alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
52.204-4 Printed or Copied Double-Sided on Postconsumer Fiber Content Paper.       As prescribed in 4.303, insert the following clause:          Printed or Copied Double-Sided on Postconsumer Fiber Content Paper (May 2011)                                       (a)                   *Definitions*. As used in this clause-                *Postconsumer fiber* means-(1) Paper, paperboard, and fibrous materials from retail stores, office buildings, homes, and so forth, after they have passed through their end-usage as a consumer item, including: used corrugated boxes; old newspapers; old magazines; mixed waste paper; tabulating cards; and used cordage; or                                                                     (2) All paper, paperboard, and fibrous materials that enter and are collected from municipal solid waste; but not                                                                     (3) Fiber derived from printers’ over-runs, converters’ scrap, and over-issue publications.                                                                                                   (b) 						            The Contractor is required to submit paper documents, such as offers, letters, or reports that are printed or copied double-sided on paper containing at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber, whenever practicable, when not using electronic commerce methods to submit information or data to the Government.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.204 [Reserved]
47.303-16 F.o.b. designated air carrier’s

terminal, point of importation.

(a) Explanation of delivery term."F.o.b. designated air carrier’s terminal, point of importation"

means free of expense to the Government delivered to the air carrier’s terminal at the point of

importation specified in the contract.

(b) Contractor responsibilities. The contractor shall-

(1)

(i) Pack and mark the shipment to comply with contract specifications; or

(ii) In the absence of specifications, prepare the shipment for air transportation in conformance with

carrier requirements to protect the goods;

(2) Prepare and distribute bills of lading or air waybills;

(3)

(i) Deliver the shipment in good order and condition to the point of delivery specified in the contract;

and

(ii) Pay and bear all charges incurred up to the point of delivery specified in the contract, including

transportation costs; export, import, or other fees or taxes; cost of landing, if any; customs duties;

and costs of certificates of origin, consular invoices, or other documents that may be required for

exportation or importation; and

(4) Be responsible for any loss of and/or damage to the goods until delivery of the goods to the

Government at the designated air carrier’s terminal.

(c) Contract clause. The contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts the clause at

52.247-44, F.o.b. Designated Air Carrier’s Terminal, Point of Importation, when the delivery term is

f.o.b. designated air carrier’s terminal, point of importation.

Parent topic: 47.303 Standard delivery terms and contract clauses.
#### § 58.316 Conventional churns.

Churns shall be constructed of aluminum, stainless steel or equally corrosion resistant metal, free from cracks, and in good repair. All gasket material shall be fat resistant, nontoxic and reasonably durable. Seals around the doors shall be tight.
DENY; and Opinion Filed August 22, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00804
- CV IN RE BLAKE BRANSON , R elator Original Proceeding from the 417th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 417
- 56453
- 2014 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Osborne Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in which he c hallenges the trial court’s order award ing real party in interest interim attorney fees for a modification proceeding in a suit affecting the parent

- child relationship. To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must show that the trial court has clearly abused it s discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential I ns. Co

. of Am , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the petition and mandamus record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion because there was some evidence to support a finding that the interim fees were necessary for the safety and welfare of the child. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 105.001

. Accordingly, relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested

.– 2

–

W e deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a) (court must deny petition if it determines relator not entitled to relief sought).

190804F.P05 /Leslie Osborne/ LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of the Attorney-General of the State of New York, Appellant, v. James A. Lundy et al., Constituting the Public Service Commission, Respondents, and Tank Carriers Conference, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent.

Reynolds, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Albany County, dismissing appellant’s petition in a proceeding brought under CPLR article 78, to annul an order and determination of the Public Service Commission (Commission) approving, pursuant to section 63-ee of the Public Service Law, an agreement between Tank Carriers Conference, Inc., (Conference) and its member common carriers. After a well-considered examination of the Conference’s application for approval of an agreement among its members relative to the establishment and promulgation of rates, tariffs and *699rules regarding their activities, the Public Service Commission on April 10, 1968 approved the application upon the condition that the Conference amend its by-laws to cure certain specific infirmities. Subsequently, after the Conference filed an amended application, the Commission approved the agreement but specifically only to the extent that the activities thereunder were within the purview of section 63-ce of the Public Service Law. The sole question is whether this determination has a reasonable basis in law. Interference with an administrative determination such as the instant one will only be undertaken if it is arbitrary and unreasonable *(Matter of American Chicle Co.*v. *State Tax Comm.,*11 A D 2d 256, affd. 9 N" Y 2d 883, app. dsmd. 368 U. S. 17). Only where the record reveals no reasonable basis for the exercise of discretion in the manner in which the petitioner complains will the court intervene (e.g., *Matter of Gambino*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*4 A D 2d 37). Such is not the case in the instant proceeding. Rather it is abundantly clear that the Public Service Commission investigated and explored in detail the entire circumstances involved in connection with the proposed agreement, including the statutory public interest as expressed in the Donnelly Act (General Business Law, § 340), before granting its approval. Moreover, approval of the agreement does not totally immunize the Conference from the application of the Donnelly Act. The Commission has continuing jurisdiction over the Conference and may withdraw its approval or act to bar anti-competitive practices beyond the scope of the agreement at anytime if it deems such action appropriate. Similarly, the appellant is not hereby precluded from bringing an action against the Conference for anti-trust violations not exempted therefrom pursuant to section 63-cc under the approved agreement. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J. P. [59 Misc 2d 436.]
# Volume II-Parts 52 & 53

- Federal Acquisition Regulation
EXHIBIT 13.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the annual report of New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Louis T. Hsieh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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

Date: November 13, 2007



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Louis T. Hsieh     
|Name:  |  | Louis T. Hsieh         
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
160 So.2d 227

#### Succession of Mae Viola Cooper SHOWS.

No. 47066.

Feb. 7, 1964.

Court of Appeal, First Circuit.

158 So.2d 293.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
46.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policies and procedures to ensure that supplies and services acquired under

Government contract conform to the contract’s quality and quantity requirements. Included are

inspection, acceptance, warranty, and other measures associated with quality requirements.

Parent topic: Part 46 - Quality Assurance
#### The People of the State of New York v. Wesley Johnson.

Motion to dismiss appeal dismissed, having become academic by virture of the decision of this court on motion [27 A D 2d 725] decided herewith. Concur—■ Eager, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli and Tilzer, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JEHOVAH JAHWEH JULMICE,

a/k/a JAHWEH JEHOVAH

YAHSHUA JULMICE, a/k/a 

LEOPOLD JULMICE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv475-MW/MAF

DONALD JOSEPH TRUMP,

et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 6. Upon consideration, no objections1 having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This action is DISMISSED for 

1 Simultaneous with this Order, this Court is granting a fifth extension of time for a different 

pro se party to file objections in a different case. This Court is mindful of COVID-19 and the 

limitations the pandemic has placed on parties. Accordingly, parties may file one-page requests 

for extension for good cause—indeed, this Court receives and grants such requests daily. But 

Plaintiff did not request an extension to file objections here, or otherwise respond to the Magistrate 

Judge’s orders from October 2, 2020, ECF No. 3, and October 20, 2020, ECF No. 4.

Case 4:20-cv-00475-MW-MAF Document 8 Filed 12/09/20 Page 1 of 2
2

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.” The Clerk shall close 

the file. 

SO ORDERED on December 9, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00475-MW-MAF Document 8 Filed 12/09/20 Page 2 of 2
52.216-28 Multiple Awards for Advisory and Assistance Services.       As prescribed in 16.506(g), insert the following provision:          Multiple Awards for Advisory and Assistance Services (Oct 1995)          The Government intends to award multiple contracts for the same or similar advisory and assistance services to two or more sources under this solicitation unless the Government determines, after evaluation of offers, that only one offeror is capable of providing the services at the level of quality required.          (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.216 [Reserved]
#### Elizabeth James, Appellant, v Jerome L. Kraut, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 28, 1979, which fixed the fee of the appellant outgoing attorney at $3,500. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and matter remanded to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing, before a different Justice, on the question of counsel fees. Under the circumstances at bar, it was improper to fix the fee of the outgoing attorney without affording him an opportunity to be heard. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Rabin, Gulotta and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 January 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Ronald W. Hovsepian,
President and Chief Executive 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/ Ronald W. Hovsepian              
|Ronald W. Hovsepian                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 11, 2009
52.222-61 [Reserved].

Parent topic: 52.222 [Reserved]
# 34.000 Scope of part.

This part describes *acquisition* policies and procedures for use in acquiring *major systems* consistent with OMB Circular No. A-109; and the use of an *Earned Value Management System* in *acquisitions* designated as major *acquisitions* consistent with OMB Circular A-11, part  7.

**Parent topic:**Part 34 - Major System Acquisition
#### Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al., Plaintiffs, v Foster Wheeler Corporation, Respondent, and Affiliated FM Insurance Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Submitted June 25, 2007;

decided June 27, 2007

Reported below, 36 AD3d 17.

Motion by Honeywell International Inc. for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:01cr14-RH/WCS

ALFRED FOOTMAN,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING RULE 60(b) MOTION

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 102) and the objections thereto (document 103). I

have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections. As set forth in the

report and recommendation, defendant’s motion is both procedurally and

substantively unfounded. 

The motion is procedurally unfounded because defendant’s claim that there

was no factual basis for his guilty plea was raised and rejected in his first motion

under 28 U.S.C. §2255; he has not received authorization from the Eleventh

Circuit to pursue the instant motion, which is in effect a second §2255 motion; and

defendant’s assertion that he can avoid this procedural defect based on the court’s

Case 4:01-cr-00014-RH-CAS Document 104 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No: 4:01cr14-RH/WCS

failure to address the claim in response to the first §2255 motion is wrong because

the court did address the claim. 

The instant motion is substantively unfounded because there was a factual

basis for his guilty plea to the charge of possessing a firearm during and in

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. An officer watched defendant made a sale

of crack cocaine from his residence to a confidential informant, and a subsequent

search of the residence and defendant’s vehicles located on the property yielded

additional drugs, more than $20,000 in cash, and ten firearms, including four

handguns. Defendant did not admit there was a connection between the guns and

drugs, but this does not matter. The factual basis that supports a guilty plea need

not come from the defendant’s own mouth; it can come, instead, from

circumstantial evidence—including unrebutted evidence that drugs, drug proceeds,

and guns were found in close proximity to one another in a defendant’s residence

and vehicles. 

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the further 

Case 4:01-cr-00014-RH-CAS Document 104 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No: 4:01cr14-RH/WCS

opinion of the court. Defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion (document 101) is

DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED this 5th day of June, 2007.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cr-00014-RH-CAS Document 104 Filed 06/06/07 Page 3 of 3
##### 



Exhibit 32.8
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Energy USD Fund, a series of the
Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Trust.
 /s/ John MarshallJohn MarshallChief Executive Officer of Brookshire Raw
Materials Management, LLC, the Managing Owner
of Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Trust/s/ Stephen AdamsStephen AdamsChief Financial Officer of  Brookshire Raw
Materials Management, LLC, the Managing Owner
of Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Trust
36.602-3 Evaluation board functions.

Under the general direction of the head of the contracting activity, an evaluation board shall

perform the following functions:

(a) Review the current data files on eligible firms and responses to a public notice concerning the

particular project (see 36.603).

(b) Evaluate the firms in accordance with the criteria in 36.602-1.

(c) Hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms regarding concepts and the

relative utility of alternative methods of furnishing the required services.

(d) Prepare a selection report for the agency head or other designated selection authority

recommending, in order of preference, at least three firms that are considered to be the most highly

qualified to perform the required services. The report shall include a description of the discussions

and evaluation conducted by the board to allow the selection authority to review the considerations

upon which the recommendations are based.

Parent topic: 36.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ERNEST GIBSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20cv573-TKW-MAF

SERGEANT GEOGERY and OFFICER 

GRUBBS,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 4) and Plaintiff’s filings titled “Racial Discrimination, 

Harassment, Sexual Discrimination and Discrimination Based on Sexual 

Orientation” (Doc. 7) and “Imminent Danger” (Doc. 8). The Court treats Plaintiff’s 

filings as his objections to the Report and Recommendation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(2).

Upon due consideration the Report and Recommendation and de novo review 

of the issues raised in the objections pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court 

agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition of this case because 

Plaintiff is a “three striker” and his allegations in this case do not come close to 

Case 4:20-cv-00573-TKW-MAF Document 11 Filed 01/20/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

meeting the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception in 28 U.S.C. 

§1915(g).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to the three strikes statute, 28 

U.S.C. §1915(g).

3. The Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of January, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00573-TKW-MAF Document 11 Filed 01/20/21 Page 2 of 2
26.104 Contract clause.

Contracting officers in civilian agencies may insert the clause at 52.226-1, Utilization of Indian

Organizations and Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, in solicitations and contracts if-

(a) In the opinion of the contracting officer, subcontracting possibilities exist for Indian

organizations or Indian-owned economic enterprises; and

(b) Funds are available for any increased costs as described in paragraph (b)(2) of the clause at

52.226-1.

Parent topic: Subpart 26.1 - Indian Incentive Program
17.109 Contract clauses.       (a) 						            The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.217-2, Cancellation Under Multi-year Contracts, in solicitations and contracts when a multi-year contract is contemplated.                                          (b)                   *Economic price adjustment clauses*. Economic price adjustment clauses are adaptable to multi-year contracting needs. When the period of production is likely to warrant a labor and material costs contingency in the contract price, the contracting officer should normally use an economic price adjustment clause (see 16.203). When contracting for services, the contracting officer-                                                         (1) 								                Shall add the clause at 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards- Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts), when the contract includes the clause at 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards;                                                            (2) 								                May modify the clause at 52.222-43 in overseas contracts when laws, regulations, or international agreements require contractors to pay higher wage rates; or                                                            (3) 								                May use an economic price adjustment clause authorized by 16.203, when potential fluctuations require coverage and are not included in cost contingencies provided for by the clause at 52.222-43.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 17.1 - Multi-year Contracting
(April 27, 1967)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William R. Bond, Appellant.

Order affirmed. (See *People*v. *Nicholson,*11 N Y 2d 1067.) Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur.
#### § 51.10 When application may be withdrawn.

An application may be withdrawn by the applicant at any time before the inspection is performed: *Provided,* That the applicant shall pay any travel expenses, telephone, telegraph, or other expenses which have been incurred by the Inspection Service in connection with such application.