alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Operators Manual

http://download.djiinnovations. com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_User_Manual_v1.2_en.pdf Safety Guidelines http://download.dji - innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Safety_Guidelines_Disclaimer_en.pdf Battery Guidelines http://download.dji
innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines_en.pdf
# L_2015050EN.01004801.xml

| 21.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 50/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 50/48

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 217 of 23 July 2014
  )

On page 50, Annex, ‘A. Persons’, first column:

for:

‘180.

181.

182.’

read:

‘192.

193.

194.’

---
Case 2:06-cr-00178-SRW Document 27 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 1 of 1
52.214-15 Period for Acceptance of Bids.       As prescribed in 14.201-6(i), insert the following provision:          Period for Acceptance of Bids (Apr 1984)          In compliance with the solicitation, the bidder agrees, if this bid is accepted within ______ calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period is inserted by the bidder) from the date specified in the solicitation for receipt of bids, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are bid at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the Schedule.          (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.214 [Reserved]
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906****OF
        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I,
        William J. Gervais, Chief Executive Officer of Qualstar Corporation (the
        “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 
 (1)
        the
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
        September 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
        Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
        78m or
        78o(d)); and
 
 (2)
        the
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:
                  November 14, 2007
              /s/
                  WILLIAM J. GERVAISWilliam
                  J. GervaisPrincipal
                  Executive Officer
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation

 Services

)

)

ASBCA No. 62263

)

Under Contract No. W9124L-19-D-0001 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Grant E. Moak, Esq.

 Assistant Attorney General

 Oklahoma City, OK

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

 Army Chief Trial Attorney

MAJ Nicholas Lucchetti, JA

 Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: January 25, 2021

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62263, Appeal of Oklahoma 

Department of Rehabilitation Services, rendered in conformance with the Board’s 

Charter.

Dated: January 26, 2021

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-2029

ARLENE M. BALINAO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (9:06-cv-00254-PMD)

Submitted: February 11, 2008 Decided: March 18, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arlene M. Balinao, Appellant Pro Se. Terri Hearn Bailey, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Arlene M. Balinao appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to the Attorney General and dismissing

her employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Balinao v. Mukasey,

No. 9:06-cv-00254-PMD (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2007). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Schine Enterprises, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Real Estate Portfolio of New York, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Resettled order entered January 31, 1969, directing a hearing before a Referee on the issue of the alleged partiality on the part of arbitrators and holding motion to confirm an arbitrators’ award and cross motion to vacate the award in abeyance, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to petitioners-appellants, the motion to confirm the award granted and the cross motion to vacate the award denied. The charge of partiality leveled against one of the three arbitrators is founded not upon any personal misconduct, 'bias or lack of fairness in the performance of his duties, nor upon any professional or personal relationship with any of the parties to the arbitration, but is attributed solely to the acts and associations of others. The respondents’ allegations in this regard, raised for the first time on a motion to confirm the award, are insufficient to warrant interference with the award. On the record, moreover, respondents otherwise failed to demonstrate the existence of grounds upon which- vacatur of the award may be predicated. *(Matter of Shevell*[Besen], 29 A D 2d 751, *Matter of Provenzano*[MVAIC], 28 A D 2d 528; *Federal Pacific Elec. Co.*v. *Rao Elec. Equip. Co.,*15 A D 2d 456.) The appeal from the original order of January 10, 1969 is dismissed as academic. That order was superseded by the resettled order. Concur—• Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, Tilzer and Nunez, JJ.
<PAGE>  25

Coopers & Lybrand



                                           February 13, 1996


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

RE:  First Liberty Financial Corp.
     Registration on Form S-8

We are aware that our report dated February 13, 1996 on our review of interim 
fiancial information of First Liberty Financial Corp. and Subsidiaries for the
three-month period ended December 31, 1995 and included in the Company's 
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated by 
reference into the Company's registration statements Forms S-8 (File Nos. 
33-24733 and 333-00385).  Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 
1933, this report should not be considered a part of the registration 
statement prepared or certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 
of that Act.



                                            Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.






















                                   25
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 18 Filed 07/24/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 46.5 Bonds.

Bonds prescribed in section 4(c)(6), 4(e), 8(b), and 13(b) of the Act shall be in the form of cash or surety bonds in the form and amount satisfactory to the Director and shall not be less than $10,000. When cash is posted as surety, it shall be deposited into a special account of the United States Treasury and no interest is to accrue or be paid the licensee. When surety bonds are furnished, the surety shall be a company holding a certificate of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury under Act of Congress approved July 30, 1947 (6 U.S.C. 6 through 13) as acceptable surety on Federal bonds.

[44 FR 50575, Aug. 29, 1979]
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 182 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:98-cr-00019-MP-AK Document 1552 Filed 05/14/08 Page 1 of 2Case 1:98-cr-00019-MP-AK Document 1552 Filed 05/14/08 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00620-WKW-CSC Document 11 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00620-WKW-CSC Document 11 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 2
52.216-23 Execution and Commencement of Work.       As prescribed in 16.603-4(b)(1), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when a letter contract is contemplated, except that it may be omitted from letter contracts awarded on SF 26:          Execution and Commencement of Work (Apr 1984)          The Contractor shall indicate acceptance of this letter contract by signing three copies of the contract and returning them to the Contracting Officer not later than _______________ [*insert date*]. Upon acceptance by both parties, the Contractor shall proceed with performance of the work, including purchase of necessary materials.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.216 [Reserved]
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 62 1 . J AMES GLENN W I LDER v . THE STATE.

Th i s ap p eal was d o ck et ed i n t h i s Co u rt o n Decem b er 4, 2 0 1 5. Ap pel l an t ’ s b ri ef

was d u e t o b e fi l ed wi t h i n 20 d ay s o f d o ck et i n g

. S e e C o u r t of Ap p eal s Ru l e 2 3 (a).

On J an u ary 2 6

, 2 0 1 6

, wh en Ap p el l an t had fai led t o fi le a bri ef, t h i s Co u rt o rd ered h i m

t o fi l e a b ri ef wi t h i n t en (1 0 ) d ay s

. He has y et t o fi l e h is b ri ef o r an y req u es t fo r an

ex t en s i o n

.

Th i s ap peal t herefo re i s DISM ISSED p u rs uan t t o Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 2 3 (a).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 03/01/2016 March 01, 2016
#### § 503.7 Gambling.

Participating in games for money or other personal property, or the operation of gambling devices, the conduct of a lottery or pool, or the selling or purchasing of numbers tickets in or on the PIADC is prohibited.
47.303-14 C.i.f. destination.       (a)                   *Explanation of delivery term.*"C.i.f. (Cost, insurance, freight) destination" means free of expense to the Government delivered on board the ocean vessel to the specified point of destination, with the cost of transportation and marine insurance paid by the contractor.                                          (b)                   *Contractor responsibilities.* The contractor’s responsibilities are the same as those listed in 47.303-13(b), except that, in addition, the contractor shall obtain and dispatch to the Government an insurance policy or certificate providing the amount and extent of marine insurance coverage specified in the contract or agreed upon by the Government contracting officer.                                          (c)                   *Contract clause.* The contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts the clause at 52.247-42, C.i.f. (Cost, insurance, freight) Destination, when the delivery term is c.i.f. destination.    **Parent topic:** 47.303 Standard delivery terms and contract clauses.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7064

MICHAEL ANTHONY BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DANIEL L. STIENEKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-364-5-BR2)

Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny Brown’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See Brown v. Stieneke, No. CA-98-364-5-BR2

(E.D.N.C. June 23, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

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

process.

DISMISSED
#### §§ 701.17-701.20 [Reserved]
§ 58.150 Containers. ( a ) The size, style, and type of packaging used for dairy products shall be commercially acceptable containers and packaging materials which will satisfactorily cover and protect the quality of the contents during storage and regular channels of trade and under normal conditions of handling.
( b ) Packaging materials for dairy products shall be selected which will provide sufficiently low permeability to air and vapor to prevent the formation of mold growth and surface oxidation. In addition, the wrapper should be resistant to puncturing, tearing, cracking or breaking under normal conditions of handling, shipping and storage. When special type packaging is used, the instructions of the manufacturer shall be followed closely as to its application and methods of closure.
§ 51.2966 Serious damage. *Serious damage* means any specific defect mentioned in this section; or an equally objectionable variation of any one of these defects, any other defect, or any combination of defects which seriously detracts from the appearance or the edible or shipping quality of the walnut. The following specific defects shall be considered as serious damage: ( a ) Discoloration (or stain) which covers, in the aggregate, one-third or more of the surface of the shell of an individual nut and which is brown, reddish brown, gray, or other color in pronounced contrast with the color of the rest of the shell or the majority of shells in the lot, or darker discoloration covering a smaller area if the appearance is equally objectionable;
( b ) Perforated shells when the area affected aggregates more than that of a circle three-eighths of an inch in diameter. The term “perforated shells” means imperfectly developed areas on the shell resembling abrasions and usually including small holes penetrating the shell wall;
( c ) Adhering hulls when affecting more than one-eighth of the shell surface in the aggregate;
( d ) Shriveling when both halves of the kernel are affected by severe shriveling over an area totaling more than one-eighth of the surface; or when both halves are affected over a greater area by lesser degrees of shriveling producing an equally objectionable appearance. When one of the halves of the kernel shows no shriveling, the kernel shall not be considered seriously damaged unless the other half shows shriveling to the extent that over 50 percent of its surface is severely shriveled, or a greater area is affected by lesser degrees of shriveling producing an equally objectionable appearance. Kernels which are thin in cross section, but which are otherwise normally developed shall not be considered as damaged;
( e ) Rancidity or decay; and,
( f ) Uncured kernels which are wet, rubbery and “green”.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF SYNTELLECT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF JUNE 30,
1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF SYNTELLECT, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,354
<SECURITIES>                                     3,222
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,897
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,130
<INVENTORY>                                      2,975
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,748
<PP&E>                                          27,117
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,730
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,074
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           135
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,138
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,970
<SALES>                                         13,773
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,896
<CGS>                                            8,530
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,694
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,997
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   160
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  54
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,692)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,692)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.20)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FABRICE SNOWDEN ,

Petitioner ,

v. MERRICK GARLAND, et al. ,

Defendant s

. Case No. 22

- cv

- 947 ( CRC )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner Fabrice Snowden, who is incarcerated at a federal prison in New Jersey , filed

this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Pet. at 1.

Snowden challenges his 2007 conviction and 360

- month sentence imposed following a guilty plea in the District of Maryland to one count of sexually exploiting a minor for the purpos e of producing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)

. See id. at 6; Judgment at 1

– 2 , United States v. Snowden , No. 07

- cr

- 100 (D. Md. Oct. 23, 2007). In his petition, Snowden claims, among other things, that the statute he was convicted u nder cannot be constitutionally applied to him, that federal prosecutors did not have authority to pursue the charges against him , and that he was denied due process of law. See Pet. at 8. As explained below, the Court will dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. District courts may only grant habeas relief “within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). “B ecause ‘ [a] writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in .

. . custody, ’ a court may issue the writ only if it has jurisdiction over that person. ” Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm ’ n , 374 F.3d 1235, 1237

– 38 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky. , 410 U.S. 484, 494 (1973) ) ; see also

Rumsfeld v. P adilla , 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004). Here, the only proper respondent to Snowden’s2

§ 2 241 action is his immediate custodian

— the warden at the Federal Correctional Institut ion where he is being held

. S ee Pet. at 1 (naming wardens “Carroll” and “Harris” as re spondents). Snowden is currently incarcerated at FCI Fairton, in Fairton, New Jersey, so he must bring any claim for relief under § 2241 in the District of New Jersey

— not in this Court. S ee Inmate Locat or , Federal

Bureau of Prisons , https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ ( search for Fabrice Robert Snowden as of June 6, 2022). Because the Court does not have jurisdiction over Snowden’s petition, it will dismiss this matter without prejudice. A separate Order shall accompany this memorandum opinion.

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge Date: June 6, 2022
Case 3:06-cv-00627-WKW-SRW Document 5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00627-WKW-SRW Document 5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00627-WKW-SRW Document 5 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 3 of 3
204.1601 Policy.

(a) Establishment of a Procurement Instrument Identifier (PIID). Do not reuse a PIID once it has

been assigned. Do not assign the same PIID to more than one task or delivery order, even if they are

issued under different base contracts or agreements.

(b) Transition of PIID numbering. Effective October 1, 2016, all DoD components shall comply with

the PIID numbering requirements of FAR subpart 4.16 and this subpart for all new solicitations,

contracts, orders, and agreements issued, and any amendments and modifications to those new

actions. See also PGI 204.1601 (b).

(c) Change in the PIID after its assignment. When a PIID is changed after contract award, the new

PIID is known as a continued contract.

(i) A continued contract—

(A) Does not constitute a new procurement;

(B) Incorporates all prices, terms, and conditions of the predecessor contract effective at the time of

issuance of the continued contract;

(C) Operates as a separate contract independent of the predecessor contract once issued; and

(D) Shall not be used to evade competition requirements, expand the scope of work, or extend the

period of performance beyond that of the predecessor contract.

(ii) When issuing a continued contract, the contracting officer shall—

(A) Issue an administrative modification to the predecessor contract to clearly state that—

(1) Any future awards provided for under the terms of the predecessor contract (e.g., issuance of

orders or exercise of options) will be accomplished under the continued contract; and

(2) Supplies and services already acquired under the predecessor contract shall remain solely under

that contract for purposes of Government inspection, acceptance, payment, and closeout; and

(B) Follow the procedures at PGI 204.1601 (c).

Parent topic: Subpart 204.16 - UNIFORM PROCUREMENTINSTRUMENT IDENTIFIERS