alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 57

#### Editorial Note:

1. At 63 FR 69969, Dec. 17, 1998, part 57 was added by duplicating portions of part 59. At 63 FR 72353, Dec. 31, 1998, part 59 was redesignated as part 590 of 9 CFR.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 57 appear at 63 FR 69971, Dec. 17, 1998.

#### § 57.960 Small importations for consignee's personal use, display, or laboratory analysis.

Any eggs that are offered for importation, exclusively for the consignee's personal use, display, or laboratory analysis, and not for sale or distribution; which is sound, healthful, wholesome, and fit for human food; and which is not adulterated and does not contain any substance not permitted by the Act or regulations, may be admitted into the United States without a foreign inspection certificate. Such product is not required to be inspected upon arrival in the United States and may be shipped to the consignee without further restriction under this part: *Provided,* That the Department may, with respect to any specific importation, require that the consignee certify that such product is exclusively for the consignee's personal use, display, or laboratory analysis and not for sale or distribution. The amount of such product imported shall not exceed 30-dozen shell eggs, unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator.

[63 FR 69968, 69971, Dec. 17, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 57168, Sept. 24, 2004]
52.211-6 Brand Name or Equal.

As prescribed in 11.107(a), insert the following provision:

Brand Name or Equal (Aug 1999)

(a) If an item in this solicitation is identified as "brand name or equal," the purchase description

reflects the characteristics and level of quality that will satisfy the Government’s needs. The salient

physical, functional, or performance characteristics that "equal" products must meet are specified in

the solicitation.

(b) To be considered for award, offers of "equal" products, including "equal" products of the brand

name manufacturer, must-

(1) Meet the salient physical, functional, or performance characteristic specified in this solicitation;

(2) Clearly identify the item by-

(i) Brand name, if any; and

(ii) Make or model number;

(3) Include descriptive literature such as illustrations, drawings, or a clear reference to previously

furnished descriptive data or information available to the Contracting Officer; and

(4) Clearly describe any modifications the offeror plans to make in a product to make it conform to

the solicitation requirements. Mark any descriptive material to clearly show the modifications.

(c) The Contracting Officer will evaluate "equal" products on the basis of information furnished by

the offeror or identified in the offer and reasonably available to the Contracting Officer. The

Contracting Officer is not responsible for locating or obtaining any information not identified in the

offer.

(d) Unless the offeror clearly indicates in its offer that the product being offered is an "equal"

product, the offeror shall provide the brand name product referenced in the solicitation.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.211 [Reserved]
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 Annual Report of Bond Laboratories, Inc.., (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott
      Landow, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.





BOND
      LABORATORIES, INC.




By /s/
      Scott
      Landow





Scott
      Landow


Chief
      Financial officer


April
      2,
      2007
```

                     REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE

First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L,P. (an indirect subsidiary of
The First American Corporation, and the "Asserting Party") is responsible for
assessing compliance as of December 31, 2006, and for the period from January
1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing
criteria set forth in Title 17, Sections 229.1122(d)(1)(iv), (d)(2)(v),
(d)(2)(vi), (d)(2)(vii), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii) and (d)(4)(xiii) of the Code
of Federal Regulations (the "CFR") applicable to the Asserting Party (the
"Applicable Servicing Criteria"). The transactions covered by this report
include all loans for residential mortgage loan outsourcing customers for
which the Asserting Party served as the residential tax service provider (the
"Platform").

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that, except as set forth
hereinbelow, the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with
the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2006, and for the
Reporting Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

The Asserting Party assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has identified a material instance of
noncompliance with the servicing criterion set forth in Section
229.1122(d)(2)(vii)(B) of the CFR with respect to the Platform. Specifically,
the Asserting Party did not prepare reconciliations for all asset-backed
securities related bank accounts within 30 calendar days after the bank
statement cut-off date or such number of days specified in the transaction
agreements.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm,
has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2006, and for the Reporting
Period as set forth in this assertion.

FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS OF TEXAS, L.P.
By: First American Real Estate Solutions LLC
    General Partner

/s/ Lucy A. Przybyla
--------------------------
Lucy A. Przybyla
Senior Vice President
February 28, 2007
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Ray HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-41128

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 4, 2007.

Robert L. Rawls, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Douglas Milton Barlow, Barlow Law Firm, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, M. SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Ray Harrison appeals his conviction and sentence for being a felon in *862possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his drug use before his interrogation rendered his waiver of rights involuntary. He has not established that the district court clearly erred in determining that his waiver was knowing and intelligent. *United States v. Reynolds*367 F.3d 294, 298-99 (5th Cir.2004); *United States v. Andrews,*22 F.3d 1328, 1340 (5th Cir.1994).

Harrison contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because there was no evidence corroborating his confession. There was “‘substantial independent evidence that the offense has been committed,’ ” which was sufficient to establish his guilt. *United States v. Ybarra,*70 F.3d 362, 365 (5th Cir.1995)(quoting *United States v. Garth,*773 F.2d 1469, 1479 (5th Cir.1985)).

Harrison also challenges his 327-month sentence. He asserts that the district court wrongly found enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines that were not admitted by him or found by a jury, which violates the Constitution. By rendering the Guidelines advisory only, *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), eliminated Sixth Amendment concerns prohibiting a sentencing judge from finding all facts relevant to sentencing. *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005). Additionally, any challenge to the sentencing enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 would have no effect on his sentence, as the probation officer reached the same offense level under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4 by finding that Harrison was a career offender, and Harrison does not challenge this ruling on appeal. Harrison has failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness in his imposed sentence, which was within a properly-calculated guideline range. *See Rita v. United States,*— U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *862published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### In the Matter of Jerrold Schwartz, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

Submitted September 4, 2007;

decided September 18, 2007

Reported below, 40 AD3d 218.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
exh106.htm


    Exhibit
10.6

    


    


    Equipment
Purchase Agreement

    


    Between

    


    United
Mine Services, Inc. (UMS) and Coeur d'Alene Contract Mining LLC
(CCM)

    


    Effective
Date of Agreement: September 30, 2008

    


    UMS
agrees to buy the equipment and consumables on the attached list. All items are
sold "as is, where is."

    


    Purchase
price is as follows:

    


    
      	
              1)

            	
              $200,000
      cash to be paid on or before December 31,
2008.

            


    

    
      	
              2)

            	
              UMS
      agrees to make the remaining payments on the two Dodge Ram
      pickups.

            


    

    
      	
              3)

            	
              UMS
      agrees to compensate CCM for any capital gains tax CCM incurs as a result
      of this sale.

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	 	
              The
      tax shall be calculated by an accountant designated by CCM and may be
      reviewed by an  accountant so designated by
  UMS.

            


    

    


    


    


    


    


    


    


    Signed:

    


    
      	
              United
      Mine Services, Inc.

            
	 
      
	
              GREG
      STEWART

            	
              Date:

            	
              9/30/2008

            
	
              Greg
      Stewart, President

            	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              Coeur
      d’Alene Contract Mining LLC

            	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              JEFF
      LAMBERT

            	
              Date:

            	
              9/30/2008

            
	
              Jeff
      Lambert, Owner

            	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              STEVE
      IVIE

            	
              Date:

            	
              9/30/2008

            
	
              Steve
      Ivie, Owner

            	 
      	 
      


    

    


    


    



    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    


    Equipment
List

    


    


    3 - 12B
track inuckers

    5 -
machines (jacklegs)

    5 -
Legs

    2 - air
slushers

    2 -
slusher buckets

    4 - ore
cars

    1 - air
jack hammer

    2 -
complete prell pots

    1 - prell
loader

    Jackleg
steel all sizes

    Split set
drivers,

    Mechanical
dolly's

    Bits (50
to 100)

    Banders

    Banding
supplies

    Long hole
steel

    Parts for
83's (machines)

    Parts for
12b muckers

    Hoses

    Connections
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2505 

To suspend temporarily the duty on aerosol valves designed to deliver a 

metered dose (50 microliters) of a pressurized liquid pharmaceutical. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 4, 2006 

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. DEWINE, and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on aerosol valves designed 

to deliver a metered dose (50 microliters) of a pressurized liquid pharmaceutical. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN AEROSOL VALVES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•S 2505 IS

‘‘ 9902.84.82 Aerosol valves designed to 

deliver a metered dose (50 

microliters) of a pressurized 

liquid pharmaceutical with a 

mounting cup inside diameter of 20.1 mm, a mounting 

cup height (skirt to shoulder) of 7.49 mm, stem outside diameter of 2.79 mm, 

with components made of 

stainless steel and buna rubber with a retaining cup of 

aluminum (provided for in 

subheading 8481.80.30) ...... Free No Change No Change 12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the date that is 

4 15 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6558
WILLIAM WAYNE ROARK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN SMITH, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge. (CA-02-4111-4-22) Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: August 11, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Wayne Roark, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William Wayne Roark, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm because, as noted by the distri ct court, Roark failed to demonstrate that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) is an inadequate or ineffective remedy. SeeIn re Vial , 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                           3,395
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,135
<ALLOWANCES>                                        33
<INVENTORY>                                     63,002
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,942
<PP&E>                                         200,189
<DEPRECIATION>                                 105,215
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 198,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,307
<BONDS>                                         17,754
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,507
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,114
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   198,759
<SALES>                                        182,004
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               182,069
<CGS>                                          169,637
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  169,637
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 362
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,209
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,995
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,214
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,214
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# 16.602 Labor-hour contracts.

*Description.* A labor-hour contract is a variation of the time-and-*materials* contract, differing only in that *materials* are not supplied by the contractor. See 12.207(b),16.601(c), and 16.601(d) for application and limitations, for time-and-*materials* contracts that also apply to labor-hour contracts. See 12.207(b) for the use of labor-hour contracts for certain *commercial services*.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 16.6 - Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts
Sanitized

ECOSAR Version 1.11 Results Page

SMILES : [ ]



### CHEM : [ ]

CAS Num: [ ]

ChemID1:

MOL FOR: [ ]

MOL WT : [ ]

Log Kow: 2.978 (EPISuite Kowwin v1.68 Estimate)

Log Kow: (User Entered)

Log Kow: (PhysProp DB exp value

- for comparison only)

Melt Pt: (User Entered for Wat Sol estimate)

Melt Pt: (deg C, PhysProp DB exp value for Wat Sol estimate)

Wat Sol: 27.47 (mg/L, EPISuite WSKowwin v1.43 Estimate)

Wat Sol: (User Entered)

Wat Sol: (PhysProp DB exp value)

--------------------------------------

Values used to Generate ECOSAR Profile

--------------------------------------

Log Ko w: 2.978 (EPISuite Kowwin v1.68 Estimate)

Wat Sol: 27.47 (mg/L, EPISuite WSKowwin v1.43 Estimate)

------------------------------------------------

Available Measured Data from ECOSAR Training Set

------------------------------------------------

No Data Available

--------------------------------------

ECOSAR v1.1 Class

- specific Estimations

--------------------------------------

Neutral Organics

Predicted

ECOSAR Class Organism Duration End Pt mg/L (ppm)

================= ============= ============= =========== ==========

Neutral Organics : Fish 96

- hr LC50 19.930

Neutral Organics : Daphni d 48

- hr LC50 12.386

Neutral Organics : Green Algae 96

- hr EC50 13.404

Neutral Organics : Fish ChV 2.167

Neutral Organics : Daphnid ChV 1.553

Neutral Organics : Green Algae ChV 4.292

Neutral Organics : Fish (SW) 96

- hr LC50 25.238Neutral Organics : Mysid 96

- hr LC50 9.669

Neutra l Organics : Fish (SW) ChV 4.978

Neutral Organics : Mysid (SW) ChV 0.625

Neutral Organics : Earthworm 14

- day LC50 252.459 *

Note: * = asterisk desig nates: Chemical may not be soluble enough to measure this predicted effect. If

the effect level exceeds the water solubility by 10X, typically no effects at saturation (NES) are reported.

------------------------------

Class Specific LogKow Cut

- Offs

----- -------------------------

If the log Kow of the chemical is greater than the endpoint specific cut

- offs

presented below, then no effects at saturation are expected for those endpoints.

Neutral Organics:

----------------

Maximum LogKow: 5.0 (Fish 96

- hr LC 50; Daphnid LC50, Mysid LC50)

Maximum LogKow: 6.0 (Earthworm LC50)

Maximum LogKow: 6.4 (Green Algae EC50)

Maximum LogKow: 8.0 (ChV)
156 So.2d 606

#### TEXAS GULF PRODUCING COMPANY v. GULF COAST DRILLING & EXPLORATION, INC.

No. 46901.

Oct. 10, 1963.

In re: Texas Gulf Producing Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 154 So.2d 559.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error-of law in its judgment.
#### Wesley Dempster *et al. v.*The People *ex rel.*Raymond, County Treasurer.

*Opinion filed December 18, 1899.*

The questions here raised have been determined adversely to appellants in the former cases of *West Chicago Park Comrs.*v. *Sweet,*167 Ill. 326, and *Sweet*v. *West Chicago Park Comrs.*177 id. 492..

Appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Orrin N. Carter, Judge, presiding.

George W. Wilbur, for appellants.

Francis A. Riddle, H. S. Mecartney, and Enoch J. Price, for appellee.

Per Curiam:

The West Chicago Park Commissioners levied a special assessment upon the lands of appellants to pay for an improvement of West Twelfth street and Ogden avenue boulevard. The circuit court of Cook county confirmed the assessment and appellants brought the case to this court by appeal. The judgment was reversed and the cause remanded, and the case is reported as *Thorn*v. *West Chicago Park Comrs.*130 Ill. 594. The case was re-docketed in the circuit court and the petition dismissed. In the meantime the improvement had been *322completed and the park commissioners commenced a new proceeding in the county court of Cook county, under the statute, for the purpose of obtaining its cost by special assessment. Appellants appeared and objected, and the court sustained their objections and dismissed the proceeding. An" appeal was prosecuted from that judgment, and we held that! the court erred in sustaining the objections and reversed the judgment. The cause was remanded, with directions to proceed to a trial of the question of benefits. *(West Chicago Park Comrs.*v. *Sweet,*167 Ill. 326.) Such a trial was had as directed, and a judgment was entered upon the verdict of a jury confirming the assessment. Appellants again brought the case to this court and raised the same objections as before, but we said that the decision when the case was before us at a former term conclusively settled all objections relating to the power of the park commissioners to institute the proceeding or the regularity and sufficiency of the proceeding. We held that the objections urged could not be considered and that the former judgment was *res judicata.*The judgment of the county court was affirmed. *(Sweet*v. *West Chicago Park Comrs.*177 Ill. 492.) The property of appellants was returned as 'delinquent by reason of the non-payment of said special assessments, and application was made for judgment and order of sale. Appellants filed objections, which were overruled and judgment was entered, and they-again bring the proceeding to this court by the appeal in this case.

Every question raised has been adjudged against the appellants on former appeals. There is no objection which g'oes to the jurisdiction of the court which rendered the judgment of confirmation or to the proceedings in the county court for the judgment and order of sale. The only questions raised have been foreclosed by former decisions, and the judgment of the county court is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### John Bizzaro et al., Plaintiffs, v Nicholas J. Meleo et al., Defendants, Fisher Controls Co., Inc., Respondent, and Dollinger Corporation, Appellant. (And 16 Other Actions.)

(Appeal No. 13.)

— Judgment unanimously reversed and motion denied. (See *Meleo v Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp.,*72 AD2d 83.) (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court— Dismiss complaints and cross claims.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp and Doerr, JJ.