alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(March 30, 1967)

#### In the Matter of Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, Respondent-Appellant, v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

Final order, entered on or about May 12, 1964, *834reducing assessments on petitioner’s real property known as the General Telephone Building at 730 Third Avenue, Manhattan, for tax years 1959-60 through 1963-64, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and assessments reinstated and confirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent-appellant-respondent. The property under review is a 28-story, modern, air-conditioned office building; almost, if not completely rented, and located in an area of great potential. It represents • an over-all investment of over fourteen million dollars, a sum far exceeding the total assessment. It has, with some consistency, yielded a net return of approximately 9% on the assessed valuations. These facts are sufficient to preclude any reduction in the assessments. *(Matter of Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.*v. *Tax Comm. of City of N. Y.,*22 A D 2d 870, affd. 16 N Y 2d 935.) In the matter before us, the ease against reduction is rendered more cogent by the fact that in 1959, in a sale lease back transaction, wherein New York Life Insurance Company paid $14,377,000 for the property, $2,400,000 was allocated to land alone. Moreover, the sole testimony of petitioner’s expert is too slender a reed to support the conclusion of Special Term. The record, therefore, lacks substantial basis for a reduction of the assessments for the years in question. Settle order on notice. Concur —Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Capozzoli and MeGivern, JJ.
**Exhibit 32**

 

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 on Form 10-K of MXenergy Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Jeffrey A. Mayer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Chaitu Parikh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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, as amended; and

 

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

 

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

 
| Date:  October 14, 2008 | /s/ JEFFREY A. MAYER                   |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                              | Jeffrey A. Mayer                       |
|                              | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|                              | (Principal executive  officer)         |
|                              |                                   |
| Date:  October 14, 2008 | /s/ CHAITU PARIKH                      |
|                              | Chaitu Parikh                          |
|                              | Chief Financial Officer                |
|                              | (Principal financial  officer)         |

 

1

----
##### 



Country/Jurisdiction ofName of Subsidiary
    
    IncorporationAvago Semiconductor Technology (Shanghai) Limited
    
    ChinaAvago Technologies Canada Corporation
    
    CanadaAvago Technologies ECBU IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeAvago Technologies Enterprise Holding (Labuan) Corporation
    
    LabuanAvago Technologies Enterprise IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeAvago Technologies Finance S.à.r.l.
    
    LuxembourgAvago Technoloiges Fiber GmbH
    
    GermanyAvago Technologies Fiber Holding (Labuan) Corporation
    
    LabuanAvago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeAvago Technologies Finland Oy
    
    FinlandAvago Technologies France SAS
    
    FranceAvago Technologies General Hungary Vagyonkezelõ Kft
    
    HungaryAvago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeAvago Technologies GmbH
    
    GermanyAvago Technologies Holdings B.V.
    
    NetherlandsAvago Technologies (Hong Kong) Limited
    
    Hong KongAvago Technologies Imaging Holding (Labuan) Corporation
    
    LabuanAvago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
    
    SingaporeAvago Technologies Italy S.r.l.
    
    ItalyAvago Technologies Japan, Ltd.
    
    JapanAvago Technologies Korea Co. Ltd.
    
    KoreaAvago Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaAvago Technologies Manufacturing (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeAvago Technologies Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoAvago Technologies Sensor (U.S.A.) Inc.
    
    Delaware (U.S.A.)Avago Technologies Spain SA
    
    SpainAvago Technologies Storage Holding (Labuan) Corporation
    
    LabuanAvago Technologies Sweden AB
    
    SwedenAvago Technologies Trading Ltd
    
    MauritiusAvago Technologies U.K. Limited
    
    EnglandAvago Technologies U.S. Inc.
    
    Delaware (U.S.A.)Avago Technologies U.S. R&D Inc.
    
    Delaware (U.S.A.)Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Inc.
    
    Delaware (U.S.A.)Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc.
    
    Delaware (U.S.A.)Avago Technologies Wireless Holding (Labuan) Corporation
    
    LabuanAvago Technologies Wireless Holdings B.V.
    
    NetherlandsAvago Technologies Wireless Hungary Vagyonkezelõ Kft
    
    HungaryAvago Technologies Wireless IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
    
    Singapore
Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 3 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 3 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 2
Subpart 1342.1 - Contract Audit Services

Parent topic: PART 1342 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

1342.102 Assignment of contract audit services.

1342.102-70 Interagency contract administration and audit

services.

(a) Generally, the final invoice shall not be approved until a close-out audit has been performed and

all outstanding issues have been negotiated or resolved on the following types of contracts valued at

$500,000 and above:

(1) Cost-reimbursement type contracts;

(2) The cost-reimbursement portion of fixed-price contracts;

(3) Letter contracts which provide for reimbursement of costs;

(4) Time-and-materials contracts; and

(5) Labor-hour contracts.

(b) If a close-out audit is not required, an audit may be requested regardless of the contract value

when the contracting officer determines that an audit is justified under one of the following

circumstances:

(1) There is some evidence of fraud or waste;

(2) The contractor's performance under the contract has been questionable;

(3) The contractor had a high incidence of unallowable costs under a previous contract;

(4) The contract is with a newly-established firm, or a firm that has just begun dealing with the

Government.
#### Consolidated Construction Group, LLC, Appellant, v Bethpage Union Free School District, Respondent.

Submitted October 9, 2007;

decided November 20, 2007

Reported below, 39 AD3d 792.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that *981the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
### The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judg e 1 

### for the Eastern District of Arkansas.



# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 95-4262

___________ Roosevelt Watson, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Alcoa Aluminum, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 21, 1997 Filed: April 7, 1997

___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM. Ro osevelt Watson, Jr., appeals from the district court's entry o f 1 judgmen t as a matter of law to defendant following a bench trial in hi s employ ment discrimination action. Because Watson has not provided a transcript of the trial proceedings, we cannot r eview the district court's factual findings. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); Me roney v. Delta Int'l Mach. Corp. , 18 F.3d 1436, 1437 (8th Cir. 1994); Schmid v. United Bhd. o f Carpenters & Joiners , 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam), cert
. denied , 484 U.S. 1071 (1988). Accepting the district court's factua l findings as true,

### -2-

we agree that judgment for Alcoa was proper. See Harvey v. Anheuser-Busch , Inc. , 38 F.3d 968, 972 (8th Cir. 1994) (plaintiff may demonstrat e discrimination by showing proffered reason is pr etextual or discriminatory motive is more likely; summary judgment properly granted where blac k plaint iff failed to present sufficient evidence to support claim tha t proffered reason was pretextual because similarly situated white employee had previously been less severely disciplined).
To the extent Watson complains of counsel's performance below, we not e that a civil litigant has no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. See Glick v. Henderson , 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988).
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 5 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1-2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1-2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 2 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1-2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 3 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1-2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 4 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1-2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 5 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1-2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 6 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1-2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 7 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1-2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 8 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1-2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 9 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 1-2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 10 of 10
§ 789.14 Preferential scheduling. ( a ) A person must schedule operations, including the acquisition of all needed production items or services, in a timely manner to satisfy the delivery requirements of each rated order. Modifying production or delivery schedules is necessary only when required delivery dates for rated orders cannot otherwise be met.
( b ) DO-rated orders must be given production preference over unrated orders, if necessary to meet required delivery dates, even if this requires the diversion of items being processed or ready for delivery or services being performed against unrated orders. Similarly, DX-rated orders must be given preference over DO-rated orders and unrated orders. (Examples: If a person receives a DO-rated order with a delivery date of June 3 and if meeting that date would mean delaying production or delivery of an item for an unrated order, the unrated order must be delayed. If a DX-rated order is received calling for delivery on July 15 and a person has a DO-rated order requiring delivery on June 2 and operations can be scheduled to meet both deliveries, there is no need to alter production schedules to give any additional preference to the DX-rated order.)
( c ) For conflicting rated orders: ( 1 ) If a person finds that delivery or performance against any accepted rated orders conflicts with the delivery or performance against other accepted rated orders of equal priority status, the person must give precedence to the conflicting orders in the sequence in which they are to be delivered or performed (not to the receipt dates). If the conflicting orders are scheduled to be delivered or performed on the same day, the person must give precedence to those orders that have the earliest receipt dates.
( 2 ) If a person is unable to resolve rated order delivery or performance conflicts as specified in this section, the person should promptly seek special priorities assistance as provided in §§ 789.20 through 789.24. If the person's customer objects to the rescheduling of delivery or performance of a rated order, the customer should promptly seek special priorities assistance as specified in §§ 789.20 through 789.24. For any rated order against which delivery or performance will be delayed, the person must notify the customer as provided in § 789.13(d)(2).
( d ) If a person is unable to purchase needed production items in time to fill a rated order by its required delivery date, the person must fill the rated order by using inventoried production items. A person who uses inventoried items to fill a rated order may replace those items with the use of a rated order as provided in § 789.17(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3081 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3081

    To suspend temporarily the duty on high accuracy, metal, marine 
           sextants, used for navigating by celestial bodies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on high accuracy, metal, marine 
           sextants, used for navigating by celestial bodies.

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

SECTION 1. HIGH ACCURACY, METAL, MARINE SEXTANTS, USED FOR NAVIGATING 
              BY CELESTIAL BODIES.

    (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:

      

``      9902.90.14        High accuracy, metal,   Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           marine sextants, used                                             31/2009          ''
                           for navigating by                                                                   .
                           celestial bodies
                           (provided for in
                           subheading
                           9014.80.10)..........

    (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>
```
§ 985.60 Reports. ( a ) *Inventory.* Each handler shall file with the Committee a certified report showing such information as the Committee may specify with respect to any oil which was held by the handler at such times as the Committee may designate.
( b ) *Receipts.* Each handler shall, upon request of the Committee, file with the Committee a certified report showing for each lot of oil received, the identifying marks, class of oil, weight, place of production, and the producer's name and address at such times as the Committee may designate.
( c ) *Other reports.* Upon the request of the Committee, each handler shall furnish such other information as may be necessary to enable the Committee to exercise its powers and perform its duties under this part.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

RICHARD MARSHALL, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-cv-701-ID-CSC 

 ) 

CHRIS WEST, in his individual capacity, ) 

LASHUN HUTSON, in his individual ) 

capacity, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

DEFENANT CHRIS WEST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COMES NOW Lowndes County Deputy Sheriff Chris West, a Defendant in the aboveentitled action, and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, moves the Court 

to enter an Order granting him judgment in his favor as a matter of law. In support thereof, 

Defendant states as follows: 

1. The Plaintiff has four, and arguably five, remaining federal Fourth Amendment 

individual capacity claims against Chris West: (1) illegal traffic stop; (2) false arrest; (3) illegal 

search; (4) excessive force; and (5) malicious prosecution. 

2. The evidentiary record demonstrates that no rational jury could conclude that the 

Plaintiff has a valid claim against Chris West. 

3. Chris West is entitled to qualified immunity and judgment in his favor as a matter 

of law on each of the Plaintiff’s remaining claims. 

4. Chris West requests the opportunity to be heard orally on this motion. 

Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 31 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully submitted this the 12th day of February, 2008. 

s/Gary L. Willford, Jr. 

DARYL L. MASTERS Bar No. MAS018 

GARY L. WILLFORD, JR. – Bar No. WIL198 

Attorneys for Defendant Chris West 

WEBB & ELEY, P.C. 

7475 Halcyon Pointe Drive (36117) 

P.O. Box 240909 

Montgomery, Alabama 36124 

Telephone: (334) 262-1850 

Fax: (334) 262-1889 

E-mail: gwillford@webbeley.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on February 12, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the 

following: Jay Lewis, Esq., Rick Howard, Esq.

 s/Gary L. Willford, Jr. 

 OF COUNSEL 

Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 31 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### Pawel Czernicki, Appellant, v Marek Lawniczak, Respondent.

Submitted July 30, 2007;

decided October 16, 2007

Reported below, 41 AD3d 418, 419.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### Robert Eden, Appellant, v St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center et al., Respondents.

Submitted August 20, 2007;

decided October 18, 2007

Reported below, 39 AD3d 215.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that denied appellant’s motion to amend the complaint, 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.
Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

§ 989.36 Duties. The Committee shall have, among others, the following duties: ( a ) To act as intermediary between the Secretary and any producer, packer, dehydrator, processor or cooperative bargaining association;
( b ) To investigate compliance and to use means available to it to prevent violations of this part;
( c ) To keep minutes, books, and other records, which shall clearly reflect all of its acts and transactions, and such minutes, books, and other records shall be subject to examination by the Secretary at any time;
( d ) To investigate and assemble data on the production, handling and market conditions with respect to raisins;
( e ) To submit to the Secretary such available information with respect to raisins and grapes as he may request, and such other information as the Committee may deem desirable and pertinent;
( f ) To select from among its members a chairman and other officers, and to adopt such rules and regulations for the conduct of its business as it may deem advisable;
( g ) To appoint or employ such other persons as it may deem necessary, and to determine the salaries and define the duties of each such person;
( h ) To cause the books of the Committee to be audited by certified public accountants at least once each year, or at such other times as the Committee may deem necessary or as the Secretary may request, and the report of each such audit shall show, among other things, the receipts and expenditures of funds, and at least two copies of each such audit shall be submitted to the Secretary;
( i ) To prepare quarterly statements of its financial operations and make such statements, together with the minutes of its meetings, available at the office of the Committee for inspection by producers, handlers and dehydrators;
( j ) To give reasonable advance notice of the times, places, and purposes of its meetings by mail or other appropriate means to each member and alternate member and such notice shall be given as widespread publicity as is practicable;
( k ) To conduct meetings for the purpose of making nominations for membership on the Committee and the certifying of nominations made for such purposes to the Secretary;
( l ) To establish, with the approval of the Secretary, such rules and procedures relative to administration of this subpart as may be consistent with the provisions contained in this subpart and as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the act and the efficient administration of this subpart.
[41 FR 32412, Aug. 3, 1976, as amended at 48 FR 32975, July 20, 1983]
# Subpart 947.70 - Foreign Travel

Source:                                65 FR 81007, Dec. 22, 2000, unless otherwise noted.                               

**Parent topic:**PART 947 - TRANSPORTATION

## 947.7000 [Reserved]

## 947.7001 Policy.

Contractor foreign travel shall be conducted pursuant to the requirements contained in DOE Order 551.1C, or its successor, Official Foreign Travel, or any subsequent version of the order in effect at the time of award.  

## 947.7002 Contract clause.

When foreign travel may be required under the contract, the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 952.247-70, Foreign Travel.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STACY ANTONIO SCOTT, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5968-MCR-HTC

LEAH JAMES FRAME, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation dated December 9, 2021 (ECF No. 81), which recommends the

Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Doc. 56, 62, 77) be granted and this case be 

dismissed as to all Defendants and all claims for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust her 

administrative remedies. The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). There have been no timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the record, I have 

determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05968-MCR-HTC Document 82 Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5968-MCR-HTC

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF Doc. 81) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

(2) Defendants’ motions to dismiss at ECF Doc. 56, 62, and as adopted by 

the Defendants in ECF Doc. 77, are GRANTED.

(3) This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s

failure to exhaust her administrative remedies.

(4) The Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of January, 2022.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05968-MCR-HTC Document 82 Filed 01/25/22 Page 2 of 2