alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
47.002 Applicability.

All Government personnel concerned with the following activities shall follow the regulations in part 

47 as applicable:

(a) Acquisition of supplies.

(b) Acquisition of transportation and transportation-related services.

(c) Transportation assistance and traffic management.

(d) Administration of transportation contracts, transportation-related services, and other contracts

that involve transportation.

(e) The making and administration of contracts under which payments are made from Government

funds for-

(1) The transportation of supplies;

(2) Transportation-related services; or

(3) Transportation of contractor personnel and their personal belongings.

Parent topic: Part 47 - Transportation
#### § 54.1012 Authority of agent.

Proof of the authority of any person making an application or a request for service under the regulations on behalf of any other person may be required at the discretion of the Deputy Administrator or Chief or other employee receiving the application or request under § 54.1008.
§ 600.1 General. ( a ) The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-354, 7 U.S.C. 6901 note) and established by Secretary's Memorandum 1010-1 (2.b.6), *Reorganization of the Department of Agriculture,* to provide national leadership in the conservation, development, and productive use of the Nation's natural resources. Such leadership encompasses the conservation of soil, water, air, plant, and animal resources with consideration of the many human (economic and sociological) interactions. NRCS is the Federal agency that works with landowners on private lands to help them conserve their natural resources. NRCS employees are highly skilled in many scientific and technical specialties, including soil science, soil conservation, agronomy, biology, agroecology, range conservation, forestry, engineering, geology, hydrology, wetlands science, cultural resources, and economics. NRCS was formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) which was established by the Soil Conservation Act of 1935 (Pub. L. 74-46, 49 Stat. 163 (16 U.S.C. 590 (a-f))). NRCS has responsibility for three major areas: ( 1 ) Soil and water conservation;
( 2 ) Natural resource surveys including soil surveys, resources inventory, snow surveys, and water supply forecasting; and
( 3 ) Community resource protection and management including watershed projects, river basin studies and investigations, resource conservation and development areas, land evaluation and site assessment, and emergency watershed protection. In addition, NRCS has leadership for the Wetlands Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, Farmland Protection Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Forestry Incentives Program, and Conservation Farm Option. NRCS provides technical support for the Conservation Reserve Program.
( b ) The NRCS organization consists of a National Headquarters located in Washington, DC; six regional offices; 50 state offices and two equivalent offices in the Caribbean Area and the U.S. Trust Territories of the Pacific Basin Area; approximately 2,500 field offices and 300 specialized offices; 26 plant materials centers; 17 major land resource area soil survey offices; nine national centers; and seven national institutes. A Chief who reports to the USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment heads NRCS.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         239,099 
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  214,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     32,872
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               510,516
<PP&E>                                         831,187
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,165,573)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,021,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,108,635
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,185
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,912,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,021,287
<SALES>                                        653,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,083,482
<CGS>                                          711,654
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  711,654
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,852
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (336,492)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (366,492)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (366,492)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

Octo ber 5 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk Octo ber 5 , 2020

161471

1616 66

IVY ALICE WIMMER

,

Plaintiff

- Appell ee

, SC: 161471, 161666

COA: 353 753

Oakland CC: 2012

- 802216

- DO

MARIO ALLAN MONTANO

,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________ ______________________________ /

On order of the C hief Justice

, the interlocutory application and the application for

leave to appeal are administratively dismissed for the failure of defendant

- appellant to

pay the outstanding fees. The clerk of the Court shall not to accept further filings from

the defendant

- appellant in any civil matter until the sancti ons ordered by this Court in

No. 161152, IW v MM ($500.00) and No. 161299, Montano v Court of Appeals

($1,000.00) are paid in full.
52.204-3 Taxpayer Identification.

As prescribed in 4.905 , insert the following provision:

Taxpayer Identification (Oct 1998)

(a) Definitions.

Common parent, as used in this provision, means that corporate entity that owns or controls an

affiliated group of corporations that files its Federal income tax returns on a consolidated basis, and

of which the offeror is a member.

Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), as used in this provision, means the number required by the

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to be used by the offeror in reporting income tax and other returns.

The TIN may be either a Social Security Number or an Employer Identification Number.

(b) All offerors must submit the information required in paragraphs (d) through (f) of this provision

to comply with debt collection requirements of 31 U.S.C.7701(c) and 3325(d), reporting

requirements of 26 U.S.C.6041, 6041 A, and 6050 M, and implementing regulations issued by the

IRS. If the resulting contract is subject to the payment reporting requirements described in Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 4.904, the failure or refusal by the offeror to furnish the information

may result in a 31 percent reduction of payments otherwise due under the contract.

(c) The TIN may be used by the Government to collect and report on any delinquent amounts arising

out of the offeror’s relationship with the Government (31 U.S.C.7701(c)(3)). If the resulting contract

is subject to the payment reporting requirements described in FAR 4.904, the TIN provided

hereunder may be matched with IRS records to verify the accuracy of the offeror’s TIN.

(d) Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).

□ TIN: __________________.

□ TIN has been applied for.

□ TIN is not required because:

□ Offeror is a nonresident alien, foreign corporation, or foreign partnership that does not have

income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States and does

not have an office or place of business or a fiscal paying agent in the United States;

□ Offeror is an agency or instrumentality of a foreign government;

□ Offeror is an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government.

(e) Type of organization.

□ Sole proprietorship;

□ Partnership;

□ Corporate entity (not tax-exempt);
□ Corporate entity (tax-exempt);

□ Government entity (Federal, State, or local);

□ Foreign government;

□ International organization per 26 CFR 1.6049-4;

□ Other__________________.

(f) Common parent.

□ Offeror is not owned or controlled by a common parent as defined in paragraph (a) of this

provision.

□ Name and TIN of common parent:

□ Name__________________.

□ TIN__________________.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.204 [Reserved]
52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for

Federal Hires.

As prescribed in 22.1006(b), insert the following clause:

Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires (May 2014)

In compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards statute and the regulations of the

Secretary of Labor ( 29 CFR Part 4), this clause identifies the classes of service employees expected

to be employed under the contract and states the wages and fringe benefits payable to each if they

were employed by the contracting agency subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.5341 or 5 332.

This Statement is for Information Only: It is not a Wage Determination

Employee Class Monetary Wage-Fringe Benefits

_____________ ____________________________

_____________ ____________________________

_____________ ____________________________

_____________ ____________________________

_____________ ____________________________

_____________ ____________________________

_____________ ____________________________

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.222 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned sole officer of BioCube, Inc.., (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:  (1)    The annual Report on form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended January 31, 2013 (“the Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and  (2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Dated: May 16, 2013By:/s/ Boris RubizhevskyBoris Rubizhevsky
Chief Executive and Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.     0
#### Claire P. Crisona, Respondent, v. Eastern Properties Improvement Corporation, Appellant.

Order entered on November 30, 1966, in these proceedings supplementary to judgment,, which found the defendant corporation and four of its eight directors in civil contempt for defendant’s failure to turn over certain assets enumerated in a prior order served upon it and said directors, modified, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent as against the defendant (corporation), without costs and disbursements as against the individual directors, and matter remanded to Special Term for a hearing to determine whether any or all of the directors served were, in fact, guilty of contumacious acts, and otherwise affirmed. In view of the mere conclusory allegations contained in the moving papers and “the seriousness of an adjudication of contempt” *(James*v. *718
      *Powell,*N. Y. L. J., Oct. 6, 1966, p. 15, col. 1), the request for a hearing contained in the affirmation in opposition to the motion to punish the four directors for contempt should have been granted. The contention of the dissent that the individual directors are in a position to make physical delivery of, and that they have access to, the property in question is not supported by the record. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Capozzoli and Rabin, JJ.; Steuer, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and agree with Special Term that there is no issue which requires a hearing. It has already been determined that the corporation is required to turn over its property to the extent needed to satisfy the judgment and the results of this appeal affirm that the corporation has been contumacious in its failure to comply with the court’s directive. The individual defendants are the persons who have actual physical control of certain of this property. They assert two reasons or excuses for their failure to comply with the order: first, that they do not constitute a majority of the board of directors and cannot act without the acquiescence of the remaining members; and, second, that delivery of the property would constitute a preference under the laws of Delaware, where the corporation was incorporated. Both of these reasons are frivolous, practically to the extent of being insulting to the intelligence. Respondents' are not asked to vote on whether to turn over the property. Nor is their position as directors of any significance. The order is directed against them because they are the persons who are in a position to make physical delivery. Whether they are directors or janitors would make absolutely no difference. The sole question is whether they have access to the property and are physically capable of turning it over. On these points they raise no issue whatsoever.
52.215-17 Waiver of Facilities Capital Cost of

Money.

As prescribed in 15.408(i), insert the following clause:

Waiver of Facilities Capital Cost of Money (Oct 1997)

The Contractor did not include facilities capital cost of money as a proposed cost of this contract.

Therefore, it is an unallowable cost under this contract.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.215 [Reserved]
52.227-3 Patent Indemnity.

As prescribed in 27.201-2(c)(1), insert the following clause:

Patent Indemnity (Apr 1984)

(a) The Contractor shall indemnify the Government and its officers, agents, and employees against

liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States patent (except a patent issued upon

an application that is now or may hereafter be withheld from issue pursuant to a Secrecy Order

under 35 U.S.C.181) arising out of the manufacture or delivery of supplies, the performance of

services, or the construction, alteration, modification, or repair of real property (hereinafter referred

to as "construction work") under this contract, or out of the use or disposal by or for the account of

the Government of such supplies or construction work.

(b) This indemnity shall not apply unless the Contractor shall have been informed as soon as

practicable by the Government of the suit or action alleging such infringement and shall have been

given such opportunity as is afforded by applicable laws, rules, or regulations to participate in its

defense. Further, this indemnity shall not apply to—

(1) An infringement resulting from compliance with specific written instructions of the Contracting

Officer directing a change in the supplies to be delivered or in the materials or equipment to be

used, or directing a manner of performance of the contract not normally used by the Contractor;

(2) An infringement resulting from addition to or change in supplies or components furnished or

construction work performed that was made subsequent to delivery or performance; or

(3) A claimed infringement that is unreasonably settled without the consent of the Contractor, unless

required by final decree of a court of competent jurisdiction.

(End of clause)

Alternate I (Apr 1984). As prescribed in 27.201-2 (c)(2), add the following paragraph (c) to the basic

clause:

(c) This patent indemnification shall not apply to the following items:

__________________________________________________ [Contracting Officer list and/or identify the items

to be excluded from this indemnity.]

Alternate II (Apr 1984). As prescribed in 27.201-2 (c)(2), add the following paragraph (c) to the basic

clause:

(c) This patent indemnification shall cover the following items:

__________________________________________________ [List and/or identify the items to be included under

this indemnity.]

Alternate III (Jun 2020). As prescribed in 27.201-2 (c)(3), add the following paragraph (c) to the

basic clause:

( ) As to subcontracts at any tier for communication service, this clause shall apply only to individual
communication service authorizations over the simplified acquisition threshold, as defined in Federal

Acquisition Regulation 2.101 on the date of subcontract award, issued under this contract and

covering those communications services and facilities-

(1) That are or have been sold or offered for sale by the Contractor to the public,

(2) That can be provided over commercially available equipment, or

(3) That involve relatively minor modifications.

Parent topic: 52.227 [Reserved]
# L_2014038EN.01004501.xml

| 7.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 38/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 38/45

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION

of 6 February 2014

repealing Decision 2003/766/EC on emergency measures to prevent the spread within the Community of Diabrotica virgifera Le Conte

(notified under document C(2014) 467)

(2014/62/EU)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular the fourth sentence of Article 16(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Decision 2003/766/EC (2) has failed to prevent the spread of Diabrotica virgifera virgifera Le Conte as appears from the yearly surveys carried out by the Member States pursuant to that Decision. Those surveys further show that Diabrotica virgifera virgifera Le Conte has now established in a large part of the Union territory. In addition, it is not feasible to block its further spread and effective and sustainable means of control minimising the impact of that organism on maize yield exist, in particular the implementation of a crop rotation scheme. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Decision 2003/766/EC (2) has failed to prevent the spread of Diabrotica virgifera virgifera Le Conte as appears from the yearly surveys carried out by the Member States pursuant to that Decision. Those surveys further show that Diabrotica virgifera virgifera Le Conte has now established in a large part of the Union territory. In addition, it is not feasible to block its further spread and effective and sustainable means of control minimising the impact of that organism on maize yield exist, in particular the implementation of a crop rotation scheme.

| (2) | Decision 2003/766/EC should therefore be repealed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Decision 2003/766/EC should therefore be repealed.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 2003/766/EC is repealed.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 February 2014.

For the Commission

Tonio BORG

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Decision 2003/766/EC of 24 October 2003 on emergency measures to prevent the spread within the Community of Diabrotica virgifera Le Conte (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 49).

2

Diabrotica virgifera

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RICHARD WALKER

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 1606

[ December 3, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Edward H. Merrigan, Jr. , Judge; L.T. Case No. 17

- 008334CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano,

Assistant Attorn ey General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE

, C.J., M AY and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### Ground- and surface-water interaction between the Kansas River and associated alluvial aquifer, northeastern Kansas

By: R. J. WolfJ. O. Helgesen

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wri924137

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Exhibit 23

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

    99 High Street           Telephone 617 988 1000   Telefax 617 988 0800
    Boston, MA 02110-2371






                       Consent of Independent Auditors
                       -------------------------------


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
 of Westerbeke Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement ( 
File No. 33-24435) on Form S-8 of Westerbeke Corporation of our report dated 
December 20, 1996 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Westerbeke 
Corporation and subsidiary as of October 26, 1996 and October 28, 1995, and 
the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' 
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended 
October 26, 1996, and related schedule, which report appears in the October 
26, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Westerbeke Corporation.



                                       By  /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                       -----------------------------

Boston, Massachusetts
January 22, 1997