alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
52.217-5 Evaluation of Options.       As prescribed in 17.208(c), insert a provision substantially the same as the following:          Evaluation of Options (July 1990)          Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).          (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.217 [Reserved]
52.222-12 Contract Termination-Debarment.       As prescribed in 22.407(a), insert the following clause:          Contract Termination-Debarment (May 2014)          A breach of the contract clauses entitled Construction Wage Rate Requirements, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards-Overtime Compensation, Apprentices and Trainees, Payrolls and Basic Records, Compliance with Copeland Act Requirements, Subcontracts (Labor Standards), Compliance with Construction Wage Rate Requirements and Related Regulations, or Certification of Eligibility may be grounds for termination of the contract, and for debarment as a Contractor and subcontractor as provided in 29 CFR 5.12.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.222 [Reserved]
Exhibit 23.1 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm We have issued our reports dated March 15, 2012, with respect to the financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, included in the Annual Report of Kohlberg Capital Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Kohlberg Capital Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-175838), effective July 28, 2011 and Form S-8 (File No. 333-151995), effective June 27, 2008. /s/ Grant Thornton LLP New York, New York March 15, 2012
Case 4:20-cr-00044-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 4:20-cr-00044-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 08/04/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:20-cr-00044-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 08/04/20 Page 3 of 3
46.307 Fixed-price research and development contracts.       (a) 						            The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.246-7, Inspection of Research and Development-Fixed-Price, in solicitations and contracts for research and development when-                                                         (1) 								                The primary objective of the contract is the delivery of end items other than designs, drawings, or reports,                                                            (2) 								                A fixed-price contract is contemplated, and                                                            (3) 								                The contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold; unless use of the clause is impractical and the clause prescribed in 46.309 is considered to be more appropriate.                                                                             (b) 						            The contracting officer may insert the clause in such solicitations and contracts when the contract amount is expected to be at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, and its use is in the Government’s interest.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 46.3 - Contract Clauses
#### § 51.315 Fairly well formed.

*“Fairly well formed”* means that the apple may be slightly abnormal in shape but not to an extent which detracts materially from its appearance.
1 Rule 10 of the Rules o f the Court of Appeals p rovides as follows: This Court, with the c oncurren ce of all judges participating in th e case, may af firm, reverse or m odify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. W hen a case is decid ed by memorandum opinion it sha ll be designa ted “ME MOR AND UM O PINIO N,” shall not be publis

hed, and sh

all not be cited or

relied on

for any reason in any unrel ated case. 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs S eptember 19, 2001 MARTA MONZON v. MIGU EL ANGEL MONZON Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County No. D57538 L. Marie Williams, Judge FILED OCTOBER 31, 2001 No. E2000-03155-COA-R3-CV

The appellant, Marta Monzon, filed her notice of appeal more than 30 days after the entry of the trial court’s final judgment. As a consequence of this late filing, we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed; Case Remanded C HARLES D. S USANO , JR ., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which H OUSTON M. G ODDARD , P.J., and D. M ICHAEL S WINEY , J., joined. Marta Monzon, Collegedale, Tennessee, Pro Se. No appearance by appellee. MEMORANDUM OP INION 1 This is a post-divorce proceeding. Following hearings on August 3, 2000, and October 16, 2000, the trial court entered an order on October 18, 2000. Ms. Monzon filed a notice of appeal on December 18, 2000. The notice of appealwas no t timely filed. Tenn. R. App. 4(a) clearly pr ovides that the “notice of appeal required by [Tenn. R. App. P.] 3 shall be filed with a nd received by the clerk of the trial court within 30 days after the date of entry of

the judgment appealed from.” In the instant-2-

case, the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the entry of the trial court’s judgment. We are w ith out aut hor ity t o extend the “time for filing a notice of appeal prescribed in [R]ule 4.” Tenn. R. App. P. 2. Furthermore, we cannot “enlarge the

time for filing” the notice of appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 21(b). “This Court lacks jurisdictionto hear and deci de a case if

the notice of appe

al is nottimely filed.” Beg ley Lumber Co. v. Trammell , 15 S.W.3d 455, 456 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999), perm. app. denied

March 6, 2000. This appeal is

dismissed at the costs of Marta Monzon. This case is remanded for enforcement

of the trial court’s judgmen t and for collect

ion of costs assess

ed below, all purs

uant to applicable law.

___________________________________ CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE
# 26.304 Solicitation provision.

Insert the provision at 52.226-2, *Historically Black College or University* and *Minority Institution* Representation, in *solicitations* exceeding the *micro-purchase threshold*, for research, studies, *supplies*, or services of the type normally acquired from higher educational institutions.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 26.3 - Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Stuyvesant Insurance Company, Appellant, Surety For Joseph Burgo, Principal.

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County,' dated October 11, 1965, denying appellant’s motion to vacate a judgment of bail forfeiture and. for related *859relief, affirmed. On September 13, 1964, appellant surety company furnished its undertaking to assure respondent of one Joseph Burgo’s appearance to answer a charge of violation of section 1308 of the Penal Law. On September 21, 1964, Burgo’s ease was called in the New York City Criminal Court, Kings County, but he did not appear and on October 1, 1964 the judgment of bail forfeiture was entered against him and appellant. On September 8, 1965 appellant learned that Burgo was in the Queens County House of Detention and notified the Criminal Court, whereupon a warrant was lodged against Burgo. In support of appellant’s motion, Burgo’s affidavit stated that (1) the reason for his failure to appear was that he was “mistakenly awaiting” a notice of a date on which to appear; and (2) he later learned that the charge against his codefendant had been dismissed in November, 1964 and, hence, he assumed that the charge laid against him had also been dismissed. On this appeal, appellant concedes that, relying upon its motion papers, the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court could have decided the sufficiency of Burgo’s excuse; and requests this court to reverse the order and to grant its motion. The People also request that the order be reversed, but state that the motion be restored to the calendar in order to give the parties the opportunity to contest the issue of whether the People suffered prejudice because of Burgo’s failure to appear. With the record in that posture, we affirm the order. Assuming *arguendo*that the People suffered no prejudice, and accepting Burgo’s explanation for his absence as truthful, appellant is not entitled to relief. Burgo was not produced for almost one year and the reasons offered for his absence do not fall among those grave exceptions which, under some circumstances, warrant remission *(People*v. *Fiannaca,*306 N. Y. 513, 516-517). Further, assuming that, notwithstanding the prolonged delay in the production of Burgo, his ignorance of the day appointed for his appearance could avail appellant, the meagre affidavits offered by appellant in support of that ignorance do not contain the detailed allegations required to prove an excuse “too easily fabricated” *(People*v. *Peerless Ins. Co.,*21 A D 2d 609, 616). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopldns, JJ., concur.
§ 3565.5 Ranking and selection criteria. ( a ) *Threshold criteria.* Applications for loan guarantee submitted by lenders must include a loan request for a project that meets all of the following threshold criteria: ( 1 ) The project must involve an owner and a development team with qualifications and experience sufficient to carry out development, management, and ownership responsibilities, and the owner and development team must not be under investigation or suspension from any government programs;
( 2 ) The project must involve the financing of a property located in an eligible rural area;
( 3 ) Demonstrate a readiness, for the project to proceed, including submission of a complete application for a loan guarantee and evidence of financing;
( 4 ) Demonstrate market and financial feasibility; and
( 5 ) Include evidence that the credit risk is reasonable, taking into account conventional lending practices, and factors related to concentration of risk in a given market and with a given borrower.
( b ) *Priority projects.* Priority will be given to projects in rural areas in which borrowers can best utilize and where loan guarantees are needed the most, as determined by the Agency based on information the Secretary considers appropriate. In addition, the Agency may, at its sole discretion, set aside assistance for or rank projects that meet important program goals. Assistance will include both loan guarantees and interest credits. Priority projects must compete for set-aside funds. The Agency will announce the priority criteria in an announcement in the Federal Register.
[63 FR 39458, July 22, 1998, as amended at 64 FR 32371, June 16, 1999; 84 FR 55036, Oct. 15, 2019; 89 FR 19499, Mar. 19, 2024]
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certificate Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
of the Principal Executive Officer
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Transforma Acquisition Group Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal
control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing equivalent
functions):
    /s/ Larry J. LenhartName:
    
    Larry J. LenhartTitle:
    
    Principal Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2647 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2647

 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic fiber tow imported 
                     in the form of 6 sub-bundles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 2006

 Mr. Thomas (for himself and Mr. Enzi) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic fiber tow imported 
                     in the form of 6 sub-bundles.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ACRYLIC FIBER TOW IMPORTED IN THE FORM OF 6 SUB-
              BUNDLES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.11.12       Acrylic fiber tow  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (polyacrylonitril                                                  31/2009
                         e tow) containing
                         by weight a
                         minimum of 92
                         percent
                         acrylonitrile,
                         not more than 0.1
                         percent zinc and
                         from 2 to 8
                         percent water,
                         imported in the
                         form of 6 sub-
                         bundles crimped
                         together, each
                         containing 45,000
                         filaments (plus
                         or minus 0.06
                         percent) and with
                         average filament
                         denier of either
                         1.48 decitex
                         (plus or minus
                         0.08 percent) or
                         1.32 decitex
                         (plus or minus
                         0.09 percent)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         5501.30.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
§ 51.1996 Application of standards. ( a ) The grade of a lot of filberts shall be determined on the basis of a composite sample drawn from containers in various locations in the lot. However, any container or group of cantainers in which the filberts are obviously of a quality, type or size materially different from that in the majority of containers shall be considered a separate lot, and shall be sampled separately.
( b ) In grading the sample, each filbert shall be examined for defects of the shell before being cracked for kernel examination. A filbert shall be classed as only one defective nut even though it may be defective externally and internally.
#### In the Matter of William B. Cusick, Appellant, v Diane E. Abrams, Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 232]

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Marks, J.), dated March 25, 2005, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Dwyer, S.M.), dated January 5, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a new hearing and determination of the proper amount of child support which the father should pay, in accordance herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that pending the effective date of the new determination, the father shall pay child support in the amount of $400 per week.

Under the circumstances of this case, a new hearing is warranted to determine whether the father made a good-faith effort to return to the income level he enjoyed immediately before the loss of his employment with Arrow Electronics, Inc., in the year 2003, and for a determination of the proper amount of child support the father should pay for the period commencing September 21, 2004, the date of the filing of the instant petition, to the present. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 7 -00 584 -CR

Tr e sa De nise Byr d , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-06 -30 2760 , HO NORAB LE MI CHAEL LY NCH , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Tresa By rd see ks to appea l an order revoking community supervision. The c ourt has c e rt if ie d th a t th is i s a

ple a -b arg a in c a se and

B y rd ha s n o r ig ht o f a

pp e a l. I f a de fenda

nt plea bar g ains for community supervision, rule 25.2(a)(2) restric ts the rig ht of appe al from the conviction, but it does not r estrict the de fenda nt’s rig ht of appe al following a s u b s e qu e n tr e v o c a t i o no f

s u p e r v i s i o n . T e x. R . Ap p . P . 2 5 . 2 ( a )( 2) ; Feagin v . S tate , 967 S.W .2d 417, 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). This is true e ven if the de fenda nt pleaded “ true” to the alleg ations in the motion to revoke, bec ause r ule 25.2(a )(2) ref

ers only to plea barg ains with reg ard to plea s of g uilty and no conte st. De ar

s v . S tate , 1 54 S.W. 3d

61 0, 61 3 ( Tex . Cr im . App. 20 05 ); se e als o Gut ier rez v . S

tate , 1 0 8 S . W . 3 d

3 0 4 - 3 0 9 - 1 0 ( T e x. C r i m . Ap p . 2 0 0 3 ) ( h o l d i n g th a tp l e a b ar g a in rec ommendation is not binding on trial court at revoc ation hear ing) . We cannot dete rmine fr om the do c ume nts fo rw ard e d to the Court wi th t he no tic e of

a pp e a l w he the r t

he ple a ba rg a in r e fe rr e d to in2

the tr ia l c ourt ’s c e rt if

ic a tio n w a s at th e or ig ina l tr ia l or at th e re vo c a tio n h e ari ng , but in eit he r e ve nt, it does not restrict B y

rd’s rig ht of appe al from the r evocation order. The a ppeal is abated. The t ri al co urt is instructed to prepa re a nd file an a

mended cer tification. De ar

s , 154 S.W .3d at 614. Unless B y rd wa ived her

rig ht of appe al, this certific ation s h o u l d s t a t e th a tth i s i s n o ta

p l e a - b ar g a i nc a s e , an d

th e d e f e n d an th a s th e r i g h to f

a p p e a l . If nece ssary , the cour

t shall appoint counsel and or der the prepa ration of a

fre e appe llate re cord. A copy of the amended certification and of the order appointi ng counsel, if made , shall be for war ded to the Clerk of this Court no later than f ifteen da y s from the date of this opinion.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Abated Filed: Nove mber 15, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 5:96-CV-002-SPM/AK

EDWARD EARL FLOYD,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MODIFY

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant’s “Motion to

Modify Term of Imprisonment” (doc. 266). The Defendant requests a reduction in

his sentence because of the amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that

decreases the sentence for convictions for crack cocaine and because of the

advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines.

Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prescribes two

circumstances under which a court may correct or reduce a sentence. Under

subsection a, the court may correct a sentence for clear error within seven days

of imposition. Notwithstanding the fact that Defendant’s motion is untimely under

subsection a, the provision “is not intended . . . for the court to simply change its

mind about the appropriateness of the sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 advisory

Case 5:96-cr-00002-SPM-AK Document 267 Filed 12/10/07 Page 1 of 2
2

committee’s notes (1991).

Under subsection b, the court may reduce a sentence upon the

government’s filing of a substantial assistance motion. No substantial assistance

motion has been filed in this case. Therefore, this Court does not have

jurisdiction to reduce Defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Reduce

Sentence (doc. 69) is hereby denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this tenth day of December, 2007.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 5:96-cr-00002-SPM-AK Document 267 Filed 12/10/07 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.127 Demonstrations and courses of instruction.

Charges, not in excess of the cost thereof, as may be approved by the Director, may be made for demonstrations, samples, or courses of instruction when such are furnished upon request.

[46 FR 62394, Dec. 24, 1981]
#### § 504.5 Address.

Deposits of and requests for microbial patent cultures should be directed to the Curator, ARS Patent Culture Collection, Northern Regional Research Center, USDA-ARS, 1815 N. University St., Peoria, Illinois 61604; (309) 685-4011.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            Mar-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<CASH>                                         1233
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5533
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                     775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              10220
<PP&E>                                        98847
<DEPRECIATION>                                34985
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                77606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         16736
<BONDS>                                       15543
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                        229
<OTHER-SE>                                    34260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  77606
<SALES>                                        7230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7230
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7831
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1002)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (329)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (673)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (691)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.38)
        

</TABLE>