alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4274.311 Eligibility requirements—ultimate recipients. To be eligible for a loan from an intermediary under this subpart, an ultimate recipient must meet or comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section. ( a ) *Type of entity.* The ultimate recipient must be a legal entity that can incur debt, including but not limited to, an individual; a public organization; a private organization; or other legal entity.
( b ) *Legal authority.* The ultimate recipient must have the legal authority to incur the debt and carry out the purpose of the loan.
( c ) *Citizens.* An individual ultimate recipient must be a citizen. In the case of an entity ultimate recipient, at least 51 percent of the outstanding membership or ownership of the entity must be citizens.
( d ) *Location.* The ultimate recipient project must be located in an eligible rural area, although funds may also be used for community projects that predominantly serve rural residents of a State. Predominantly serves means more than 50 percent of the ultimate recipient's service is to rural residents of a State.
( e ) *Other financing unavailable.* The ultimate recipient must be unable to finance the entirety of the proposed project from its own resources, or through commercial credit or from other Federal, State, or local programs at reasonable rates and terms.
( f ) *Legal or financial influence.* ( 1 ) The intermediary and its principals (including immediate families) must hold no legal or financial interest or influence in or with the ultimate recipient as this is considered a conflict of interest, as defined. However, this paragraph does not prevent an intermediary that is organized as a cooperative from making a loan to one of its members per § 4274.321(b)(4) of this subpart.
( 2 ) The ultimate recipient must, along with its principals (including their immediate families), hold no legal or financial interest or influence in or with the intermediary as per § 4274.321(b)(4) as this is considered a conflict of interest, as defined.
( g ) *Delinquent debt.* An ultimate recipient is ineligible to receive a loan from IRP loan funds if the ultimate recipient or any of its principals has any federal delinquent debt or is debarred from engaging in business with the Federal government. IRP loan funds may not be used to satisfy any Federal delinquent debt or used to make an otherwise ineligible ultimate recipient eligible for IRP loan funds.
( h ) *Fund usage.* Ultimate recipients must demonstrate, to the Agency's satisfaction, that loan funds will remain in the United States and the facility being financed will primarily create new or save existing jobs for rural U.S. residents.
Exhibit 1

DECLARATION OF RONALD RUBIN

Kimberly Grippa v. Ronald Rubin

Case No. 4:20cv457-MW/MAF

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 109-1 Filed 02/14/22 Page 1 of 3
Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 109-1 Filed 02/14/22 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 109-1 Filed 02/14/22 Page 3 of 3
# 36.504 Physical data.

The *contracting officer**shall* insert the clause at 52.236-4, Physical Data, in *solicitations* and contracts when a fixed-price *construction* contract is contemplated and physical data (*e.g.,* test borings, hydrographic data, weather conditions data) will be furnished or made available to *offerors*.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 36.5 - Contract Clauses
(May 13, 1969)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Epps, Petitioner.

The mandate of commitment (designated “mandate of order”) rendered in the Court of General Sessions on May 22, 1962 adjudging Robert

Epps (defendant-petitioner) guilty of criminal contempt, is modified, on the law, to provide- that he shall be adjudicated guilty of a single contempt in the refusal as a witness to answer questions concerning his education, of a single contempt in his refusal to answer questions concerning his employment, and of a single contempt in his refusal to answer all further questions, with a sentence of 30 days, to run consecutively, as to each of said three contempts; and the mandate otherwise confirmed, without costs and disbursements. Although we note that this alleged proceeding, as an article 78 proceeding, was not properly instituted and that there is a defect in proper parties respondent (see CFLR 304, 403, 506, subd. [b], par. 1; 7804, subd. [b]; Executive Law, § 63, subd. 1; *Matter of Social Serv. Employees Union*v. *Saypol,*23 A D 2d 55; *Warren*v. *Goldstein,*200 Misc. 194), the District Attorney and the defendant-petitioner have submitted to the jurisdiction of this court and argued the validity of the mandate of commitment on the merits. Thus, under the special circumstances here and in the interests of justice, we overlook the defects in the proceedings and dispose of the matter on the merits rather than remitting the parties to further proceedings. It is settled law that where separate questions put to a witness seek to establish but a single fact, or relate to but a single subject of inquiry, only one penalty for contempt may be incurred. (See *People*V. *Saperstein,*2 N Y 2d 210; *People*v. *Riela,*7 N Y 2d 571; *United States*v. *Orman,*207 F. 2d 148, citing cases.) Following this rule, the District Attorney argued that, at the very least, the respondent was guilty of the three separate contempts as noted above. The mandate of commitment should be modified as hereinbefore provided. Settle order on notice including notice to the Attorney-General. Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Markewich and Bastow, JJ.
#### § 51.777 Serious damage.

*Serious damage* means any specific defect described in § 51.784, Table I; or an equally objectionable variation of any one of these defects, any other defect, or any combination of defects, which seriously detracts from the appearance, or the edible or marketing quality of the fruit.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EQK REALTY INVESTORS I FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 
30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,005
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,908
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       135,875
<OTHER-SE>                                    (140,314)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,908
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,515
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,258
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,418)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,418)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,418)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3585

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa

Christopher Robin Schmidt, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 3, 2004

Filed: July 6, 2004 

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Robin Schmidt appeals from the final judgment entered in the

District Court1

 for the Northern District of Iowa upon revocation of his supervised

release. The district court sentenced Schmidt to 10 months imprisonment followed

by supervised release through the date imposed in the original judgment, and ordered

Schmidt’s placement at a community corrections center (CCC) for 6 months as a

condition of supervised release. For reversal Schmidt argues the district court did not
-2-

have the authority to order his placement in a CCC following his release from prison.

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We review the sentence for plain error because Schmidt raised no objection at

sentencing. See United States v. Morey, 120 F.3d 142, 143 (8th Cir. 1997) (per

curiam). We conclude that the district court properly exercised its discretion in

ordering Schmidt’s placement in a CCC as a condition of supervised release. See

United States v. Griner, 358 F.3d 979, 981-82 (8th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we

affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00661-CV

STATE FARM COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

Andrew Wayne BOCK,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI19802

Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, appellant’s motion to 

dismiss this appeal is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). 

Costs of appeal are taxed against appellant. See id. 42.1(d).

SIGNED March 25, 2020.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                      12,516,932
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         291,455
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             7,400,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 50,637,637
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       3,724,820
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         3,944,125
<LOANS>                                    102,000,061
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,018,728
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             181,774,545
<DEPOSITS>                                 158,663,317
<SHORT-TERM>                                 6,604,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,156,374
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,350,854
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              15,350,854
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,421,031
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,037,760
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               557,813
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             9,016,604
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,364,115
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,415,360
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,601,244
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                (400,000)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              6,282,307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,978,766
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,978,766
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,295,766
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .77
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     5.0
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,186,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   104,299
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              3,085,706
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,990,638
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  275,288
<RECOVERIES>                                   703,378
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,018,728
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,018,728
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Summary of Compensation Payable to Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.13 
 Summary of Compensation Payable to Named Executive Officers 
 Base Salary. The Compensation Committee
(the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Yahoo! Inc. (“Yahoo”) has previously approved the annual base salaries of Yahoo’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, and the other executive officers who
were named in the Summary Compensation Table of the Company’s Proxy Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2009 and who are currently employed by the Company (together, the “Named Executive
Officers”). The following table shows the current annual base salary for 2009 for each of the Named Executive Officers: 
  

				
	 Name and Principal Position
	  	Salary ($)	 
	 Carol Bartz
 Chief Executive Officer
	  	1,000,000	 
	 Jerry Yang
 Chief Yahoo
	  	1	 
	 Blake Jorgensen
 Chief Financial Officer
	  	500,000	(1)
	 Aristotle Balogh
 Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President of Products
	  	550,000	 
	 Michael J. Callahan
 Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
	  	420,000	 

  

	(1)	Mr. Jorgensen will be leaving the Company but is remaining through a transition period. 

 Bonus. In addition to receiving a base salary, Yahoo!’s Named Executive Officers are also generally eligible to receive an annual bonus. 
 Yahoo’s Named Executive Officer bonuses for 2009 will be determined under Yahoo’s Executive Incentive Plan. The Named Executive Officer’s respective
target bonus opportunities (expressed as a percentage of base salary) under the Executive Incentive Plan for 2009 are as follows: Ms. Bartz - 200%, Mr. Balogh - 100% and Mr. Callahan - 75%. Mr. Yang and Mr. Jorgensen will
not participate in the Executive Incentive Plan. The Committee also has the ability to award discretionary bonuses from time to time in circumstances the Committee determines to be appropriate. 
 Long-Term Incentives. The Named Executive Officers are also eligible to receive equity-based incentives and other awards from time to time at the
discretion of the Committee. Equity-based incentives granted by Yahoo! to the Named Executive Officers are reported on Form 4 filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
**ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES**

 

KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that Secured Investment Resources Fund, L.P. II**,**as (“Assignor”), for the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by Assignor, hereby assigns, transfers and sets over to Everest Bayberry, LP, a California limited partnership (“Assignee”), all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to all of those certain leases (“Leases”) with the tenants described on the rent roll attached hereto as Exhibit “A”and made a part hereof, all in connection with the real estate and improvements thereto described inExhibit “B” attached hereto and made a part hereof. Assignor has no knowledge of any Leases in connection with the real property and improvements thereto known as Bayberry Crossing, 523 S.E. Melody Lane, Lee’s Summit, Missouri, other than as set forth above.

 

Assignee hereby accepts the foregoing assignment and, by its acceptance, Assignee hereby assumes and covenants and agrees to keep and to perform all of the terms, conditions, covenants, agreements, and provisions of the Leases to be kept and performed by Assignor.

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**the undersigned have executed this Assignment as of the date and year written below.

 

Dated: August ___, 2006

 

*[SIGNATURES ARE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]*

 

----
9.100 Scope of subpart.       This subpart prescribes policies, standards, and procedures for determining whether prospective contractors and subcontractors are responsible.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 9.1 - Responsible Prospective Contractors
29.401-1 Indefinite-delivery contracts for leased equipment.       Insert the clause at 52.229-1, State and Local Taxes, in solicitations and contracts for leased equipment when-                                       (a) 						            A fixed-price indefinite-delivery contract is contemplated;                                          (b) 						            The contract will be performed wholly or partly in the United States or its outlying areas; and                                          (c) 						            The place or places of delivery are not known at the time of contracting.    **Parent topic:** 29.401 Domestic contracts.
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 on Form 10-Q of SkyTerra Communications,
Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alexander H. Good, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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 the Company.



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Alexander H. Good                                  
|Alexander H. Good Chief Executive Officer and
President

May 10, 2007
22.605 Rulings and interpretations of the

statute.

(a) As authorized by the Act, the Secretary of Labor has issued rulings and interpretations

concerning the administration of the statute (see 41 CFR50-206). The substance of certain rulings

and interpretations is as follows:

(1) If a contract for $15,000 or less is subsequently modified to exceed $15,000, the contract

becomes subject to the statute for work performed after the date of the modification.

(2) If a contract for more than $15,000 is subsequently modified by mutual agreement to $15,000 or

less, the contract is not subject to the statute for work performed after the date of the modification.

(3) If a contract awarded to a prime contractor contains a provision whereby the prime contractor is

made an agent of the Government, the prime contractor is required to include the stipulations of the

statute in contracts in excess of $15,000 awarded for and on behalf of the Government for supplies

that are to be used in the construction and equipment of Government facilities.

(4) If a contract subject to the statute is awarded to a contractor operating Government-owned

facilities, the stipulations of the statute affect the employees of that contractor the same as

employees of contractors operating privately owned facilities.

(5) Indefinite-delivery contracts, including basic ordering agreements and blanket purchase

agreements, are subject to the statute unless it can be determined in advance that the aggregate

amount of all orders estimated to be placed thereunder for 1 year after the effective date of the

agreement will not exceed $15,000. A determination shall be made annually thereafter if the

contract or agreement is extended, and the contract or agreement modified if necessary.

(b) [Reserved]

Parent topic: Subpart 22.6 - Contracts for Materials, Supplies, Articles, and Equipment
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DOUGLAS MARSHALL JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5882-LC-HTC

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORD ER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report

and Recommendation dated December 16, 2020 (ECF No. 12). 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). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that

it should be adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05882-LC-HTC Document 19 Filed 12/29/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF Doc. 12)

is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE as frivolous, malicious, and for failing to state a claim.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protection (ECF Doc. 8) and Emergency

Motion (ECF Doc. 10) are DENIED. 

4. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of December, 2020.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:20cv5882-LC-HTC

Case 3:20-cv-05882-LC-HTC Document 19 Filed 12/29/20 Page 2 of 2