alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 47.207 Solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and special requirements.

The *contracting officer**shall* include provisions, clauses, and special requirements in *solicitations* and contracts for transportation or for transportation-related services as prescribed in 47.207-1 through 47.207-9.

- 47.207-1 Qualifications of offerors. 
- 47.207-2 Duration of contract and time of performance. 
- 47.207-3 Description of shipment, origin, and destination. 
- 47.207-4 Determination of Weights. 
- 47.207-5 Contractor responsibilities. 
- 47.207-6 Rates and charges. 
- 47.207-7 Liability and insurance. 
- 47.207-8 Government responsibilities. 
- 47.207-9 Annotation and distribution of shipping and billing documents. 
- 47.207-10 Discrepancies incident to shipments. 
- 47.207-11 Volume movements within the contiguous United States. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 47.2 - Contracts for Transportation or for Transportation-Related Services
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1995
<CASH>                                          10,686
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,997
<ALLOWANCES>                                       650
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,566
<PP&E>                                           2,425
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,068
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,869
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,437
<SALES>                                         33,857
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,857
<CGS>                                            7,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,505
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (10)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,150
<INCOME-TAX>                                       523
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                572
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       627
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0640 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee, v. ANTHONY CHINCHOLL,

Defendant and Appellant. 

## f

ir L.) OCT 2 5 2022 Bowen Greenwood CI,- -rk of Suprerne Court State of IVIontana ORDER



# ORIGINAL

Pursuant to Appellant Anthony Chincholl's motion for extension to oftime to file his response to the Anders Brief and Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant has until November 28, 2022, to file his response to theAnders Briefand Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. DATED this ZS

d day ofOctober, 2022. For the Court,

ChiefJustice 10/25/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0640
##### 



Exhibit 32.3
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Core CDN Fund, a series of the
Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Trust.
 /s/ John MarshallJohn MarshallChief Executive Officer of Brookshire Raw
Materials Management, LLC, the Managing Owner
of Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Trust/s/ Stephen AdamsStephen AdamsChief Financial Officer of  Brookshire Raw
Materials Management, LLC, the Managing Owner
of Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Trust
**Exhibit 15.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No. 333-172020 and 333-140083 on Form S-8 of our reports dated October 12, 2012, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of NewOriental Education & Technology Group Inc., its subsidiaries, variable interest entity and its schools and subsidiaries (collectively, the “Group”), and the effectiveness of the Group’s internal control over financial reporting,appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. for the year ended May 31, 2012. 

/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. 

DeloitteTouche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. 

Beijing, the People’s Republic of China 

October 12, 2012
#### § 51.1577 Size range requirements.

In addition to the quality requirements specified for the above grades, potatoes shall also meet the requirements for minimum and maximum diameter or weight, and the tolerances as specified for the various grades in the table appearing in this section. Potatoes specified as meeting one of the grades may be of any size within its size range requirements, except that it is not permissible to specify a lot as “U.S. Grade A Medium to Large,” or “U.S. Grade B Medium to Large,” unless more than 15 percent, by weight, of the potatoes are larger than the maxiumum size required for U.S. Grade A Medium, or U.S. Grade B Medium, respectively. For example, a lot of round or intermediate-shaped potatoes to be specified as “U.S. Grade A Medium to Large” must have more than 15 percent, by weight, of potatoes from 3 to 4 inches in diameter.

| Grades | Size range requirements, round or intermediate shaped varieties | | Size range requirements, long varieties | | Tolerance for size | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Minimum diameter (*Inches*) | Maximum diameter (*Inches*) | Minimum diam. or wt. | Maximum weight (*Ounces*) | Under-size (*Percent*) | Over-size (*Percent*) |
| U.S. Grades A & B small | 11/2 | 21/4 | 11/2 inches | 4 | 3 | 15 |
| U.S. Grades A & B medium | 21/4 | 3 | 4 ounces | 10 | 5 | 15 |
| U.S. Grades A & B medium to large | 21/4 | 4 | 4 ounces | 16 | 5 | 15 |
| U.S. Grades A & B large | 3 | 4 | 10 ounces | 16 | 5 | 15 |
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  quarterly  report  of  Royal  Oil & Gas,  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  DECEMBER 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date, the undersigned,  being the
Chief  Executive  Officer,  Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. the report  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2. the information  contained in the report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Date:    April 15, 1008                     Signed: /s/ Delbert G. Blewett
         --------------                             ----------------------
                                                    Delbert G. Blewett,
                                                    President, CEO,
                                                    Chief Financial Officer.
#### Milan Powell, Appellant, v. Trans-Auto Systems, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated June 12, 1968, affirmed, without costs. This third motion by plaintiff for summary judgment was properly denied. The practice of making successive motions for summary judgment, each based upon new factual assertions and proofs which were available to the movant from the outset, is to be discouraged (cf. *Levitz*v. *Robbins Music Corp.,*17 A D 2d 801). In any event, there are present issues of fact as to plaintiff’s contributory negligence. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
#### Harry Klein, Respondent, v City of Yonkers, Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for the negligent issuance of a certificate of occupancy, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 16, 1979, which denied its motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], pars 5, 7), to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations and the complaint fails to state a cause of action. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the destruction of his apartment building by fire in 1973. The complaint avers, in two causes of action, that plaintiff purchased the building in 1969 in reliance on a certificate of occupancy issued in 1964, after the defendant City of Yonkers negligently and "fraudulently” failed to discover "defective and improper fire stops” on the premises. A notice of claim was filed on April 11, 1973. Thereafter, an action was commenced by service of a summons on March 13, 1974 and, following service of a complaint, issue was joined on July 2, 1974. The action is time barred under the General Municipal Law. This statute requires that an action must be commenced within one year and 90 days, not from the accrual of the cause of action, but rather from "the happening of the event upon which the claim is based” (General Municipal Law, § 50-i, subd 1, par [c]). The "event” in this case must be deemed to be the issuance of the certificate of occupancy in July, 1964, not the destruction of the building by fire in 1973 (see *Doyle v 800 Inc.,*72 AD2d 761). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Mangano and O’Connor, JJ,, concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Donald Boucher, Respondent, v Real Boucher et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

— Appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 22, 1978 and February 28, 1979, which reversed a referee’s decision and held that the claimant’s average weekly wage should be fixed pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 14 of the Workers’ Compensation Law and that the 260 multiple was applicable. The board found: "based on the evidence in the record and the testimony of the claimant that claimant was not a seasonal worker; that he was ready, willing and able to work when work was available. It is further found that neither Subdivision 1 nor Subdivision 2 of Section 14 applies since the claimant did not work substantially the whole of the year, nor is there a similar worker who worked substantially the whole of the year. Therefore neither of the methods *747provided for in Subdivision 1 or 2 of section 14 can fairly and reasonably be applied and pursuant to Subdivision 3, section 14, find that the 260 multiple is applicable producing an average weekly wage of $223.33.” There is substantial evidence to sustain the determination of the board as amended *(Matter of Palmer*v *Kaye Candies,*42 AD2d 661). Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Sweeney, J. P., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
32.101 Authority.

The basic authority for the contract financing described in this part is contained in 41 U.S.C. chapter

45, Contract Financing, 10 U.S.C. chapter 277, and TitleIII of the Defense Production Act of l950 (50

U.S.C. App.2091).

Parent topic: Subpart 32.1 - Financing for Other Than a Commercial Purchase
42.801 Notice of intent to disallow costs.

(a) At any time during the performance of a contract of a type referred to in 42.802, the cognizant

contracting officer responsible for administering the contract may issue the contractor a written

notice of intent to disallow specified costs incurred or planned for incurrence. However, before

issuing the notice, the contracting officer responsible for administering the contract shall make

every reasonable effort to reach a satisfactory settlement through discussions with the contractor.

(b) A notice of intent to disallow such costs usually results from monitoring contractor costs. The

purpose of the notice is to notify the contractor as early as practicable during contract performance

that the cost is considered unallowable under the contract terms and to provide for timely resolution

of any resulting disagreement. In the event of disagreement, the contractor may submit to the

contracting officer a written response. Any such response shall be answered by withdrawal of the

notice or by making a written decision within 60 days.

(c) As a minimum, the notice shall-

(1) Refer to the contract’s Notice of Intent to Disallow Costs clause;

(2) State the contractor’s name and list the numbers of the affected contracts;

(3) Describe the costs to be disallowed, including estimated dollar value by item and applicable time

periods, and state the reasons for the intended disallowance;

(4) Describe the potential impact on billing rates and forward pricing rate agreements;

(5) State the notice’s effective date and the date by which written response must be received;

(6) List the recipients of copies of the notice; and

(7) Request the contractor to acknowledge receipt of the notice.

(d) The contracting officer issuing the notice shall furnish copies to all contracting officers cognizant

of any segment of the contractor’s organization.

(e) If the notice involves elements of indirect cost, it shall not be issued without coordination with

the contracting officer or auditor having authority for final indirect cost settlement (see 42.705).

(f) In the event the contractor submits a response that disagrees with the notice (see paragraph (b)

of this section), the contracting officer who issued the notice shall either withdraw the notice or

issue the written decision, except when elements of indirect cost are involved, in which case the

contracting officer responsible under 42.705 for determining final indirect cost rates shall issue the

decision.

Parent topic: Subpart 42.8 - Disallowance of Costs
#### § 51.623 U.S. No. 1 Bronze.

The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1 except that all fruit must show some discoloration and at least 10 percent, by count, of the fruit shall have more than one-half of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by discoloration. The predominating discoloration on each of these fruits shall be of rust mite type. For tolerances see § 51.628.

[85 FR 68423, Oct. 29, 2020]
#### Anne Wilkie et al., Respondents, v Town of Huntington et al., Appellants.

[816 NYS2d 148]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated July 20, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff Anne Wilkie tripped and fell in a pothole on a roadway in the Town of Huntington. Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it cannot be liable for injuries caused by an improperly maintained roadway unless either it has received prior written notice of the defect or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies *(see Amabile v City of Buffalo,*93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; *Lopez v G&J Rudolph Inc.,*20 AD3d 511, 512 [2005]; *Ganzenmuller v Incorporated Vil. of Port Jefferson,*18 AD3d 703, 704 [2005]). Actual or constructive notice of a defect does not satisfy this requirement *(see Amabile v City of Buffalo, supra*at 475-476; *Silva v City of New York,*17 AD3d 566, 567 [2005]).

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that they had no prior written notice of the roadway defect that allegedly caused the injured plaintiffs fall *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; *Lopez v G&J Rudolph, Inc., supra; Gold v County of Westchester,*15 AD3d 439, 440 [2005]). Although an exception to the prior written notice requirement exists when a municipality creates the subject defect through an affirmative of negligence *(see Amabile v. City of Buffalo, supra*at 474; *Lopez v G&J Rudolph, Inc., supra*at 512), the plaintiffs’ evidentiary submissions were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the roadway defect was created by the defendants’ affirmative negligence *(see Gold v County of Westchester, supra*at 440; *Corey v Town of Huntington,*9 AD3d 345, 346 [2004]). Moreover, the defendants’ “time and material reports” did not constitute prior written notice of the defective condition, as Town of Huntington Code § 174-3 does not provide for the “written acknowledgment” of a defect by the defendants’ internally generated documents *(see Dalton v City of Saratoga Springs, 12*AD3d 899, 901 n 2 [2004]; *cf. Bruni v City of New York,*2 NY3d 319, 324-325 [2004]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the *899complaint *(see Regan v City of New York,*8 AD3d 462, 463 [2004]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cr70-TKW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20cr70-TKW

BARRY D. HARRELSON

_____________________________/

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, Count Two, Count Three, 

Count Four, Count Five, and Count Six 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 offenses

charged are supported by independent bases 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 11th day of January 2021.

/s/ Charles J. Kahn, Jr. 

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00070-TKW Document 52 Filed 01/11/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cr70-TKW

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-00070-TKW Document 52 Filed 01/11/21 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT35.1ANNUALSTATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEI, Jeffrey Volk, a Managing Director of Citibank, N.A. (the “Company”), hereby certify, withrespect to the Standard Indenture Terms, dated as of February 16, 2006, which are incorporated byreference into the Indenture entered into by each Principal Life Income Fundings Trust and theCompany, as paying agent, calculation agent, indenture trustee and registrar (the “Agreement”), thefollowing:1. A review of the Company’s activities as paying agent, calculation agent,indenture trustee and registrar as of and for the period ending December 31, 2006 and itsperformance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and other than as identifiedon Schedule A hereto, as of and for the period endingDecember 31, 2006, the Companyhas fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe reporting period.This statement is given by the undersigned as an authorized officer of the Corrpany and not in theundersigned’s individual capacity.Date: February 28, 2007      Citibank, N.A.
SCPW-21-0000336
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

M ARK D. CAIRES, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE PETER T. CAHILL, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit,

State of Hawai # i, Respondent Judge,

and
STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CR. NOS. 2PC131000955 and 2PC141000040;

CASE NO. 2CPN-20-000014)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C
. J . , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , W i l s o n , a n d E d d i n s , J J . )

Upon consideration of petitioner Mark D. Caires’s motion for reconsideration, which was submitted for filing on July 12, 2021, and the record, the motion for reconsideration is untimely. See HRAP Rule 40(a) (“A motion for reconsideration may be filed by a party only within 10 days after the filing of the opinion, dispositional order, or ruling unless by special leave additional time is granted during such period by a judge or justice of the appellate court involved.”). Even considering the merits of the motion, the requested relief is not warranted and this court did not overlook or misapprehend any points of law or Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-21-0000336 22-JUL-2021 08:10 AM Dkt. 14 ODMRfact in denying the petition for writ of mandamus. See HRAP Rule

40(b) (a motion for reconsideration “shall state with particularity the points of law or fact that the moving party contends the court has overlooked or misapprehended[.]”). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, July 22, 2021. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:96-cr-00021-MP

LORENZO ATKINS,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 67, Defendant's motion to continue his revocation

hearing. A telephone hearing was held on this matter on Thursday, December 8, 2005. 

Defendant is currently under indictment in another pending case, and a psychiatric evaluation

has been ordered. The Government does not object to this motion. Therefore, Defendant's

motion to continue is granted. Defendant's revocation hearing is hereby rescheduled for Friday,

February 17, 2006, at 9:30 a.m.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of December, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:96-cr-00021-MP Document 70 Filed 12/09/05 Page 1 of 1
# 19.1308 [Reserved].

**Parent topic:**Subpart 19.13 - Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program