alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3098 

To suspend temporarily the duty on seals, rear spar, wing center section. 

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 seals, rear spar, wing 

center section. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SEALS, REAR SPAR, WING CENTER SECTION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.59.11 Seals, rear spar, wing center section 

(provided for in subheading 5911.90.00) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3098 IS 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
52.222-10 Compliance with Copeland Act Requirements.       As prescribed in 22.407(a), insert the following clause:          Compliance with Copeland Act Requirements (Feb 1988)          The Contractor shall comply with the requirements of 29 CFR Part 3, which are hereby incorporated by reference in this contract.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.222 [Reserved]
Depositor: Structured
      Asset Securities Corporation


745
      Seventh Avenue , 8th
      Floor


New
      York , NY
      10019








Trustee:  LaSalle
      Bank , N.A.


135
      S.
      LaSalle Street , Suite
      1625


Chicago , IL
      60603


Attention:
      Global Securities and Trust Services





Securities
      Administrator:







Subject: Annual
      Officer's Certification


Fiscal
      Year: 2006


Securitization: LXS
      2006-15





I,
      E.
      Todd Whittemore, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora Loan
      Services LLC (the “Master Servicer”), do certify the following for the Calendar
      Year 2006:




1.
      A
      review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding calendar
      year (or portion thereof) and of its performance under the Agreement for such
      period has been made under my supervision.




2.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled
      all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material aspects throughout
      2006 (or applicable portion thereof), or, if there has been a failure to fulfill
      any such obligation in any material respect, I have specifically identified
      to
      the Depositor, and the Trustee each such failure known to me and the nature
      and
      status thereof, including the steps being taken by the Master Servicer to remedy
      such default.





Certified
      by:  AURORA
      LOAN SERVICES LLC







By:
      /s/ E. Todd Whittemore





Name:
      E.
      Todd Whittemore


Title:
      Executive Vice President
Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 19, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00136-CV JONATHAN LUCKETT, Appellant V. SHARMEATRICE LU CKETT, Appellee On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-14-12976 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justi ce Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Appellant's brief in this case is overdue. By postcar d dated September 2, 2015, we notified appellant the time for filing his brief had expired. We directed appellant to file both his brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to file his brief and an extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. Thereafter, we granted appellant's motion to exte nd time to file his brief and ordered appellant's brief to be filed by October 21, 2015. To date, a ppellant has not filed his brief, requested an additional extension of time to file his brief, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.–2– Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP . P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

150136F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
JONATHAN LUCKETT, Appellant
No. 05-15-00136-CV V. SHARMEATRICE LUCKETT, Appellee On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-14-12976. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee SHARMEATRICE LUCK ETT recover her costs of this appeal from appellan t JONATHAN LUCKETT.
Judgment entered November 19, 2015.
Subpart 742.7—Indirect Cost Rates    **Parent topic:** PART 742—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION742.770 Negotiated indirect cost rate agreement.       Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 4206, Jan. 23, 2024.          Except for educational institutions having a cognizant agency (as defined in OMB Circular A–88, 44 FR 70094, 12/5/79) other than USAID, USAID may establish negotiated overhead rates in a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement, executed by both parties. The Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement is automatically incorporated in each contract between the parties and shall specify: (a) The final rate(s), (b) the base(s) to which the rate(s) apply, (c) the period(s) for which the rate(s) apply, (d) the items treated as direct costs, and (e) the contract(s) to which the rate(s) apply. The Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement shall not change any monetary ceiling, obligation, or specific cost allowance or disallowance provided for in each contract between the parties.
5137.9101 Policy.

(a) Contracting officers shall ensure that the requirement to report contractor manpower is included

in all contracts, task/delivery orders and modifications. The cognizant contracting officer shall

include a separate line item in Section B of the contract to allow for payment in compliance with this

requirement.

(b) The list of contracts for which reporting is not applicable is located on the Assistant Secretary of

the Army Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA(M&RA)) website at

https://www.army.mil/asamra#org-resources.

(c) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment established services contractor

reporting in www.SAM.gov on October 15, 2020. It provides most of the source data for compliance

with section 2330a of Title 10, United States Code.

(d) Enter data into the www.SAM.gov system at any time during the contract’s period of

performance. However, data must be accurate and complete and entered into www.SAM.gov not

later than October 31 after the completion of each fiscal year or part of a fiscal year for which such

contract is active.

(e) The Contractor Manpower Reporting application is available at https://www.SAM.gov .

Parent topic: Subpart 5137.91 - Accounting for Contract Services
#### § 930.15 Restricted percentage cherries.

*Restricted percentage cherries* means that proportion of cherries handled in a crop year which must be either placed into handlers' inventories in accordance with § 930.55 or § 930.57 or otherwise diverted in accordance with § 930.59 and thereby withheld from marketing in normal commercial outlets under any volume regulation established pursuant to § 930.50 or § 930.51.
#### BUTTACAVOLI, Respondent, v. JAMES A. STEVENSON CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by Adeline Buttacavoli, an infant, by Carlo Buttacavoli, her guardian ad litem, against the James A. Stevenson Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

In the matter of the Search of

930 13th Avenue, 

Phenix City, AL 36867

CASE NUMBER: 3:06mj80-SRW

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion to file search warrant and return of inventory (Doc.

# 1), filed August 11, 2006, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED. The Clerk's Office is

AUTHORIZED and DIRECTED to accept and file the search warrant and return of

inventory attached to this order.

DONE, this 14th day of August, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-mj-00080-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-mj-00080-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:06-mj-00080-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 2 of 11
Case 3:06-mj-00080-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 3 of 11
Case 3:06-mj-00080-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 4 of 11
Case 3:06-mj-00080-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 5 of 11
Case 3:06-mj-00080-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 6 of 11
Case 3:06-mj-00080-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 7 of 11
Case 3:06-mj-00080-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 8 of 11
Case 3:06-mj-00080-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 9 of 11
Case 3:06-mj-00080-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 10 of 11
Case 3:06-mj-00080-SRW Document 2-2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 11 of 11
5214.407-3 Other mistakes disclosed before

award.

(e) HCAs, without power of redelegation, may make the determinations required by FAR 14.407-3(a),

(b) and (d).

Parent topic: 5214.407 Mistakes in bids.
#### § 925.21 Term of office.

The term of office of the members and alternates shall be four fiscal periods. Each member and alternate shall serve in such capacities for the portion of the term of office for which they are selected and have qualified and until their respective successors are selected and have qualified.

[45 FR 40566, June 16, 1980, as amended at 81 FR 44761, July 11, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           19816
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       99
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 20500
<PP&E>                                           32978
<DEPRECIATION>                                   13335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   40416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              694
<BONDS>                                          16844
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       22878
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     40416
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 16571
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3867
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1636
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1796
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9272
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               9272
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (292)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8980
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   155.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   155.77
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 14 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BALJINDER KAUR; GURBIR SINGH,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-73356

Agency Nos. A095-399-055

 A095-399-056

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Baljinder Kaur and Gurbir Singh, natives and citizens of India, petition for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying their application for withholding of removal

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

MAR 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 06-73356

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, SinghKaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999), and we deny the petition. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Kaur’s testimony

that the police killed her father in 1991 was inconsistent with the affidavit from her

town’s sarpanch which stated that terrorists killed her father in 1999. See Pal v.

INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000) (inconsistencies between testimony and

documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding). Substantial

evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Kaur omitted from her asylum

application declaration that police beat her four times during her first arrest, and

that police arrested her a second time because she filed a complaint about the

police to a human rights organization. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-64

(9th Cir. 2004). The agency reasonably rejected Kaur’s explanations for the

inconsistencies and omissions. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th

Cir. 2007). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Kaur’s withholding

of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.

2003).

Because Kaur’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found

not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not
3 06-73356

she would be tortured if she returns to India, Kaur’s CAT claim also fails. See id.

at 1156-57. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-  Home 
-  Airports 
-  Runway Safety 
-  Runway Safety Publications 

# In This Section

                      -  Overview 
                      -  Airport Diagrams 
                      -  Runway Construction 
                      -  From the Flight Deck 
                      -  Plans 
                      -  Resources                          -  Overview 
                        -  Flashcards 
                        -  Quiz 
                      -  Pilots 
                      -  Controllers 
                      -  Airfield Drivers 
                      -  Statistics 
                      -  Publications 
                      -  Contact Runway Safety 

# Runway Safety Publications

## Reference Documents

                  - Air Traffic Control: Light Gun Signals for Pilots  (PDF)
                  - Do You Know Your Airport Signs, Markings & Lights?  (PDF)
                  - FAA Guide to Ground Vehicle Operations   (PDF)
                  - Ground Vehicle Guide to Airport Signs & Markings  (PDF)
                  - Stay Away If You Don't Hear Runway
                  - ICAO Runway Safety Site
                  - Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, Chapter 14: Airport Operations  (PDF)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1783

JOHN LEE MORRIS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS; NC SUPREME COURT; MIKE JONES; THE BUDD GROUP; JAN TAYLOR; EISAI PHARMACEUTICAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-213-1) Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Lee Morris, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: John Lee Morris, Sr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil complaint as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Morris v. North Carolina Ct. of Appeals , No. CA-04-213-1 (M.D.N.C. May 28, 2004). We further deny Morris’ motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EPA FORM 6100-4 (DBE Subcontractor Utilization Form)

OMB Control No:

Approved:

Approval Expires:

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program

DBE Subcontractor Utilization Form

This form is intended to capture the prime contractor’s actual and/or anticipated use of identified certified DBE1

subcontractors

2 and the estimated dollar amount of each subcontract. An EPA Financial Assistance Agreement 

Recipient must require its prime contractors to complete this form and include it in the bid or proposal package. 

Prime contractors should also maintain a copy of this form on file.

Subcontractor Name Project Name

Bid/ Proposal No. Assistance Agreement ID No. (if known) Point of Contact

Address

Telephone No. Email Address

Prime Contractor Name Issuing/Funding Entity:

I have identified potential DBE 

certified subcontractors ___ YES ___ NO

If yes, please complete the table below. If no, please explain:

Company Name Company Address/ Phone/ Email Est. Dollar

Amt

Currently 

DBE

Certified?

1 A DBE is a Disadvantaged, Minority, or Woman Business Enterprise that has been certified by an entity from which EPA accepts certifications as 

described in 40 CFR 33.204-33.205 or certified by EPA. EPA accepts certifications from entities that meet or exceed EPA certification standards as 

described in 40 CFR 33.202. 

2 Subcontractor is defined as a company, firm, joint venture, or individual who enters into an agreement with a contractor to provide 

services pursuant to an EPA award of financial assistance.

Continue on back if needed
EPA FORM 6100-4 (DBE Subcontractor Utilization Form)

OMB Control No:

Approved:

Approval Expires:

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program

DBE Subcontractor Utilization Form

I certify under penalty of perjury that the forgoing statements are true and correct. Signing this form does not 

signify a commitment to utilize the subcontractors above. I am aware of that in the event of a replacement of a 

subcontractor, I will adhere to the replacement requirements set forth in 40 CFR Part 33 Section 33.302 (c). 

Prime Contractor Signature Title/ date

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average three (3) hours 

per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated 

collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send 

the completed form to this address.
#### § 956.89 Compliance.

No handler shall handle Walla Walla Sweet Onions except in conformity to the provisions of this part.
§ 900.83 Conducting Meetings via Electronic Communication or Otherwise. Notwithstanding any other provisions of a marketing order in this part, administrative bodies of fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing orders, and their committees/subcommittees may, upon due notice to all members and the public: ( a ) Conduct meetings by any means of communication available, electronic or otherwise, that effectively assembles members and the public, and facilitates open communication.
( b ) Vote by any means of communication available, electronic or otherwise; Provided, That votes cast are verifiable and that quorum and other procedural requirements of each respective marketing order are met.
( c ) With the approval of the Secretary, each administrative body may prescribe any additional procedures necessary to carry out the objectives of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
[83 FR 22832, May 17, 2018]
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 29 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 29 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 29 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 29-2 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 29-2 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 29-2 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 29-3 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 29-3 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 29-4 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 29-4 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### § 917.16 Designation of Control Committee.

A Control Committee is hereby established consisting of 12 shipper members and 13 commodity committee members, and the members shall be selected in accordance with the provisions of § 917.17 through § 917.19. The members shall be selected annually for a term ending on the last day of February, and said members shall serve until their respective successors are selected and have qualified.

###### Effective Date Note

#### Effective Date Note:

At 76 FR 66605, Oct. 27, 2011, § 917.16 was suspended indefinitely, effective Oct. 28, 2011.
#### § 905.40 Expenses.

The committee is authorized to incur such expenses as the Secretary finds are reasonable and likely to be incurred to carry out the functions of the committee under this subpart during each fiscal period. The funds to cover such expenses shall be acquired by the levying of assessments upon handlers as provided in § 905.41.

[22 FR 10734, Dec. 27, 1957. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 42 FR 59370, Nov. 17, 1977]