alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
23.803 Procedures.

In preparing specifications and purchase descriptions, and in the acquisition of products and

services, agencies shall–

(a) Comply with the requirements of title VI of the Clean Air Act, section 706 of division D, title VII of

Pub. L. 111-8, Executive Order 13693, and 40 CFR 82.84(a)(2), (3), (4), and (5);

(b) Substitute acceptable alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, as identified under

42U.S.C.7671k, to the maximum extent practicable, as provided in 40 CFR 82.84(a)(1), except in the

case of Class I substances being used for specified essential uses, as identified under 40 CFR

82.4(n);

(c) Unless a particular contract requires otherwise, specify that, when feasible, contractors shall use

another acceptable alternative in lieu of a high global warming potential hydrofluorocarbon in

products and services in a particular end use for which EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) program has identified other acceptable alternatives that have lower global warming

potential; and

(d) Refer to EPA's SNAP program for the list of alternatives, found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G as

well as supplemental tables of alternatives (available at http://www.epa.gov/snap).

Parent topic: Subpart 23.8 - Ozone-Depleting Substances and Greenhouse Gases
***DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE***

 

**REPORT TO CONGRESS**

****

**DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM**

**IN THE**

**DEFENSE AGAINST**

**WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION**

**May 1, 1997**

----

> 
Table of    Contents

    Updated: 16 Jun 1998Privacy & Security Notice  |         External Link Disclaimer  |          Web PolicyAbout DefenseLINK  |         Contact Us
#### Anne M. Lederer, Respondent, v Anthony W. Lederer, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 11, 1979, unanimously affirmed for reasons stated by F. Shea, J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Sandler, Markewich and Carro, JJ.
# 52.242-16 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**52.242 [Reserved]
§ 51.1901 U.S. Grade A. U.S. Grade A shall consist of tomatoes of similar varietal characteristics which are mature and are at least turning (see § 51.1904), but are not overripe or soft which are well developed, at least fairly well formed, fairly smooth, free from soft rot, freezing injury, and from damage caused by dirt, bruises, cuts, shriveling, sunscald, sunburn, puffiness, catfaces, growth cracks, scars, dry rot, other diseases, insects, hail, or mechanical or other means. Tomatoes on the shown face shall be reasonably representative in size and quality of the contents of the container. (See § 51.1903.) ( a ) Incident to proper grading and handling, except for maturity, not more than 5 percent, by count, of the tomatoes in any lot may fail to meet the requirements of the grade, including not more than 1 percent for tomatoes which are affected by soft rot.
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 22 Filed 06/03/02 Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-20039

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Gaylan Lavan, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CR-141-1

______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gaylan Lavan

has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lavan

has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant portions of the record. 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 27, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-20039 Document: 00516910705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023
No. 23-20039

2

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 23-20039 Document: 00516910705 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2023
JESSICA RENA CARROLL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

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. 1D16-510

___________________________/

Opinion filed December 8, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

Michael Flowers, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
# L_2014354EN.01008902.xml

| 11.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 354/89 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 354/89

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision 2014/847/EU, Euratom of 26 November 2014 amending Decision 90/176/Euratom, EEC authorizing France not to take into account certain categories of transactions and to use certain approximate estimates for the calculation of the VAT own resources base

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 343 of 28 November 2014
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 343 of 28 November 2014

On page 39, in the preamble:

for:

‘Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax (1), and in particular the second indent of Article 6(3) thereof,

Whereas:’

;

read:

‘Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax (1), and in particular the second indent of Article 6(3) thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee on Own Resources,

Whereas:’

.

---
52.229-1 State and Local Taxes.

As prescribed in 29.401-1 , insert the following clause:

State and Local Taxes (Apr 1984)

Notwithstanding the terms of the Federal, State, and Local Taxes clause, the contract price excludes

all State and local taxes levied on or measured by the contract or sales price of the services or

completed supplies furnished under this contract. The Contractor shall state separately on its

invoices taxes excluded from the contract price, and the Government agrees either to pay the

amount of the taxes to the Contractor or provide evidence necessary to sustain an exemption.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.229 [Reserved]
**Exhibit 35.1**

** **

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, H. John Berens, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), do hereby certify toWaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of  October 1, 2006 (as amended, the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Depositor, the Servicer, LaSalle Bank,National Association, as Trustee, and Christiana Bank & Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee the following with respect to WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR15 for the 2006 fiscal year  (the “Relevant Year”):

 

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the ServicingAgreement 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 theServicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

 

 

Dated as of February 22, 2007.

                                                                                   

                                                                                   
| /s/ H. John Berens

___________________________________________

Name:  H. John Berens

Title:    Senior Vice President |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### § 52.3758 Determining the grade of a sample unit.

(a) *General.* In addition to considering other requirements outlined in the standards the following quality factors are evaluated:

(1) *Factors not rated by score points.*

(i) Flavor;

(ii) Uniformity of size (styles of whole and pitted only).

(2) *Factors rated by score points.* The relative importance of each factor which is scored is expressed numerically on the scale of 100. The maximum number of points that may be given such factors are:

| | Points |
| --- | --- |
| (i) Color | 30 |
| (ii) Absence of defects | 40 |
| (iii) Character | 30 |
| Total score | 100 |

(b) *Definition of flavor* —

(1) *Good flavor.*

(i) “Good flavor” in ripe type means a distinctive flavor characteristic of ripe type olives (including that of properly spiced olives) which have been properly prepared and processed and which are free from objectionable flavors of any kind.

(ii) “Good Flavor” in green-ripe type means a distinctive mellow flavor characteristic of green-ripe type olives which have been properly prepared and processed and which are free from objectionable flavors of any kind.

(2) *Reasonably good flavor.* “Reasonably good flavor” in either ripe type or green-ripe type (including that of properly spiced olives) means that the flavor may be slightly lacking in distinctly characteristic flavor for the respective type but the olives are free from objectionable flavors of any kind.
52.247-20 Estimated Quantities or Weights

for Evaluation of Offers.

As prescribed in 47.207-6(c)(6), insert the following provision in solicitations for transportation or

for transportation-related services when quantities or weights of shipments between each origin and

destination are not known, stating estimated quantity or weight for each origin/destination pair:

Estimated Quantities or Weights for Evaluation of Offers (Apr 1984)

For the purpose of evaluating offers, and for no other purpose, the following estimated quantities or

weights will be considered as the quantities or weights to be shipped between each origin and

destination listed:

Origin Destination Estimated Quantity or Weight

____________ ____________ ____________

____________ ____________ ____________

____________ ____________ ____________

____________ ____________ ____________

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.247 [Reserved]
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2019219EN.01007701.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 22.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 219/77 |

---

Corrigendum to Directive 2014/47/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union and repealing Directive 2000/30/EC

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 127 of 29 April 2014](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2014_127_R_TOC)
)

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | On page 169, Annex II, point 3, in the table: |

for:

| | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | --- | --- | | ‘4.1.2. | Alignment | | Visual inspection and by operation | | | | | --- | --- | | (a) | Headlamp grossly misaligned | | | X’ | |
| | | | | --- | --- | | (b) | Light source incorrectly fitted | | | | |

read:

| | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | --- | --- | | ‘4.1.2. | Alignment | | Visual inspection and by operation | | | | | --- | --- | | (a) | Headlamp grossly misaligned | | | X | |
| | | | | --- | --- | | (b) | Light source incorrectly fitted | | | X’ | |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | On page 192, Annex II, point 3, in the table, item 8.2.2.2 ‘Opacity’, column ‘Method’, second dash: |

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘— | For vehicles as of emission classes Euro 6 and Euro VI (9):’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘— | For vehicles as of emission classes Euro 6 and Euro VI (8):’. |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | On page 193, Annex II, point 3, in the table, item 8.2.2.2 ‘Opacity’, column ‘Reasons for failure’, point (b): |

for:

‘1,5 m– 1 (10)’,

read:

‘1,5 m– 1 (9)’.

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | On page 199, Annex II, point 3, end of table footnotes: |

for:

‘...

| | |
| --- | --- |
| (8) | Type-approved in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, Annex I, Table 2 (Euro 6) and Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 (Euro VI). |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| (9) | Type approved according to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 Annex I Table 2 (Euro 6) and Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 (Euro VI). |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| (10) | Type-approved in accordance with limits in row B, Section 5.3.1.4 of Annex I to Directive 70/220/EEC; row B1, B2 or C, Section 6.2.1 of Annex I to Directive 88/77/EEC or first registered or put into service after 1 July 2008.’, |

read:

‘...

| | |
| --- | --- |
| (8) | Type-approved in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, Annex I, Table 2 (Euro 6) and Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 (Euro VI). |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| (9) | Type-approved in accordance with limits in row B, Section 5.3.1.4 of Annex I to Directive 70/220/EEC; row B1, B2 or C, Section 6.2.1 of Annex I to Directive 88/77/EEC or first registered or put into service after 1 July 2008.’. |

---
52.237-6 Incremental Payment by Contractor

to Government.

As prescribed in 37.304(c), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts for dismantling,

demolition, or removal of improvements (a) if the Contractor is to receive title to dismantled or

demolished property and a net amount of compensation is due the Government; and (b) if the

Contracting Officer determines that it would be advantageous to the Government for the Contractor

to pay in increments, and for the Government to transfer title to the Contractor for increments of

property, only upon receipt of those payment:

Incremental Payment by Contractor to Government (Apr 1984)

(a) The Contractor shall perform the work called for under this contract and within _____ days of

receipt of notice of award, unless otherwise provided in the Schedule, and before proceeding with

the work, shall pay _____ [fill in amount]. Thereafter, the Contractor shall make payment to the

Government in the amount and frequency specified in the Schedule. Checks shall be made payable

to the office designated in the contract and shall be forwarded to the Contracting Officer.

(b) Upon the Government’s receipt of each increment of payment, the Contractor shall receive title

to such property as the Contracting Officer determines to be fair and reasonable for that increment

of payment. Upon receipt of the Contractor’s final payment, all title that has not passed to the

Contractor shall vest in the Contractor, unless specifically designated in the Schedule as being

retained by the Government. The Government shall not be responsible for the condition of, or any

loss or damage to, the property.

(c) The Contractor shall promptly remove from the site all property acquired by the Contractor. The

Government will not permit storage of property on the site beyond the completion date. If the

Contractor does not wish to remove from the site any of the property acquired, the Contracting

Officer may, upon written request, grant the Contractor permission to leave the property on the

premises. As a condition of the granting of this permission, the Contractor agrees to waive any right,

title, claim, or interest in and to the property.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.237 [Reserved]
AO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

MIDDLE District of ALABAMA

United States of America )

v. )

) Case No: 2:06cr169-015-WKW WILMONT TIMOTHY BARNETT

) USM No: 12129-002

Date of Previous Judgment: 2/6/0 8 ) Jay Lewis

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) ) Defendant's Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of x the defendant the Director of the Bureau of Prisons J the court under 18 U.s.c.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 u.s.c.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

x DENIED. GRANTED and the defendant's previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in

thelast judgment issued) of ____________________ months is reduced to ___________________

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior toy Departures)

Previous Offense Level: _______________ Amended Offense Level: ______________

Criminal History Category: _______________ Criminal History Category: _____________

Previous Guideline Range: _______ to ______ months Amended Guideline Range: _______to _____ months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

j The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.

The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the

amended guideline range.

x Other (explain): The defendant's guideline sentence was based on his Career Offender status, not the type and

amount of drug distributed; therefore, he is not eligible for a reduction.

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated 2/6/08 shall remin in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: 2.1, 2t29

Judge's signature

Effective Date: _________________ W. KEITH WATKINS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 675 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 1
28.103 Performance and payment bonds for

other than construction contracts.

28.103-1 General.

28.103-2 Performance bonds.

28.103-3 Payment bonds.

28.103-4 Contract clause.

Parent topic: Subpart 28.1 - Bonds and Other Financial Protections
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-3258 

ROBERT J. SARHAN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Respondent. 

Samuel B. Reiner, II, Reiner & Reiner, P.A., of Miami, Florida, argued for petitioner. 

Anuj Vohra, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United 

States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. With her on the 

brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Todd M. Hughes, Deputy Director. Of 

counsel on the brief was Kenneth W. Bork, Attorney, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of 

the General Counsel, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC. 

Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 2008-3258 

ROBERT J. SARHAN, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

 Respondent. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

in CASE NO(S). AT0752070789-I-1 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges). 

 AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATED May 19, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
19.811 Preparing the contracts.

19.811-1 Sole source.

19.811-2 Competitive.

19.811-3 Contract clauses.

Parent topic: Subpart 19.8 - Contracting with the Small Business Administration (The 8(a)

Program)
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-11000.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-11000.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
52.241-4 Change in Class of Service.

As prescribed in 41.501(c)(3), insert a clause substantially the same as the following:

Change in Class of Service (Feb 1995)

(a) In the event of a change in the class of service, such service shall be provided at the Contractor’s

lowest available rate schedule applicable to the class of service furnished.

(b) Where the Contractor does not have on file with the regulatory body approved rate schedules

applicable to services provided, no clause in this contract shall preclude the parties from negotiating

a rate schedule applicable to the class of service furnished.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.241 Utility Services Provisions and Clauses.
# L_2014344EN.01000101.xml

| 29.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 344/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 344/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2014/853/CFSP

of 8 October 2014

on the signature and on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Mali regarding the status of the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 37 thereof, in conjunction with Article 218(5) and (6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 15 April 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/219/CFSP (1) on the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 15 April 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/219/CFSP (1) on the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali).

| (2) | Following the adoption of a Decision by the Council on 15 April 2014 authorising the opening of negotiations, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty on European Union, negotiated an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Mali on the status of EUCAP Sahel Mali. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following the adoption of a Decision by the Council on 15 April 2014 authorising the opening of negotiations, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty on European Union, negotiated an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Mali on the status of EUCAP Sahel Mali.

| (3) | The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Mali regarding the status of the CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.

The text of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the respective letter in order to bind the Union.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 8 October 2014.

For the Council

The President

M. LUPI

---

(1)  Council Decision 2014/219/CFSP of 15 April 2014 on the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (OJ L 113, 16.4.2014, p. 21).

1

---