alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
5613.501 Special Documentation

Requirements.

(Added August 2016)

(a)(ii) The J&A template can be found in the DCG. IAW FAR 13.501(a)(ii), modify the J&A to reflect

the procedures in 13.5 were used.

HQ, United States Special Operations Command

Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (SOF AT&L-K)

SOFARS 5613

February 2007

Parent topic: Subpart 5613.5 - SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ITEMS
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 45 Filed 10/18/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 45 Filed 10/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
(114 App. Div. 859)

#### McDONALD v. SIMPSON-CRAWFORD CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

1. Master and Servant—Fellow Servant—Assistant Superintendent and Saleswoman.

An assistant superintendent of a retail store is a fellow servant of a saleswoman.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, §§ 427-448.]

2. Same—Relation oe Parties Aeteb Working Hours.

A saleswoman in a retail store, while being carried in an elevator after working hours to a top floor to get her street clothes, is still in the employ of the company, and the relation of passenger and carrier does not exist.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, §§ 160-156.]

Appeal from Trial Term, Kings County.

*270Action by Kate McDonald against the Simpson-Crawford Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, HOOKER, and GAYNOR, JJ.

Geo. Gordon Battle, for appellant.

William F. Hagarty, for respondent.

GAYNOR, J.

The defendant kept a large retail dry goods store, and employed'the plaintiff as a saleswoman. The employés used the elevators in the morning on arriving at work to go to the top floor and leave their street clothes in a room provided for that use by the defendant, and to go there and get the same after the close of the day’s work. The plaintiff was hurt by the fall of the elevator in which she was being carried up with others to get her clothes after the closing hour. The accident was caused by allowing too many in the elevator. There was a sign up limiting the number to be carried, but an assistant superintendent of the store (so the evidence was) told the plaintiff to go into the elevator after the limited number had gone in. His negligence was that of a fellow servant. The contention that the plaintiff was not in the employ of the defendant at the time of the accident, it occurring after actual working hours, and that the defendant therefore bore to her only the relation of carrier, is without foundation. Her dressing and undressing was a necessary incident of her employment, and the time thereof was of the time of her employment. Boldt v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 18 N. Y. 432; Vick v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 95 N. Y. 267, 47 Am. Rep. 36; Ross v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 488; affirmed 74 N. Y. 617; Gillshannon v. Stony Brook R. Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 228. The case of Pendergast v. Union R. Co., 10 App. Div. 208, 41 N. Y. Supp. 927, is not in point. There the plaintiff, as servant, was entitled to recover for the negligence of the master; for the breach of a duty which it owed to its'servants as well as to its passengers. Nor is the case of West v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 55 App. Div. 464, 67 N. Y. Supp. 104, in point.

The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial had.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted; costs to abide the event. All concur.
#### ZIMBERHOFF, Respondent, v. ZIMBERHOFF, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Mary Zimberhoff against Jacob Zimberhoff. A. L. Levy, for appellant.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3280 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mini DVD camcorder with 680K pixel 

CCD. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2006 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mini DVD camcorder 

with 680K pixel CCD. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MINI DVD CAMCORDER WITH 680K PIXEL CCD. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.85.25 Mini-DVD camcorder, full multiformat 

readability with patented laser processor 

technology; 680K pixel CCD, 25x to 30x 

optical zoom (provided for in subheading 

8525.40.80) ............................................. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3280 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 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DONNA L. EARLY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06cv727-WKW

)

RHEEM MANUFACTURING )

COMPANY, a corporation and CAL )

MEARS, an individual, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion

for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 19) is GRANTED and the Memorandum Brief (Doc. # 20) is

accepted as such. The Briefing Order (Doc. #18) is amended to require the response of the plaintiff

on or before June 27, 2007, and defendants’ reply brief on or before July 5, 2007.

DONE this 20th day of June, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00727-WKW-CSC Document 21 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### § 993.30 Failure to nominate.

If a nomination for any position on the committee is not received by the Secretary by May 1, the Secretary may select an eligible individual without regard to nominations.
§ 990.20 USDA requirements for the production of hemp. ( a ) *General hemp production requirements.* The production of hemp in a State or territory of an Indian Tribe where there is no USDA approved State or Tribal plan must be conducted in accordance with this subpart, provided that the production of hemp is not prohibited by the State or territory of an Indian Tribe where production will occur.
( b ) *Convicted felon ban.* A person with a State or Federal felony conviction relating to a controlled substance is subject to a 10-year ineligibility restriction on participating in and producing hemp under the USDA plan from the date of the conviction. An exception applies to a person who was lawfully growing hemp under section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 5940) before December 20, 2018, and whose conviction also occurred before that date.
( c ) *Falsifying material information on application.* Any person who materially falsifies any information contained in an application for a license under the USDA plan shall be ineligible to participate in the USDA plan.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., )

P.C., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv711-MHT

) 

SKILSTAF, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Because of a scheduling conflict, it is ORDERED that

the uniform scheduling order is amended to reflect that

the pretrial will be on August 14, 2007, with all

deadlines tied to the pretrial date adjusted accordingly.

DONE, this the 8th day of June, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 57 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 1 of 1
1646.301 Contractor inspection

requirements.

The clause set forth at 1652.246–70 shall be inserted in all FEHBP contracts.

Parent topic: Subpart 1646.3—Contract Clauses
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3503 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3503

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the financing of 
                             the Superfund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 13, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the financing of 
                             the Superfund.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Toxic Clean-up Polluter Pays Renewal 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF SUPERFUND TAXES.

    (a) Excise Taxes.--Section 4611(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Application of Hazardous Substance Superfund Financing 
Rate.--The Hazardous Substance Superfund financing rate under this 
section shall apply after December 31, 1986, and before January 1, 
1996, and after the date of the enactment of this subsection and before 
January 1, 2017.''.
    (b) Corporate Environmental Income Tax.--Section 59A(e) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Application of Tax.--The tax imposed by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986, and before 
January 1, 1996, and to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this subsection and before January 1, 2017.''.
    (c) Technical Amendments.--
            (1) Section 4611(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
        amended--
                    (A) by striking ``or exported from'' in paragraph 
                (1)(A),
                    (B) by striking ``or exportation'' in paragraph 
                (1)(B), and
                    (C) by striking ``and Exportation'' in the heading.
            (2) Section 4611(d)(3) of such Code is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``or exporting the crude oil, as 
                the case may be'' in the text and inserting ``the crude 
                oil'', and
                    (B) by striking ``or exports'' in the heading.
    (d) Effective Dates.--
            (1) Excise taxes.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
        and (c) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
        Act.
            (2) Income tax.--The amendment made by subsection (b) shall 
        apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN BONNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv715-MHT

) 

PAWN CITY, INC., a )

corporation, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Because of a scheduling conflict, it is ORDERED that

the uniform scheduling order (Doc. No. 46) is amended to

reflect that the trial of this case is set for the term

of court beginning on October 14, 2008, with all

deadlines expressly tied to this date adjusted

accordingly.

DONE, this the 24th day of October, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 59 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### Eugene P. Zipperer et al., Appellants, v. Lillian W. Siegel, Respondent, et al., Defendants, and Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank et al., Appellants.

In an action to invalidate a tax sale and tax deed and for other relief: (1) plaintiffs and additional defendant The Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated May 10, 1966, which (a) denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on the first- cause of action and (b) granted defendant Siegel’s cross motion for summary judgment by dismissing said first cause of action on the ground that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations (Suffolk County Tax Act, § 53, L. 1920, ch. 311, as amd.) and decreeing that said defendant owns the fee title to the subject property, on her first and second counterclaims against plaintiffs and the additional defendants, the said bank and Murray Bloom; and (2) plaintiffs and said additional defendants appeal from so much of a second order of said court, dated the same day and made on reargument, as adhered to the court’s original decision, with implementing provisions. Order on reargument modified so as to (1) strike out the provisions adhering to and incorporating the original decision and staying execution and (2) add a provision that both cross motions for summary judgment are denied. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. Appeals from original order and judgment dismissed, without costs. That order and judgment was superseded by the order granting reargument. In our opinion, a triable issue was presented as to whether in fact payment of the 1952-53 tax was effected so as to bring the ease at bar within the purview of *Cameron Estates*v. *Peering*(308 N. Y. 24). Moreover, in our opinion, the fact that plaintiffs were and still are in actual possession since the inception of the tax levy mandates a consideration of the triable issue whether plaintiffs received any notice other than the recording of the tax deed which would reasonably apprise them of the divestiture of their title so as to start the running of the Statute of Limitations from the date of such notice, if any (ef. *Peterson*v. *Martino,*210 N. Y. 412; *Cameron Estates*v. *Peering, supra).*We are also of the opinion that the conduct of the Town Tax Receiver, if it was as plaintiffs claim, is a factor to be considered in determining the respective equities of the parties (cf. *Kemp*v. *Punt,*268 App. Div. 621). A trial is therefore indicated, at which all facts and circumstances may be adduced relevant to the foregoing issues and any other issues which will permit a full and adequate evaluation and equitable disposition of the respective rights of the parties. Beldoek, P'. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
Subpart 314.1 - Use of Sealed Bidding

Parent topic: PART 314 - SEALED BIDDING

314.103 Policy.

Electronic and information technology (EIT) supplies and services acquired using sealed-bid

procedures shall comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. See part

339.
162 So.2d 9

#### Selma Boykin LANE v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 47125.

March 30, 1964.

• In-re: - Selma Boykin Lane applying for certiorari, .or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Lincoln. 159 So.2d 313.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court Of Appeal, there is no error of law-in its judgment.

SANDERS, J.,

is of the opinion that the-writ should be granted for error of law in. rejecting proof by probabilities under the preponderance of evidence rule. See Perkins v. Texas & N. O. Railroad, 243 La. 829,. 147 So.2d 646; and Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Co., 244 La. 569, 153 So.2d 395.
#### Arthur Plumadore et al., Respondents-Appellants, v State of New *692York, Appellant-Respondent.

(Claim No. 58639.)
EXHIBIT 32.1 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
               RULE 13a-14(b)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gallery of History, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Todd Axelrod, Chief Executive Office of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

1.	 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ Todd Axelrod
----------------
Todd Axelrod
Chief Executive Officer

February 14, 2008
El asma es un problema de salud creciente. Según los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de 

Enfermedades:

• 20 millones de personas, incluyendo 6,1 millones de niños, tienen asma.

• La prevalencia del asma es más elevada entre las familias con ingresos más bajos. 

• 12 millones de personas informan haber tenido un ataque de asma el año pasado.

• El asma es responsable de más de 14 millones de visitas a clínicas por pacientes externos, y por casi 

2 millones de visitas al departamento de emergencias por año. 

• Aproximadamente 2 millones de hispanos en los EE.UU. tienen asma y el efecto en los puertorriqueños es desproporcionado:

• La cifra de asma entre los puertorriqueños es 80% más elevado que entre los hispanos no 

blancos.

• La prevalencia de ataques de asma es la más alta entre los puertorriqueños.

El asma en los niños:

• El asma es la enfermedad crónica seria más común de la niñez. 

• El asma es la tercera causa de hospitalización entre los niños menores de 15 años. 

• El asma en los niños es la causa de casi cinco millones de visitas a médicos y más de 200,000 

ingresos a hospitales. 

• El asma es responsable de un tercio de todas las visitas de niños a las salas de emergencia, 

y es la cuarta causa más común de visitas de niños a las oficinas de médicos. 

• Como promedio, uno de cada 13 niños en edad escolar padece de asma. 

• El asma es la causa principal de absentismo escolar como resultado de una dolencia infantil crónica.

• Cada año se pierden 14,7 millones de días escolares por causa del asma. 

El costo del asma:

• Los gastos anuales por la salud y por pérdida de productividad debido al asma se estiman en los 

$14 billones, de acuerdo al Instituto Nacional del Corazón, los Pulmones y la Sangre.

Datos sobre el asma

United States 

Environmental Protection Agency

Indoor Environments Division 

Office of Air and Radiation (6609J)

EPA 402-F-04-020 

May 2005
El asma y el ambiente: La investigación realizada por la EPA y por otros ha demostrado que

• Los ácaros del polvo, el moho, las cucarachas, la caspa de los animales domésticos, y el humo de 

tabaco en el medio ambiente provocan ataques de asma. 

• La exposición al humo de tabaco en el medio ambiente puede causar asma entre los niños de edad 

pre-escolar. 

• La exposición a los ácaros del polvo puede causar asma. 

• El ozono y la contaminación de partículas pueden causar ataques de asma:

• Cuando los niveles de ozono son altos, más personas con asma sufren ataques que requieren la atención de un médico.

• El ozono hace que la gente sea más sensible a los provocadores del asma tales como la 

caspa de animales, el polen, los ácaros del polvo, y el moho.

Datos sobre el asma
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREAT SOUTHERN WOOD )

PRESERVING, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv708-CSC

)

AMERICAN HOME )

ASSURANCE CO. et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

On October 16, 2006, the court entered a FED. R. CIV. P. 16 scheduling order setting

this matter for a non-jury trial on October 15, 2007. In its complaint, the plaintiff made a

jury demand. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this matter be and is hereby RESET for a jury trial on the October 1,

2007, trial term in Dothan, Alabama. It is further

ORDERED that the FED. R. CIV. P. 16 scheduling order be and is hereby MODIFIED

to conform this order, with all dates adjusted accordingly.

Done this 19 day of October, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 16 Filed 10/19/2006 Page 1 of 1
## L AW 

## O FFICES

OF



# K URT 

# G. C LARKE

ATTORNEY

~

MEDIATOR

~

ARBITRATOR

KURT G. CLARKE* FREDERICK O. BOADU

HELEN MALVEAUX COUNSEL TO THE FIRM

December 23, 2015

Christopher A. Prine

Clerk, First Court of Appeals

First Court of Appeals

301 Fannin Street

Houston, Texas 77002

- 2066

Re: Case No. : 01 -15 -00716

- CV ; Zimac Care Center et al v. Nweze

Subject: Appellants' Brief

Dear Clerk:

Appellants have submitted their brief. However, it will be necessary to amend and

resubmit the b rief to restructur e same, and make it more comprehendible. A motion will

accompany same within the next five (5) days.

Sincerely,



### Kurt G. Clarke

Kurt G. Clarke

cc.: Robin Bluitt

6200 SAVOY DRIVE, SUITE 458, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77036

PHONE (713) 779-5500 FAX (713) 779-6668

*FELLOW

– COLLEGE OF THE STATE BAR ACCEPTED

01-15-00716-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

12/23/2015 3:14:16 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
#### § 956.13 Fiscal period.

*Fiscal period* means the period beginning on June 1 and ending on May 31 of each year, or other such period as may be recommended by the committee and approved by the Secretary.
Exhibit 33.6



|(logo) NTS NATIONAL
        TAX SEARCH, LLC | 303 E Wacker Drive, Suite 900
        Chicago, IL 60601
        (312) 233-6440
|------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND

EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA



For the calendar year ending December 31, 2015, National Tax Search,
LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for Wells Fargo Bank (the “Servicer”).



National Tax Search, LLC (“NTS”) is responsible for assessing
compliance as of December 31, 2015 and for the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”)
with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “CFR”). NTS
has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.
Only servicing criteria 1122 (d) (l)(ii), 1122 (d)l(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122 (d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122 (d)2(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi),
and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”) are applicable to the activities NTS performs with respect
to the transactions covered by this report. NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d)
of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report.
The transactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTS’s TaxQ system (the “Platform
Transactions”).



NTS, as a vendor, has assessed its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the NTS has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.



Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public accounting
firm, has issued an attestation report on ’the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria
as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.





National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendor to Servicer

/s/ Lori D. Eshoo

Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO

January 18, 2016
2929.303 Applications of state and local

taxes to Government contractors and

subcontractors.

(a) Contractors may only be treated as agents of the Government for the purposes set forth in FAR

29.303(a) upon the written review and approval of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and

Management.

(b) Requests for approval under paragraph (a) of this section must be submitted by the HCA through

the Office of the Solicitor, to the Division of Acquisition Management Services, for further action.

Parent topic: Subpart 2929.3 - State and Local Taxes