alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13

- 12

- 00 4 93

- C V



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

TIDEPORT DISTRIBUTING, INC.

, Appellant,

v.

RAMON CERDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE

ESTATE OF BRITTANY CERDA, DECEASED

, Appellee.

On appeal from the 148 th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.



### ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s unopposed motion to abate the

appeal pending settlement. Appellant requests that the Court abate this appeal pending

finalization of settlement of the underlying cause. Appellant states that , once the

settlement is complete, appellant will mo ve to dismiss this appeal

.2

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the

unopposed motion to abate, is of the opinion that the unopposed motion to abate the

appeal pending settlement should be granted. The motion to abate t he appeal pending

settlement is GRANTED and this appeal is ordered ABATED until f urther order of this

Court

.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

29t h day of January, 2014

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000756899
<NAME> FIRST-KNOX BANC CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          14,066
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             495
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    174,585
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        365,593
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 569,046
<DEPOSITS>                                     431,732
<SHORT-TERM>                                    20,626
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,157
<LONG-TERM>                                     61,618
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,740
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,173
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 569,046
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,016
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,886
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,902
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,238
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,459
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,443
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      159
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,969
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,266
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,694
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,694
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.41
<LOANS-NON>                                        899
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,155
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   466
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 10,491
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,545
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      117
<RECOVERIES>                                        52
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,639
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,481
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          3,158
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of June S. Weirich, Petitioner, v Joseph F. Griffo, as Treasurer of the County of Livingston, et ah, Respondents.

Petition unanimously granted, with costs, determination annulled and matter remitted to respondents for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In this article 78 proceeding petitioner asks the court to review respondent’s decision to terminate her employment as a senior account clerk in the *970Livingston County Treasurer’s office. In June, 1979,petitioner was charged with seven counts of misconduct. Six of the charges involved unauthorized use of the office telephone; the seventh alleged insubordination. The hearing officer determined that there was no evidence to support the allegation of insubordination and dismissed that charge. He sustained Charge Nos. 1 through 6, however, and recommended that petitioner be discharged. Upon examining the record we find that there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the hearing officer. Petitioner testified that she made personal long distance calls on the county telephone. She also admitted that she made no effort to pay for these calls until just prior to the bringing of formal charges. Most serious, however, is the proof that petitioner quibbled about her guilt when first informed that an investigation was under way. Although the amount of money involved in this matter is small and the calls were made either to petitioner’s daughter (33 calls) or husband (six calls) when these close relatives were seriously ill, petitioner’s conduct cannot be condoned. The seriousness of this misuse of public funds was compounded by petitioner’s early equivocation when questioned about this misuse. As objectionable as this conduct is, however, it does not, when examined against the standard articulated in *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.*(34 NY2d 222), merit the extreme punishment of dismissal. Petitioner’s misconduct was not motivated by avarice or “cardinal moral delinquency” *(Matter of Harris v Mechanicville Cent. School Dist.,*45 NY2d 279,285), but resulted from a concern about the well-being of her family. Moreover, the evidence shows that her superior knew of the calls and did not admonish her against making them, until an unrelated matter resulted in an argument between them. Considering the circumstances exposed at the hearing and the fact that there is very little likelihood of a repetition of the misconduct, we conclude that the maximum sanction that could be supported by this record is a suspension without pay of petitioner for a period not to exceed six months. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Livingston Supreme Court.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
EX-35 (e)
(logo) GMAC RFC


SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)


Residential Funding Company, LLC


Banc of America Funding 2006-5 Trust (the "Issuing Entity")


The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC
(formerly Residential Funding Corporation), as servicer (the "Servicer"), does
hereby certify that:


1.   A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the
     Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance
     under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my
     supervision.


2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
6th day of March 2007.


By:/s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Managing Director
# 52.229 [Reserved]

- 52.229-1 State and Local Taxes. 
- 52.229-2 North Carolina State and Local Sales and Use Tax. 
- 52.229-3 Federal, State, and Local Taxes. 
- 52.229-4 Federal, State, and Local Taxes (State and Local Adjustments). 
- 52.229-5 [Reserved] 
- 52.229-6 Taxes-Foreign Fixed-Price Contracts. 
- 52.229-7 Taxes-Fixed-Price Contracts with Foreign Governments. 
- 52.229-8 Taxes-Foreign Cost-Reimbursement Contracts. 
- 52.229-9 Taxes-Cost-Reimbursement Contracts with Foreign Governments. 
- 52.229-10 State of New Mexico Gross Receipts and Compensating Tax. 
- 52.229-11 Tax on Certain Foreign Procurements—Notice and Representation. 
- 52.229-12 Tax on Certain Foreign Procurements. 
- 52.229-13 Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan. 
- 52.229-14 Taxes—Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan (North Atlantic Treaty Organization Status of Forces Agreement). 

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7102

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL WOODS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CR-93-46, CA-94-170-2)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Gerald Nazzaro, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and find no reversible error. With regard to the

alleged sentencing errors, we find that Appellant may not assert

those nonconstitutional errors in a collateral proceeding because

he did not raise them on direct appeal. See Stone v. Powell, 428

U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of

relief of Appellant's sentencing claims on that basis. With regard

to Appellant's remaining claims, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Woods, Nos. CR-93-46; CA-94-170-2

(N.D.W. Va. June 29, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
42.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policies and procedures for assigning and performing contract administration

and contract audit services.

Parent topic: Part 42 - Contract Administration and Audit Services
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Childrens TelevisionComputer GamesContent AnalysisCultural AwarenessCultural BackgroundElementary Secondary EducationFilmsKnowledge Base for TeachingMass MediaMass Media EffectsMass Media UseMedia ResearchNonprint MediaSocial StudiesTeacher EducationTelevisionTelevision ViewingVideo GamesViolence

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
# 37.109 Services of quasi-military armed forces.

Contracts with "Pinkerton Detective Agencies or similar organizations" are prohibited by 5 U.S.C.3108. This prohibition applies only to contracts with organizations that *offer* quasi-military armed forces for hire, or with their employees, regardless of the contract’s character. An organization providing guard or protective services does not thereby become a "quasi-military armed force," even though the guards are armed or the organization provides general investigative or detective services. (See 57 Comp. Gen. 524.)

**Parent topic:**Subpart 37.1 - Service Contracts-General
#### § 51.2844 Fairly well shaped.

*Fairly well shaped* means having the shape characteristic of the variety, but onions may be slightly off-type or slightly misshapen.
RICHARD BEASLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2030

Opinion filed September 13, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Richard Beasley, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
PRIVATE LAW 107–3—OCT. 4, 2002

Private Law 107–3

107th Congress

An Act

For the relief of Barbara Makuch.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PAYMENT.

In consideration of the fact that Barbara Makuch—

(1) served 22 years as a foreign counterintelligence agent

and dedicated her life to assist the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its efforts at the height of the Cold War to combat

communism, the Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti

(KGB), and the Soviet Union,

(2) was presented the Louis E. Peters Memorial Service

Award, the highest civilian award presented by the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, for her valorous service, and

(3) has not received employment assistance or health, social

security, or pension benefits, despite assurances that she would

receive such benefits upon her retirement,

the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of funds not otherwise

appropriated, the sum of $1,000,000 to Barbara Makuch of East

Amherst, New York, in compensation for the lifetime aggregate

value of benefits earned but not received by Barbara Makuch.

SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIM.

The sum paid under section 1 shall be in full satisfaction

of any claims that Barbara Makuch may have against the United

States arising out of her service for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEY FEES.

Not more than 10 percent of the sum paid under section 1

shall be paid to or received by any agent or attorney for services

rendered in connection with the recovery of such sum. Any person

who violates this section shall be fined under title 18, United

States Code.

Oct. 4, 2002

[H.R. 486]
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
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF MICHAEL A. CREEL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**OF EPE HOLDINGS, LLC, THE GENERAL PARTNER OF**

**ENTERPRISE GP HOLDINGS L.P.**

 

In connection with this quarterly report of Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael A. Creel, Chief Executive Officer of EPE Holdings, LLC, the general partner of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Colin Edwards, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 681]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered January 16, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The jury determination that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” when he stabbed and killed his wife was not against the weight of the evidence (Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]; *see*Penal Law § 125.20 [2]; *People v Roche,*98 NY2d 70, 75-76 [2002]; *People v Casassa,*49 NY2d 668, 675 [1980], *cert denied*449 US 842 [1980]; *People v George,*7 AD3d 810 [2004]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in the supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Dana C. Russell,
Chief Financial Officer of Novell, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certify that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2008 (the Form 10-Q) 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * *



|                       
|-----------------------
|CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
|                       
|/s/ DANA C. RUSSELL    
|Dana C. Russell        
|                       
|Date: September 8, 2008
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 08-1493

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

FRANKLIN AZUBIKE,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on April 29, 2009 is

amended as follows:

On page 7, line 18, insert a period after "differences".

On page 9, line 9, insert the following after "Id." and

before "If": "Plausible, in this context, means reasonable."
16.405-2 Cost-plus-award-fee contracts.

A cost-plus-award-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for a fee consisting of

(1) a base amount fixed at inception of the contract, if applicable and at the discretion of the

contracting officer, and (2) an award amount that the contractor may earn in whole or in part during

performance and that is sufficient to provide motivation for excellence in the areas of cost, schedule,

and technical performance. See 16.401(e) for the requirements relative to utilizing this contract

type.

Parent topic: 16.405 Cost-reimbursement incentive contracts.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JESSIE L. BENNETT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-316-TKW/MJF

JEREMY HEAD, et al.,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation (Doc. 18). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s 

failure to comply with court orders. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

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

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This action is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00316-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 08/09/21 Page 1 of 1
§ 51.2108 U.S. Select Sheller Run. “U.S. Select Sheller Run” consists of shelled almonds of similar varietal characteristics which are whole, clean and well dried, and which are free from decay, rancidity, insect injury, foreign material, doubles, split or broken kernels, particles and dust, and free from damage caused by chipped and scratched kernels, mold, gum, shriveling, brown spot or other means. (See §§ 51.2113 and 51.2114.) In order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and handling, the following tolerances, by weight, shall be permitted: ( a ) *For dissimilar varieties.* 5 percent, including not more than one-fifth of this amount, or 1 percent, for bitter almonds mixed with sweet almonds;
( b ) *For doubles.* 15 percent;
( c ) *For kernels damaged by chipping and/or scratching.* 20 percent;
( d ) *For foreign material.* One-tenth of 1 percent (0.10 percent). No part of this percentage shall be allowed for glass and metal;
( e ) *For particles and dust.* One-tenth of 1 percent (0.10 percent);
( f ) *For split and broken kernels.* 5 percent: Provided, that not more than two-fifths of this amount, or 2 percent, shall be allowed for pieces which will pass through a round opening 20 ⁄ 64 inch (7.9 mm) in diameter; and,
( g ) *For other defects.* 3 percent, including not more than two-thirds of this amount, or 2 percent, for serious damage.
49.105-2 Release of excess funds.       (a) 						            The TCO shall estimate the funds required to settle the termination, and within 30 days after the receipt of the termination notice, recommend the release of excess funds to the contracting officer. The initial deobligation of excess funds should be accomplished in a timely manner by the contracting officer, or the TCO, if delegated the responsibility. The TCO shall not recommend the release of amounts under $1,000, unless requested by the contracting officer.                                          (b) 						            The TCO shall maintain continuous surveillance of required funds to permit timely release of any additional excess funds (a recommended format for release of excess funds is in 49.604). If previous releases of excess funds result in a shortage of the amount required for settlement, the TCO shall promptly inform the contracting officer, who shall reinstate the funds within 30 days.    **Parent topic:** 49.105 Duties of termination contracting officer after issuance of notice of termination.