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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3157 

To suspend temporarily the duty on MCPB acid and MCPB sodium salt. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on MCPB acid and MCPB 

sodium salt. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON MCPB ACID AND 

4 MCPB SODIUM SALT. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.28.21 4-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy) butanoic 

acid (CAS No. 94–81–5); 4-(4-chloro-2- 

metylphenoxy) butanoic acid, sodium salt 

(CAS No. 6062–26–6) (provided for in 

subheading 2918–90–20.) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 3157 IS 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Community CollegesEducational ChangeEducational PlanningEducational ResourcesEducational TechnologyInstitutional MissionInstructional DevelopmentProgram ImplementationTechnological AdvancementTwo Year Colleges

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000760382
<NAME> WELLESLEY LEASE INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP III C
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          52,502
<SECURITIES>                                    47,223
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,622
<ALLOWANCES>                                       814
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,533
<PP&E>                                       1,547,087
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,189,666
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 493,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,013
<BONDS>                                         51,801
<COMMON>                                    11,140,685
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,857,545)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   493,954
<SALES>                                        385,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               472,917
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               277,763
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,720
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,539
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                161,389
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            161,389
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   161,389
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
252.225-7050 Disclosure of Ownership or

Control by the Government of a Country that

is a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

As prescribed in 225.771-5, use the following provision:

DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL BY THE GOVERNMENT OF A COUNTRY THAT IS A

STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM (DEC 2022)

(a) Definitions.As used in this provision—

“Government of a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism” includes the state and the

government of a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism, as well as any political subdivision,

agency, or instrumentality thereof.

“Significant interest” means—

(1) Ownership of or beneficial interest in 5 percent or more of the firm’s or subsidiary’s securities.

Beneficial interest includes holding 5 percent or more of any class of the firm’s securities in

“nominee shares,” “street names,” or some other method of holding securities that does not disclose

the beneficial owner;

(2) Holding a management position in the firm, such as a director or officer;

(3) Ability to control or influence the election, appointment, or tenure of directors or officers in the

firm;

(4) Ownership of 10 percent or more of the assets of a firm such as equipment, buildings, real estate,

or other tangible assets of the firm; or

(5) Holding 50 percent or more of the indebtedness of a firm.

“State sponsor of terrorism” means a country determined by the Secretary of State, under section

1754(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (Title XVII, Subtitle B, of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Pub. L. 115-232), to be a country the government of

which has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. As of the date of this

provision, state sponsors of terrorism include Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.

(b) Prohibition on award. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 4871, unless a waiver is granted by the

Secretary of Defense, no contract may be awarded to a firm if the government of a country that is a

state sponsor of terrorism owns or controls a significant interest in—

(1) The firm;

(2) A subsidiary of the firm; or

(3) Any other firm that owns or controls the firm.

(c) Representation.Unless the Offeror submits with its offer the disclosure required in paragraph (d)
of this provision, the Offeror represents, by submission of its offer, that the government of a country

that is a state sponsor of terrorism does not own or control a significant interest in—

(1) The Offeror;

(2) A subsidiary of the Offeror; or

(3) Any other firm that owns or controls the Offeror.

(d) Disclosure.

(1) The Offeror shall disclose in an attachment to its offer if the government of a country that is a

state sponsor of terrorism owns or controls a significant interest in the Offeror; a subsidiary of the

Offeror; or any other firm that owns or controls the Offeror.

(2) The disclosure shall include—

(i) Identification of each government holding a significant interest; and

(ii) A description of the significant interest held by each government.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 252.225 RESERVED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

HAROLD KELLY MURPHY, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No.: 2:06-cv-618-MEF 

 ) 

SOUTHERN ENERGY HOMES, INC., ) 

et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME

COMES NOW the Defendant, Southern Energy Homes, Inc. (“Southern”), and 

respectfully moves this Court for an order enlarging time for responding to the Court’s 

show cause order. As grounds therefor, Southern submits the following: 

1. In response to Southern’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, where 

Southern maintains all of Plaintiff’s claims are preempted, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

leave to file an amended complaint, ostensibly to plead non-preempted claims. 

2. Southern intends to oppose said motion on grounds that pleading is 

untimely, interposes bad faith and would be futile in any event. 

3. Southern requests the additional time to respond for two reasons: (a) the 

issues are complex and involve issues of preemption (among other complex issues); and 

(b) one of Southern’s defense team, Thomas W. Thagard, III, has been called out-of-town 

to attend a funeral. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Southern respectfully requests that 

this Court enlarge its time to respond by seven (7) days. 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 41 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 1 of 2
 Respectfully submitted, 

/s W. Scott Simpson__ 

W. Scott Simpson, Attorney for Defendant 

Southern Energy Homes, Inc. 

OF COUNSEL: 

RITCHEY & SIMPSON, PLLC 

3288 Morgan Drive, Suite 100 

Birmingham, Alabama 35216 

Telephone: (205) 876-1600 

Facsimile: (205) 876-1616 

Email: wssimpson@ritcheysimpson.com 

Thomas W. Thagard, III 

Edward S. Sledge, IV 

MAYNARD, COOPER & GALES, P.C. 

1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 

AmSouth/Harbert Plaza 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2618 

Telephone: (205) 254-1000 

Facsimile: (205) 254-1999 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on the 4th day of June, 2007, 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: 

• Charles Lance Gould

lance.gould@beasleyallen.com holly.stroh@beasleyallen.com 

• Carter Gibson Vance

gibson.vance@beasleyallen.com heidi.bowers@beasleyallen.com 

 /s W. Scott Simpson 

 Of Counsel 

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 41 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

HOWARD GLEN TOOLE,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:06-cv-00126-MCR-AK

JAMES MCDONOUGH,

Respondent.

___________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by

Howard Glen Toole. Petitioner is incarcerated in Apalachee Correctional Institution, which is

located within this District, but all of his grounds for relief involve matters arising from

convictions in the Circuit Courts for Coffee and Pike Counties, Alabama, both of which are

located within the Middle District of Alabama.

Jurisdiction is therefore appropriate in either this district or in the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Alabama, as the districts of confinement and conviction,

respectively. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

The district of conviction would appear to be the most convenient for witnesses should an

evidentiary hearing be necessary, and therefore, transfer of this cause to the Middle District is

appropriate. Mitchell v. Henderson, 432 F.2d 435, 436 (5th Cir. 1970) (division of conviction,

where witnesses were located, was appropriate venue over division of confinement in challenge

Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 2 Filed 06/20/2006 Page 1 of 2 Case 5:06-cv-00126-MCR-AK Document 2 Filed 06/20/2006 Page 1 of 2

Page 2 of 2

1:06cv69-MMP/AK

to conviction); Parker v. Singletary, 974 F.2d 1562, 1582, n. 118 (11th Cir. 1992) (courts should

give careful consideration to convenience of witnesses in transferring habeas corpus petitions

under § 2241(d)). 

It is therefore respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be TRANSFERRED to the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama for all further proceedings.

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida, this 20th day of June, 2006.

 s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations

within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may

respond to another party's objections within 10 days after being served with a copy thereof. 

Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and

recommendations. 

Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 2 Filed 06/20/2006 Page 2 of 2 Case 5:06-cv-00126-MCR-AK Document 2 Filed 06/20/2006 Page 2 of 2
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Don McCaffety v. Angela Blanchard

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 01077

- CV

Trial court case number: 2014

- 54153

Trial court: 281st District Court of Harris County

We dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution on January 19, 2017.

Appellant filed a motion to reinstate the appeal on January 30, 2017, contending he had

requested a pro bono lawyer through the Pro Bono Program conducted in conjunction with the

Stat e Bar of Texas Appellate Section Pro Bono Committee and the local bar association.

Construing the motion to reinstate as a motion for rehearing, we grant the motion, withdraw

our opinion and judgment of January 19, 2017, and reinstate the appeal on the a ctive docket.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment resolving claims of fraud, breach of

contract, and related civil claims. In this circumstance, this court has no authority to appoint a pro

bono lawyer for appellant, and there is no guarantee that the Pro Bono Program will find a pro

bono lawyer to accept the case.

Nearly a year has passed since appellant’s brief was originally due. Appellant’s brief is

now due on or before March 30 , 2017 . No further extensions will be granted on the basis of

seeking a pro bono lawyer. If an attorney files a notice of appearance on behalf of appellant on or

before March 30 , 2017, the court will entertain a motion for a short extension of additional time t o file a brief. Otherwise, no further extensions will be granted absent a showing of good cause other

than the failure to secure pro bono representation.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: March 2, 2017
#### § 927.142 [Reserved]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Logan CountyBancShares, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterended March 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Date: February 28, 2005 | /s/ Eddie Canterbury |                    |
|-------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------|
|                    | Name:                | Eddie Canterbury        |
|                    | Title:               | Chief Executive Officer |
|                         |                      |                         |  |

 

----
252.209-7001 Reserved.

Parent topic: 252.209 RESERVED
# C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

A T L A N T A

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l s h e re b y p a sse s t h e f o l l o w i n g o rd e r:

A 1 9 A 0 2 2 5

. E T O W

A H E N V IR O N M E NT A

L G R O U P

, L L C v

. A

D V A N C E D

D ISP O SA

L SE R V I C E S, IN C

.

U p o n c o n si d e r a

t i o n o f t h e A PPE L L A N T ’ S M

O T I O N T O W

I T H D R A W

A PPE A L i n t h e a b o v e st y l e d c a se

, i t i s o r d e r e d t

h a t t h e m o t i o n i s h e r e b y G

R A N T E D

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t l a n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t

r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t

h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. October 30, 2018

10/30/2018
Subpart 908.8 - Acquisition of Printing and

Related Supplies

Parent topic: PART 908 - REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

908.802 Policy.

(b) Inclusion of printing requirements (limited exceptions are set forth in paragraphs 35-2 through

35-4 of the Government Printing and Binding Regulations) in contracts for supplies and services is

prohibited unless specifically approved by the Director, Office of Administrative Services,

Headquarters. Contracting officers shall insert the clause at 952.208-70, Printing, in all contracts.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DAVID W. JAHN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-623-MEF

)

REGINALD JAMES WASHINGTON, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct (Doc. #12) filed on

December 28, 2006, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

DONE this the 4th day of January, 2007.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 13 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Nancy McNulty, Respondent, v Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated December 18, 1979, dismissed, with $50 costs and disbursements. An appeal does not lie from an order denying a motion to reargue. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
#### § 984.91 Relationship with the California Walnut Commission.

In conducting Board activities and other objectives under this part, the Board may deliberate, consult, cooperate and exchange information with the California Walnut Commission, whose activities compliment those of the Board. Any sharing of information gathered under this subpart shall be kept confidential in accordance with provisions under section 10(i) of the Act.

[73 FR 11340, Mar. 3, 2008]
PART 41 — ACQUISITION OF UTILITY

SERVICES
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, 2010 (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 21, 2011
By: /s/ David Aber

David Aber

Chief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Fortin, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 282]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Weinberg, J.), dated October 13, 2004, which, after a hearing pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level three sex offender.

*766Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of sodomy in the second degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant’s point total under the risk assessment instrument presumptively placed him within a risk level two sex offender designation category. However, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter the Board) recommended that a departure from the presumptive risk level was warranted, and assigned the defendant into a level three category *(see*Correction Law § 168-Z). Following a hearing, the Supreme Court assessed the defendant an additional 10 points for his failure to accept responsibility, and confirmed the Board’s recommendation to designate the defendant as a level three sex offender. We affirm.

The defendant contends, inter alia, that the court erred in assessing him additional points for his lack of acceptance of responsibility for his crimes. However, the Risk Assessment Guidelines require that an offender have a “genuine acceptance of responsibility” for his or her actions *(People v Mitchell,*300 AD2d 377, 378 [2002]). Here the record supports the court’s conclusion that the defendant “has not . . . really accept [ed] responsibility” for his actions, especially in view of the fact that he has consistently maintained his innocence since conviction *(see People v Walker,*15 AD3d 692 [2005]). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the fact that he admitted his guilt, as a condition for entry into a sex offender treatment program while incarcerated, is not tantamount to a “voluntary acceptance of responsibility” *(People v Chilson,*286 AD2d 828 [2001]).

The Supreme Court properly agreed with the Board’s recommendation to upwardly depart from the level two designation, and classify the defendant as a level three risk offender, since there was adequate proof of an aggravating factor which was not “taken into account by the guidelines” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [1997 ed]; *see also People v Hines,*24 AD3d 524 [2005], *Iv denied*6 NY3d 712 [2006]; *People v Guaman,*8 AD3d 545 [2004]; *People v Moon,*3 AD3d 600 [2004]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Krausman and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Joseph W. Steiner, Petitioner, v Department of Education of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this court pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 6510 of the Education Law) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Education, which suspended petitioner’s license to practice podiatry for a period of three months and imposed a fine of $1,000. Petitioner’s contention that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the offense and shocking to one’s sense of fairness is without merit (see *Matter of Foreman v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y.,*75 AD2d 953, mot for lv to app den 51 NY2d 704). We have examined petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be unpersuasive. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Main, Mikoll and Casey, JJ., concur; Staley, Jr., J., not taking part.
423.703 Policy.

(a) USDA's Affirmative Procurement Program promotes energy-efficiency, water conservation, and

the acquisition of environmentally preferable products and services. In its acquisitions, USDA will

support federal “green purchasing” principles in the acquisition of products and services that are

environmentally preferable or that are biobased content products and services.

(b) USDA agencies will actively promote this preference for environmentally preferable products and

biobased products in contacts with vendors, in written materials, and other appropriate

opportunities.

Parent topic: Subpart 423.7 - Contracting for Environmentally Preferable Products and Services