § 1-203, subd. 5.) Concur—McGivern, J. P., Markewieh, McNally and Bastow, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31

CERTIFICATION OF JOSEPH R. ROZELLE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL 
FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Joseph R. Rozelle, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VPGI Corp.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have

a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

February 14, 2007

| | /s/    JOSEPH R. ROZELLE       
| | -------------------------------
| | Joseph R. Rozelle              
| | Chief Executive Officer        
| | and Principal Financial Officer
| |
§ 4280.29 Supplemental financing required for the Ultimate Recipient Project. ( a ) For REDL loans, either the Ultimate Recipient or the Intermediary must provide supplemental funds for the Project equal to at least 20 percent of the loan to the Intermediary. For REDG grants, the Intermediary must provide supplemental funds, to capitalize the Revolving Loan Fund, equal to at least 20 percent of the Grant to the Intermediary.
( b ) Funds provided by the Ultimate Recipient must be: ( 1 ) Cash or its equivalent;
( 2 ) Provided after Rural Development receives the completed application; and
( 3 ) Disbursed for an eligible Project within a three year period that begins on the day the Intermediary signs the Grant agreement.
( c ) Satisfactory evidence of the Ultimate Recipient's funds must be provided to Rural Development before it will advance any funds to the Intermediary.