alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 948.80 Reports. Upon request of an area committee or of the Colorado Potato Committee through an area committee, each handler within the respective area of such area committee shall furnish to the area committee in such manner and at such time as it may prescribe, reports and other information as may be necessary for the committee to perform its duties under this part. ( a ) Such reports may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following examples: ( 1 ) The quantities of potatoes received by a handler during any or all periods of a season;
( 2 ) The quantities disposed of by him, segregated as to quantities subject to regulation, and where necessary segregated as to types of outlets and special or modified regulations applicable to alternative outlets, and including quantities not subject to grade, inspection, assessment, or other similar regulations;
( 3 ) The date of each such disposition and the identification of the carrier transporting such potatoes;
( 4 ) Information essential to identification of any or all specific quantities, lots, and disposition of potatoes handled under §§ 948.23 to 948.30, inclusive, which may include identification of inspection certificates, exemption certificates, certificates of privilege, or other appropriate identification, including the destination of each special shipment, where necessary.
( b ) All such reports shall be held under appropriate protective classification and custody by the committee, or duly appointed employees thereof, so that the information contained therein which may adversely affect the competitive position of any handler in relation to other handlers will not be disclosed. Compilations of general reports from data submitted by handlers is authorized, subject to prohibition of disclosure of individual handlers' identities or operations.
( c ) Each handler shall maintain for at least two succeeding years such records of the potatoes received and disposed of by such handler as may be necessary to verify the reports he submits to the committee pursuant to this section.
Exhibit 10.6


 


This correspondence confirms the agreement entered into by
and between Arazu, Inc., a Florida Corporation (the “Company”) and Carl Grant, an individual (the “Service Provider”).


 


Whereas, the Service Provider performed certain services
(the “Services”) rendered to the Company and desires to be compensated for such services in shares of common stock
of the Company (the “Common Shares”) and the Company desires to compensate the Service Provider with the Common Shares
as set forth herein. Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants the Company and Service Provider acknowledge
and agree as follows:


 


1. Service Provider is to provide engineering due diligence
services to the Company in respect of assessing the viability of growing the manufacture and delivery of upgraded motorcycle parts
to markets outside of the United Kingdom.


 


2. The Services Provider commenced the Services on 1st
April 2014 and completed the Services on September 30th 2014, a six month fixed term contract.


 


3. The Services were provided in a professional and workman
like manner in accordance with good industry practices.


 


4. The Service Provider is an independent contractor and
not an employee or agent of the Company.  The Company did not and was not required to make social security, workers’
compensation, or unemployment insurance payments on behalf of the Service Provider.


 


5. As payment in full for the services, the Service Provider
shall receive one millions and twenty thousand (1,020,000) of the Common Shares.


 


6. Upon issuance the Common Shares shall be validly issued,
fully paid and non-assessable.


 


Agreed and Accepted on this 1st day of April 2014.


 


Arazu, Inc.


 


By :________________________     (Signature)


 


       Paul
Clewlow (Print Name)


Service Provider


By : ________________________     (Signature)


 


       Carl
Grant (Print Name)
ANNEX 15 - UAC/RATIFICATION REPORT       **Format**             **.** A formatted spreadsheet is available on the website             identified at NMCARS 5201.105-3 Copies..          **Field Name**                         **Description**Ratification Number                         The numbering format shall consist of (e.g. First reported FY16 NAVSEA                               action: N00024-16-UAC-001):                            (A) Organization Unit Identification Code-;                            (B) FY when UAC reported-;                            (C) The acronym ”UAC”-;                            (D) A consecutive 3-digit numeric identifier.Status                         Open or Closed. No other entries are acceptable. If an action was                            initially reported as a UAC and later determined to not be a ratification                            action, the item should be reported as closed.Date Opened                         The date the item was determined to be a UAC. Acceptable dates                            include the date: an invoice is received; an employee reports the action;                            or, the date the action is determined to be a UAC.Date Closed                         The date the ratification is complete or, if not a ratification, the                            date the item is deemed as other than a ratifiable action. Acceptable                            dates are the date of the order, contract/modification, or credit card                            action.HCA                         The HCA reporting the UAC. Acceptable entries are: HQMC I&L, MCSC,                               MSC, NAVAIR, NAVFAC, NAVSEA, NAVSUP,                            ONR, NAVWAR, or SSP.NAVSUP BSO                         For use by NAVSUP only. All others leave blank.Person Committing the UAC                         The name of the person committing the UAC.Contractor                         The name of the contractor performing the UAC.Contractor’s CAGE                         The Contractor’s CAGE code.Previous UAC?                         Yes or No. Answer based on whether or not the person or contactor                            committing or performing the UAC has done so previously.Disciplinary Action?                         Yes or No.Product and Service Code (PSC)                         The applicable PSC associated with the product/service                            provided/received in the ratification.Description                         A short description of the product/service involved and the                            circumstances involved in performing the UAC.Amount Reported                         Dollar amount of the reported UAC.Amount Ratified                         Dollar amount of the ratification (if ratified).Contracting Officer                         Contracting Officer’s name.Ratifying Official                         Ratifying Official’s name.Additional Info                         Any clarifying or explanatory information deemed necessary by the                            reporting activity.
#### Moses S. Mork, Appellant, *v.*Helena Craig et al., Respondents.

(Argued April 29,1884;

decided May 6, 1884.)

*Ilenry Wehle*for appellant.

*E. Haines*for respondents.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed.
#### § 784.8 Appeals.

The appeal regulations set forth at parts 11 and 780 of this title apply to determinations made pursuant to this part.
# 5243.204-70-7 Plans and Reports.

See 5217.7405 for reporting requirements.

**Parent topic:**5243.204-70 Definitization of change orders.
#### Sali BREGAJ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-75977.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.*

Filed Aug. 20, 2007.

*414Brian Blender, Esq., Boise, ID, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, MOH-District Counsel, Office of the Deputy Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Helena, MT, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Robert M. Butler, U.S. Attorney Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Respondent.

Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Sali Bregaj, his wife, Mjaftime Bregaj, and their daughter, Nertila Bregaj, natives and citizens of Albania, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and dismiss in part, and deny in part, the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ due process contention because they did not exhaust it before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). If the due process claim was exhausted, however, petitioners still fail to show that any mistranslation affected the outcome of their case. *See Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 965 (9th Cir.2002).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision that petitioners failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Because petitioners were never arrested, detained, harmed, or threatened, and there is no evidence of persecution, their asylum claim fails. *See Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that three-day detention and beating did not compel finding of past persecution); *Rostomian v. INS,*210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2000).

*415Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that they failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show that it was more likely than not that they will be tortured if returned to Albania. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

To the extent that petitioners challenge the denial of voluntary departure, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial. *See Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft,*393 F.3d 882, 884 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
PART 703—IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST       Authority:                            Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87–195, 75 Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381) as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 435.                                       Subpart 703.1—Safeguards                                                         703.104-4 Disclosure, protection, and marking of contractor bid or proposal information and source selection information.                                                            703.104-7 Violations or possible violations.    **Parent topic:** SUBCHAPTER A—GENERALSubpart 703.1—Safeguards    703.104-4 Disclosure, protection, and marking of contractor bid or proposal information and source selection information.       A contracting officer may authorize the release of proprietary and/or source selection information outside the Government for evaluation purposes pursuant to (48 CFR) FAR 15.305(c) and (48 CFR) AIDAR 715.305(c).703.104-7 Violations or possible violations.       Requests for concurrence under paragraph (a)(1) of (48 CFR) FAR 3.104–7 must be forwarded to one level above the contracting officer.
PART 34 –– MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION       SUBPART 34.0 –– GENERAL                                                         34.003 Responsibilities.    SUBPART 34.0 –– GENERAL 34.003 Responsibilities.    (a) The DISA Component Acquisition Executive (CAE) is the designee.
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 12 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 12 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 12 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 12 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 4 of 4
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 810.1605 Special grades and special grade requirements.

(a) *Garlicky soybeans.* Soybeans that contain 5 or more green garlic bulblets or an equivalent quantity of dry or partly dry bulblets in a 1,000 gram portion.

(b) *Purple mottled or stained soybeans.* Soybeans with pink or purple seed coats as determined on a portion of approximately 400 grams with the use of an FGIS Interpretive Line Photograph.

[52 FR 24418, June 30, 1987, as amended at 52 FR 24441, June 30, 1987; 59 FR 10573, Mar. 7, 1994]
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Matt
Langdon, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of MuleSoft, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 23, 2018



/s/ Matt LangdonMatt LangdonChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### BASSETT, Respondent, v. RENSSELAER STONE CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

July 1, 1914.)

Action by Emma E. Bassett against the Rensselaer Stone Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment modified, by adding thereto a provision that the defendant need not remove the fill, provided it makes the approach thereto on either side at a grade not to exceed 7 per cent., and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. In case of a dispute whether the grade is properly and seasonably made, either party may apply at Special Term on the foot of the judgment for directions.

HOWARD and WOODWARD, JJ., vote for affirmance without modification.
Case 2:06-cv-00665-WHA-WC Document 8 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00665-WHA-WC Document 8 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 2 of 2
246.870-3 Contract clauses.

(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, use the clause at 252.246-7007 ,

Contractor Counterfeit Electronic Part Detection and Avoidance System, in solicitations and

contracts when procuring—

(i) Electronic parts;

(ii) End items, components, parts, or assemblies containing electronic parts; or

(iii) Services, if the contractor will supply electronic parts or components, parts, or assemblies

containing electronic parts as part of the service.

(2) Do not use the clause in solicitations and contracts that are set aside for small business.

(b) Use the clause at 252.246-7008 , Sources of Electronic Parts, in solicitations and contracts,

including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial

products and commercial services, when procuring—

(1) Electronic parts;

(2) End items, components, parts, or assemblies containing electronic parts; or

(3) Services, if the contractor will supply electronic parts or components, parts, or assemblies

containing electronic parts as part of the service.

Parent topic: 246.870 Contractors Counterfeit Electronic Part Detection and Avoidance.
Exhibit 10.3 Consulting Agreement dated January 29, 2018 between Oroplata Resources, Inc. and Jeffrey Maller.


 

Exhibit 10.3

 

CONSULTING AGREEMENT

 

This Consulting Agreement is dated as of January 29, 2018 among, Oroplata Resources, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Jeffrey Maller (“Consultant”).

 

WHEREAS, the Company has requested the Consultant to provide the Company with legal services in connection with its business, and the Consultant has agreed to provide the Company with such legal services; and

 

WHEREAS, the Company wishes to compensate the Consultant with shares of its common stock for such services rendered;

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter stated, it is agreed as follows:

 

1.The Company will issue 1,440,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Shares”) to Consultant. The shares to be issued shall are for payment of services by the Consultant in respect of legal services for general corporate and ongoing SEC Reporting matters performed by the Consultant on behalf of the Company (the “Services”). The Company shall make reasonable efforts to have the Shares registered on a Form S-8 Registration Statement to be filed within ten business days of date of this Agreement. 

 

2.None of the Services are in connection with any capital raising transaction or with directly or indirectly promoting or maintaining a market for the securities of the Company. The Shares to be issued shall be payment towards said legal services. To the extent that Consultant is requested to provide any of such services, he shall be compensated from other sources other than the Shares. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Consulting Agreement has been executed by the Parties as of the date first above written.

 

 

	“Company”:


	Oroplata Resources, Inc., a Nevada corporation

 

By: /s/ Douglas Cole

Name: Douglas Cole

Title: CEO

 

 


	“Consultant”:


	 /s/ Jeffrey Maller

Jeffrey Maller
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

OMAR POWELL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 617 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of April, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Editorial Note on Part 91
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 91 appear at 61 FR 51350, Oct. 2 1996.

§ 91.42 Billing. ( a ) Each billing cycle will end on the 25th of the month. The applicant will be billed by the National Finance Center (NFC) using the Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS) on the 1st day, following the end of the billing cycle in which voluntary laboratory services and other services were rendered at a particular Science and Technology laboratory or office.
( b ) The total charge or fee shall normally be stated directly on the analysis report or on a standardized official certificate form for the laboratory analysis of a specific agricultural commodity and related commodity products.
( c ) The actual bill for collection will be issued by the USDA, National Finance Center Billings and Collection Branch, (Mail: P.O. Box 60075), 13800 Old Gentilly Road, New Orleans, Louisiana 70160-0001.
[72 FR 15021, Mar. 30, 2007]
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
             RALI SERIES 2006-QS15 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer  (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Series  Supplement,  dated as of
October 30, 2006,  and the Standard  Terms of Pooling and  Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of October 30, 2006 (as amended  from time to time,  the  "Agreement"),
among Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., as company, Residential Funding Company,
LLC, as master servicer,  and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas,  as trustee,
does hereby  certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Managing Director
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2981 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2981

         To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Aminothiophenol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2006

  Mr. Isakson introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Aminothiophenol.

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

SECTION 1. 2-AMINOTHIOPHENOL.

    (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:

      

``      9902.38.20        2-Aminothiophenol (CAS  Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           No. 137-07-5)                                                     31/2009          ''
                           (provided for in                                                                    .
                           subheading
                           (2930.90.29).........

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

*Smooth texture* means that the skin is thin and smooth for the variety and size of the fruit.
# Subpart 5223.3 - HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION AND MATERIAL SAFETY DATA

**Parent topic:**Part 5223 - ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE

## 5223.370 Safety precautions for ammunitions and explosives.

### 5223.370-3 Policy.

   (a) DON policy is to ensure the safe handling of all ammunition and explosives (A&E). To that end, particular care should be paid to A&E provided to contractors as Government Furnished Material (GFM) when the A&E contain nitrocellulose-based propellants and/or nitrate ester-based materials (such as nitroglycerin,) or any other materials that have a tendency to become chemically unstable over time.

### 5223.370-5 Contract clauses.

(a) Use the clause at 5252.223-9000, DON ADDITIONAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIED GOVERNMENT FURNISHED AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES, in solicitations and contracts that:

(1) contain the clause at DFARS 252.223-7002; and

(2) provide as GFM any A&E containing nitrocellulose-based propellants and/or nitrate ester-based materials (such as nitroglycerin,) or other similar A&E with a tendency to become chemically unstable over time;

(b) The HCA may make administrative adjustments to the additional requirements (e.g. specify activity points of contact, adjust specified lead times) or add further measures which increase safety requirements as appropriate.