alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 58.406 Starter facility.

A separate starter room or properly designed starter tanks and satisfactory air movement techniques shall be provided for the propagation and handling of starter cultures. All necessary precaution shall be taken to prevent contamination of the facility, equipment and the air therein. A filtered air supply with a minimum average efficiency of 90 percent when tested in accordance with the ASHRAE Synthetic Dust Arrestance Test should be provided so as to obtain outward movement of air from the room to minimize contamination.
**Exhibit 23.3**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 333-218594) pertaining to the 2017 Equity Incentive and 2017 Non-EmployeeDirector Plans of KCAP Financial, Inc. of our report dated March 9, 2017, with respect to the financial statements of Katonah 2007-ICLO Ltd., included in KCAP Financial Inc.’s Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2016, filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission.

 

 

 

/s/ Ernst& Young LLP

New York, New York

March 7, 2018
#### In the Matter of Thomas Aiello, Petitioner, v Lou V. Tempera, as Commissioner of Labor of the County of Suffolk, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Labor of Suffolk County, dated January 16, 1979, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of certain misconduct and dismissed him from his position. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The matter was once before reviewed by this court when we determined that confirmation of the hearing officer’s recommendation of dismissal by the commissioner himself was improper in view of the latter’s personal involvement in the controversy. We remitted the matter for a *de novo*determination by a deputy commissioner based upon the original hearing record *(Matter of Aiello v Tempera,*65 AD2d 791). Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, we find that the charge of misconduct and insubordination was fully supported in this record and that the penalty of dismissal was warranted. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
52.228-12 Prospective Subcontractor

Requests for Bonds.

As prescribed in 28.106-4(b), use the following clause:

Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bonds (Dec 2022)

In accordance with section 806(a)(3) of Pub. L. 102-190, as amended by sections 2091 and 8105 of

Pub. L. 103-355 (10 U.S.C. 4601 note prec.), upon the request of a prospective subcontractor or

supplier offering to furnish labor or material for the performance of this contract for which a

payment bond has been furnished to the Government pursuant to 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter

III, Bonds, the Contractor shall promptly provide a copy of such payment bond to the requester.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.228 [Reserved]
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 Annual Report of China Unitech Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Xuezheng Yuan, Chief Executive Officer 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 17th day of September, 2009.








XUEZHENG YUANXuezheng YuanChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
      to U.S.C. Section 1350


**As
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002**




I,
      Charles Bentz, Chief Financial Officer of Zane Acquisition II, Inc., hereby
      certify, to my knowledge, that the annual report on Form 10-KSB for
      the year ending December 31, 2007 of Zane Acquisition II, Inc.
      (the "Form 10-KSB") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained
      in
      the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of Zane Acquisition II, Inc.




Dated:
      March 31, 2008




/s/
                Charles BentzCharles
                Bentz
              Chief
                Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      by
      the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and shall be furnished
      to
      the SEC or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1
   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
   I, Aleks Kins, the President and Chief Executive Officer of AlphaMetrix, LLC, the Sponsor of AlphaMetrix Managed Futures LLC (Aspect Series) (the “Series”), certify that (i) the Annual Report of the Series on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Series.
   Date: March 31, 2011
   
   By:  /s/ Aleks Kins
 Aleks Kins
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 AlphaMetrix, LLC
Case 5:20-cv-00254-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 7
Case 5:20-cv-00254-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 2 of 7
Case 5:20-cv-00254-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 3 of 7
Case 5:20-cv-00254-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 4 of 7
Case 5:20-cv-00254-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 5 of 7
Case 5:20-cv-00254-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 6 of 7
Case 5:20-cv-00254-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 7 of 7
AptCode,City,Size,Plan Required?
ABQ,"ALBUQUERQUE, NM, USA",M,Y
ANC,"ANCHORAGE, AK, USA",M,N
ATL,"ATLANTA, GA, USA",L,Y
AUS,"AUSTIN, TX, USA",M,Y
BDL,"HARTFORD, CT/SPRINGFIELD, MA, USA",M,N
BNA,"NASHVILLE, TN, USA",M,Y
BOS,"BOSTON, MA, USA",L,N
BUR,"BURBANK, CA, USA",M,Y
BWI,"BALTIMORE, MD, USA",L,Y
CLE,"CLEVELAND, OH, USA",M,Y
CLT,"CHARLOTTE, NC, USA",L,Y
CMH,"COLUMBUS, OH, USA",M,N
CVG,"CINCINNATI, OH, USA",L,Y
DAL,"DALLAS, TX, USA",M,Y
DCA,"WASHINGTON, DC, USA",L,N
DEN,"DENVER, CO, USA",L,Y
DFW,"DALLAS, TX, USA",L,Y
DTW,"DETROIT, MI, USA",L,Y
ELP,"EL PASO, TX, USA",M,Y
EWR,"NEW YORK, NY, USA",L,Y
FLL,"FT. LAUDERDALE, FL, USA",M,N
HNL,"HONOLULU, OAHU, HI, USA",L,N
HOU,"HOUSTON, TX, USA",M,Y
IAD,"WASHINGTON, DC, USA",L,Y
IAH,"HOUSTON, TX, USA",L,Y
IND,"INDIANAPOLIS, IN, USA",M,N
JAX,"JACKSONVILLE, FL, USA",M,Y
JFK,"NEW YORK, NY, USA",L,N
LAS,"LAS VEGAS, NV, USA",L,N
LAX,"LOS ANGELES, CA, USA",L,N
LGA,"NEW YORK, NY, USA",L,N
MCI,"KANSAS CITY, MO, USA",M,N
MCO,"ORLANDO, FL, USA",L,N
MDW,"CHICAGO, IL, USA",M,Y
MEM,"MEMPHIS, TN, USA",M,Y
MIA,"MIAMI, FL, USA",L,Y
MKE,"MILWAUKEE, WI, USA",M,N
MSP,"MINNEAPOLIS, MN, USA",L,Y
MSY,"NEW ORLEANS, LA, USA",M,N
OAK,"OAKLAND, CA, USA",M,Y
OGG,"KAHULUI, MAUI, HI, USA",M,Y
OKC,"OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, USA",M,N
OMA,"OMAHA, NE, USA",M,N
ONT,"ONTARIO, CA, USA",M,Y
ORD,"CHICAGO, IL, USA",L,Y
PBI,"WEST PALM BEACH, FL, USA",M,Y
PDX,"PORTLAND, OR, USA",M,N
PHL,"PHILADELPHIA, PA, USA",L,Y
PHX,"PHOENIX, AZ, USA",L,Y
PIT,"PITTSBURGH, PA, USA",L,Y
PVD,"PROVIDENCE, RI, USA",M,Y
RDU,"RALEIGH/DURHAM, NC, USA",M,N
RNO,"RENO, NV, USA",M,Y
RSW,"FT. MYERS, FL, USA",M,N
SAN,"SAN DIEGO, CA, USA",L,N
SAT,"SAN ANTONIO, TX, USA",M,Y
SDF,"LOUISVILLE, KY, USA",M,Y
SEA,"SEATTLE, WA, USA",L,N
SFO,"SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA",L,Y
SJC,"SAN JOSE, CA, USA",M,Y
SJU,"SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO",M,Y
SLC,"SALT LAKE CITY, UT, USA",L,Y
SMF,"SACRAMENTO, CA, USA",M,Y
SNA,"SANTA ANA, CA, USA",M,N
STL,"ST. LOUIS, MO, USA",L,Y
TPA,"TAMPA, FL, USA",L,N
TUL,"TULSA, OK, USA",M,N
TUS,"TUCSON, AZ, USA",M,N
#### Juan Gomez, Appellant, v Rebecca Epstein et al., Respondents.

[818 NYS2d 101]

*951In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated March 9, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]; *Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth.,*16 AD3d 45 [2005]). The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff’s submissions in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affirmed medical report of the plaintiffs treating physician was not based on a recent examination *(see Farozes v Kamran,*22 AD3d 458 [2005]; *Batista v Olivo,*17 AD3d 494 [2005]; *Silkowski v Alvarez,*19 AD3d 476 [2005]; *Constantinou v Surinder,*8 AD3d 323 [2004]). The affirmed medical report of the plaintiffs examining orthopedist was insufficient because it failed to address the finding of a radiologist, submitted in support of the defendants’ motion, that the condition of the plaintiffs lumbar spine was the result of degeneration. This rendered speculative the orthopedist’s opinion that the plaintiffs lumbar spine condition was caused by the subject accident *(see Giraldo v Mandanici,*24 AD3d 419 [2005]; *Lorthe v Adeyeye,*306 AD2d 252 [2003]; *Ginty v MacNamara,*300 AD2d 624 [2002]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to adequately explain a lengthy gap in his treatment between 2001 and when he was last examined in 2005 *(see Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]; *Batista v Olivo, supra; Barnes v Cisneros,*15 AD3d 514 [2005]).

Finally, the plaintiff failed to proffer competent medical evidence that he was unable to perform substantially all of his daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days *952subsequent to the accident *(see Sainte-Aime v Ho,*274 AD2d 569 [2000]; *Arshad v*Gomer.; 268 AD2d 450 [2000]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                            1859
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       10
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1869
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              107
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1869
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    85
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   114
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (29)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (29)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (29)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.35)


</TABLE>
Supreme Court of Louisiana

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #073

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Per Curiam handed down on the 5th day of December, 2016, is as follows:

PER CURIAM: 

2015-CA-1659 ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH SCHOOL BOARD v. STATE OF LOUISIANA; 

THE LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION; 

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(Parish of E. Baton Rouge)

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is 

vacated and set aside, and the petition is hereby dismissed with 

prejudice. 

HUGHES, J., would grant and docket. 

WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons. 
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2015-CA-1659

ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH SCHOOL BOARD 

VERSUS

STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. 

PER CURIAM

 The State of Louisiana, the Louisiana State Board of Elementary & Secondary

Education, and the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Education lodged

this direct appeal pursuant to La. Const. Art. V, §5(D), seeking review of the district

court’s judgment declaring 2010 HRC 243 and 2011 HRC 130 violate La. Const. Art.

VIII, §2(A)(4)(a).

Pretermitting the merits, we find this case fails to present a justiciable

controversy upon which relief can be granted. See Council of the City of New

Orleans v. Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, 06-1989 (La. 4/11/07), 953

So.2d 798; Hoag v. State, 04-0857 (La. 12/01/04), 889 So.2d 1019; see also St. John

the Baptist Parish School Board v. State of Louisiana, 15-0264 (La. App. 1 Cir. st

7/12/16) (unpublished), writ denied, 16-1798 (La. 12/5/16), ___ So. 3d ___. 

Accordingly, on our own motion pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 927(B), we

recognize the failure of the petition to state a cause of action, vacate the judgment of

the district court and dismiss the suit. 

DECREE

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is vacated and set

aside, and the petition is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

12/05/16
12/05/16

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

2015-CA-1659

ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH SCHOOL BOARD 

VS. 

STATE OF LOUISIANA; THE LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF 

ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION; THE STATE OF 

LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

ON APPEAL FROM THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE 

PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

Hughes, J., would grant and docket.
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 15-CA-1659

ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

VERSUS

STATE OF LOUISIANA; THE LOUISIANA STATE BOARD

OF ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION; THE STATE OF

LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE 19 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TH

PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

WEIMER, J., dissenting.

I believe matters of great public significance, such as this one, which is related

to the funding of public education, merit the state supreme court’s full consideration. 

On this basis, I would docket this matter for full briefing and argument before

rendering a considered opinion.

12/05/16
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Terrance Odell Reese v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-12-00627-CR

Trial court case number: 48070F

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Wichita County

This case was abated and remanded to the trial court on September 24, 2013. In the 

abatement order, we directed the trial court to determine whether appellant wished to pursue the 

appeal, and, if so, to determine whether or not appellant’s trial counsel, Holly Gail Crampton,

intended to abandon the appeal. In response, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. 

Appellant and the State now have filed a “Joint Motion to Lift Stay in Order to Take Up the 

Pending Motion to Dismiss Appeal,” requesting that the Court lift the abatement and reinstate 

the appeal in order to determine appellant’s pending motion to dismiss his appeal. We grant the 

joint motion to lift stay and REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 5, 2013
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

LISA BROOKS CARLSON, 

Petitioner, 

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2013-3112

__________________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC831E130148-I-1. 

_____________________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Office of Personnel Management’s motion to electronically file its principal brief 

out of time, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted.

Case: 13-3112 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 10/10/2013
CARLSON V. OPM 2

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

Clerk

s27 

Case: 13-3112 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 10/10/2013
EXHIBIT A

Case 5:20-cv-00233-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 1 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00233-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 2 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00233-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 3 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00233-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 4 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00233-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 5 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00233-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 6 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00233-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 7 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00233-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 8 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00233-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 9 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00233-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 10 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00233-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 11 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00233-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 12 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00233-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 13 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00233-TKW-MJF Document 1-1 Filed 09/02/20 Page 14 of 14
§ 51.2555 General. ( a ) Compliance with the provisions of these standards shall not excuse failure to comply with provisions of applicable Federal or State laws.
( b ) These standards are applicable to raw, roasted, salted or salted/roasted pistachio kernels.
[55 FR 28747, July 13, 1990, as amended at 68 FR 50685, Aug. 22, 2003]
#### Michael Morton, Respondent, v. Home Insurance Company, New York, Appellant.

Summary judgment entered July 15, 1968, unanimously reversed on the law, order entered June 11, 1968, denying motion for leave to serve an amended answer, unanimously reversed on the law and facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $50 costs and disbursements to the appellant. The motion for summary judgment is denied, and the motion for leave to serve an amended answer is granted. The record shows that the policy containing the agreed valuation was issued by defendant on the basis of a signed application which allegedly contained misrepresentations as to description and purchase price of the boat. The policy was one of marine insurance, and in marine insurance the insured is bound even though no inquiry be made to disclose every fact material to the risk within this knowledge. *(Stecker*v. *American Home First Assur. Co.,*299 N. Y. 1, 6.) The obligation to disclose includes the duty not to misrepresent. The record in this aspect at least presents a question of fact. In view of the information disclosed on the examination before trial, defendant was justified in waiting to complete the examination before trial of plaintiff and the others involved in the purchase of the boat before moving to amend its answer, and its failure to do so prior thereto was not dilatory or prejudicial. Concur—‘Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, Nunez, McNally and Steuer, JJ.
157 So.2d 236

#### Frank SALTALAMACCHIA v. STRACHAN SHIPPING COMPANY.

No. 46993.

Nov. 12, 1963.

Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit.

156 So.2d 291.

The application for a writ is granted but limited to the question of penalties and attorneys’ fees; in all other respects the application is denied.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2706 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Dimethyl Disulfide (DMDS). 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 3, 2006 

Mr. SANTORUM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Dimethyl Disulfide 

(DMDS). 

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

3 SECTION 1. DIMETHYL DISULFIDE (DMDS). 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.29.32 Dimethyl Disulfide (DMDS) (CAS No. 

624–92–0) (provided for in subheading 

2930.90.90) ............................................. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 2706 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
# 52.201 [Reserved]

- 52.201-1 Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 52.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses