alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
52.219-11 Special 8(a) Contract Conditions.       As prescribed in 19.811-3(a), insert the following clause:          Special 8(a) Contract Conditions (Jan 2017)          The Small Business Administration (SBA) agrees to the following:                                       (a) 						            To furnish the supplies or services set forth in this contract according to the specifications and the terms and conditions hereof by subcontracting with an eligible concern pursuant to the provisions of section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, as amended (15 U.S.C.637(a)).                                          (b) 						            That in the event SBA does not award a subcontract for all or a part of the work hereunder, this contract may be terminated either in whole or in part without cost to either party.                                          (c) 						            Except for novation agreements, delegate to the _________ [*insert name of contracting agency*] the responsibility for administering the subcontract to be awarded hereunder with complete authority to take any action on behalf of the Government under the terms and conditions of the subcontract; provided, however, that the _________ [*insert name of contracting agency*] shall give advance notice to the SBA before it issues a final notice terminating the right of a subcontractor to proceed with further performance, either in whole or in part, under the subcontract for default or for the convenience of the Government.                                          (d) 						            That payments to be made under any subcontract awarded under this contract will be made directly to the subcontractor by the ___________ [*insert name of contracting agency*].                                          (e) 						            That the subcontractor awarded a subcontract hereunder shall have the right of appeal from decisions of the Contracting Officer cognizable under the "Disputes" clause of said subcontract.                                          (f) 						            To notify the _________ [*insert name of contracting agency*] Contracting Officer immediately upon notification by the subcontractor that the owner or owners upon whom 8(a) eligibility was based plan to relinquish ownership or control of the concern.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.219 [Reserved]
Case 2:06-cr-00177-WHA-DRB Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00177-WHA-DRB Document 3 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6307

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM DEAGO SALES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CR-94-37-BO, CA-96-803-5-BO)

Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 30, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Deago Sales, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Charles Johnson,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997),

and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Sales, Nos. CR-94-37-BO; CA-96-803-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov.

19, 1996; Feb. 10, 1997). 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
EXHIBIT 35.2

Servicer Compliance Certificate

CHASE AUTO OWNER TRUST 2006-B



---

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of
Chase Auto Finance Corp., as subservicer (in such capacity, the Subservicer) under the Subservicing Agreement, dated as of September 13, 2006 (as amended and supplemented, or otherwise modified and in effect from time to
time, the Subservicing Agreement), by and between JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association and the Subservicer, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Subservicer during the period from September 13, 2006 through December 31, 2006, and of its performance under the Subservicing Agreement
has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Subservicer has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Subservicing Agreement throughout such
period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate on behalf of the Subservicer this 28th day of March, 2007.

/s/ William J.
Schiralli

Name: William J. Schiralli

Title: Vice President
**EXHIBIT 31**

 

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, certifythat:

1.        I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by thisreport on Form 10–K of Washington Mutual MortgagePass-Through Certificates, WMALT Series 2006-8 Trust(the ‘‘Exchange Act periodicreports’’);

2.        Based on my knowledge,the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a  material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

3.        Based on my knowledge,all of the distribution, servicing and other information requiredto be provided under Form 10–D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.        Based on my knowledgeand the servicer compliance statements required in this reportunder Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled theirobligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all materialrespects; and

5.        All of the reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesrequired to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and15d–18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

In giving the certificationsabove, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties: None.

Date:  March 15, 2007

  /s/ Thomas G.LehmannName:  Thomas G. LehmannTitle:    President
VI 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2813 

For the relief of Claudia Marquez Rico. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 16, 2006 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Claudia Marquez Rico. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CLAUDIA 

4 MARQUEZ RICO. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Claudia Marquez Rico shall be eligi8 ble for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 

9 of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for perma10 nent residence upon filing an application for issuance of 

11 an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for 

12 adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2813 IS

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Claudia Marquez 

2 Rico enters the United States before the filing deadline 

3 specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have 

4 entered and remained lawfully and, if otherwise eligible, 

5 shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 

6 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) 

7 as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of 

13 this Act. 

14 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

15 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res16 idence to Claudia Marquez Rico, the Secretary of State 

17 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 

18 current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 

19 immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 

20 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the 

21 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, 

22 if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are 

23 made available to natives of the country of the alien’s birth 

24 under section 202(e) of such Act. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•S 2813 IS

1 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

2 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

3 parents, brothers, and sisters of Claudia Marquez Rico 

4 shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 

5 right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Na6 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### HALL v. GALBAN & CO.

(No. 6070.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

Pleading (§ 231*)—Amendments—Right to Amend.

Under Code Giv. Proc. § 542, providing that within 20 days after the answer is served it may be once amended as of course, a defendant has an absolute right to amend once, and an amendment by leave of court is not a substitute for and does not preclude a subsequent amendment under the statute.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 594-598; Dee. Dig. § 231.*]

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by Joseph E. Hall against Galban & Company. From an order denying defendant’s motion that plaintiff be required to accept servicé of an amended answer, defendant appeals.

Order reversed, and motion granted.

Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.

M. G. Holstein, of New York City, for appellant.

Frederick Stewart, of New York City, for respondent

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

SCOTT, J.

The papers on appeal disclose a rather remarkable history of pleadings served, withdrawn, and amended by leave of the court; but never until this motion was made has defendant undertaken to avail itself of the right to amend once of course under section 542, Code of Civil Procedure. It has been uniformly held that under this section a party has an absolute right to amend once, providing he do so within 20 days after service of the answer, demurrer, or reply. An amendment by leave of the court is not a substitute for, and does not preclude, a subsequent amendment under the section cited. Backes v. Mech. & Traders’ Bank, 130 App. Div. 20, 114 N. Y. Supp. 459.

Order appealed from reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. All concur.
Case 1:98-cr-00050-MP   Document 265   Filed 01/30/08   Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

AARON C. PORTER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-297-TKW/MJF

DAVID MADDOX, et al.,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 5). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1) based on Plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose his litigation 

history. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of February, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00297-TKW-MJF Document 11 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JONATHAN LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv300–WS/HTC

FDOC,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF

No. 33) docketed December 28, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that

Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 32) to reopen this case be denied. The magistrate

judge construed Plaintiff’s motion to reopen as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from

judgment. Plaintiff has filed objections (ECF No. 34) to the report and

recommendation.

The case was dismissed and judgment entered in September of 2020

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff appealed this court’s judgment, and the

Case 4:20-cv-00300-WS-HTC Document 35 Filed 02/01/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution because Plaintiff

failed to pay the required filing fee. 

The court has reviewed the record, including Plaintiff’s objections,

and—like the magistrate judge—finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is

entitled to the relief he requests. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 33) is

ADOPTED and incorporated into this order by reference.

2. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 32) to reopen his case is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of February , 2021.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00300-WS-HTC Document 35 Filed 02/01/21 Page 2 of 2
§ 718.6 Controlled substance. ( a ) The following terms apply to this section: ( 1 ) *USDA benefit* means the issuance of any grant, contract, loan, or payment by appropriated funds of the United States.
( 2 ) *Person* means an individual.
( b ) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person convicted under Federal or State law of: ( 1 ) Planting, cultivating, growing, producing, harvesting, or storing a controlled substance in any crop year is ineligible during the crop year of conviction and the four succeeding crop years, for any of the following USDA benefits: ( i ) Any payments or benefits under part 1412 of this title;
( ii ) Any payments or benefits for losses to crops or livestock covered under disaster programs administered by FSA;
( iii ) Any price support loan available in accordance with part 1421 of this title;
( iv ) Any price support made under the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act;
( v ) A farm storage facility loan made under section 4(h) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act or any other Act;
( vi ) Crop Insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act;
( vii ) A loan made or guaranteed under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act or any other law administered by FSA's Farm Loan Programs.
( 2 ) Possession or trafficking of a controlled substance, is ineligible for any or all USDA benefits: ( i ) At the discretion of the court,
( ii ) To the extent and for a period of time the court determines.
( c ) If a person denied benefits under this section is a shareholder, beneficiary, or member of an entity or joint operation, benefits for which the entity or joint operation is eligible will be reduced, for the appropriate period, by a percentage equal to the total interest of the shareholder, beneficiary, or member.
[72 FR 63284, Nov. 8, 2007, as amended at 84 FR 45886, Sept. 3, 2019]
No. 99-20761 - 1 -

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20761 Conference Calendar

STEVEN E. DANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus AMERICAN BROADCASTING CO.,
Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CV-3411

- - - - - - - - - - April 12, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Steven E. Daniel, Texas prisoner #450142, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), following the district court’s certification that his appeal from the dismissal of his civil-rights complaint was taken in bad faith. Daniel’s motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED. Daniel’s allegations do not support a claim that the defendant entered into a conspiracy with prison officials toNo. 99-20761 - 2 - deprive Daniel of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Harper v. Showers , 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 1999) Daniel’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Daniel’s IFP motion is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of the present case and this court’s dismissal of Daniel’s appeal count as two “strikes” against him for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Daniel had already accumulated one strike in Daniel v. Scheiner , No. 99- 20978 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 1999). Because he now has three strikes under the statute, Daniel may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. § 1915(g).
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.
159 So.2d 286

#### Herbert Robert MURRAY v. Bruce BENNETT, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 47033.

Jan. 20, 1964.

In re: Herbert Robert Murray applying for writ of habeas corpus.

The application is denied. The ruling complained of is correct.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:01cr47-SPM

ROBERT HALL,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Robert Hall’s motion for

relief from judgment (doc. 207). Hall states that he did not file a motion

requesting a crack cocaine sentencing reduction. He states that the motion (doc.

207), which the Court ruled upon and denied, was filed by an unknown party. He

asks for relief from the judgment. Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The motion for relief from judgment (doc. 207) is granted.

2. The Order Denying Motion to Modify Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (doc. 

208) is vacated.

3. Hall is advised that no reduction of his sentence will be ordered on

the Court’s own motion, however, because it does not appear that he is entitled

to a reduction due to the career offender enhancement and for the reasons

Case 4:01-cr-00047-MW-CAS Document 212 Filed 06/04/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO.: 4:01cr47-SPM

stated in the Government’s memorandum (doc. 205).

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of June.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cr-00047-MW-CAS Document 212 Filed 06/04/08 Page 2 of 2
§ 400.702 Confidentiality and duration of confidentiality. ( a ) Pursuant to section 508(h)(4)(A) of the Act, prior to approval by the Board, any 508(h) submission submitted to the Board under section 508(h) of the Act, concept proposal submitted under section 522 of the Act, or index-based weather plan of insurance submitted under section 523(i) of the Act, including any information generated from the 508(h) submission, concept proposal, or index-based weather plan of insurance, will be considered confidential commercial or financial information for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and will not be released by FCIC to the public, unless the applicant authorizes such release in writing.
( b ) Once the Board approves a 508(h) submission or an index-based weather plan of insurance, information provided with the 508(h) submission (including information from the concept proposal) or the index-based weather plan of insurance, or generated in the approval process, may be released to the public, as applicable, including any mathematical modeling and data, unless it remains confidential business information under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). While the expert reviews are releasable once the 508(h) submission or an index-based weather plan of insurance has been approved, the names of the expert reviewers may be redacted to prevent any undue pressure on the expert reviewers.
( c ) Any 508(h) submission, concept proposal, or index-based weather plan of insurance disapproved by the Board will remain confidential commercial or financial information in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) (no information related to such 508(h) submission, concept proposal, or index-based weather plan of insurance will be released by FCIC unless authorized in writing by the applicant).
( d ) All 508(h) submissions, concept proposals, and index-based weather plans of insurance, will be kept confidential until approved by the Board and will be given an identification number for tracking purposes, unless the applicant advises otherwise.