alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
52.222-36 Equal Opportunity	for Workers with Disabilities.       As prescribed	in 22.1408(a), insert	the following clause:          Equal	Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities (Jun 2020)                                       (a) 						            Equal	opportunity clause. The Contractor shall abide by the requirements	of the equal opportunity clause at 41 CFR 60-741.5(a),	as of March 24, 2014. This clause prohibits discrimination against	qualified individuals on the basis of disability, and requires affirmative	action by the Contractor to employ and advance in employment qualified	individuals with disabilities.                                          (b) 						            Subcontracts.	The Contractor shall include the terms of this clause in every subcontract	or purchase order in excess of the	threshold specified in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 22.1408(a)	on the date of subcontract award, unless exempted by rules,	regulations, or orders of the Secretary, so that such provisions	will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The Contractor	shall act as specified by the Director, Office of Federal Contract	Compliance Programs of the U.S. Department of Labor, to enforce	the terms, including action for noncompliance. Such necessary changes	in language may be made as shall be appropriate to identify properly	the parties and their undertakings.                                 (End of clause)          *Alternate	I*                (Jul 2014). As prescribed in 22.1408(b), add the following	as a preamble to the clause:             Notice:	The following term(s) of this clause are waived for this contract: _______________	[*List term(s)*].    **Parent topic:** 52.222 [Reserved]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JESSIE LEE BIZZELL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv580-MW/MJF

MARK S. INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 9. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED

without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for 

maliciousness and abuse of judicial process.” The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on February 23, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00580-MW-MJF Document 10 Filed 02/23/21 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.10




CONSENT OF AUTHOR




TO:Ur-Energy Inc.


British Columbia Securities Commission


Alberta Securities Commission


Saskatchewan Securities Commission


Manitoba Securities Commission


Ontario Securities Commission


United States Securities and Exchange Commission




AND TO:              Toronto Stock Exchange


NYSE Amex, LLC




RE:           Ur-Energy Inc. (“Ur-Energy”) - Consent under National Instrument 43-101




Reference is made to the technical report titled “Preliminary Assessment Lost Creek Property Sweetwater County Wyoming”(March16, 2011) (the “Technical Report”) which the undersigned has prepared for Ur-Energy.




I have reviewed and approved the summaries of and extracts from the Technical Report prepared to be filed with the Annual Report on Form 40-F (Annual Information Form) of Ur-Energy (fiscal year ended December 31, 2010) and confirm that such summaries and extracts fairly and accurately represent the information in the Technical Report.




I hereby consent to the written disclosure of my name, and reference to and incorporation by reference of, the Technical Report in the public filing of the Annual Report on Form 40-F (Annual Information Form) of Ur-Energy with the regulatory authorities referred to above.  I further consent to the incorporation by reference of the Technical Report into Registration Statement No. 333-153098 on Form S-8.




I certify that I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 40-F (Annual Information Form) being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained therein that are derived from the Technical Report or that are within my knowledge as a result of the services performed by me in connection with the Technical Report.




Dated:  March 17, 2011




Signed and Sealed




/s/ Matthew J. Yovich, P.E.


Matthew J. Yovich, P.E., Vice President


TREC, Inc.
| Table of Contents- Preface
- 2000 General Facts
- Youth Population
- Youth Fatalities
- Youth Crash Fatality Rates
- Alcohol Related Percentages
- Youth Fatalities By Specific Age
- Youth Alcohol Consumption and Other Drug Use
- Youth Fatalities and A/R* Fatalities
- State Fatalities (Ages 15-20)
- Fatalitity Rates Per Population - 2000 (Ages 15-20)
- Black and White Inserts (Download PDF Files) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# 52.202 [Reserved]

- 52.202-1 Definitions. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 52.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76039-76040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30547]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-73,310]


Optera, Inc. Formerly Known as Donnelly Corporation/Magna 
Donnelly Including On-Site Leased Workers From Manpower and Key 
Personnel Holland, Michigan; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on February 26, 2010, applicable to workers of Optera, Inc., including 
on-site leased workers from

[[Page 76040]]

Manpower and Key Personnel, Holland, Michigan. The notice was published 
in the Federal Register on April 23, 2010 (75 FR 21361).
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of touch screen sensors.
    New information shows that Optera, Inc. was formerly known as 
Donnelly Corporation/Magna Donnelly. Some workers separated from 
employment at Optera, Inc. had their wages reported under a separate 
unemployment insurance (UI) tax account under the name Donnelly 
Corporation/Magna Donnelly.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by a shift in 
the production of touch screen sensors to China.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-73,310 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Optera, Inc., formerly known as Donnelly 
Corporation/Magna Donnelly, including on-site leased workers from 
Manpower and Key Personnel, Holland, Michigan, who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after January 18, 2009, 
through February 26, 2012, and all workers in the group threatened 
with total or partial separation from employment on date of 
certification through two years from the date of certification, are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title 
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of November 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-30547 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

TYSON MARTIN,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 4:20cv507/TKW/EMT

SECRETARY DEP’T OF CORR.,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

ORDER

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

Recommendation (Doc. 19) and Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 23). The Court 

reviewed the issues raised in the objections de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. 

§636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees 

with the magistrate judge’s disposition of each claim. The Court also agrees with 

the magistrate judge’s determination that Petitioner has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right and that reasonable jurists would not 

find the Court’s disposition of Petitioner’s claims to be wrong or fairly debatable.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 5) is DENIED.

Case 4:20-cv-00507-TKW-EMT Document 24 Filed 11/01/21 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 4:20cv507/TKW/EMT

Page 2 of 2

3. The certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The Clerk of court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order 

and close the case.

DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00507-TKW-EMT Document 24 Filed 11/01/21 Page 2 of 2
*Order Entered December 9, 2005:*

#### Kik v Sbraccia,

Docket No. 256419.

The Court orders that a special panel be convened pursuant to MCR 7.215(J) to resolve the conflict between this case and *Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm,*267 Mich App 274; 705 NW2d 136 (2005).

The Court further orders that part III of the opinion released on November 15, 2005, which addresses the availability of damages for loss of consortium in a bodily injury or property damage claim brought pursuant to MCL 691.1405, is vacated. MCR 7.215(J)(5).

Appellants may file a supplemental brief within 21 days of the Clerk’s certification of this order. Appellees may file a supplemental brief within 21 days of service of appellants’ brief. Nine copies must be filed with the Clerk of the Court.

Gage, J., did not participate.
KPMG
                KPMG LLP                     Telephone          314 444 1400
                Suite 900                    Fax                314 444 1470
                10 South Broadway            Internet        www.us.kpmg.com
                St. Louis, MO 63102-1761

            Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Citibank, N.A.:

We have examined management's assessment, included in the accompanying
Management Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria,
that Citibank, N.A. (the Custodian) complied with servicing criteria
1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii) set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122
of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB in connection with
the servicing of residential mortgage loans for which the Custodian performs
a custodial function pursuant to a custodial agreement with Citigroup Mortgage
Loan Trust Inc. for post December 31, 2005 transactions (the Platform), as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the
Custodian's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is
to express an opinion on management's assessment about the Custodian's
compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Custodian's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities in
which the Custodian performs a particular servicing function and determining
whether the Custodian processed those selected transactions and performed those
selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Custodian during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Custodian during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the custodian's
compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Custodian complied with
certain servicing criteria outlined in Exhibit A in the accompanying Management
Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2006 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

              /s/ KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
March 19, 2007
§ 760.1003 Limitations on payments and other benefits. ( a ) A participant may receive benefits for eligible livestock feed losses, including additional feed costs, for only one of the 2005, 2006, or 2007 calendar years under 2005-2007 LCP, subpart L of this part, or under the CGP of subpart M of this part.
( b ) As specified in § 760.1106(c), the payment under the 2005-2007 LCP may not exceed the smaller of the calculated payment in § 760.1106(a) or the value of the producer's eligible feed loss, increased feed costs, or forage or grazing loss.
( c ) A person may receive no more than $80,000 under 2005-2007 LCP, subpart L of this part. In applying the $80,000 per person payment limitation, regardless of whether the 2005, 2006, or 2007 calendar year benefits are at issue or sought, the most restrictive “person” determination for the participant in the years 2005, 2006, and 2007, will be used to limit benefits. The rules and definitions of part 1400 of this title apply in construing who is a qualified separate “person” for purposes of this limit. All payment eligibility requirements of part 1400 as they apply to any other payments, also apply to payments under subpart L of this part.
( d ) For payments under 2005-2007 CGP, a farming operation may receive no more than $80,000, except for general partnerships and joint ventures, in which case assistance will not exceed $80,000 times the number of eligible members of the general partnership or joint venture. This limit must be enforced by the state government administering the grant program.
( e ) The provisions of part 1400, subpart G, of this title apply to these programs. That is the rules that limit the eligibility for benefits of those individuals or entities with an adjusted gross income greater than a certain limit will be applied in the same manner to payments under subparts L and M of this part.
( f ) As a condition to receive benefits under subparts L and M of this part, a participant must have been in compliance with the provisions of parts 12 and 718 of this title for the calendar year for which benefits are being requested and must not otherwise be precluded from receiving benefits under any law.
( g ) An individual or entity determined to be a foreign person under part 1400 of this title is not eligible to receive benefits under subparts L and M of this part.
( h ) In addition to limitations provided in subparts L and M of this part, participants cannot receive duplicate benefits under subparts L and M of this part for the same loss or any similar loss under: ( 1 ) An agricultural disaster assistance provision contained in the announcement of the Secretary on January 26, 2006, or August 29, 2006;
( 2 ) The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-234; 120 Stat. 418); or
( 3 ) Any other disaster assistance program.
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 1-5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 1-5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 1-5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 1-5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 1-5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 1-5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 1-5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 1-5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 1-5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 9 of 9
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00803-CV

Carlos Tello, Appellant

v.

Office of the Attorney General, Child-Support Division, Appellee

FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-AG-21-000470, THE HONORABLE MADELEINE CONNOR, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellant Carlos Tello has filed a motion challenging the trial court’s order, 

signed on December 9, 2023, sustaining the Office of the Attorney General’s contest to his 

statement of inability to afford payment of court costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(g)(1). Having 

reviewed the motion and the record, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s order constitutes an 

abuse of discretion.1 See Basaldua v. Hadden, 298 S.W.3d 238, 241 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

2009, no pet.) (reviewing trial court’s order sustaining contest to indigency under abuse-ofdiscretion standard); see also Bui v. Beck & Co. Real Estate Servs., Inc., No. 03-16-00882-CV, 

1

 Tello previously sought review of the trial court’s oral ruling on the challenge to his 

statement of inability to pay court costs. Tello v. Office of the Attorney Gen., No. 03-22-00668-

CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 8990, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 8, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). 

We concluded that we could not review the merits of the trial court’s decision in the absence of 

a signed order in compliance with Rule 145, subsection (f), and at that time, no such order had 

been signed. Id. at *2. As a result, we dismissed the cause for want of jurisdiction. Id. After 

the trial court signed an order in compliance with subsection (f), Tello filed this new action.
2

2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 476, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 19, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per 

curiam) (same). Accordingly, we deny Tello’s motion. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(g)(4).

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Jones

*

Filed: March 31, 2023

*Before J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice (Retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by 

assignment. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C SECTION 1350)**

 

The undersigned, as theChief Executive Officer of Video Display Corporation, certifies that, to thebest of his knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended August 31, 2004 (the “Report”), which accompanies thiscertification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of Video Display Corporation at the dates and for the periodsindicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not be reliedupon for any other purpose.

 
| This 15th day  of October, 2004 | /s/ Ronald D. Ordway    |   |
|---------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                            | Ronald D. Ordway        |
|                            | Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to Video Display Corporation and will be retained byVideo Display Corporation and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
## U.S. EPA Contaminated Site Cleanup Information (CLU-IN)

      - Technologies
      -          - Remediation
        - Characterization and Monitoring 
      - Contaminants
      -          - Arsenic
        - Chlorinated Solvents
        - Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA)
        - Chromium VI
        - Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs)
        - 1,4-Dioxane
        - Dioxins
        - Mercury
        - Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)
        - Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
        - Perchlorate
        - Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
        - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
        - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
        - Radionuclides
        - Trichloroethylene (TCE) 
      - Issues
      -          - Ecological Land Reuse
        - Fractured Rock
        - Global Efforts to Advance Remediation at Contaminated Sites
        - Green Remediation
        - High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC)
        - Mining Sites
        - Sediments
        - Triad: A Smarter Solution to Site Cleanup
        - Vapor Intrusion
        - Wood Treater Sites 
      - Strategies & Initiatives
      -          - Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
        - Triad: A Smarter Solution to Site Cleanup
        - Green Remediation
        - High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC)
        - Measurement and Monitoring Technologies for the 21st Century (21M2)
        - Optimizing Site Cleanups
        - Technical and Technology Support Services 
      - Technology Developer Tools
      -          - Market Analysis
        - Business Planning & Funding
        - Research & Development
        - Demonstration & Testing
        - Permitting & Regulatory Assistance
        - Commercialization & Contracts 
      - Training & Events
      -          - Upcoming Internet Seminars
        - Archived Internet Seminars & Podcasts
        - The Training Exchange (Trainex)
        - Upcoming Courses and Conferences 
      - Additional Resources
      -          - Recent Additions
        - Popular Additions
        - Upcoming Live Web Events
        - Archived Internet Seminars & Podcasts
        - News Feed (RSS)
        - TechDirect and Newsletters
        - Upcoming Courses and Conferences
        - Documents
        - Videos
        - Databases
        - Software and Tools 

****CLU-INTechDirect and Newsletters
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 IPtimize, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ron Pitcock, 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:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 29, 2009



/s/ Ron PitcockRon PitcockChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.