alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 50.1 Scope and applicability of administrative procedures. ( a ) The Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary Under Various Statutes set forth in §§ 1.130 through 1.151 of this title are rules of practice applicable to adjudicatory proceedings under the regulations promulgated under 7 U.S.C. 1621 *et seq.* for denial or withdrawal of inspection, certification, or grading service. In addition, the supplemental rules of practice in subpart B of this part shall be applicable to adjudicatory proceedings under the regulations promulgated under 7 U.S.C. 1621 *et seq.* for denial or withdrawal of inspection, certification, or grading service.
( b ) Neither the rules of practice in §§ 1.130 through 1.151 of this title nor the supplemental rules of practice in subpart B of this part modify existing procedures for refusing to inspect, grade, or certify a specific lot of a product because of adulteration, improper preparation of the lot for grading, improper presentation of the lot for grading, or because of failure to comply with any similar requirements set forth in applicable regulations.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ELIZABETH MACK, as the PERSONAL

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF

JOSEPH LORENZO SALTER, deceased,

Plaintiff,

No. 3:03cv557/RV/MD

vs.

SANDFORD M. EPSTEIN, D.O., et al., 

Defendants.

____________________________________/

 CONSENTED AMENDED ORDER FOR PARTIAL DISTRIBUTION

OF SETTLEMENT

A hearing was held on this date. The parties having agreed to a settlement of all

claims and to a proposed distribution, the pleadings are hereby amended to conform to that

settlement agreement, including an individual claim of Elizabeth Mack, the deceased’s

mother. Upon consideration, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

The settlement as submitted to the Court is approved and the order previously entered

herein is amended as set out below:

1. A partial distribution of settlement is hereby authorized in the sum of one

hundred thousand and 00/100 ($100,000.00) dollars to be distributed immediately to plaintiff

Elizabeth Mack, individually. 

2. The Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for the approval of further

distribution to an appropriate Florida guardianship of the property for the deceased’s minor

children, Lorenzo L. Salter and Trayvon D. Salter, which guardianship shall be established

through the state court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2005.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00557-RV-MD Document 88 Filed 07/28/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 21



Pioneer Railcorp Subsidiaries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alabama Railroad Co. (ALAB)
Alabama & Florida Railway Co., Inc. (AF)
Decatur Junction Railway Co. (DT)
Elkhart & Western Railroad Co. (EWR)
Fort Smith Railroad Co. (FSR)
Gettysburg & Northern Railroad Co. (GET)
Indiana Southwestern Railway Co. (ISW)
Kendallville Terminal Railway Co. (KTR)
Keokuk Junction Railway Co. (KJRY)
Michigan Southern Railroad Company (MSO)
Mississippi Central Railroad Co. (MSCI)
Pioneer Air, Inc. (PAR)
Pioneer Industrial Railway Co. (PRY)
Pioneer Resources, Inc. (PRI)
Pioneer Railroad Services, Inc. (PRS)
Pioneer Railroad Equipment Co., Ltd. (PREL)
Shawnee Terminal Railway Company (STR)
The Garden City Western Railway, Inc. (GCW)
Vandalia Railroad Company (VRRC)
West Michigan Railroad Co. (WMI)
§ 56.21 How application for service may be made; conditions of service. ( a ) *Application.* ( 1 ) Any person may apply for service with respect to products in which he or she has a financial interest by completing the required application for service. In any case in which the service is intended to be furnished at an establishment not operated by the applicant, the application must be approved by the operator of such establishment and such approval shall constitute an authorization for any employee of the Department to enter the establishment for the purpose of performing his or her functions under the regulations in this part. The application must include: ( i ) Name and address of the establishment at which service is desired;
( ii ) Name and mailing address of the applicant;
( iii ) Financial interest of the applicant in the products, except where application is made by a representative of a Government agency in the representative's official capacity;
( iv ) Signature of the applicant (or the signature and title of the applicant's representative);
( v ) Indication of the legal status of the applicant as an individual, partnership, corporation, or other form of legal entity; and
( vi ) The legal designation of the applicant's business as a small or large business, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes.
( 2 ) In making application, the applicant agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the regulations in this part (including, but not being limited to, such instructions governing grading of products as may be issued from time to time by the Administrator). No member of or Delegate to Congress or Resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any benefit that may arise from such service unless derived through service rendered a corporation for its general benefit. Any change in such status, at any time while service is being received, shall be promptly reported by the person receiving the service to the grading office designated by the Director or Chief to process such requests.
( b ) *Notice of eligibility for service.* The applicant will be notified whether the application is approved or denied.
[84 FR 49641, Sept. 23, 2019]
Part 40 - Reserved           **Parent topic:** Federal Acquisition Regulation
# 49.105-4 Cleanup of construction site.

In the case of terminated *construction* contracts, the *contracting officer**shall* direct action to ensure the cleanup of the site, protection of serviceable materials, removal of hazards, and other action necessary to leave a safe and healthful site.

**Parent topic:**49.105 Duties of termination contracting officer after issuance of notice of termination.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2690 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2006 

Referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 8801 Sudley Road in Manassas, Virginia, as 

the ‘‘Harry J. Parrish Post Office’’. 

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


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

S 2690 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. HARRY J. PARRISH POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 8801 Sudley Road, Manassas, 

4 Virginia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Harry 

5 J. Parrish Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the Harry J. Parrish Post 

10 Office. 

Passed the Senate July 20, 2006. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
**Exhibit
      33.3**





**ASSERTION
      OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING**


**CRITERIA**











The
      Bank
      of New York, The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A. and The Bank of New
      York
      (Delaware) (collectively, the “Company”) provides this platform-level assessment
      of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of
      Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange
      Commission.





Management
      has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable in regards
      to the following servicing platform for the following period:





Platform :
      Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under
      the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) asset-backed securities issued on or after
      January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to January 1, 2006)
      for
      which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, or paying agent
      services, other than residential mortgage-backed securities and other
      mortgage-related asset-backed securities. The platform includes like-kind
      transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities administrator,
      or paying agent services as a result of the Company’s acquisition as of October
      1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s corporate trust business,
      including structured finance agency and trust transactions.





Applicable
      Servicing Criteria :
      All
      servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by the
      related transaction agreements as to any transaction, except for the following
      criteria: 1122 (d) (1) (ii), (iii), (iv), (2) (iii), (vi), (4) (vi), (vii),
      (viii), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii) and (xiv).





Period :
      Twelve
      months ended December 31, 2006.





With
      respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following
      assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing
      Criteria:





•
The
      Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
      Servicing


Criteria.





•
The
      Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing
      Criteria.





•
As
      of
      December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material compliance
      with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.





Ernst
      & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an
      attestation report with respect to the Company’s foregoing assessment of
      compliance.











The Bank of New York    The Bank of New York


The Bank of New York Trust   The Bank of New York Trust


Company, N.A.    Company, N.A.


The Bank of New York (Delaware)





/s/ Robert L.
      Griffin                                                                 
/s/ Patrick J. Tadie


Robert L.
      Griffin                                                                      
Patrick J. Tadie


Authorized
      Signer                                                                  
Authorized Signer







March 1, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ARTURO ORTIZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20cv264-TKW-MJF

K. JONES, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 3). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, I agree with the magistrate 

judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1915A(b)(1) based on Plaintiff’s failure to disclose his litigation history.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by 

reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1).

3. The Clerk shall close the file.

Case 5:20-cv-00264-TKW-MJF Document 4 Filed 11/02/20 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of November, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00264-TKW-MJF Document 4 Filed 11/02/20 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John Longiaru, Respondent, v. Brennan & Sloan, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Greenblott, J.

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed February 19, 1968, which held appellant carrier liable for claimant’s surgery and treatment required to repair an injury to the left knee, and for compensation payments for 26 weeks of total disability and 3% weeks of partial disability. Appellant contends that the awards should have been apportioned between the accident here in issue and one nonindustrial accident prior thereto. On May 11, 1965 respondent was injured in the course of his employment as a carpenter when he slipped and fell, injuring his left knee. Respondent had injured the same knee x approximately two years before. The attending physician diagnosed the injury as “probable torn medial meniscus left knee.” He recommended surgical repair of the condition. Thereafter, on March 21, 1966, an operation was performed on respondent’s left knee. A second operation was performed on October 6, 1966. Respondent returned to work April 20, 1967. The attending physician testified that the two operations were “for the related conditions sustained May 11, 1965.” While the carrier’s medical expert was anxious to apportion liability between this accident and the prior one, he was-forced to admit that the respondent had a “good recovery since 1963.” He also admitted that respondent’s condition following the May 11, 1965 accident “ is certainly a condition you cannot differentiate from the accident.” Clearly, the board, if it found the medical testimony to so warrant, could have apportioned the award against -both injuries. Looking at the instant record, both doctors clearly found a causal relationship between the May 11, 1965 accident and respondent’s subsequent condition. Thus, there is substantial evidence to support the board’s finding as to causation. We cannot say that the board could not accept so much of the clear and uncontradicted medical testimony that related to the 1965 accident and reject the somewhat equivocal testimony relating to the prior accident. (See *Matter of Rados*v. *Woodlawn Water Supply Dist.,*31 A D 2d 879.) Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Greenblott, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2437 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2437

To increase penalties for trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, 
                involuntary servitude, or forced labor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 16 (legislative day, March 15), 2006

 Mr. Stevens (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Talent, Mrs. 
 Feinstein, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Byrd) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To increase penalties for trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, 
                involuntary servitude, or forced labor.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18.

    The text of section 1590 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows: ``Whoever knowingly recruits, harbors, 
transports, provides, or obtains by any means, any person for labor or 
services in violation of this chapter shall be fined under this title 
and imprisoned for any term of years or life. If death results from the 
violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnaping or an 
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit 
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be 
fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or life. If 
such violation involves kidnaping more than 1 person, or involves 
aggravated sexual assault on more than 1 person, the defendant shall be 
subject to the death penalty.''.
                                 <all>
```
47.305-4 F.o.b. destination solicitations.

(a) When preparing f.o.b destination solicitations, the contracting officer shall refer to 47.303 for the

prescription of f.o.b. destination clauses relating to standard delivery terms.

(b) If f.o.b. destination only offers are desired, the solicitation shall state that offers submitted on a

basis other than f.o.b. destination will be rejected as nonresponsive.

(c) When supplies will or may be purchased f.o.b. destination but inspection and acceptance will be

at origin, the contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts the clause at 52.247-48,

F.o.b. Destination-Evidence of Shipment.

Parent topic: 47.305 Solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and transportation factors.
#### MANHATTAN STRAW BOARD CO., Resondent, v. JONES et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July *12,*1906.)

Action by the Manhattan Straw Board Company against Frank S. Jones and others. R. H. Wilson, for appellants. M. A. Elias, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1996 for May Limited  Partnership 1984-1 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000757525
<NAME>                        May Limited Partnership 1984-1
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                         256
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  262
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               518
<PP&E>                                         8,064
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8,064
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   518
<SALES>                                        996
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,004
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                885
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            885
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   885
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  103.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  103.15

        


</TABLE>
36.511 Use and possession prior to

completion.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.236-11, Use and Possession Prior to Completion,

in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price construction contract is contemplated and the

contract award amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. This clause may

be inserted in solicitations and contracts when the contract amount is expected to be at or below the

simplified acquisition threshold.

Parent topic: Subpart 36.5 - Contract Clauses
#### § 51.631 Mature.

*Mature* shall have the same meaning currently assigned that term in the laws and regulations of the State in which the grapefruit is grown; or as the definition of such term may hereafter be amended.
#### Alexander I. Oppenheim, Appellant, v. Daniel Melnick et al., Respondents.

In this action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 12, 1969 and made on reargument, as adhered to the court’s original decision granting limited relief on defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment awarded by the court after inquest, namely, to the extent of reducing the principal amount of the award from $27,500 to $8,750 and directing entry of a resettled judgment in accordance with the reduction. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements. The motion to vacate the default judgment requested such other relief as the court might find proper; and the reargument of the motion explicitly presented to the court the propriety of the amount awarded to plaintiff as his damages. Moreover, the Trial Justice who heard the testimony at the inquest even on his own initiative had the statutory and inherent power to modify the amount of damages he had previously awarded to plaintiff (cf. CPLR 4404, subd. [b]; CPLR 5015; *Ladd*v. *Stevenson,*112 N. Y. 325, 332; *Matter of Baker*v. *Macfadden Pub.,*300 N. Y. 325, 327; *Matter of City of New York [Public Park],*291 N. Y. 501; *Greenberg*v. *R.S.P. Realty Corp.,*22 A D 2d 690). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
§ 400.51 Availability of actual production history program. ( a ) This subpart is obsolete for the 2024 and succeeding crop years for crops with a contract change date on or after June 30, 2023, and for the 2025 and succeeding crop years for all crops with a contract change date prior to June 30, 2023.
( b ) An Actual Production History (APH) Coverage Program is offered under the provisions contained in 7 CFR part 457 and all Special Provisions (as defined in 7 CFR 457.8) thereto unless specifically excluded by the Special Provisions.
( c ) The APH program operates within limits prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.*), only on those crops identified in this section in those areas where the actuarial documents provide coverage. Except when in conflict with this subpart, all provisions of the applicable crop insurance contract for these crops apply.
[88 FR 42018, June 29, 2023]
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I, Joe Tyszko, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of RJS Development, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: March 17, 2011  /s/ Joe Tyszko Joe Tyszko Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer Principal Financial Officer)   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to RJS Development, Inc. and will be retained by RJS Development, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.