alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 900.58 Prehearing conferences.

In any proceeding in which it appears that such procedure will expedite the proceeding, the judge, at any time prior to the commencement of or during the course of the hearing, may request the parties or their counsel to appear at a conference before him to consider (a) the simplification of issues; (b) the possibility of obtaining stipulations of fact and of documents which will avoid unnecessary proof; (c) the limitation of the number of expert or other witnesses; and (d) such other matters as may expedite and aid in the disposition of the proceeding. No transcript of such conference shall be made, but the judge shall prepare and file for the record a written summary of the action taken at the conference, which shall incorporate any written stipulations or agreements made by the parties at the conference or as a result of the conference. If the circumstances are such that a conference is impracticable, the judge may request the parties to correspond with him for the purpose of accomplishing any of the objects set forth in this section. The judge shall forward copies of letters and documents to the parties as the circumstances require. Correspondence in such negotiations shall not be a part of the record, but the judge shall submit a written summary for the record if any action is taken.
Subpart 5243.2 - CHANGE ORDERS     **Parent topic:** Part 5243 - CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS5243.201 General.    (S-90) (a) Each undefinitized change order shall include a not-to-exceed price unless the CCO waives this requirement.       (b) The policies and procedures of DFARS 217.74 shall be applied to change orders (except value engineering change proposals (VECPs)) to the maximum extent practicable.       (c) The use of VECPs are encouraged due to the potential savings and system improvements that may be realized.       (1) Prompt action shall be taken to implement those VECPs deemed to be technically sound.       (2) When considering VECPs, contracting officers shall consider the impact on the projected savings that the normal negotiation and definitization process would have versus use of an unpriced change order. Unpriced contract modifications that implement VECPs shall:       (i) Define minimum unit cost savings, and       (ii) Define maximum development/implementation costs5243.204 Administration.     5243.204-70 Definitization of change orders.     5243.204-70-1 Scope.    (b) Submit the required contracting          officer notice to DASN(P) by email at usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with          the subject “[Activity Name] Contracting Officer Notice pursuant to DFARS          243.204-70-1—FMS/SAP Unpriced Change Orders.”5243.204-70-7 Plans and Reports.    See 5217.7405 for reporting requirements.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 77665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31166]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-74,420]


Frank Russell Company, Administrative Service Center, Including 
On-Site Leased Workers From Volt Services, Tacoma, WA; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on July 30, 2010, applicable to workers of Frank Russell Company, 
Administrative Service Center, Tacoma, Washington. The notice was 
published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2010 (75 FR 49531).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers supply 
administrative support services for financial investments.
    The company reports that workers leased from Volt Services were 
employed on-site at the Tacoma, Washington location of Frank Russell 
Company, Administrative Service Center. The Department has determined 
that these workers were sufficiently under the control of Frank Russell 
Company, Administrative Service Center to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Volt Services working on-
site at the Tacoma, Washington location of Frank Russell Company, 
Administrative Service Center.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-74,420 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Frank Russell Company, Administrative Service 
Center, including on-site leased workers from Volt Services, Tacoma, 
Washington, who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after July 21, 2009, through July 30, 2012, and all 
workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation 
from employment on the date of certification through two years from 
the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of December 2010.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-31166 Filed 12-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### § 945.11 Committee.

*Committee* means the administrative committee, called the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Potato Committee, established pursuant to § 945.20.
#### § 923.63 Effective time.

The provisions of this part, and of any amendment thereto, shall become effective at such time as the Secretary may declare above his signature to this part, and shall continue in force until terminated in one of the ways specified in § 923.64.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CLARENCE WATERS, #132116, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.2:06-CV-650-MEF

)

KENNETH L. JONES, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

ORDER

Upon review of the answers filed by the respondents, and as these pleadings fail to

address the petitioner's claim that the sentence imposed upon him exceeds that authorized

by law as the trial court improperly relied solely on the presentence investigation report to

provide notice of petitioner's specific prior felony convictions on which the State relied for

enhancement purposes, Ex parte Cooper, 632 So.2d 1344 (Ala. 1994), it is 

ORDERED that on or before February 20, 2008 the respondents shall file a

supplemental answer supported by relevant state court records addressing the petitioner's

challenge to this sentence. 

Done this 5th day of February, 2008.

 /s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 26 Filed 02/05/2008 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Rhetta Stevenson Elser, Respondent, v Frederick C. Meyer, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 684]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 77, inter alia, to terminate a trust and for an accounting, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Loughlin, J.), dated August 2, 2005, which granted the petition and directed the trustee to provide a final accounting.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

On December 14, 1990 the settlor created a trust. The petitioner, Rhetta Stevenson Elser, was the beneficiary, and the appellant, Frederick C. Meyer, was the trustee. The trust instrument contained a paragraph entitled “IRREVOCABILITY,” which declared the settlor’s intent to make the trust irrevocable, and further provided, inter alia, that the trustee, “in [his] sole and exclusive discretion^] may amend the terms and conditions of the trust or revoke the trust in whole or in part as [he] deems necessary or prudent.”

In 2004 the settlor executed an instrument purporting to revoke the trust pursuant to EPTL 7-1.9, and the petitioner executed a consent to the revocation. The trustee refused to revoke the trust, taking the position that his consent was required to do so. This proceeding ensued. The Supreme Court disagreed with the trustee, granted the petition, and directed that the trustee render a final accounting. We reverse and remit for a determination as to whether the trustee unreasonably withheld his consent to the revocation of the trust.

Although the subject trust instrument does not, in so many words, require the trustee’s “consent” to revocation of the subject trust, the language of the trust instrument—in vesting in the trustee the sole and exclusive discretion to revoke it— effectively accomplishes the same thing. Further, despite the settlor’s purported compliance with EPTL 7-1.9, which allows a settlor to revoke a trust upon the written consent of all those beneficially interested therein, “the terms of the trust setting *581forth the procedure for revocation must be complied with before the statute comes into play” *(Matter of Dodge,*25 NY2d 273, 285 [1969]; *see Matter of Mordecai,*24 Misc 2d 668, 670 [1960]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the petition without first determining whether the trustee unreasonably withheld his consent to the revocation of the subject trust *(see Matter of Mordecai, id.).*Since we cannot make that determination on the instant record, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a determination of that issue and a new determination of the petition thereafter. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3060 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3060

     To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Pyromellitic 
                              Dianhydride.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

  Mr. DeWine 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 Pyromellitic 
                              Dianhydride.

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

SECTION 1. PYROMELLITIC DIANHYDRIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.05.14 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Pyromellitic Dianhydride) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (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 enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 905.15 Regulation Area I.

*Regulation Area I* is defined as the “Interior District”, and shall include all that part of the production area not included in Regulation Area II.

[54 FR 37292, Sept. 8, 1989]
#### § 959.89 Derogation.

Nothing contained in this subpart is, or shall be construed to be, in derogation or in modification of the rights of the Secretary or of the United States to exercise any powers granted by the act or otherwise, or, in accordance with such powers, to act in the premises whenever such action is deemed advisable.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Venture Lending & Leasing V, Inc. (the "Fund") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin D. Eng, Chief Financial Officer of the Fund, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Fund.





/S/ Martin D. Eng





Martin D. Eng


Chief Financial Officer


March 25, 2011
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-11-0001091 25-JAN-2012 01:51 PM

NO. SCPW-11-0001091
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs. DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that petitioner claims that the district court neglected to file a notice of appeal that petitioner submitted for filing in 1998 in Case No. Case No. 98306130. Petitioner provides no evidence in support of his claim and fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See HRS § 602-5(3) (2010) (“The supreme court shall have jurisdiction and power . . . [t]o exercise original jurisdiction in all questions . . . arising under writs of mandamus directed to public officers to compelthem to fulfill the duties of their offices[.]”); In re Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaii Supreme Court , 91 Hawai ' i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (1999) (Mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available.). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, January 25, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     1.00
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   jun-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         (13,841)
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  117,414
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,573
<PP&E>                                         163,176
<DEPRECIATION>                                 92,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 175,513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          209,630
<BONDS>                                        85,509
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       83,356
<OTHER-SE>                                     (202,983)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   175,513
<SALES>                                        216,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               246,669
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  215,736
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                30,933
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            30,933
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   30,933
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.009)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.009)
        


</TABLE>
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.

§ 868.71 Official certificate requirements. Official certificates shall— ( a ) Be on standard printed forms prescribed in the instructions;
( b ) Be in English;
( c ) Be typewritten or handwritten in ink and be clearly legible;
( d ) Show the results of inspection services in a uniform, accurate, and concise manner;
( e ) Show the information required by §§ 868.70-868.75; and
( f ) Show only such other information and statements of fact as are provided in the instructions authorized by the Administrator.
[53 FR 3722, Feb. 9, 1988. Redesignated and amended at 60 FR 16364, Mar. 30, 1995]
52.232-15 Progress Payments Not Included.

As prescribed in 32.502-3(c), insert the following provision in invitations for bids if the solicitation

will not contain one of the provisions prescribed in 32.502-3 (a) and (b):

Progress Payments Not Included (Apr 1984)

A progress payments clause is not included in this solicitation, and will not be added to the resulting

contract at the time of award. Bids conditioned upon inclusion of a progress payment clause in the

resulting contract will be rejected as nonresponsive.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.232 [Reserved]
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Outdoor Channel Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William A. Owen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

                  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
          in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of the Company.

/s/ William A. Owen
-----------------------
WILLIAM A. OWEN
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2004

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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3235 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3235

To suspend temporarily the duty on felt bottom boots for use in waders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on felt bottom boots for use in waders.

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

SECTION 1. FELT BOTTOM BOOTS FOR USE IN FISHING WADERS.

    (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:

      

``      9902.64.05        Felt bottom boots for   Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           use in fishing waders                                             31/2009          ''
                           (provided for in                                                                    .
                           subheading
                           6405.90.91)..........

    (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>
```
52.222-5 Construction Wage Rate

Requirements-Secondary Site of the Work.

As prescribed in 22.407(h), insert the following provision:

Construction Wage Rate Requirements-Secondary Site of the Work (May 2014)

(a)

(1) The offeror shall notify the Government if the offeror intends to perform work at any secondary

site of the work, as defined in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of the FAR clause at 52.222-6, Construction Wage

Rate Requirements, of this solicitation.

(2) If the offeror is unsure if a planned work site satisfies the criteria for a secondary site of the

work, the offeror shall request a determination from the Contracting Officer.

(b)

(1) If the wage determination provided by the Government for work at the primary site of the work is

not applicable to the secondary site of the work, the offeror shall request a wage determination from

the Contracting Officer.

(2) The due date for receipt of offers will not be extended as a result of an offeror’s request for a

wage determination for a secondary site of the work.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.222 [Reserved]
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3066 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Paraquat Dichloride. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Paraquat Dichloride. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE. 

4 (a) CALENDAR YEAR 2007.—Subchapter II of chap5 ter 99 is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 

6 following new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.13.06 Paraquat dichloride 

(1,1′dimethyl-4,4′- 

bipyridinium dichloride) 

(CAS No. 1910–42–5) (provided for in subheading 

2933.39.23) ......................... 4.02% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2007 ’’. 

7 (b) CALENDAR YEARS 2008 AND 2009.— 


sroberts on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3066 IS 

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.13.06, as 

2 added by subsection (a), is amended— 

3 (A) by striking ‘‘4.02%’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘4.41%’’; and 

5 (B) by striking ‘‘On or before 12/31/2007’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘On or before 12/31/2009’’. 

7 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made 

8 by paragraph (1) shall take effect on January 1, 

9 2008. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC69 with BILLS