alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN THE MATTER OF IN RE 

SKANSKA USA CIVIL 

SOUTHEAST INC. AND 

SKANSKA USA, INC. AS 

OWNERS OF THE BARGE KS 

5531 PRAYING FOR 

EXONERATION FROM OR 

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

ADMIRALTY RULE 9(H) 

 § 

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

3:20-CV-05980-LC/HTC

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

 This matter is before the Court on Skanska’s motion for extension of time 

(ECF Doc. 1229), seeking to have 10 days, rather than the expedited 24 hours, to 

respond to Claimants’ spoliation motion (ECF Doc. 1228). Claimants oppose the 

extension of time. ECF Doc. 1230. 

On July 29, 2021, this Court entered a First Amendment to the Final 

Scheduling Order, which reduced the time the parties had to respond to discovery 

motions to 24 hours. ECF Doc. 1224. Prior to entering that order, this Court 

discussed the matter with the parties during the July 28, 2021, status conference. At 

that conference, Claimants advised the Court and the parties that they intended to file 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1231 Filed 08/03/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2 

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

a spoliation motion based on a much discussed issue – the lack of cell phone data 

from 6 of 13 custodians. 

 Claimants did in fact file the spoliation motion on Monday, August 2, 2021, 

albeit at 9:29 pm. ECF Doc. 1228. Claimants seek dismissal of the limitations of 

liability action as a sanction or, alternatively, the imposition of fines, cost-shifting, 

and costs. Id. Given the nature of the motion, the Court will extend the time for 

Skanska to respond. However, the Court finds that ten (10) days is unwarranted given 

that this motion should come as no surprise to Skanska, Skanska has not shown why 

ten (10) days is necessary, and the impending trial date. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

1. Skanska’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED IN PART. 

2. Skanska shall file a response in opposition to the motion by Friday,

August 6, 2021. 

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of August, 2021. 

 /s/ Hope Thai Cannon 

 HOPE THAI CANNON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1231 Filed 08/03/21 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 33.7**

 

January 30, 2008David ZielkeFirst Vice President andAssistant General CounselWashington Mutual1301 Second AvenueSeattle, WA 98001RE: Restated Assessment Reporting Period – January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006Ladies and Gentlemen:Enclosed is a Restated Assessment for the Reporting Period of January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the " Restated Assessment") of American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (formerly, "SafecoFinancial Institution Solutions, Inc.") the "Asserting Party".The Restated Assessment identifies a material instance of noncompliance with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122 (d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations. Specifically, the Asserting Party did not have, during theapplicable reporting period, sufficient policies and procedures to capture the information with respect to the Platform Transactions necessary to determine compliance with §1122(d)(4)(xii). Please be advised that as of January 1, 2008, the Asserting Party has implemented practices and procedures to capture the information necessary to assess compliance with §1122(d)(4)(xii).Sincerely, /s/ John FroboseJohn FroboseSenior Vice President
47.305-8 Consolidation of small shipments

and the use of stopoff privileges.

(a) Consolidation of small shipments. Consolidation of small shipments into larger lots frequently

results in lower transportation costs. Therefore, the contracting officer, after consultation with the

transportation office and the activity requiring the supplies, may revise the delivery schedules to

provide for deliveries in larger quantities.

(b) Stopping for partial unloading. When feasible, schedules for delivery of supplies to multiple

destinations shall be consolidated and the stopoff privileges permitted under carrier tariffs shall be

used for partial unloading at one or more points directly en route between the point of origin and the

last destination.

Parent topic: 47.305 Solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and transportation factors.
#### § 622.20 Application.

Sponsors shall follow State developed procedures (based on Executive Order 12372) for coordination of proposed Federal financial assistance and also USDA's 7 CFR part 3015 in applying for Pub. L. 83-566 assistance. Standard forms for Federal assistance or other approved forms may be obtained from NRCS State, area, or field offices. These forms should be submitted to the Single Point of Contact in accordance with the State developed procedures.
§ 58.336 Frequency of sampling for quality control of cream, butter and related products. ( a ) *Microbiological.* Samples shall be taken from churnings or batches and should be taken as often as is necessary to insure microbiological control.
( b ) *Composition.* Sampling and testing for product composition shall be made on churns or batches as often as is necessary to insure adequate composition control. For in-plant control, the Kohman or modified Kohman test may be used.
( c ) *Chemical* — ( 1 ) *Acid degree value.* This test should be made on churnings or batches from samples taken from the cream as often as is necessary to aid in the control of lipase activity.
( 2 ) *Free fatty acid.* This test should be made on churnings or batches from samples taken from the butter as often as is necessary to aid in the control of lipase activity.
( d ) *Other analysis.* Other chemical analysis or physical measurements shall be performed as often as is necessary to insure meeting grade standards and contract specifications.
( e ) *Weight or volume control.* Representative samples of the packaged product should be checked using procedures prescribed by the Administrator during the packaging operation to assure compliance with the stated net weight or volume on the container.
( f ) *Keeping quality and stability.* Samples from churnings shall be subjected to a seven day keeping quality test at a temperature of 72 °F. to establish and maintain a satisfactory keeping quality history. Optionally 98 °F. for 48 hours may be used, however, in case of a dispute, the results of the seven days at 72 °F. will prevail.
**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**     Inconnection with the Annual Report of WSB Financial Group, Inc. (the“*Company*”) on Form 10-K/Afor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “*Form 10-K*”), I, Mark D. Freeman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that: (1) The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.Dated:March 29, 2007         By:                                                /s/ Mark D. Freeman   Mark D. Freeman   *Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer*
52.214-24 Multiple Technical Proposals.

As prescribed in 14.201-6(s), insert the following provision:

Multiple Technical Proposals (Apr 1984)

In the first step of this two-step acquisition, solicited sources are encouraged to submit multiple

technical proposals presenting different basic approaches. Each technical proposal submitted will be

separately evaluated and the submitter will be notified as to its acceptability.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.214 [Reserved]
#### § 600.8 Plant materials centers.

Plant materials centers (PMC) assemble and test plant species for conservation uses. Usually a PMC serves two or more States, and is under the jurisdiction of the State conservationist where the center is located. Each PMC is directed and supervised by a manager who is responsible to a State office specialist/manager as designated by the State conservationist.
#### § 614.16 Participation of third parties in NRCS proceedings.

When an appeal is filed under this part, NRCS will notify any third party whose interests may be affected of the right to participate as an appellant in the appeal. If the third party declines to participate, then NRCS' decision will be binding as to that third party as if the party had participated. If a formal hearing is conducted by NAD, third party issues will be decided by NAD.
# L_2014219DE.01006701.xml

| 25.7.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 219/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 219/67

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsrichtlinie 2014/21/EU der Kommission vom 6. Februar 2014 mit Mindestanforderungen an Vorstufenpflanzgut von Kartoffeln und mit den EU-Klassen für dieses Vorstufenpflanzgut

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 38 vom 7. Februar 2014
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 38 vom 7. Februar 2014

Auf Seite 40, Artikel 3 Buchstabe f:

anstatt:

| „f) | der Anteil an Kartoffeln, die auf über 10,0 % der Knollenoberfläche von der Wurzeltöterkrankheit befallen sind, beträgt höchstens 1,0 % der Masse;“ |
| --- | --- |

„f)

der Anteil an Kartoffeln, die auf über 10,0 % der Knollenoberfläche von der Wurzeltöterkrankheit befallen sind, beträgt höchstens 1,0 % der Masse;“

muss es heißen:

| „f) | der Anteil an Kartoffeln, die auf über 10,0 % der Knollenoberfläche von Pulverschorf befallen sind, beträgt höchstens 1,0 % der Masse;“. |
| --- | --- |

„f)

der Anteil an Kartoffeln, die auf über 10,0 % der Knollenoberfläche von Pulverschorf befallen sind, beträgt höchstens 1,0 % der Masse;“.

Auf Seite 41, Anhang, Nummer 1 Buchstabe a Ziffer i:

anstatt:

| „i) | Unter den angebauten Pflanzen befinden sich keine sortenechten Pflanzen und keine Pflanzen fremder Sorten;“ |
| --- | --- |

„i)

Unter den angebauten Pflanzen befinden sich keine sortenechten Pflanzen und keine Pflanzen fremder Sorten;“

muss es heißen:

| „i) | Unter den angebauten Pflanzen befinden sich keine nicht sortenechten Pflanzen und keine Pflanzen fremder Sorten;“. |
| --- | --- |

„i)

Unter den angebauten Pflanzen befinden sich keine nicht sortenechten Pflanzen und keine Pflanzen fremder Sorten;“.

---
§ 610.23 State Technical Committee meetings. ( a ) The State Conservationist, as Chairperson, schedules and conducts the meetings, although a meeting may be requested by any USDA agency or State Technical Committee member.
( b ) NRCS will establish and maintain national standard operating procedures governing the operation of State Technical Committees and Local Working Groups in its directive system. The standard operating procedures will outline items such as: The best practice approach to establishing, organizing, and effectively utilizing State Technical Committees and Local Working Groups; direction on publication of State Technical Committee and Local Working Group meeting notices and agendas; State Technical Committee meeting summaries; how to provide feedback on State Conservationist decisions regarding State Technical Committee recommendations; and other items as determined by the Chief.
( c ) In addition to the standard operating procedures established under paragraph (b) of this section, the State Conservationist will provide public notice and allow public attendance at State Technical Committee and Local Working Group meetings. The State Conservationist will publish a meeting notice no later than 14 calendar days prior to a State Technical Committee meeting. Notification may exceed this 14-day minimum where State open meeting laws exist and provide for a longer notification period. This minimum 14-day notice requirement may be waived in the case of exceptional conditions, as determined by the State Conservationist. The State Conservationist will publish this notice in at least one or more newspaper(s), including recommended Tribal publications, to attain statewide circulation.
# 52.225-15 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**52.225 [Reserved]
OAO 187 (Rev. 7/87) Exhibit and Witness List

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEFENDANT TALLEY EXHIBIT

LIST

V.

JAMES CALVIN TALLEY Case Number: 2:06cr169-WKW

 PRESIDING JUDGE GOVERNMENT’S ATTORNEY DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY

SUSAN RUSS WALKER CLARK MORRIS JAY LEWIS

 TRIAL DATE (S) COURT REPORTER COURTROOM DEPUTY

MARCH 5, 2007 JOYCE TAYLOR

PLF.

NO.

DEF.

NO.

DATE

OFFERED

MAR KED ADM ITTED DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBITS* AND WITNESSES

1 3/5/07 Yes Letters re: James Talley

EXHIBIT IN SEPARATE FOLDER WITH COURT FILE

* Include a notation as to the location of any exhibit not held with the case file or not available because of size.

Page 1 of 1 Pages

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 100-4 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk July 24, 2012

p0716 

# Order

July 24, 2012

144830

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 14 4830

COA: 302274

Washtenaw CC: 10

- 000527

- FC

EDWARD IAN ROBINSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 28, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 35.2**

**SERVICERCOMPLIANCE STATEMENTCAPITAL ONE PRIME AUTO RECEIVABLES TRUST 2006-2**

Capital One Prime Auto Receivables Trust 2006-2

Capital One Auto Finance, Inc.

c/o 140 East Shore Drive, Room 1052-D

Glen Allen, Virginia23059

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Capital One Prime Auto Receivables Trust 2006-2for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), the undersigned, aduly authorized officer of Capital One, National Association (formerly known asHibernia National Bank) (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify and representthat:

1.   A review of the activities and performanceof the Servicer under the Services Agreement dated as of February 17, 2006, byand between Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. and the Servicer (the “Agreement”)during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under mysupervision.

2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreementin all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of theReport.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has duly executed this Servicer Compliance Statement this 15th day of February 2007.

**CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION**
| By:    |   | /s/ Steven E. Cunningham |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|--------|
| Name:  |   | Steven E. Cunningham     |   |   |
| Title: |   | Chief Financial Officer  |   |   |

** **

----
December 04, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BERNARDO MORALES CERVANTES, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00157-CV V.

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Bayview Loan 

Servicing, LLC, signed November 29, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. 

We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment 

of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Bernardo Morales Cervantes, to pay all costs incurred in this 

appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-965V

Filed: April 22, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

KAREN QUINN,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for petitioner.

Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On July 5, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

(the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on 

October 6, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit 

of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 16, 2019, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent states that the Division of Injury Compensation Programs, 

 

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This 

means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine 

Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the 

disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned 

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from 

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in 

accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management 

and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
Department of Health and Human Services (“DICP”), “have reviewed the petition and 

medical records filed in this case . . . [and] concluded that petitioner suffered a Table 

injury of left SIRVA . . . based on the medical records . . . petitioner met the statutory 

requirements by undergoing a surgical intervention and experiencing six months of 

residual effects. Id. at 4.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GEORGE M. DAVIS, JR.,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cv250-SPM/AK

JAMES V. CROSBY, JR.,

Respondent.

_________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS

Upon consideration of Petitioner George M. Davis, Jr.’s motion (doc. 14) 

for extension of time to file objections to the report and recommendation, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The motion (doc. 14) is granted.

2. Petitioner shall have up to and including July 28, 2005 to file his

objections to the report and recommendation.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of July, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-00250-SPM-AK Document 15 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 1
# 16.202 Firm-fixed-price contracts.

- 16.202-1 Description. 
- 16.202-2 Application. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 16.2 - Fixed-Price Contracts
#### § 75.31 Appeal inspection certificate.

After an appeal inspection has been completed, an appeal inspection certificate shall be issued showing the results of such appeal inspection; and such certificate shall supersede the inspection certificate previously issued for the seed involved. Each appeal inspection certificate shall clearly identify the number and date of the inspection certificate which it supersedes. The superseded certificate shall become null and void upon the issuance of the appeal inspection certificate and shall no longer represent the quality or condition of the seed described therein. The inspector issuing an appeal inspection certificate shall forward notice of such issuance to such persons as considered necessary to prevent misuse of the superseded certificate if the original and all copies of such superseded certificate have not previously been delivered to the inspector issuing the appeal inspection certificate. The appeal inspection certificate shall be marked as to the existence of the outstanding certificate. The provisions in the regulations concerning forms of certificates and disposition of certificates shall apply to appeal inspection certificates, except that copies of such appeal inspection certificates shall be furnished to all interested parties who received copies of the superseded certificate.