alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,787,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,356,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   361,000
<INVENTORY>                                 28,376,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,136,000
<PP&E>                                      21,436,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,813,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,097,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,443,000
<BONDS>                                     14,157,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,692,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,100,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,097,000
<SALES>                                     17,526,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,526,000
<CGS>                                       11,899,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,425,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                70,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             383,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                648,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   294,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            354,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   354,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09


</TABLE>
52.214-4 False Statements in Bids.       As prescribed in 14.201-6(b)(2), insert the following provision in all invitations for bids:          False Statements in Bids (Apr 1984)          Bidders must provide full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation and its attachments. The penalty for making false statements in bids is prescribed in 18 U.S.C.1001.          (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.214 [Reserved]
ARE YOU
READY?

A Guide to Citizen Preparedness
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Bond Laboratories, Inc, (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott
Landow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, That to the best of my knowledge:





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





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





BOND
LABORATORIES, INC


By /s/ Scott
Landow


Scott
Landow


Chairman,
CEO


March 27,
2009
We recently moved this document. This page should refresh momentarily.

If, after a few seconds, the page does not change, follow this link to go to the new page.
47.305-11 Options in shipment and delivery.

Although the clauses prescribed in subpart 43.2 allow certain changes to be made in regard to

shipment and delivery, it may be desirable to provide specifically for certain options in the

solicitation. The Government may reserve the right to-

(a) Direct deliveries of all or part of the contract quantity to destinations or to consignees other than

those specified in the solicitation and in the contract;

(b) Direct shipments in quantities that may require transportation rates different from those on

which the contract price is based; and

(c) Direct shipments by a mode of transportation other than that stipulated in the solicitation and in

the contract.

Parent topic: 47.305 Solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and transportation factors.
#### §§ 4280.31-4280.35 [Reserved]
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Issues inmidterm analysis and forecasting**
 
SuDoc:E 3.2:IS 7/
ItemNumber:0429-T-11(online)
CGPsystem Number:000483223
 
1996
1997
1998
1999
37.113 Severance payments to foreign

nationals.

37.113-1 Waiver of cost allowability limitations.

37.113-2 Solicitation provision and contract clause.

Parent topic: Subpart 37.1 - Service Contracts-General
# L_2014190EN.01008301.xml

| 28.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 190/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 190/83

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 24 June 2014

appointing a German member of the European Economic and Social Committee

(2014/412/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the German Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).

| (2) | A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Dr Sabine HEPPERLE, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Dr Sabine HEPPERLE,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Dr Günter LAMBERTZ, Leiter des Büros des DIHK bei der EU is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.

Article 2

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

Done at Luxembourg, 24 June 2014.

For the Council

The President

E. VENIZELOS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 251, 25.9.2010, p. 8.

1

---
46.316 Responsibility for supplies.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.246-16, Responsibility for Supplies, in

solicitations and contracts for (a) supplies, (b) services involving the furnishing of supplies, or (c)

research and development, when a fixed-price contract is contemplated and the contract amount is

expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. The contracting officer may insert the clause

in such solicitations and contracts when the contract amount is not expected to exceed the simplified

acquisition threshold and inclusion of the clause is authorized under agency procedures.

Parent topic: Subpart 46.3 - Contract Clauses
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-14-00649- CV

P atric ia P ere z, Appellant

v. Salt Financial Services, LLC, Appellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT O F LAW NO . 1 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CV- 14- 0043 18, H ONO RAB LE J. DAVID P HI LLIP S, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A ND U M O PI N I O N
On Dec ember 9, 2014, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to appellant Patricia Perez that her brief wa s due on De cembe r 4, 2014, and w as over due, and that if she fa iled to file a brie f, this Court would dismiss her appea l for want of prosec ution. The Clerk also notified Perez that her appea l would b e d i s m i ssed for want of prosec ution if she did not respond to this Court by Dec ember 19, 2014. To date, Perez has not responde d to this Court’s notice and has not filed a brief. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l for wa nt of prosec ution. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.3(b), ( c).__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief Justice Rose, Jus tices Goodwin a nd Field Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: January

28, 2015

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1997 for May Limited Partnership 1984-1 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000757525
<NAME>                        May Limited Partnership 1984-1
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                         204
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  192
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               396
<PP&E>                                         8,111
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 422
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   422
<SALES>                                        635
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               650
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  117
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                533
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            533
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   533
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  61.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  61.07
        


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7439** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DAWN MICHELLE DEIBERT , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Weste rn District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg
. Glen E. Conrad , Chief District Judge. ( 5:05

- cr - 00024

- GEC

- 1; 5:11

- cv - 80346

- GEC )

Submitted : March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un publish ed per curiam opinion
. Dawn Michelle Deibert, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney , Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dawn Michelle De ibert seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on h er 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating th at reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Deibert has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately present ed in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
4.1704 Contracting officer responsibilities.       (a)                    						            For other than indefinite-delivery contracts, the contracting officer shall ensure that 52.204-14, Service Reporting Requirement, is included in solicitations, contracts, and orders as prescribed at 4.1705. For indefinite-delivery contracts, the contracting officer who awarded the contract shall ensure that 52.204-15 Service Contract Reporting Requirements for Indefinite-Delivery Contracts, is included in solicitations and contracts as prescribed at 4.1705. The contracting officer at the order level shall verify the clause’s inclusion in the contract.                                          (b)                    						            If the contractor fails to submit a report in a timely manner, the contracting officer shall exercise appropriate contractual remedies. In addition, the contracting officer shall make the contractor’s failure to comply with the reporting requirements a part of the contractor’s performance information under subpart  42.15.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 4.17 - Service Contracts Inventory
#### § 51.305 Color requirements.

(a) In addition to the requirements specified for the grades set forth in [§§ 51.300](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-51.300) through [51.304](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-51.304), apples of these grades shall have the percentage of color specified for the variety in table 1 of this section. All apple varieties other than those appearing in table 1 of this section shall have no color requirements pertaining to these grades. For the solid red varieties, the percentage stated refers to the area of the surface which must be covered with a good shade of solid red characteristic of the variety: *Provided,* That an apple having color of a lighter shade of solid red or striped red than that considered as a good shade of red characteristic of the variety may be admitted to a grade, provided it has sufficient additional area covered so that the apple has as good an appearance as one with the minimum percentage of good red characteristic of the variety required for the grade. For the striped red varieties, the percentage stated refers to the area of the surface in which the stripes of a good shade of red characteristic of the variety shall predominate over stripes of lighter red, green, or yellow. However, an apple having color of a lighter shade than that considered as a good shade of red characteristic of the variety may be admitted to a grade, provided it has sufficient additional area covered so that the apple has as good an appearance as one with the minimum percentage of stripes of a good red characteristic of the variety required for the grade. Faded brown stripes shall not be considered as color.

(b) Color standards USDA Visual Aid APL-CC-1 (Plates a-e) consists of a folder containing the color requirements for apples set forth in [paragraph (a)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-51.305#p-51.305(a)) of this section and five plates illustrating minimum good shade of solid red or striped red color, minimum compensating color and shade not considered color, for the following 12 varieties: Red Delicious, Red Rome, Empire, Idared, Winesap, Jonathan, Stayman, McIntosh, Cortland, Rome Beauty, Delicious, and York. The color standards are available for purchase at *<http://www.ams.usda.gov>.*

Table 11

[Only the varieties listed below shall be required to meet a minimum color requirement]

| Variety | U.S. extra fancy (Percent) | U.S. fancy (Percent) | U.S. No. 1 (Percent) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Red Delicious | 66 | 40 | 25 |
| Red Rome | 66 | 40 | 25 |
| Empire | 66 | 40 | 25 |
| Idared | 66 | 40 | 25 |
| Winesap | 66 | 40 | 25 |
| Jonathan | 66 | 40 | 25 |
| Stayman | 50 | 33 | 25 |
| McIntosh | 50 | 33 | 25 |
| Cortland | 50 | 33 | 25 |
| Rome Beauty | 50 | 33 | 25 |
| Delicious | 50 | 33 | 25 |
| York | 50 | 33 | 25 |
| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 Variations on varietal designations listed above must meet or exceed those color requirements listed. | | | |

[[67 FR 69663](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/67-FR-69663), Nov. 19, 2002, as amended at [84 FR 51941](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-51941), Oct. 1, 2019]
32.1106 EFT mechanisms.       (a)                   *Domestic EFT mechanisms.* The EFT clauses at 52.232-33 and 52.232-34 are designed for use with the domestic United States banking system, using United States currency, and only the specified mechanisms (U.S. Automated Clearing House, and Fedwire Transfer System) of EFT. However, the head of an agency may authorize the use of any other EFT mechanism for domestic EFT with the concurrence of the office or agency responsible for making payments.                                          (b)                   *Nondomestic EFT mechanisms and other than United States currency.* The Government shall provide payment by other than EFT for payments received by or on behalf of the contractor outside the United States and Puerto Rico or for contracts paid in other than United States currency. However, the head of an agency may authorize appropriate use of EFT with the concurrence of the office or agency responsible for making payments if-                                                         (1) 								                The political, financial, and communications infrastructure in a foreign country supports payment by EFT; or                                                            (2) 								                Payments of other than United States currency may be made safely.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 32.11 - Electronic Funds Transfer
July 6, 2015

Mr. Bill Palmatary

Owner

Aerial West, LLC

834 15th Place Suite B

Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

Dear Mr. Palmatary:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 21; §§ 45.23, 45.29, 61.113, 91.7, 91.9, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, 91.203, 91.20,

91.215, 91.401−91.417 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why 

we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your April 18, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Aerial West, LLC into the 

public docket (No. FAA−2015−1308), but we are unable to process your request any further. 

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Annual Report of Spectra Energy Corp on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Patrick Reddy, Chief Financial Officer
of Spectra Energy Corp, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Spectra Energy Corp.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|                     |  |  |  |                                         
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 11, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ J. Patrick Reddy                    
|                     |  |  |  | J. Patrick Reddy Chief Financial Officer