alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
46.202-2 Government reliance on inspection

by contractor.

(a) Except as specified in (b) of this section, the Government shall rely on the contractor to

accomplish all inspection and testing needed to ensure that supplies or services acquired at or below

the simplified acquisition threshold conform to contract quality requirements before they are

tendered to the Government (see 46.301).

(b) The Government shall not rely on inspection by the contractor if the contracting officer

determines that the Government has a need to test the supplies or services in advance of their

tender for acceptance, or to pass judgment upon the adequacy of the contractor’s internal work

processes. In making the determination, the contracting officer shall consider-

(1) The nature of the supplies and services being purchased and their intended use;

(2) The potential losses in the event of defects;

(3) The likelihood of uncontested replacement or correction of defective work; and

(4) The cost of detailed Government inspection.

Parent topic: 46.202 Types of contract quality requirements.
§ 632.13 Eligible lands and water. Lands and water eligible for reclamation are those that were mined for coal or were affected by coal-mining processes and were abandoned or inadequately reclaimed before August 3, 1977. These lands and water are not eligible if: ( a ) There is continuing reclamation responsibility on the part of a mine operator, permittee, or agent under State or Federal law or on the part of the State as a result of bond forfeiture. However, if the amount of the bond forfeiture was insufficient to reclaim the area covered by the bond, the area will be considered eligible.
( b ) They are under Federal ownership and control.
( c ) The surface rights are under easement or lease to be remined for coal or other minerals.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Berkshire Bancorp Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report"),
I, Steven Rosenberg as Chief Executive Officer. President and 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:

         (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/ Steven Rosenberg
                                              __________________________________
                                              Steven Rosenberg,
                                              Chief Executive Officer, President
                                              and Chief Financial Officer

                                              November 13, 2002






                                       32
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF THE COMPANY AS FILED IN ITS 10-K (ITEM 7) FOR THE YEAR
ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1995 AND ITS 10-Q (ITEM 1) FOR THE  QUARTER  ENDED JUNE 30,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         158,997
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  827,636
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,894
<INVENTORY>                                    936,791
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              2,606,125
<PP&E>                                        2,256,792
<DEPRECIATION>                                1,249,682
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                4,437,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,521,267
<BONDS>                                         267,840
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         77,825
<OTHER-SE>                                    2,570,349 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  4,437,281
<SALES>                                       3,531,777
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              3,531,777
<CGS>                                         2,010,468
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 3,624,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 35,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               46,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (127,941)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     42,859
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (85,082)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (17,807)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (102,889)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.03)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Prudential-Bache Equitec Real Estate
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>
<CIK>               0000757191
<NAME>              Prudential-Bache Equitec Real Estate
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1999

<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1999

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos

<CASH>                          1,813,000

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   1,167,000

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0

<PP&E>                          28,607,000

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  31,587,000

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           28,055,000

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      3,532,000

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    31,587,000

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0<F1>

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0<F1>

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0<F1>

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    0<F1>

<EPS-BASIC>                   0<F1>

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
<FN>
<F1>
Registrant adopted the liquidation basis of accounting
on April 1, 1999, and, accordingly, does not reflect
operations subsequent to April 1, 1999. See Note A
to the financial statements for further details.
</FN>

</TABLE>
2006-0824.

#### Bellville v. Kieffaber.

Richland App. No. 2005CA0061, 2005-Ohio-6879. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed March 29, 2006:

“In a traffic law enforcement citation for ‘excessive speed,’ does the complaint fail, as a matter of law, to charge a necessary element of the offense if it does not also allege that the speed is ‘primafaeie’ unlawful and the speed alleged is not charged as a ‘per se’ violation of the applicable traffic code?”

Resnick, Pfeifer and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

The conflict ease is *State v. Oglesby*(Sept. 1, 2000), Erie App. Nos. E-99-077 and E-99-076.
#### §§ 4287.304-4287.305 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Novell, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
Dana C. Russell, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Dana C. Russell                              
|Dana C. Russell                                  
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



Date: June 9, 2009
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2





                      CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
                  OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
                              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS



         I, Paul E. Martin, the Principal Financial Officer of Enstar Income
Program II-2, L.P. (the "Partnership") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that, the Partnership's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission:

          -   fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
              Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          -   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
              all material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company.



                                         /s/  Paul E. Martin
                                         -------------------
                                         Paul E. Martin
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         November 14, 2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE SKANSKA USA CIVIL §

SOUTHEAST INC. AND § ADMIRALTY RULE 9(H)

SKANSKA USA, INC. AS §

OWNERS OF THE BARGE KS § CIVIL ACTION NO.

5331, PRAYING FOR § 3:20-CV-05980 – RV/MJF

EXONERATION §

FROM OR LIMITATION § SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

OF LIABILITY § LACEY A. COLLIER

§

§ MAGISTRATE JUDGE

§ HOPE THAI CANNON

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned counsel, Jeffery P. Gill, will be

unavailable from July 1, 2021 through July 9, 2021, and respectfully requests that counsel not

schedule any hearings, depositions, or other proceedings, which would require the undersigned’s

attendance.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to:

all counsel of record via CM/ECF, this 24th day of June 2021.

/s/ Jeffrey P. Gill

Jeffrey P. Gill

Florida Bar Number: 767972

Vernis & Bowling for Northwest Florida, P.A.

315 South Palafox Street

Pensacola, Florida 32502

Telephone: (850) 433-5461

Facsimile: (850) 432-0166

JGill@Florida-Law.com

CBlackmon@Florida-Law.com

Attorney for DeLuna Oyster Company, Inc.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1198 Filed 06/24/21 Page 1 of 1
156 So.2d 603

#### Lucille Thibodeaux CARVELL v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 46913.

Oct. 9, 1963.

In re: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Edith Winn applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 154 So.2d 788.

Writ refused. The result reached by the Court of Appeal is correct.
#### § 220.20 Free and reduced price breakfasts.

The determination of the children to whom free and reduced price breakfasts are to be served because of inability to pay the full price thereof, and the serving of the breakfasts to such children, shall be effected in accordance with part 245 of this chapter.

[Amdt. 25, 41 FR 34760, Aug. 17, 1976. Redesignated at 72 FR 61495, Oct. 31, 2007]
# 51.107 Contract clause.

The *contracting officer**shall* insert the clause at 52.251-1, Government Supply Sources, in *solicitations* and contracts when the *contracting officer* authorizes the contractor to acquire *supplies* or services from a Government supply source.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 51.1 - Contractor Use of Government Supply Sources
Exhibit 99.1

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 Video Display Corporation (the "Company") for the period ending November 30,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald D. Ordway, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/RONALD D. ORDWAYRonald D. Ordway Chief Executive
OfficerJune 13, 2003 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Video Display Corporation (the "Company") for the period ending November 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carol D. Franklin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/CAROL D. FRANKLINCarol D. Franklin Chief Financial
OfficerJune 13, 2003 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Video Display Corporation and will be retained by Video Display Corporation and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

24

---

QuickLinks
#### The Remington Paper Company, Appellant, v. Anna M. O’Dougherty, Respondent.

(Submitted June 18, 1884;

decided June 27, 1884.)

*Eton R. Broion*for appellant.

*O'Brien <& Emerson*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to


Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) of ATS Corporation (the “Registrant”), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Edward
H. Bersoff, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby
certify that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.





Date:
      November 3, 2010
            By:
            /s/ Edward H. BersoffEdward
      H. BersoffChairman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
173
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
225
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
303
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
369
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
#### § 58.156 Inspection.

Dairy products, which have been processed or manufactured in an approved plant, and for which there are no official U.S. Standards for Grades, shall be inspected for quality by the inspector in accordance with contract requirements or product specifications established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or other Federal agency or buyer and seller. Laboratory analysis when required shall be conducted in an approved laboratory.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 09
- 00245
- CV
MARSA HALL , Appellant
v. CHARLES C. BELL, TON Y R. O'HARE, KEVIN MAYFIELD AND J OHN DOE , Appellee s

From the 278th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 24,621

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Marsa Hall, a prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against several employees of the Texas prison system. The trial court dismissed his lawsuit as being
frivolous. We affirm. Hall filed a brief in this appeal in September. Soon thereafter, he filed a motion to strike his brief and a motion to stay the appeal. In October, Hall filed another motion to strike his brief. From those pleadings, it appeared Hall conceded that there were Chapter 14 requirements with which he failed to comply. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
.Hall v. Bell Page 2

C ODE A NN . §§ 14.004 (Affidavit Relating to Previous Filings) and 14.005 (Grievance System Decision/Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies) (Vernon 2002). The trial court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing a suit under eithe r section. See Draughon v. Cockrell , 112 S.W.3d 775, 776 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2003, no pet.); Hickson v. Moya , 926 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex. App.

-- Waco 1996, no pet.). Further, under such circumstances, the trial court does not err in dismissing the proceedin g as long as the dismissal is without prejudice. See Hickman v. Adams , 35 S.W.3d 120, 124 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). The trial court’s dismissal in this proceeding was without prejudice. In an order issued on October 7, 2009, we n otified Hall that we saw no reason not to affirm the trial court’s dismissal since Hall conceded the failure to fully comply with Chapter 14 and since the dismissal was without prejudice. We further warned Hall that unless Hall, or any party desiring to c ontinue this appeal, showed a reason why these motions should not be denied and this appeal affirmed, within 21 days from the date of the order, the Court would render an opinion and judgment to that effect. Hall responded to our order and again conceded that he failed to file an affidavit relating to previous filings and failed to file an affidavit regarding the exhaustion of his
administrative remedies. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN . §§ 14.004 (Affidavit Relating to Previous Filings) and 14.005 (G rievance System Decision/Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies) (Vernon 2002). He again asks that we grant his motions to strike his brief and his motion to stay the appeal. However, because Hall concedes in his motions and in his response that he has no t complied with the proceduralHall v. Bell Page 3

requirements of Chapter 14, we find that the trial court did not err in dismissing his suit. Accordingly, his motions to strike and motion to stay are denied and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Motions denied Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed November 10, 2009 [CV06]
11.000 Scope of part.       This part prescribes policies and procedures for describing agency needs.    **Parent topic:** Part 11 - Describing Agency Needs
#### Carole J. Aronson, Respondent, v. Herbert Aronson, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 14, 1966, modified, on the law and the facts, (1) by providing in its second decretal paragraph that appellant be given credit for $300 (instead of $150) on account of the three weekly installments involved in that paragraph and that the total arrears for those installments amount to $225 instead of $375; (2) by reducing the amount adjudicated in the third, sixth and seventh decretal paragraphs as plaintiff’s damage from $375 to $225; (3) by striking out the additional fine of $50 contained in the fourth decretal paragraph; and (4) by deleting all reference to such fine in the sixth and seventh decretal paragraphs. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact contained in the court’s decision inconsistent herewith are hereby reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. The reduction in arrears from $375 to $225 is made herewith because appellant has shown payments totaling $300 on account of the three-week period involved; $150 was paid on July 15, 1966, about when the first payment was due, and another $150 was paid on August 1, 1966, before the fourth payment was due. This latter payment must therefore be credited to the subject three-week period. In regard to *856the $50 fine, it is our opinion that it should not have been imposed. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY THECHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, Jack L. Messman, Chief Executive Officer of Novell,Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify that, to myknowledge:

 

(1)                  The Company’s periodic report on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended April 30, 2006 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(2)                  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

* * *

 
| CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
| /s/ JACK L.  MESSMAN    |   |
| Jack L. Messman         |   |
|                    |   |
| Date: June 8,  2006     |   |

 

 

 

----
47.403 Guidelines for implementation of the

Fly America Act.

This section 47.403 is based on the Guidelines for Implementation of the Fly America Act (case

number B-138942), issued by the Comptroller General of the United States on March 31,1981.

47.403-1 Availability and unavailability of U.S.-flag air carrier service.

47.403-2 Air transport agreements between the United States and foreign

governments.

47.403-3 Disallowance of expenditures.

Parent topic: Subpart 47.4 - Air Transportation by U.S.-Flag Carriers