alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATE
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER** ****
 **PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**
 **PURSUANT
        TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 This
        Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350
        of
        Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the
        United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person for any other
        purpose.
 
 The
        undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Orion HealthCorp, Inc.
        (the
“small business issuer”), hereby certifies as follows:
 
 The
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the small business issuer (the “Report”),
        which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements
        of
        Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the small business issuer.
 
 Dated
        this 12 th day of
        August, 2005.
 
 /s/
        Terrence L. Bauer
 ______________________________________________
 Terrence
                  L. Bauer, Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                  Executive Officer)
 
 
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002 has been provided to the small business issuer and will be retained
        by the small business issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
        Commission or its staff upon request.
27.406-3 Major system acquisition.       (a) 						            The clause at 52.227-21, Technical Data Declaration, Revision, and Withholding of Payment-Major Systems, implements 41 U. S.C. 2302(e). When using the clause at 52.227-21, the section of the contract specifying data delivery requirements (see 27.406-1(b)) shall expressly identify those line items of technical data to which the clause applies. Upon delivery of the technical data, the contracting officer shall review the technical data and the contractor’s declaration relating to it to assure that the data are complete, accurate, and comply with contract requirements. If the data are not complete, accurate, or compliant, the contracting officer should request the contractor to correct the deficiencies, and may withhold payment. Final payment shall not be made under the contract until it has been determined that the delivery requirements of those line items of data to which the clause applies have been satisfactorily met.                                          (b) 						            In a contract for, or in support of, a major system awarded by a civilian agency other than NASA or the U.S. Coast Guard, the following applies:                                                         (1) 								                The contracting officer shall require the delivery of any technical data relating to the major system or supplies for the major system, that are to be developed exclusively with Federal funds if the delivery of the technical data is needed to ensure the competitive acquisition of supplies or services that will be required in substantial quantities in the future. The clause at 52.227-22, Major System-Minimum Rights, is used in addition to the clause at 52.227-14, Rights in Data-General, and other required clauses, to ensure that the Government acquires at least those rights required by Pub. L. 98-577 in technical data developed exclusively with Federal funds.                                                            (2) 								                Technical data, relating to a major system or supplies for a major system, procured or to be procured by the Government and also relating to the design, development, or manufacture of products or processes offered or to be offered for sale to the public (except for such data as may be necessary for the Government to operate or maintain the product, or use the process if obtained by the Government as an element of performance under the contract), shall not be required to be provided to the Government from persons who have developed such products or processes as a condition for the procurement of such products or processes by the Government.    **Parent topic:** 27.406 Acquisition of data.
32.009-1 General.

(a)

(1) Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3903(a), agencies other than the Department of Defense (DoD) shall

provide accelerated payments, to the fullest extent permitted by law, with a goal of 15 days after

receipt of a proper invoice and all other required documentation, if a specific payment date is not

established by contract, to—

(i) Small business contractors; and

(ii) Prime contractors that subcontract with a small business concern, if the prime contractor agrees

to make payments to the small business subcontractor within 15 days of receiving the accelerated

payment from the Government, after receipt of a proper invoice and all other required

documentation from the small business subcontractor, to the maximum extent practicable, without

any further consideration from or fees charged to the subcontractor.

(2) Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 3801(b), DoD shall provide accelerated payments, to the fullest extent

permitted by law, with a goal of 15 days after receipt of a proper invoice and all other required

documentation, to—

(i) Small business contractors; and

(ii) Prime contractors that subcontract with a small business concern, if the prime contractor agrees

to make payments to the small business subcontractor within 15 days of receiving the accelerated

payment from the Government, after receipt of a proper invoice and all other required

documentation from the small business subcontractor, to the maximum extent practicable, without

any further consideration from or fees charged to the subcontractor.

(b) This acceleration does not provide any new rights under the Prompt Payment Act and does not

affect the application of the Prompt Payment Act late payment interest provisions.

(c) Agencies may use the Governmentwide commercial purchase card as a method of payment (see

32.1108) to facilitate accelerated payment, to earn refunds, and to reduce invoice processing costs.

Parent topic: 32.009 Providing accelerated payments to small business contractors and to prime

contractors that subcontract with a small business concern.
[No. 8931.

Department One.

December 12, 1910.]

#### Gertrude Barnum, *Respondent,*v. Seattle, Renton & Southern Railway Company, *Appellant.**1*

Appeal — Review — Verdict — Damages — Excessive ■ Verdict. A verdict for $3,500 will not be disturbed as excessive, where there was a conflict in medical evidence, and the testimony of certain witnesses, if believed, would warrant the verdict.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Albertson, J., entered February 1, 1910, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for personal injuries sustained by a passenger through a collision of street cars.

Affirmed.

*Morris B. Sachs,*for appellant.

*Hastings fy Stedman,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 112 Pac. 85.

Fullerton, J.

The respondent was injured while riding as a passenger upon one of the appellant’s cars, and recovered therefor in this action in the sum of $3,500. The appellant admits its liability for the accident causing the injury, and its liability to respondent in damages for such injury as was actually suffered by the respondent, but contends that the *158verdict of the jury and judgment entered thereon are grossly excessive when measured by such actual injury.

The respondent, at the time of the accident, was riding in the car near the door, in the partition which divides the car into compartments. She was standing up, bracing herself against the side of the door, as the car was so crowded she could not find a seat. As she was in that position, the car met with a head-on collision with another car of the appellant. The shock threw her violently against the door, from which position she fell to the floor and was trampled upon by other passengers.

That the respondent received some severe bruises from the accident and was under the doctor’s care for some time thereafter is conceded, the principal dispute being over the question whether the injuries received were of a permanent nature, and were the proximate cause of the apparent arrested development from which the respondent subsequently suffered. On these questions the medical evidence is squarely in conflict. If that offered on behalf of the respondent is to be believed, the amount awarded by the jury is no more than adequate to compensate her for her suffering and injury. On the other hand, if we were to adopt the theory of the appellant’s witnesses, it could well be said the damages are excessive. But these matters this court cannot determine with any certainty from the record. Each is supported by evidence and plausible reasoning. We can do no more, therefore, than abide by the verdict of the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

Rudkin, C. J., Gose, Mount, and Parker, JJ., concur.
THE UNITED BUILDING, 77 WEST WACKER DRIVE, CHICAGO, IL 60601

DAN WEISS

MANAGING DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS & REGULATORY

(312) 997-7573

DAN.WEISS@COAIR.COM

February 6, 2012

Mr. Paul L. Gretch

Director

Office of International Aviation

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Applications of Continental and Virgin Atlantic, Docket DOT-OST-1997-2880

Dear Mr. Gretch:

By Notice of Action Taken on October 5, 2007 in this docket, the Department granted renewed 

and amended Statements of Authorization and exemptions authorizing reciprocal code-share 

services by Continental and Virgin Atlantic. Consistent with condition (b) in Appendix C of that 

notice, Continental notifies the Department that Continental and Virgin Atlantic will cease all 

code-share services effective February 13, 2012.1

Sincerely,

Dan Weiss

Managing Director, International & Regulatory 

Affairs

UNITED AIR LINES, INC. AND

 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.

cc: Robert Finamore

 Esta Rosenberg

 Mary Street

Anita Mosner

 

1 United Airlines and Virgin Atlantic will continue their mail code-share arrangement, which the 

Department previously approved by Department Action dated September 4, 2008 in Docket DOT-OST2008-0248.
THE UNITED BUILDING, 77 WEST WACKER DRIVE, CHICAGO, IL 60601

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing document on all 

persons named below by causing a copy to be sent via email:

anita.mosner@hklaw.com (UPS)

carl.nelson@aa.com 

dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com

dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil

howard.kass@usairways.com

john.allen@faa.gov

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com (World Airways)

nssparks@fedex.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

william.stallings@usdoj.com

Annalei Avanceña 

International Regulatory Advisor

February 6, 2012
[872 NE2d 1194, 840 NYS2d 888]

#### Howard Leder, as Preliminary Executor of Abraham Warsaski, Deceased, Proponent, v Marshall Spiegel, Appellant, et al., Objectant. Joanne Rowland, Esq., Respondent.

Argued May 29, 2007;

decided June 28, 2007

*837APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jeffrey A. Barr,*New York City, for appellant.

*Leo Fox,*New York City, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

After unsuccessfully representing two objectants at a will contest trial in Surrogate’s Court, respondent attorney petitioned the same court for legal fees. In their answer, objectants counterclaimed for legal malpractice, arguing that, but for respondent’s negligent representation, they would have accepted a $108,000 settlement. In particular, objectants cited respondent’s failure to anticipate that Surrogate’s Court would not admit certain evidence. Respondent moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for an order dismissing objectants’ counterclaim.

Surrogate’s Court dismissed objectants’ counterclaim and awarded respondent her legal fees. In a 3-2 decision, the Appellate Division affirmed. Objectant Marshall Spiegel appeals as of right, and we now affirm.

> “In order to sustain a claim for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish both that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession which results in actual damages to a plaintiff, and that the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action ‘but for’ the attorney’s negligence” *(Am-Base Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell,*8 NY3d 428, 434 [2007] [internal citations omitted]).

Under the circumstances of this case, objectant’s allegation regarding respondent’s failure to anticipate the court’s evidentiary rulings—even if accepted as true—does not establish negligence. Thus, objectants did not allege a prima facie case of legal malpractice and the courts below properly dismissed the counterclaim. Objectant’s remaining contentions also lack merit.

Chief Judge KLaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
36.609-3 Work oversight in architect-engineer contracts.       The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.236-24, Work Oversight in Architect-Engineer Contracts, in all architect-engineer contracts.    **Parent topic:** 36.609 Contract clauses.
#### § 52.776 Ascertaining the grade of a sample unit.

(a) *General.* The grade of a sample unit of canned red tart pitted cherries is ascertained by considering the factor of flavor and odor of the product and the requirement for size (in U.S. Grade A and U.S. Grade B) which are not scored; the ratings for the factors of color, freedom from pits, defects, and character, which are scored; and the limiting rules which may be applicable.

(b) *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 each factor is:

| Factors | Points |
| --- | --- |
| Color | 20 |
| Freedom from pits | 20 |
| Defects | 30 |
| Character | 30 |
| Total score | 100 |

(c) *Definition.* “Normal flavor and odor” means that the flavor and odor are characteristic of canned red tart pitted cherries and that the product is free from objectionable flavors and objectionable odors of any kind.
# 52.211 [Reserved]

- 52.211-1 Availability of Specifications Listed in the GSA Index of Federal Specifications, Standards and Commercial Item Descriptions, FPMR Part 101-29. 
- 52.211-2 Availability of Defense Specifications, Standards, and Data Item Descriptions in the Acquisition Streamlining and Standardization Information System (ASSIST) website. 
- 52.211-3 Availability of Specifications Not Listed in the GSA Index of Federal Specifications, Standards and Commercial Item Descriptions. 
- 52.211-4 Availability for Examination of Specifications Not Listed in the GSA Index of Federal Specifications, Standards and Commercial Item Descriptions. 
- 52.211-5 Material Requirements. 
- 52.211-6 Brand Name or Equal. 
- 52.211-7 Alternatives to Government-Unique Standards. 
- 52.211-8 Time of Delivery. 
- 52.211-9 Desired and Required Time of Delivery. 
- 52.211-10 Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work. 
- 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages-Supplies, Services, or Research and Development. 
- 52.211-12 Liquidated Damages-Construction. 
- 52.211-13 Time Extensions. 
- 52.211-14 Notice of Priority Rating for National Defense, Emergency Preparedness, and Energy Program Use. 
- 52.211-15 Defense Priority and Allocation Requirements. 
- 52.211-16 Variation in Quantity. 
- 52.211-17 Delivery of Excess Quantities. 
- 52.211-18 Variation in Estimated Quantity. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 52.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses
**EXHIBIT 31.2**I, Dana C. Russell, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Novell, Inc; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: June 8, 2007   /s/ DANA C. RUSSELL Dana C. Russell  Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Krupp
Institutional Mortgage Fund Limited Partnership Financial Statements for the
nine months ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,110,363
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,473,839
<ALLOWANCES>                              (16,524,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,507
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,180,709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,150
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,161,559<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,180,709
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               491,831
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                69,031
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   422,800<F2>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Represents Limited Partners equity of $8,379,548 and General Partners deficit
of ($217,989), respectively.
<F2>Net income allocated $4,228 to the General Partners and $418,572 to the Limited
Partners.  Average net income per Unit of Limited Partners interest is $13.39
on 30,059 Units outstanding.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 3203.2 Eligibility. To be eligible under this part: ( a ) A city, town, or local government entity must be located in a rural area as defined in 7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)(A).
( b ) A designated organization must: ( 1 ) Have the documented capability to refurbish and distribute excess computers or other technical equipment;
( 2 ) Serve the interest of cities, towns, or local government entities in rural areas; and
( 3 ) Have been designated by an official of a city, town, or local government entity in a rural area to receive excess computers or other technical equipment under this part.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 21, 2017

d0614t

Order 

Clerk

June 21, 2017

155381

MARY ANN LAMKIN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155381

COA: 328836

Livingston CC: 15-028656-CZ

HAMBURG TOWNSHIP BOARD OF

TRUSTEES and HAMBURG TOWNSHIP

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2017 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.