alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 701.126 Maximum cost-share percentage. ( a ) In addition to other restrictions that may be applied by FSA, an ECP participant shall not receive more than 75 percent of the total allowable costs, as determined by this part, to perform the practice.
( b ) However, notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a producer who is a limited resource, socially disadvantaged, or beginning farmer or rancher that participates in ECP may receive up to 90 percent of the total allowable costs expended to perform the practice as determined under this part.
( c ) In addition to other limitations that apply, in no case will the ECP payment exceed 50 percent of what the Deputy Administrator has determined is the agricultural value of the affected land.
( d ) The Secretary may waive the maximum limitations described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section to the maximum extent allowed by law.
[69 FR 10302, Mar. 4, 2004. Redesignated and amended at 75 FR 70088, Nov. 17, 2010; 84 FR 32841, July 10, 2019; 88 FR 1883, Jan. 11, 2023]
#### John Pendell, Respondent, v. Stephen Maryinuk, Appellant.

Order unanimously modified on the law and facts to provide that the new trial be had upon all the issues, and as so modified, affirmed, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. See Memorandum in *Maryinuk*v. *Pendell*(27 A D 2d 694). (Appeal from order of Oswego Trial Term granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.
Case 2:06-cr-00178-SRW Document 25 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00178-SRW Document 25 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
---

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, 2009 (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 12, 2009
            /s/ WILLIAM J. GERVAISWilliam
      J. GervaisPrincipal
      Executive Officer
No. 89-1046.

#### Frates et al. *v.*Weinshienk, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**REPORT
      ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH**


**§1122(d)(2)(vi)
      and §1122(d)(4)(xi)**


**of
      REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA**





American
      Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and Safeco
      Financial Institution Solutions, Inc. (affiliates of Assurant Inc., collectively
      the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance as of December
      31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006
      (the
      "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi),
§1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of
      Federal Regulations, which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable
      to
      the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs with respect to all
      mortgage loan-tracking transactions covered by this report. The transactions
      covered by this report include all mortgage loan-tracking transactions for
      which
      the Asserting Party served as a Vendor on behalf of Servicers for such
      asset-backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1,
      2006
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act
      of
      1933 (the "Platform"). The scope of the Asserting Party assertions excludes
      §1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations,
      which relates to servicing activities that are performed by the Asserting Party
      with respect to the Platform, but are not reported on herein.





The
      Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with § 1122(d)(2)(vi) and
§1122(d)(4)(xi) ("the Applicable Servicing Criteria") for the Reporting Period
      and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material
      respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with
      respect to the Platform taken as a whole. The Asserting Party used the criteria
      set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the
      compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.





The
      Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable
      Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.





PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation
      report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria
      as
      of and for the Reporting Period ending December 31, 2006 as set forth in this
      assertion.





American
      Security Insurance Company


Standard
      Guaranty Insurance Company


Safeco
      Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.








/s/
                John FroboseBy:
            John
                FroboseSenior
                Vice PresidentDate:
            February
                23, 2007
#### § 75.22 Form of inspection certificate.

Inspection certificates shall be approved by the Director as to their form. No correction, erasure, or other change shall be made in the information on a certificate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  9
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000


<CAPTION>



<S>
                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                      24,815
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          75
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    533
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      73,056
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        72,933
<LOANS>                                    368,344
<ALLOWANCE>                                  3,811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             488,453
<DEPOSITS>                                 436,870
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,700
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,927
<LONG-TERM>                                  3,325
<COMMON>                                     8,110
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             448,453
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             20,847
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,818
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               205
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            23,870
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           9,165
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,509
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       14,361
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  826
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             16,437
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,250
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,529
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,529
<EPS-BASIC>                                   9.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 9.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                7.70
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,066
<LOANS-PAST>                                    90
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             3,283
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  693
<RECOVERIES>                                   395
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            3,811
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         3,811
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0




</TABLE>
52.247-30 F.o.b. Origin, Contractor’s Facility.

As prescribed in 47.303-2(c), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when the

delivery term is f.o.b. origin, contractor’s facility:

F.o.b. Origin, Contractor’s Facility (Feb 2006)

(a) The term "f.o.b. origin, contractor’s facility," as used in this clause, means free of expense to the

Government delivered on board the indicated type of conveyance of the carrier (or of the

Government, if specified) at the designated facility, on the named street or highway, in the city,

county, and State from which the shipment will be made.

(b) The Contractor shall-

(1)

(i) Pack and mark the shipment to comply with contract specifications; or

(ii) In the absence of specifications, prepare the shipment in conformance with carrier requirements

to protect the goods and to ensure assessment of the lowest applicable transportation charge;

(2)

(i) Order specified carrier equipment when requested by the Government; or

(ii) If not specified, order appropriate carrier equipment not in excess of capacity to accommodate

shipment;

(3) Deliver the shipment in good order and condition to the carrier, and load, stow, trim, block,

and/or brace carload or truckload shipment (when loaded by the Contractor) on or in the carrier’s

conveyance as required by carrier rules and regulations;

(4) Be responsible for any loss of and/or damage to the goods-

(i) Occurring before delivery to the carrier;

(ii) Resulting from improper packing and marking; or

(iii) Resulting from improper loading, stowing, trimming, blocking, and/or bracing of the shipment, if

loaded by the Contractor on or in the carrier’s conveyance;

(5) Complete the Government bill of lading supplied by the ordering agency or, when a Government

bill of lading is not supplied, prepare a commercial bill of lading or other transportation receipt. The

bill of lading shall show-

(i) A description of the shipment in terms of the governing freight classification or tariff (or

Government rate tender) under which lowest freight rates are applicable;

(ii) The seals affixed to the conveyance with their serial numbers or other identification;
(iii) Lengths and capacities of cars or trucks ordered and furnished;

(iv) Other pertinent information required to effect prompt delivery to the consignee, including name,

delivery address, postal address and ZIP code of consignee, routing, etc.;

(v) Special instructions or annotations requested by the ordering agency for bills of lading; e.g.,"This

shipment is the property of, and the freight charges paid to the carrier(s) will be reimbursed by, the

Government"; and

(vi) The signature of the carrier’s agent and the date the shipment is received by the carrier; and

(6) Distribute the copies of the bill of lading, or other transportation receipts, as directed by the

ordering agency.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.247 [Reserved]
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-3470WM

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Mike Martinez-Hernandez, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: February 18, 1999

Filed: March 8, 1999

_____________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Mike Martinez-Hernandez appeals his conviction for illegal reentry of the United States. Counsel filed a brief for Martinez-Hernandez under Ande rs v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Martinez-Hernandez was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. Having carefully reviewed the record andthe An ders brief, we reject counsel's contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. Otherwise, we find no nonfrivolous issues. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988). We thus affirm Martinez-Hernandez's conviction.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 24 Filed 01/31/03 Page 1 of 2
Case 5:98-cv-00179-SPM Document 24 Filed 01/31/03 Page 2 of 2
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,941-01

EX PARTE FIDENCIO VALDEZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

IN CAUSE NO. 20120D00749-384-01 IN THE 384 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TH

COURT

EL PASO COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

In May 2014, a jury found Applicant guilty of the offense of capital murder. See

TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.03(a). Based on the jury’s answers to the statutory punishment

questions set out in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, the trial court

sentenced Applicant to death. On June 22, 2016, the State filed in this Court its brief on

1

 Unless otherwise indicated, all references in this order to Articles refer to the Texas 1

Code of Criminal Procedure.
Valdez - 2

Applicant’s direct appeal. Pursuant to Article 11.071 §§ 4(a) and (b), and two motions

for extension filed pursuant to Article 11.071 § 4A, Applicant’s initial application for a

writ of habeas corpus was due to be filed in the trial court on or before July 28, 2017. See

Ex parte Valdez, No. WR-85,941-01 (Tex. Crim. App. June 28, 2017) (not designated for

publication).

It has been three and a half years since the application was due in the trial court.

Accordingly, we order the trial court to resolve any remaining issues in the case within 60

days from the date of this order. The clerk shall then immediately transmit the complete

writ record to this Court. Any extensions of time shall be requested by the trial judge, or

on his or her behalf, and obtained from this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 13 DAY OF JANUARY, 2021.

TH

Do Not Publish
#### § 714.44 Recommendation by State committee.

A representative of the State committee shall review each claim referred by the county committee. If a claim is sent initially to the State committee, it shall be referred to the appropriate county committee for recommendation as provided in § 714.43 prior to action being taken by the State committee. Any necessary investigation shall be made. The State committee shall recommend approval or disapproval of the claim, attaching a statement giving the reasons for their action, which shall be signed by a representative of the State committee. After recommending approval or disapproval, the claim shall be promptly sent to the Deputy Administrator.
#### Eihab Hanna, Respondent, v Eric D. Gellman, Defendant, and Majestic J.G.M.R.B., Inc., et al., Appellants.

[815 NYS2d 713]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Majestic J.G.M.R.B., Inc., and Wayne Smith appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated June 8, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action based on a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) insofar as asserted against them, and (2) an order of the same court also dated June 8, 2005, which denied, in effect, as academic, their motion, inter alia, to compel compliance with a nonjudicial subpoena.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff, a plumber, was injured when installing pipes for a new bathroom; the defendants Majestic J.G.M.R.B., Inc., and Wayne Smith (hereinafter the defendants) were general contractors for the work. According to the plaintiff’s deposition *954testimony, he was standing on a ladder and working on pipes directly overhead, not leaning to either side, when the ladder tipped over. Under these circumstances, a presumption arises that the ladder was not properly secured *(see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City,*1 NY3d 280, 289 n 8 [2003]; *Smith v Pergament Enters. of S.I.,*271 AD2d 870, 871-872 [2000].)

There was also evidence that the plaintiff fell while standing on a spackle bucket and not a ladder. Smith testified at his deposition, however, that he did not provide ladders, or any equipment, to the plumbers. Under this view of the facts, the plaintiff argued that the defendants’ failure to provide safety equipment was itself a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court held that under either factual scenario, the defendants were liable, and it granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action based on a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) insofar as asserted against the defendants.

Because the plaintiff presented prima facie evidence demonstrating his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and, in opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion *(see Gardner v New York City Tr. Auth.,*282 AD2d 430, 431 [2001]). The defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs alleged decision to use a spackle bucket, despite the availability of a ladder, was the sole proximate cause of the accident *(see Robinson v East Med. Ctr., LP,*6 NY3d 550 [2006]; *Montgomery v Federal Express Corp.,*4 NY3d 805, 806 [2005]) is improperly raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, we do not consider it.

In light of the foregoing, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants’ motion to compel compliance with a nonjudicial subpoena, in effect, as academic Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:00cr15 – SPM 

WILLIAM H. BLACK,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO VACATE

This cause comes before the Court on the Request to Vacate Order filed by

Defendant William H. Black. Doc. 1246. Defendant states that he did not receive

a copy of the Government’s Motion to Turn Over Funds (doc. 1234) and for that

reason asks that the order granting the motion be vacated. Defendant does not

provide any other reasons why he should not be required to turn over the funds.

The order directing Defendant to turn over the funds stated that Defendant

failed to respond; but that was not the basis for the order. Defendant has an

ongoing obligation to pay restitution. If he has received any funds from a settlement,

either directly or through his interest in Professional Management, Inc., those funds

must be made available for payment of restitution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n) (“[I]f a
Page 2 of 2

person obligated to pay restitution, or pay a fine, receives substantial resources from

any source, including . . . settlement . . . during a period of incarceration, such

person shall be required to apply the value of such resources to any restitution or

fine still owed.”). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: the Request to Vacate Order (doc. 1246) is

denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of July, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

Case No.: 1:00cr15 – SPM
52.214-16 Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.

As prescribed in 14.201-6(j), insert the following provision in invitations for bids, except for

construction, if the contracting officer determines that a minimum acceptance period must be

specified:

Minimum Bid Acceptance Period (Apr 1984)

(a) "Acceptance period," as used in this provision, means the number of calendar days available to

the Government for awarding a contract from the date specified in this solicitation for receipt of

bids.

(b) This provision supersedes any language pertaining to the acceptance period that may appear

elsewhere in this solicitation.

(c) The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of __________ calendar days [the

Contracting Officer shall insert the number of days].

(d) In the space provided immediately below, bidders may specify a longer acceptance period than

the Government’s minimum requirement.

The bidder allows the following acceptance period: __________ calendar days.

(e) A bid allowing less than the Government’s minimum acceptance period will be rejected.

(f) The bidder agrees to execute all that it has undertaken to do, in compliance with its bid, if that

bid is accepted in writing within-

(1) The acceptance period stated in paragraph (c) of this clause; or

(2) Any longer acceptance period stated in paragraph (d) of this clause.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.214 [Reserved]
#### § 53.3 Authority.

The Director is charged with the administration of the regulations and the Act insofar as they relate to livestock.
#### § 51.42 Charges for inspection services on a contract basis.

Irrespective of fees and charges prescribed in the foregoing sections, the Administrator may enter into contracts with applicants to perform inspection services pursuant to the regulations in this part and other requirements as prescribed by the Administrator in such contract, and the charges for such inspection services provided for in such contracts shall be on such basis as will reimburse the Agricultural Marketing Service of the Department for the full cost of conducting such inspection service, including an appropriate overhead charge to cover as nearly as practicable administrative overhead expenses, as may be determined by the Administrator.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                           3,664
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,940
<ALLOWANCES>                                        67
<INVENTORY>                                     63,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,553
<PP&E>                                         213,844
<DEPRECIATION>                                 107,862
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 208,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,070
<BONDS>                                         31,266
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,133
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,620
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   208,733
<SALES>                                        546,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               546,926
<CGS>                                          517,546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  517,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    41
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,328
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,165
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,163
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,163
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>