alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

KEITH LAWSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-cv-641-WKW

)

CITY OF ALEXANDER CITY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion for SummaryJudgment (Doc. # 15) filed on July

30, 2007, it is ORDERED that the motion be submitted without oral argument on September 4,

2007.

It is further ORDERED that plaintiff file a response which shall include a brief on or before

August 21, 2007. The Defendants may file a reply brief on or before September 4, 2007.

All future motions to remand, motions to dismiss, motions for judgment on the

pleadings, and motions for summary judgment filed in this case, it is ORDERED that:

1. The movant shall file its brief and any evidentiary submission simultaneously with

the filing of the dispositive motion.

2. The opponent’s response brief and any evidentiary submission shall be due 21 days

after the date the motion is filed.

3. The movant’s reply brief, if any, shall be due 14 days after the date the response

is filed.

4. The motion shall be under submission on the due date of the reply brief. Unless the

court determines that a hearing is necessary or helpful, at which time a date will be set, the court will

Case 3:06-cv-00641-WKW-TFM Document 17 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
determine the motion without oral argument upon submission. 

5. Briefs in support of or in opposition to any motion generally should not exceed

25 pages. In all cases in which briefs exceed 25 pages, counsel must include a table of contents

indicating the main sections of the brief, the principal arguments and citations to authority made in

each section, and the pages on which each section and any sub-sections may be found.

6. The parties are required to submit or mail a paper courtesy copy of briefs and

supporting evidence to the Chambers of the undersigned. 

7. For those submissions (including briefs and evidentiary materials) that exceed 25

pages, the paper courtesy copy shall be bound in a three-ring binder and tabbed.

8. Any discussion of evidence in a brief must include the specific reference, by name

or document number and by page and line, to where the evidence can be found in the supporting

evidentiary submission or in any document filed with the court.

9. Failure to comply strictly with this Order for all future filings may result in the

striking of the filing or other appropriate sanctions.

DONE this 8th day of August, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00641-WKW-TFM Document 17 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### § 905.70 Manifest report.

The committee may request information from each handler regarding the variety, grade, and size of each standard packed carton of fruit shipped by him and may require such information to be mailed or delivered to the committee or its duly authorized representative, within 24 hours after such shipment is made, in a manner or by such method as the said committee may prescribe, and upon such forms as may be prepared by it.

[42 FR 59371, Nov. 17, 1977]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,009,747
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,774
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      11,220,652
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,006,872)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,467,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,885,151
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,467,118
<SALES>                                      1,871,961
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,905,306
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,596,631
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             401,273
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (92,598)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (92,598)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
252.225-7032 Waiver of United Kingdom Levies—Evaluation of Offers.       As prescribed in                 225.1101             (7), use the following provision:          WAIVER OF UNITED KINGDOM LEVIES – EVALUATION OF OFFERS (APR 2003)          (a)  Offered prices for contracts or subcontracts with United Kingdom (U.K.) firms may contain commercial exploitation levies assessed by the Government of the U.K.  The offeror shall identify to the Contracting Officer all levies included in the offered price by describing—          (1)  The name of the U.K. firm;          (2)  The item to which the levy applies and the item quantity; and          (3)  The amount of levy plus any associated indirect costs and profit or fee.          (b)  In the event of difficulty in identifying levies included in a price from a prospective subcontractor, the offeror may seek advice through the Director of Procurement, United Kingdom Defence Procurement Office, British Embassy, 3100 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC  20006.          (c)  The U.S. Government may attempt to obtain a waiver of levies pursuant to the U.S./U.K. reciprocal waiver agreement of July 1987.          (1)  If the U.K. waives levies before award of a contract, the Contracting Officer will evaluate the offer without the levy.          (2)  If levies are identified but not waived before award of a contract, the Contracting Officer will evaluate the offer inclusive of the levies.          (3)  If the U.K. grants a waiver of levies after award of a contract, the U.S. Government reserves the right to reduce the contract price by the amount of the levy waived plus associated indirect costs and profit or fee.          (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 252.225 RESERVED
Exhibit 31.3





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A)



I, Mark Zagorski, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment
No. 1) of Telaria, Inc.; and



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.





|March 25, 2020 | /s/ Mark Zagorski            
|-------------- | -----------------------------
|               | Mark Zagorski                
|               |                              
|               | Chief Executive Officer      
|               |                              
|               | (Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3002 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3002

   To suspend temporarily the duty on a mixture of barium carbonate, 
strontium carbonate, calcium carbonate, methoxy-2-propananolacetate-1, 
             for use as emitter suspension cathode coating.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2006

Mr. Reid (for Mr. Rockefeller) introduced the following bill; which was 
          read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on a mixture of barium carbonate, 
strontium carbonate, calcium carbonate, methoxy-2-propananolacetate-1, 
             for use as emitter suspension cathode coating.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURE OF BARIUM CARBONATE, STRONTIUM CARBONATE, CALCIUM 
              CARBONATE, METHOXY-2-PROPANANOLACETATE-1, FOR USE AS 
              EMITTER SUSPENSION CATHODE COATING.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.38.40      A mixture of        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         barium carbonate,                                                  31/2009
                         strontium
                         carbonate,
                         calcium
                         carbonate,
                         methoxy-2-
                         propananolacetate-
                         1, for use as
                         emitter
                         suspension
                         cathode coating
                         (CAS Nos. 513-77-
                         9, 108-65-6, 1833-
                         05-2, and 471-34-
                         1) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         3824.90.91)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
10.50

     

    


     

    In 2007
Mr. Morawetz and the Company reached a verbal agreement that accrued consulting
fees totaling approximately $84,000 would be deferred until such time that the
Company had sufficient cash on hand to pay the fees or to make other
arrangements for payment.  Additionally, the Company and Mr. Morawetz
agreed that he would cease providing consulting services to the Company and that
no additional fees would accrue.  In a meeting with Mr. Morawetz on
May 13, 2009 the Company submitted a proposal to settle payment of the fees by
making a cash payment of $30,000 and issuing a stock option for 75,000 shares at
such time as the Company raises an additional $3 million in
equity.  Mr. Morawetz agreed to consider this alternative form of
payment but there is no formal agreement and the full $84,000 remains in the
accrued expenses account.
EXHIBIT 13.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Keith Diakiw, Chief Executive Officer of Power Oil & Gas Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, this Amendment No. 3 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in this Amendment No. 3 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results of operations of the
Company.





Dated: November 14, 2011








By:              /s/ Keith Diakiw


Name:              Keith Diakiw


Title:                Chief Executive Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Xavier Contracting, LLC, Respondent, v City of Rye et al., Appellants.

[815 NYS2d 638]

*688In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered December 17, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant City of Rye, acting through the defendant City Council of the City of Rye, advertised for bids in connection with the renovation of its community center. The City intended to award seven separate contracts for different portions of the work. The plaintiff was awarded a contract for general construction. Simultaneously, six other bidders were awarded contracts for other work, all part of the same project. Subsequently, one of the awards was rescinded because the bidder failed to meet the bonding requirements. The City then informed the plaintiff that it intended to reevaluate the renovation project, and would not proceed with the project at that time.

The Supreme Court properly determined that a binding and enforceable contract came into existence when the plaintiff was awarded its contract *(see Matter of Municipal Consultants & Publs, v Town of Ramapo,*47 NY2d 144, 148-149 [1979]; *Roosevelt & Cross v County of Albany,*72 AD2d 855, 857 [1979]; *Beckwith v City of New York,*121 App Div 462 [1907]; *Paul v City of New York,*46 App Div 69, 73 [1899]; *Matter of Lord Elec. Co. v Litke,*122 Misc 2d 112, 114 [1983]). Absent an express provision that the plaintiffs contract was awarded subject to or contingent upon the acceptance of the six other contract awards *(cf. Kigler v County of Rockland,*186 AD2d 787, 789 [1992]), the City could not unilaterally refuse to perform simply because one of the other six contracts was later rescinded. The language in section II paragraph 9 of the Project Manual on the discretionary authority of the City to reject bid proposals does not require a different result, since such authority does not pertain to circumstances after a bid proposal, has actually been accepted by the municipality, as here. Accordingly, there being no disputed issue of fact in this case, the Supreme Court properly determined, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), and properly denied the defendants’ cross motion. Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Lunn and Dillon, JJ., concur.
76524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices 

or 414–231–2360, or write TAP Office 

Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin 

Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203–2221, or 

post comments to the Web site: http:// 

www.improveirs.org. 

The agenda will include various IRS 

issues. 

Dated: December 3, 2010. 

Shawn F. Collins, 

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30886 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Thrift Supervision 

[Docket ID: OTS–2010–0034] 

Closed Meeting of the OTS Mutual 

Savings Association Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision, 

Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of Closed Meeting. 

SUMMARY: The OTS Mutual Savings 

Associations Advisory Committee 

(MSAAC) will convene a meeting on 

Monday, December 20, beginning at 

Noon, Eastern Time. The meeting will 

be closed to the public. 

DATES: The closed meeting will be held 

on Monday, December 20, 2010, at 

Noon, Eastern Time. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. The 

public is invited to submit written 

statements to the MSAAC by any one of 

the following methods: 

• E-mail address: 

mutualcommittee@ots.treas.gov; or 

• Mail: To Charlotte Bahin, 

Designated Federal Official, Office of 

Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20552 in triplicate. 

The agency must receive statements 

no later than December 13, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charlotte M. Bahin, Designated Federal 

Official, (202) 906–6452, Office of Thrift 

Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20552. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By this 

notice, the Office of Thrift Supervision 

is announcing that the OTS Mutual 

Savings Association Advisory 

Committee will convene a closed 

meeting on Monday, December 20, 

2010, beginning at Noon, Eastern Time. 

The meeting will not be open to the 

public. The purpose of the meeting is to 

advise OTS on what regulatory changes 

or other steps OTS may be able to take 

to ensure the continued health and 

viability of mutual savings associations, 

and other issues of concern to the 

existing mutual savings associations. 

Dated: December 1, 2010. 

By the Office of Thrift Supervision. 

Deborah Dakin, 

Acting Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30704 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
§ 63.105 Nominating organizations. ( a ) *In general.* Nominations for voting members of the Board may be submitted by any national organization that the Secretary determines meets the eligibility criteria established under paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Basis for eligibility.* A national organization is eligible to submit nominations for voting members on the Board if: ( 1 ) The membership of the organization consists primarily of active sheep or goat producers in the United States; and
( 2 ) The primary interest of the organization is the production of sheep or goats in the United States.
### 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 MADE LEINE CONNOR , JUDGE PRESIDING

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

PER C U RIA M

Appellant Ca rlos Tell o has filed a motion challenging the trial court ’ s order, signed on December 9, 2023, sustaining the Office of the Attorney G eneral ’ s contest to his
sta t e ment 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 di scre tion. 1 See Basaldua v. Hadden , 298 S.W.3d 238, 2 4 1 (Tex. App

. — San Antonio 2009, no pet .) (review ing trial court ’ s order sustain ing contest to indigency under abuse

- of

discretion 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 cos ts. Tello v. Office of the Attorney Gen

. , No. 03

- 22

- 00668

- CV, 20 22 Tex. App. LEXIS 8990, a t *1 (Tex. App.

— A us ti n Dec. 8 , 2022 , no pet.) (m em. op .)

. We concluded that we could not review the merits of the trial court ’ s decis ion in the abs ence of a si gne d order in compliance with Rule 145, subsection ( f ) , and at that time, no such order had been sig n e d

. Id. a t *2. As a result, we dismissed the cause for want of jurisdiction. Id

. After the trial court signed an order in compliance with sub section (f), Tello file d this new action.2

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

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

Be fore Justices Baker, Smith, and J o ne s * Filed: M arch 31, 2023

* Before J. Woo dfin Jones, Chief Justice (Re tired), Third Court of Ap peals, si tting b y ass ignment

. See Tex. Gov ’ t C ode § 74.003( b).
# 239.7408 Special construction.

- 239.7408-1 General. 
- 239.7408-2 Applicability of construction labor standards for special construction. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 239.74 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ADEL HAMLILY, 

Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 05-0763 (JDB)

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

 Respondents.

WALEED SAEED BN SAEED ZAID, et al.,

Petitioners,

v. Civil Action No. 05-1646 (JDB)

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

 Respondents.

ABDUL HAMID ABDUL SALAM

AL-GHIZZAWI,

Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 05-2378 (JDB)

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

 Respondents.

MOAMMAR BADAWI DOKHAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

 Respondents.

 Civil Action No. 08-0987 (JDB)

SHAWALI KHAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

 Respondents.

 Civil Action No. 08-1101 (JDB)
-2-

MUIEEN ADEEN JAMAL ADEEN ABD AL

F. ABD AL SATTAR

 Petitioner,

 v.

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

 Respondents.

 Civil Action No. 08-1236 (JDB) 

ORDER

Through respondents' March 13, 2009 memorandum, "the Government refined its

position with respect to its authority to detain those persons who are now being held at

Guantanamo Bay." Resp'ts' Mem. at 1; see Hamlily v. Obama, Civ.A.No. 05-0763 (dkt. ent.

#175). Accordingly, petitioners in the above-captioned cases shall have the opportunity to

respond to the Government's memorandum and likewise to refine their positions on the scope of

the Government's detention authority relative to those persons held at Guantanamo Bay. In the

interest of judicial efficiency and to avoid delays in these proceedings, the Court encourages

petitioners to work cooperatively and, to the extent possible, to file a joint submission with the

Court. The Court will also set a tentative date for oral argument on this issue. This joint hearing

may be subject to change or cancellation by further order of the Court pending petitioners'

submissions. 

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that by not later than March 27, 2009, petitioners

shall respond to respondents' March 13, 2009 memorandum and submit any refinement of their

position on the appropriate scope of the Government's detention authority with respect to those

persons being held at Guantanamo Bay; it is further

ORDERED that if three or more petitioners file a joint submission, then it shall be

limited to fifteen (15) pages in length. Individual submissions and joint submissions by two
-3-

petitioners shall be limited to eight (8) pages in length; and it is further

ORDERED that a joint hearing on the proper scope of the Government's detention

authority is tentatively set for April 8, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 8. 

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ John D. Bates 

 JOHN D. BATES

 United States District Judge

Dated: March 16, 2009
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

MARIE TOOLE and )

CHRIS TOOLE, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 2:06cv652-MHT

MATTHEW CHUPP, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to remand (Doc. No.

6) is set for on-the-record oral argument on September

13, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. Counsel for plaintiffs are to

arrange for the argument to be conducted by telephone.

DONE, this the 11th day of September, 2006.

_____________________________ /s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 10 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 1