alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
52.204-20 Predecessor of Offeror.

As prescribed in 4.1804(d), insert the following provision:

Predecessor of Offeror (Aug 2020)

(a) Definitions. As used in this provision–

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code means–

(1) An identifier assigned to entities located in the United States or its outlying areas by the Defense

Logistics Agency (DLA) Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Branch to identify a commercial

or government entity by unique location; or

(2) An identifier assigned by a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or by the

NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) to entities located outside the United States and its

outlying areas that the DLA Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Branch records and

maintains in the CAGE master file. This type of code is known as a NATO CAGE (NCAGE) code.

Predecessor means an entity that is replaced by a successor and includes any predecessors of the

predecessor.

Successor means an entity that has replaced a predecessor by acquiring the assets and carrying out

the affairs of the predecessor under a new name (often through acquisition or merger). The term

"successor" does not include new offices/divisions of the same company or a company that only

changes its name. The extent of the responsibility of the successor for the liabilities of the

predecessor may vary, depending on State law and specific circumstances.

(b) The Offeror represents that it □ is or □ is not a successor to a predecessor that held a Federal

contract or grant within the last three years.

(c) If the Offeror has indicated "is" in paragraph (b) of this provision, enter the following information

for all predecessors that held a Federal contract or grant within the last three years (if more than

one predecessor, list in reverse chronological order):

Predecessor CAGE code:____________ (or mark "Unknown").

Predecessor legal name: ____________.

(Do not use a "doing business as" name).

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.204 [Reserved]
52.234-1 Industrial Resources Developed Under Title III, Defense Production Act.       As prescribed at 34.104, insert the following clause:          Industrial Resources Developed Under Title III Defense Production Act (Sept 2016)                                       (a)                   *Definitions*. "Title III industrial resource" means materials, services, processes, or manufacturing equipment (including the processes, technologies, and ancillary services for the use of such equipment) established or maintained under the authority of Title III, Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. App.2091-2093).                *Title III project contractor* means a contractor that has received assistance for the development or manufacture of an industrial resource under Title III of Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. App.2091-2093).                                          (b) 						            The Contractor shall refer any request from a Title III project contractor for testing and qualification of a Title III industrial resource to the Contracting Officer.                                          (c) 						            Upon the direction of the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall test Title III industrial resources for qualification. The Contractor shall provide the test results to the Defense Production Act Office, Title III Program, located at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-7739.                                          (d) 						            When the Contracting Officer modifies the contract to direct testing pursuant to this clause, the Government will provide the Title III industrial resource to be tested and will make an equitable adjustment in the contract for the costs of testing and qualification of the Title III industrial resource.                                          (e) 						            The Contractor agrees to insert the substance of this clause, including paragraph (e), in every subcontract issued in performance of this contract.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.234 [Reserved]
#### § 795.17 Scheme or device.

All or any part of the payments otherwise due a person under the upland cotton, wheat, feed grain and rice programs on all farms in which the person has an interest may be withheld or required to be refunded if the person adopts or participates in adopting any scheme or device designed to evade or which has the effect of evading the rules of this part. Such acts shall include, but are not limited to, concealing from the county committee any information having a bearing on the application of the rules of this part or submitting false information to the county committee (for example, a set-aside agreement which is entered into that differs from information furnished to the county committee concerning the manner in which program payments are actually shared, concerning the actual facts of a sale, or concerning the transfer of property) or creating fictitious entities for the purpose of concealing the interest of a person in a farming operation.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06- cr-169-WHA 

 )

WILLIAM EARL ULMER )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the motion for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum (Doc.#), filed

February 21, 2007, and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of this Court is hereby DIRECTED

to issue a WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM addressed to the Lafayette Parish

Jail, Lafayette, LA, commanding them to deliver the said prisoner, WILLIAM EARL ULMER, to

any United States Marshal or Deputy United States Marshal and directing said Marshal or Deputy

to bring said prisoner, before this Court at Montgomery, Alabama, for arraignment at 10am on

March 7, 2007, and to return said prisoner, to said official when the Court has finished with him.

DONE this the day of February, 2007.

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 27-2 Filed 02/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT #32.1

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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Outdoor Channel Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Perry T. Massie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
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/ Perry T. Massie
-----------------------------

Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2003

     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.
§ 701.36 Schemes and devices and claims avoidances. ( a ) If FSA determines that a participant has taken any action designed to defeat, or has the effect of defeating, the purposes of this program, the participant shall be required to refund all or part of any of the program payments otherwise due or paid that participant or related person or legal entity for that particular disaster. These actions include, but are not limited to, failure to properly maintain or deliberately destroying a practice and providing false or misleading information related to practices, costs, or arrangements between entities or individuals that would have an effect on any eligibility determination, including, but not limited to, a payment limit eligibility.
( b ) All or any part of cost-share assistance that otherwise would be due any participant may be withheld, or required to be refunded, if the participant has adopted, or participated in, any scheme or device designed to evade the maximum cost-share limitation that applies to the program or to evade any other requirement or provision of the program or this part.
( c ) If FSA determines that a participant has employed any scheme or device to deprive any other person or legal entity of cost-share assistance, or engaged in any actions to receive payments under this part that also were designed to avoid claims of the United States or its instrumentalities or agents against that party, related parties, or third parties, the participant shall refund all or part of any of those program payments paid to that participant for the project.
( d ) For purposes of this section, a scheme or device can include, but is not limited to, instances of coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation regarding the claim for ECP or EFRP assistance and the facts and circumstances surrounding such claim.
( e ) A participant who has knowingly supplied false information or filed a false claim shall be ineligible for cost-share assistance related to the disaster for which the false information was filed, or for any period of time FSA deems appropriate. False information or a false claim includes, but is not limited to, a request for payment for a practice not carried out, a false billing, or a billing for practices that do not meet required specifications.
[69 FR 10302, Mar. 4, 2004, and amended at 75 FR 70088, Nov. 17, 2010]
Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 23 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 23 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### § 771.10 [Reserved]
#### Paula Diaz, Appellant, v Paulette Bryant et al., Respondents.

[814 NYS2d 529]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated December 21, 2004, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motions pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, made at the close of the plaintiffs case, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

“The proper legal standard for deciding a motion pursuant to *855CPLR 4401 is whether, giving the plaintiffs every favorable inference from the evidence submitted, there was any rational basis upon which a jury could have found for the plaintiffs” *(LaPierre v Efron,*22 AD3d 808 [2005]; *see*CPLR 4401; *Godlewska v Niznikiewicz,*8 AD3d 430 [2004]).

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint inasmuch as there was no rational process by which the jury could base a finding in the plaintiff’s favor *(see Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493 [1978]). With respect to the defendant Leocardio Diaz, the plaintiff failed to show, prima facie, that he proximately caused the underlying accident *(see Arbizu v REM Transp., Inc.,*20 AD3d 375 [2005]; *McNamara v Fishkowitz,*18 AD3d 721 [2005]; *Bongiovi v Hoffman,*18 AD3d 686 [2005]; *Morgan v Hachmann,*9 AD3d 400 [2004]; *Rossani v Rana,*8 AD3d 548 [2004]).

With respect to the defendants Paula Bryant and Shameeka Hunter, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that they were involved in the underlying accident *(see Szczerbiak v Pilat,*90 NY2d 553 [1997]). Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the opening statements made by the respective attorneys for these defendants were too vague and general to be deemed judicial admissions of involvement in the accident *(see generally De Vito v Katsch,*157 AD2d 413, 416 [1990]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Adams, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.
**Federal Emergency Management Agency**

**FEMA**

**Acronyms**

**Abbreviations**

**&**

**Terms**

**JUNE 2002**

The FAAT List is not designed to be an authoritative source, merely a handy reference.  Certain organizations and terms listed herein are obsolete, but are included because they may still appear in extant publications and correspondence.

Your comments and recommendations are welcome.        Please forward your input or direct your questions to: 

**FEMA NP-AE**

**ATTN: FAAT List**

# 500 C. Street SW – Rm 205

**Washington DC 20472**

or electronically forward your inputs to:

##### FAAT@fema.gov

Please address requests for additional copies to:

# FEMA Publications

**(800) 480-2520**

Or download the document from the Web:

# www.fema.gov/library/femainfo.shtm

**Run across an acronym or abbreviation that’s NOT in the FAAT List?  Send it to us at the e-mail address on Page 1; we may include it in our next update!**

THE

LIST

2

1

1

1

# _886594825.bin
Subpart 5125.1 - Buy American - Supplies **Parent topic:** Part 5125 - Foreign Acquisition5125.103 Exceptions.    (a)(ii)(B)(1)  The position one level above the contracting officer, without further delegation, shall make the determination at DFARS 225.103(a)(ii)(B)(1).       (2) The head of the contracting activity shall make the determination at DFARS 225.103(a)(ii)(B)(2).  See Appendix GG for further delegation.       (3) The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) shall make the determination at DFARS 225.103(a)(ii)(B)(3).  See Appendix GG for further delegation.       (b)(ii)(A)  The position one level above the contracting officer, without further delegation, may make the determination at DFARS 225.103(b)(ii)(A).       (B)  The chief of the contracting office, without further delegation, may make the determination at DFARS 225.103(b)(ii)(B).       (C) The head of the contracting activity may make the determination at DFARS 225.103(b)(ii)(C).  See Appendix GG for further delegation.5125.105 Determining reasonableness of cost.    (a)(1)  The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) shall make the determination as described at FAR 25.105(a)(1).  See Appendix GG for further delegation.
---

---

Exhibit 13.2

# CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,
CHAPTER 63 OF                                     TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of RRsat Global
Communications Network Ltd., a company organized under the laws of the State of Israel
(the Company), does hereby certify that, to his knowledge:

| | 1. | the
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the                Form
20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of                Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | the
information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: March 24, 2008 |  | By: /s/ Gil Efron
Gil EfronChief Financial Officer
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
15.607 Criteria for acceptance and negotiation of an unsolicited proposal.    (S-90) A final determination to accept or reject an unsolicited proposal will be made by the Vice, Procurement Services Executive (PSE), or by the PSE.       (S-91) PL22 will draft a proposed letter to accept or reject the unsolicited proposal, citing regulatory reasons if the unsolicited proposal is rejected, and may using statements from the evaluation. **Parent topic:** SUBPART 15.6 — UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS
!

    
 
"



 
  
    # 	

   
    "
	 

 
     

 #
     

$   	  



 %
    
#


  
$	  
  

   	  



     $ 

$ 
 &   

	
	

	



	



	
		
	
		

		


	

	
	


	
	




				
	
	



	



 	
   
   

	  
  
  
  





	

	




	



	
		

		


 				


	
	

!	
        


	
	
"			





	



		




	
	


 	
 
	
  	 	 

  	 

 	 
#  	

		$%&	

		 
  
	
 	
' 		


	
	
	
		
		


		
 
	 
 (	




		
	

	


	
		

	


		


 
 	
   
 



	
	
	



& 
	
 	
	
 		
	


	    
  	
  





	 

	

	
	



	
	
)

*	
	
		
'

*	
	
	



'

*!		
		
	

	

'

*+,		
	'

*-		
		








.   		

 


	

	
	)

*/	
	
$

	
	
	
		


      	  	 

	

	



*.
	
		


	
 
 
  	
 

		


*0	
	
	




	


	

 
	 	



* 

	










	
	

* - 		 	  
	
 

	
		
 		
  
  ,



*1		



		
-		


	   
 	 	
 	 

	
	
	


*-	





 

	
	



	
	
			
	

		
		


*0	









*"

)

234



	
(
	



   2	4 	
 
   




	


254 


264  %	 

 	
  	
		 	


	

274$
	




	

		

284$	
			
	


			
	





*"
		

	



	   	24 	
 	   	

%
	 	  	 	
 
 

		

	


$
	



	 	   
 	 

  $  
  			 


			
	9	
$





  , 	  
  

	
/





9

	
	










	


	


	
	


	



/	
      %
	


	
: %&.	
 	

 
)



	
		


	


	
	




	


					

		 	

		

	


!"	
#$

	
%&&			
	'

	(

	




		
	

	
)
*	(
 


	
	


	
	


/	
 	
3;6<6=24
24

>
		
  
)

	


	

	



	



	






	

	
	




					




			



	


		


				




			
	




 		
!

"
		
		

#						


	
		#
	


			"
				#				


	
!

$
		

 %&'(

	)		


	

		



		

	

	
			$(*
 	

	
(

(
?	


	
	
		,
	



	9	3@	

	
		

	
	

	


$ 
	
 
 	  

$	

	

	

 



	<=	

   	 	
 

	


	


	9	

	




!  	 	   



	
	

	



3@	
)

*
	


*


*

!  	 	  
 


	

	
)

*


*

*

*  	     
  	
 


 9		
 
		
  
 	


	

(	
?


	






	
 	  9	
 	
 	
 


	
3@	
$	

   	 	

 	
	
 
	
 	 68

	$	8	

<== 2
	

4

68 2<
	
4

8<8=

8= 234

 !""# 

:	
    	
  3@ 	


9	

	
	

	
	  	
   35=A

9	
/

	
	

	
	35=A9	
	





9	


$	
		




	
	
	

  	
	  35=A 9	
 	 

	
	9	

	


%
	
    	   



   9	

	  
	
 
 



	





 		




	 	




	 		

 
	 
	

  

 	 

  	

 	 

  

 	 


 		 


 			 



  	


	  	

  	

  

  

 	 

  

 	 

  

 	 


 	 


	 
 


 
 


 
 

  

 	 

  	

 
	 

 	 

  


  	

	 
	 

 
 

 	 

  


 	
 


 
 


 
 	


  



 	 	



 
 


	  


  


 
 


  


 
 

	  	

	  

	 
 

	  

	
 	 

		  

   !  "#

	  

	 	 	

	  


 
 

 
    

 !!" !

"!#!!

$ ! %  &'& ( !   

)#!*+ 	



	

	

	

	



		



		

 !"#$%

&'
()*+,-!***.
/.!0**!-10!+123

	

		


	
		


	
	












 !"#$%&&'

" 
&



(
 
&


 



"$




 

")&*%
&& &
!*%#



&


+



&&'
&&&&&
&

&
&'


 
&

  ,
,
 
&
  
 
   
 "$
 
 


 

")&*%)& &

*%&&&





&

& 



"&
 &


&
 
$

-
 



&&*%


 


)
 '


".
 

/&
 


(&
 

0

!#


 



 &&1

!	#&2

*%&&&

"'

)&34&

2$

-" 
 

(
"

&


 







&2&*%"(

*%&& 

'

)&
&&
&
 

&$%
*%&


)& &&




'



)&
2


&
$



 

)&

")&
 


 

 


)+



&&
&
'(
&&&&


5
6"

  



$
#### Debbie Kaminer, Appellant, v Aaron Wexler et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 2, 2007;

decided October 23, 2007

Reported below, 40 AD3d 405.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that dismissed the appeal from Supreme Court’s order denying reargument, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
204.270-1 Policy.

(a) The Electronic Data Access (EDA) system, an online repository for contractual instruments and

supporting documents, is DoD’s primary tool for electronic distribution of contract documents and

contract data. Contract attachments shall be uploaded to EDA, except for contract attachments that

are classified, are too sensitive for widespread distribution (e.g., personally identifiable information

and Privacy Act and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or cannot be practicably

converted to electronic format (e.g., samples, drawings, and models). Section J (or similar location

when the Uniform Contract Format is not used) shall include the annotation “provided under

separate cover” for any attachment not uploaded to EDA.

(b) Agencies are responsible for ensuring the following when posting documents, including

contractual instruments, to EDA—

(1) The timely distribution of documents; and

(2) That internal controls are in place to ensure that—

(i) The electronic version of a contract document in EDA is an accurate representation of the

contract; and

(ii) The contract data in EDA is an accurate representation of the underlying contract.

Parent topic: 204.270 Electronic Data Access.
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------



                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                                 --------------

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


     1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
          required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
          on Form 10-K of CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-17 (the
          "Exchange Act periodic reports");

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
          whole, do 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;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
          information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
          covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
          reports;

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
          conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required
          in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
          disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have
          fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all
          material respects; and

     5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
          for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
          assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
          securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
          Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
          have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
          disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
          described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
          10-K.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
     provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York,
     as Trustee.

Date: March 26, 2007


     /s/ Steve Bailey
     ----------------------------
     Steve Bailey
     Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration