alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
52.246-22 [Reserved]

Parent topic: 52.246 [Reserved]
52.232 [Reserved]

52.232-1 Payments.

52.232-2 Payments under Fixed-Price Research and Development Contracts.

52.232-3 Payments under Personal Services Contracts.

52.232-4 Payments under Transportation Contracts and Transportation-Related

Services Contracts.

52.232-5 Payments under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts.

52.232-6 Payment under Communication Service Contracts with Common Carriers.

52.232-7 Payments under Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour Contracts.

52.232-8 Discounts for Prompt Payment.

52.232-9 Limitation on Withholding of Payments.

52.232-10 Payments under Fixed-Price Architect-Engineer Contracts.

52.232-11 Extras.

52.232-12 Advance Payments.

52.232-13 Notice of Progress Payments.

52.232-14 Notice of Availability of Progress Payments Exclusively for Small Business

Concerns.

52.232-15 Progress Payments Not Included.

52.232-16 Progress Payments.

52.232-17 Interest.

52.232-18 Availability of Funds.

52.232-19 Availability of Funds for the Next Fiscal Year.

52.232-20 Limitation of Cost.

52.232-21 [Reserved]

52.232-22 Limitation of Funds.

52.232-23 Assignment of Claims.

52.232-24 Prohibition of Assignment of Claims.

52.232-25 Prompt Payment.

52.232-26 Prompt Payment for Fixed-Price Architect-Engineer Contracts.

52.232-27 Prompt Payment for Construction Contracts.

52.232-28 Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments.

52.232-29 Terms for Financing of Purchases of Commercial Products and Commercial

Services.

52.232-30 Installment Payments for Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

52.232-31 Invitation to Propose Financing Terms.

52.232-32 Performance-Based Payments.

52.232-33 Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer-System for Award Management.

52.232-34 Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer-Other than System for Award

Management.

52.232-35 Designation of Office for Government Receipt of Electronic Funds Transfer

Information.

52.232-36 Payment by Third Party.

52.232-37 Multiple Payment Arrangements.

52.232-38 Submission of Electronic Funds Transfer Information with Offer.

52.232-39 Unenforceability of Unauthorized Obligations.

52.232-40 Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors.

Parent topic: Subpart 52.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 11, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01428-CV 

JP BENT TREE GP, LLC, JP ABERDEEN GP, LLC 

 AND JP-2400 LAKESIDE GP, LLC, Appellants 

V. 

RE CLOSING, LLC AND REC GP, LLC, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-14634 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

Before the Court is appellants’ April 2, 2019 unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal in 

which appellants assert they have nonsuited their case below without prejudice, rendering the 

appeal moot. We grant appellants’ motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

181428F.P05 

 

/Amanda L. Reichek/ 

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JP BENT TREE GP, LLC, JP ABERDEEN 

GP, LLC AND JP-2400 LAKESIDE GP, 

LLC, Appellants 

No. 05-18-01428-CV V. 

RE CLOSING, LLC AND REC GP, LLC, 

Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-14634. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek; 

Justices Schenck and Osborne participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellees RE CLOSING, LLC AND REC GP, LLC recover their 

costs of this appeal from appellants JP BENT TREE GP, LLC, JP ABERDEEN GP, LLC AND 

JP-2400 LAKESIDE GP, LLC. 

Judgment entered April 11, 2019.
#### DOUGHERTY, Appellant, v. McCOLLUM, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by John T. Dougherty against Alexander J. McCollum.

No opinion, Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with costs, unless the appellant pay the respondent $10 costs within 10 days, and perfect the appeal, so that the case may be placed on the next calendar of this court. On compliance with these terms, the nlotion to dismiss the appeal is denied, without costs.
```

[107th Congress Private Law 5]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:pvtl005.107]

 
[[Page 1]]

Private Law 107-5
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  For the relief of Anisha Goveas Foti. <<NOTE: Nov. 5, 2002 -  [H.R. 
                                2245]>> 

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ANISHA GOVEAS FOTI.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Anisha Goveas Foti shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Anisha Goveas Foti enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she shall 
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline <<NOTE: Applicability.>> for Application and Payment of 
Fees.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application for 
issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of 
status is filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.

    Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to 
Anisha Goveas Foti, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
officer to reduce by 1, during the current or next following fiscal 
year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to 
natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of the 
alien's birth under section 202(e) of such Act.

    Approved November 5, 2002.
```
215.407-5 Estimating systems.

215.407-5-70 Disclosure, maintenance, and review requirements.

Parent topic: 215.407 Special cost or pricing areas.
EX-34 (m)
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG

Ernst & Young LLP
Suite 2800
600 Peachtree Street
Atlanta Georgia 30308-2215

Phone: (404) 874-8300
www.ey.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, Inc. (the Company)
complied with certain servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the ZC Sterling
Integrated Product Solution (ZIPS) hazard insurance outsourcing Platform
(Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. The Company has
determined that only certain servicing criteria 1122 (d) 1(iv), 1122 (d) 2(vi),
1122 (d) 4(xi), 1122 (d) 4(xii), and 1122 (d) 4(xiii) are applicable to the
activities performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this
report. The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the
Platform covered by this report. See Appendix A of management's assertion for
the Platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with
the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than
all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing
criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the servicing activities
performed by the Company 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 Company during the period covered by
this report for the Platform. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
for the ZIPS Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Ernst & Young

February 20, 2007


A Member Practice of Ernst & Young Global
#### FIRST NAT. BANK OF THOMASVILLE, GA., v. HOPKINS.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

October 28, 1912.)

No. 2,395.

Petition to Superintend and Revise Proceedings of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia, in Bankruptcy.

In the matter of the Montgomery Drug Company, bankrupt. On petition by the First National Bank of Thoiuasville, Ga., to superintend and revise an order made in summary proceedings instituted by J. S. Hopkins, trustee, requiring petitioner to pay over certain deposits.

Petition dismissed.

W. O. Snodgrass and J. H. Merrill, both of Thomasville, Ga., for petitioner.

J. B. Copeland, of Valdosta, Ga., and O. A. Park, of Macon, Ga., for respondent.

Before PARDEE, Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN and MEEK, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Having disposed of this case pending on appeal in No. 2,413 (199 Fed. 873), opinion filed this day, it is -unnecessary to pass upon this petition, even if the same is well brought.

The petition therefore is denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Michael Lafferty, Defendant.

Motion for change of venue denied. Memorandum: We conclude that defendant has not on this application met his burden of demonstrating that there is "reasonable cause to believe that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had” in Chautauqua County (CPL 230.20, subd 2). If it develops during the *voir dire*that a fair and impartial jury cannot be drawn, an appropriate application may then be made. The relief requested in the application before us now is premature. (See *People v Di Piazza,*24 NY2d 342; *People v Hatch,*46 AD2d 721; *People v Sekou,*45 AD2d 982, app dsmd 35 NY2d 844.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
Local Rule 5.1

NON-FILING OF CIVIL DISCOVERY

Unless the Court directs otherwise, in all civil actions other than inmate complaints

challenging the conditions of confinement:

A. Interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admissions and responses

thereto, and notices of depositions shall be served in accordance with Rule 5(b), FED.R.CIV.P.,

but shall not be filed with the Clerk except upon order of the Court or for use at trial or in

connection with motions. The party responsible for service of the discovery material shall retain

the original and become custodian.

B. No depositions shall be filed with the Clerk unless the Court directs otherwise, or

unless in support of or in opposition to a motion. Counsel who notices a deposition shall be the

custodian of the deposition and shall maintain the original for filing if the Court so directs.

C. If discovery materials are germane to any motion or response, only the relevant

material need be filed with the motion or response.

D. During the pendency of any case the custodian of any discovery material shall

provide to counsel for all other parties reasonable access to the material and an opportunity to

duplicate the material at the expense of the copying party, and any other person may, with leave

of Court, obtain a copy of any discovery material from its custodian upon payment of the expense

of the copy.

E. When documentation of discovery not previously in the record is needed for appeal

purposes, upon an application and order of the Court, or by stipulation of counsel, the necessary

discovery papers shall be filed with the Clerk.

F. Any discovery material, depositions and trial exhibits filed with the Clerk will be

disposed of by the Clerk as set out by M.D. Ala. LR 5.2.

Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 31-2 Filed 06/07/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 1 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 2 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 3 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 4 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 5 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 6 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 7 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 8 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 9 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 10 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 11 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 12 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 13 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 14 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 15 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 16 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 17 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 18 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 19 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 20 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 21 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 22 of 22
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2890 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Wakil XL. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2006 

Mr. BURR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Wakil XL. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WAKIL XL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.04 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Wakil XL) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and in7 serting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

11 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
§ 760.641 Adjustments made to NAMP to reflect loss of quality. ( a ) The Deputy Administrator will authorize FSA county committees, with FSA State committee concurrence, to adjust NAMP for a county or part of a county: ( 1 ) To reflect the average quality discounts applied to the local or regional market price of a crop due to a reduction in the intrinsic characteristics of the production resulting from adverse weather, as determined annually by the State office of the FSA; or
( 2 ) To account for a crop for which the value is reduced due to excess moisture resulting from a disaster related condition.
( 3 ) For adjustments specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, an adjustment factor that represents the regional or local price received for the crop in the county will be calculated by the FSA State committee. The adjustment factor will be based on the average actual market price compared to NAMP.
( b ) For adjustments made under paragraph (a) of this section, participants must provide verifiable evidence of actual or appraised production, clearly indicating an average loss of value caused by poor quality or excessive moisture that meets or exceeds the quality adjustment for the county or part of a county established in paragraph (a)(3) of this section to be eligible to receive the quality-adjusted NAMP as part of their SURE payment calculation. In order to be considered at all for the purpose of quality adjustments, the verifiable evidence of production must itself detail the extent of the quality loss for a specific quantity. With regard to test evidence, in addition to meeting all the requirements of this section, tests must have been completed by January 1 of the year following harvest.
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. 1:96-cr-00020-MP-AK

MACEO ADRIAN BAILEY,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 460, Motion for Early Termination of Supervised

Release, filed by Maceo Adrian Bailey. By the order at doc. 378, however, Mr. Bailey's

supervised release was transferred to the Southern District of Florida. Accordingly, the Clerk is

directed to terminate the motion on our docket but to also forward the motion to the Southern

District of Florida.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of June, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:96-cr-00020-MW-GRJ Document 462 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 1
#### Peter Wagner, Respondent, v. Frank Orlando, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Order dated November 26, 1968, granting plaintiff summary judgment reversed on the law and motion denied, with $50 costs and disbursements to the appellant. In this automobile collision case factual questions have been presented. A substantial issue has been presented as to whether plaintiff suffered any damage as the result of the collision. Injury is an element of plaintiff’s right to recover, and absent such proof negligence is not actionable *(Greco*v. *National Transp. Co.,*15 A D 2d 462; *Smith*v. *Marbury,*18 A D 2d 936; *Ruppert*v. *Building Materials Dist.,*10 A D 2d 621; *Rubin*v. *Andino,*11 A D 2d 663). Concur—- Stevens, P. J., Tilzer and Steuer, JJ.; Markewich and Nunez, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum by Nunez, J. I dissent and vote to affirm. The record discloses that defendant saw plaintiff’s car clearly when he was 60 feet behind him. He did not brake his ear until after he had traveled 30 feet or more. He struck plaintiff’s ear while it was standing still. A clearer case of liability is difficult to conceive. Summary judgment was properly granted by the court below. (See *Berberich*v. *Mathieu,*12 N Y 2d 1081; *Krotman*v. *Sea Shore Transp. Co.,*28 A D 2d 989; *Di Sabato*v. *Soffes,*9 A D 2d 297.) The issue as to whether plaintiff suffered any injury as a result of the' collision was not raised at Special Term. Appellant’s opposition to summary judgment is stated as follows: “ Plaintiff’s motion should be denied on the grounds (1) there are issues of fact which can only be determined after a trial, (2) examinations before trial of all of the parties herein are pending, at which time all of the facts relating to liability will be brought out, and (3) the moving papers are devoid of any facts showing any negligence on the part of the defendants or freedom from negligence on the part of the plaintiff.” The original motion for summary judgment was denied. Plaintiff moved for a rehearing which resulted in granting the motion appealed from. The affidavit of Horace *621M. Cohen submitted in opposition to the latter motion contains not one word asserting that plaintiff did not sustain injuries in the accident.
Editorial Note on Part 782
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 782 appear at 61 FR 32643, June 25, 1996.

§ 782.11 Extent to which commodities are subject to end-use certificate regulations. ( a ) In the event that Canada eliminates the requirement for end-use certificates on imports from the U.S., the provisions of the regulations in this part shall be suspended 30 calendar days following the date Canada eliminates its end-use certificate requirement, as determined by the Secretary.
( b ) The provisions of the regulations in this part may be suspended if the Secretary, after consulting with domestic producers, determines that the program has directly resulted in the: ( 1 ) Reduction of income to U.S. producers of agricultural commodities, or
( 2 ) Reduction of the competitiveness of U.S. agricultural commodities in world export markets.
#### In the Matter of Deborah Christian, Appellant, v Fred J. Buscaglia, as Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner seeks an order directing respondents to cease attempts at recouping advance grants made to appellant at her request or, in the alternative, an order directing respondents to reduce the rate of recoupment. The additional allowances were provided to pay for utilities previously furnished to the house in which petitioner still lives and of which she is a part owner. When petitioner applied for the advance grants she agreed to allow the Department of Social Services to reduce her monthly grant by approximately 10% until the department recovered the amount of the advances. This recoupment is authorized by 18 NYCRR 352.7 (g) (5) unless the reduction shall cause an undue hardship. In this case petitioner’s monthly grant was reduced from approximately $620 to approximately $570. The record shows that even this reduced amount is greater than petitioner’s budgeted expenses for shelter, food and utilities. Since the determination of the hearing officer was not arbitrary and capricious the judgment must be affirmed *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court—art 78.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Doerr and Moule, JJ.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4390

_____________________________
K HALAF M ILLER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Tatiana Salvador , Judge

. March 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R OWE , and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Khalaf Miller, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.