alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 624.1 Purpose.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and United States Forest Service (FS) are responsible for administering the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program. This part sets forth the requirements and procedures for Federal assistance, administered by NRCS, under Section 216, Public Law 81-516, 33 U.S.C. 701b-1; and Section 403 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Public Law 95-334, as amended by Section 382, of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Public Law 104-127, 16 U.S.C. 2203. The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated the administration of the EWP Program to the Chief of NRCS on state, tribal, and private lands, and Chief of FS on National Forest Systems lands, including any other lands that are administered under a formal agreement with the FS. The FS administers the EWP Program in accordance with the Forest Service Manuals 1950 and 3540, and the Forest Service Handbook 1909.15
§ 795.2 Applicability. ( a ) The provisions of this part are applicable to payments when so provided by the individual program regulations under which the payments are made. The amount of the limitation shall be as specified in the individual program regulations.
( b ) The limitation shall be applied to the payments for a commodity for a crop year.
( c ) The limitation shall not be applicable to payments made to States, political subdivisions, or agencies thereof for participation in the programs on lands owned by such States, political subdivisions, or agencies thereof so long as such lands are farmed primarily in the direct furtherance of a public function. However, the limitation is applicable to persons who rent or lease land owned by States, political subdivisions, or agencies thereof.
( d ) The limitation shall not be applicable to payments made to Indian tribal ventures participating in the programs where a responsible official of the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian Tribal Council certifies that no more than the program payment limitation shall accrue directly or indirectly to any individual Indian and the State committee reviews and approves the exemption.
( e ) Except as provided in part 1497 of this title, this part shall not be applicabie to contracts entered into on or after August 1, 1988 in accordance with part 704 of this chapter.
[49 FR 14719, Apr. 13, 1984, as amended at 51 FR 8453, Mar. 11, 1986; 51 FR 36905, Oct. 16, 1986; 53 FR 29570, Aug. 5, 1988]
#### § 70.50 Approval of official identification and wording on labels.

Any label or packaging material which bears any official grade identification shall be used only in such a manner as the Administrator may prescribe, and such labeling or packaging materials, including the wording used on such materials, shall be approved in accordance with and conform with the provisions of this part 70 and the applicable provisions of §§ 381.115 through 381.141 of 9 CFR part 381. Poultry Products Inspection Regulations. Labeling requirements for ready-to-cook rabbits, except for the product name, shall be the same as for ready-to-cook poultry. For ready-to-cook rabbits the class name shall be shown on the label. The appropriate designation, “young,” “mature,” or “old,” may be used as a prefix to the word “rabbit” in lieu of the class name.

[41 FR 23681, June 11, 1976; 41 FR 24694, June 18, 1976. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981]
# L_2014095EN.01006901.xml

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 95/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 95/69

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision 2014/148/EU of 17 March 2014 amending Decision 2011/130/EU establishing minimum requirements for the cross-border processing of documents signed electronically by competent authorities under Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 80 of 19 March 2014
  )

In the table of contents and on page 7, Commission Implementing Decision 2014/148/EU of 17 March 2014 amending Decision 2011/130/EU establishing minimum requirements for the cross-border processing of documents signed electronically by competent authorities under Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market was published under the wrong heading:

for:

‘Acts adopted by bodies created by international agreements’,

read:

‘Decisions’.

---
228.370 Ground and flight risk.

228.370-1 Definitions.

228.370-2 General.

228.370-3 Aircraft not owned by or to be delivered to the Government.

Parent topic: Subpart 228.3 - INSURANCE
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-4 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-4 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-4 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-4 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-4 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-5 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-5 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-5 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-5 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-5 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-6 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-6 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 35-6 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 3 of 3
252.215-7003 Requirement for Submission of Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data—Canadian Commercial Corporation.       As prescribed at                 215.408             (2)(i), use the following provision:          REQUIREMENT FOR SUBMISSION OF DATA OTHER THAN CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA—CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION (JUL 2012)          (a)  Submission of certified cost or pricing data is not required.          (b)  Canadian Commercial Corporation shall obtain and provide the following:          (i)  Profit rate or fee (as applicable).          (ii)  Analysis provided by Public Works and Government Services Canada to the Canadian Commercial Corporation to determine a fair and reasonable price (comparable to the analysis required at FAR 15.404-1).          (iii)  Data other than certified cost or pricing data necessary to permit a determination by the U.S. Contracting Officer that the proposed price is fair and reasonable [*U.S. Contracting Officer to insert description of the data required in accordance with FAR 15.403-3(a)(1*)].          (c)  As specified in FAR 15.403-3(a)(4), an offeror who does not comply with a requirement to submit data that the U.S. Contracting Officer has deemed necessary to determine price reasonableness or cost realism is ineligible for award unless the head of the contracting activity determines that it is in the best interest of the Government to make the award to that offeror.          (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 252.215 RESERVED
252.237-7019 Training for Contractor

Personnel Interacting with Detainees.

As prescribed in 237.171-4 , use the following clause:

TRAINING FOR CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL INTERACTING WITH DETAINEES (JAN 2023)

(a) Definitions. As used in this clause—

“Combatant Commander” means the commander of a unified or specified combatant command

established in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 161.

“Detainee” means a person in the custody or under the physical control of the Department of

Defense on behalf of the United States Government as a result of armed conflict or other military

operation by United States armed forces.

“Personnel interacting with detainees” means personnel who, in the course of their duties, are

expected to interact with detainees.

(b) Training requirement. This clause implements Section 1092 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108-375).

(1) The Combatant Commander responsible for the area where a detention or interrogation facility is

located will arrange for training to be provided to contractor personnel interacting with detainees.

The training will address the international obligations and laws of the United States applicable to

the detention of personnel, including the Geneva Conventions. The Combatant Commander will

arrange for a training receipt document to be provided to personnel who have completed the

training.

(2)(i) The Contractor shall arrange for its personnel interacting with detainees to—

(A) Receive the training specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause—

(1) Prior to interacting with detainees, or as soon as possible if, for compelling reasons, the

Contracting Officer authorizes interaction with detainees prior to receipt of such training; and

(2) Annually thereafter; and

(B) Provide a copy of the training receipt document specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause to the

Contractor for retention.

(ii) To make these arrangements, the following points of contact apply:

[Contracting Officer to insert applicable point of contact information cited in PGI 237.171-3 (b).]

(3) The Contractor shall retain a copy of the training receipt document(s) provided in accordance

with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this clause until the contract is closed, or 3 years after all work

required by the contract has been completed and accepted by the Government, whichever is sooner.

(c) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph

(c), in all subcontracts, including subcontracts for commercial services, that may require
subcontractor personnel to interact with detainees in the course of their duties.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 252.237 RESERVED
# L_2020439EN.01003301.xml

| 29.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 439/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 439/33

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 667/2014 of 13 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to rules of procedure for penalties imposed on trade repositories by the European Securities and Markets Authority including rules on the right of defence and temporal provisions

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 179 of 19 June 2014
  )

On page 34, in Article 6(5):

for:

‘The limitation period for imposing fines and periodic penalty payments shall be suspended for as long as the decision of ESMA is the subject of proceedings pending before the Board of Appeal, in accordance with Article 58 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, and before the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 69 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.’,

read:

‘The limitation period for imposing fines and periodic penalty payments shall be suspended for as long as the decision of ESMA is the subject of proceedings pending before the Board of Appeal, in accordance with Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, and before the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 69 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.’.

On page 34, in Article 7(5) point (b):

for:

‘enforcement of payment is suspended pursuant to a pending decision of ESMA Board of Appeal, in accordance with Article 58 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, and the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 69 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.’,

read:

‘enforcement of payment is suspended pursuant to a pending decision of ESMA Board of Appeal, in accordance with Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010, and the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 69 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012.’.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000759440
<NAME> BIG RIVER PRODUCTIONS LTD PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          76,904
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,904
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              150
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,754
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,904
<SALES>                                         20,565
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,565
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,565
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       901
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Mike Mead *vs.*Charles E. Sanders.

Submitted on briefs April 9, 1894.

Affirmed April 20, 1894.

No. 8463.

Practice in Justice’s Court.

Whether, after the commencement of a trial in a justice court before a* jury, it is error or abuse of discretion on the part of the justice to adjourn court for six days, without the consent of appellant, is not decided. *Held,*that in any event it was waived by the appellant failing to except thereto, and by his appearing and proceeding with the trial at the time to which, it was adjourned.

Appeal by defendant, Charles E. Sanders, from a judgment of the-District Court of Bock County, *P. E. Broivn,*J., entered May 15,, 1893, against him for $3 damages and $29 costs.

L. *S. Nelson,*for appellant.

*A. J. Daley,*for respondent.

Canty, J.

This action was commenced in a justice court to recover $10 damages, caused by defendant’s cattle going upon plaintiff’s land, and eating his straw and fodder. The jury, after laboring two days, brought in a verdict for plaintiff for $3. Defendant appealed to the District Court on questions of law, and, upon affirmance by that court, appealed to this.

On the trial, plaintiff called the defendant for cross-examination,, and asked him wthat had become of a contract under which defendant had cropped part of the land, and under which he claimed a right to the straw and fodder. He answered that he gave it to-his attorney. This question was objected to by defendant, and the *109•overriding oí the objection by the justice is assigned as error. We are unable to see the error. The trial commenced at half past one o’clock Saturday afternoon, and, after the case was partly tried, some time that afternoon or evening, the court adjourned to the following Friday. The defendant objected to the adjournment, but took no exception. It must be understood from the record that he appeared and proceeded with the trial at the time to which it was adjourned, so that, if there was any irregularity in the adjournment, it was thereby cured. These are the only errors urged by appellant.

The appeals are about as frivolous as the original action, and the parties should be given a chance to rest from their legal strife.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed. So ordered.

Buck, J., absent, took no part.

{Opinion published 58 N. W. 683.)
245.107 Contract clauses.       (1)(i)  In lieu of the prescription at FAR 45.107(d), use the clause at FAR 52.245-1, Government Property, in all purchase orders for repair, maintenance, overhaul, or modification of Government property regardless of the unit acquisition cost of the items to be repaired.          (ii)  For negotiated fixed-price contracts awarded on a basis other than submission of certified cost or pricing data for which Government property is provided, use the clause at FAR 52.245-1, Government Property, without its Alternate I.          (2)  Use the clause at 252.245-7000, Government-Furnished Mapping, Charting, and  Geodesy Property, in solicitations and contracts when mapping, charting, and geodesy property is to be furnished.          (3) Use the clause at 252.245-7003 , Contractor Property Management System Administration, in solicitations and contracts containing the clause at FAR 52.245-1, Government Property.          (4) Use the clause at 252.245-7005, Management and Reporting of Government Property, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, that contain the clause at FAR 52.245-1, Government Property.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 245.1 - GENERAL
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

GILCHRIST TIMBER COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cv-10172-MP-AK

ITT RAYONIER INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 507, Stipulation and Joint Motion for Entry of

Amended Final Judgment Pursuant to Mandate by Gilchrist Timber Company, and ITT Rayonier 

Incorporated. Previously, the Court had set an in-court final disposition hearing for May 2,

2007. Mr. Bradford, however, informed the Court's deputy that no hearing was required and the

stipulation resolved all outstanding issues. Accordingly, the hearing of May 2, 2007 is cancelled

and the Clerk is directed to amend the judgment at doc. 483, nunc pro tunc to February 1, 2007, 

to include an award of prejudgment interest of $1,528,681.09, as to which sum interest shall

accrue from February 1, 2007, at the rate of 4.02% per annum, pursuant to the requirements of

28 U.S.C. § 1961.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:88-cv-10172-MP-AK Document 508 Filed 05/01/07 Page 1 of 1
**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**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                              |                                                    |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                              | /s/              Jack              DeFranco   |
|   | Jack DeFranco(Acting Principal Executive Officer) |
|   |  Date: August 17,                2006        |

----
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Meeting Documentation Date Staff Contact Information 

(Name, email, phone #) 

Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.) 

Written Comments Provided? Did they alssubmit to D

05/26/10 Phone Correspondence 

Jen Bohman EPA Bohman.Jennifer@epa.gov 202-343-9548 

Frank A. Krich Chrysler Group (248) 576-5497 

Asked EPA weather imports and exports of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners would be included as imports and exports of Pre-charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams EPA clarified that Motor Vehicles would be included under this subpart.

N/A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

 DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

 

September 6, 2006

NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

RE: Gregory Scott v. Norment Security Group, Inc.

Civil Action No. 2:06cv00654-VPM

The above-styled case has been reassigned to District Judge Mark E. Fuller.

Please note that the case number is now 2:06cv00654-MEF. This new case

number should be used on all future correspondence and pleadings in this action.

Sincerely,

Sheryl K. Lent

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 7 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### BARNES, Respondent, v. MARTIN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 7, 1914.)

Action by Charles P. Barnes against Richard P. Martin.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. For opinion below, see 143 N. Y. Supp. 792.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:04-cr-1-SPM-AK

RONALD RYAN SHEPARD, JR.,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

By prior order, the Court gave the Government an opportunity to object to Defendant’s

motion to amend his motion to vacate. Doc. 146. To date, the Government has voiced no

objections to the proposed amended § 2255 motion, and thus, the Court will grant the motion to

amend and order the Government to file a response to the amended motion to vacate.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

That the motion to amend, Doc. 143, is GRANTED;

That the Government shall file its response to the amended motion to vacate, Doc. 146,

no later than May 2, 2008.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 2008.

S/A.Kornblum ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cr-00001-SPM-AK Document 149 Filed 04/03/08 Page 1 of 1
31.703 Requirements.       (a) 						            Contracts which refer to this subpart  31.7 for determining allowable costs shall be deemed to refer to, and shall have the allowability of costs determined by the contracting officer in accordance with, the OMB Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, subpart E and appendix IV in effect on the date of the contract.                                          (b) Agencies are not expected to place additional restrictions on individual items of cost. However, under                       10 U.S.C. 3744                                          and 41 U.S.C.4304, the costs cited in 31.603(b) are unallowable.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 31.7 - Contracts with Nonprofit Organizations
#### American Tool Company, Appellant, *v.*George J. Smith, Respondent.

(Submitted June 17, 1884 ;

decided June 27, 1884.)

*William J. A. McGrath*for appellant.

*E. Henry LaCombe*and *John J. Townsend, Jr.,*for respondent.

Agree to affirm ; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed.