alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
252.225-7058 Postaward Disclosure of

Employment of Individuals Who Work in the

People’s Republic of China.

As prescribed in 225.7021-4(b), use the following clause:

POSTAWARD DISCLOSURE OF EMPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK IN THE PEOPLE’S

REPUBLIC OF CHINA (JAN 2023)

(a) Definitions. As used in this clause—

“Covered contract” means any DoD contract or subcontract with a value in excess of $5 million, not

including contracts for commercial products and commercial services. “Covered entity” means any

corporation, company, limited liability company, limited partnership, business trust, business

association, or other similar entity, including any subsidiary thereof, performing work on a covered

contract in the People’s Republic of China, including by leasing or owning real property used in the

performance of the covered contract in the People’s Republic of China.

(b) Disclosure requirement.

(1) In accordance with section 855 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022

(Pub. L. 117-81, 10 U.S.C. 4651 note prec.), DoD may not award, extend, or exercise an option on a

covered contract with a covered entity unless such covered entity submits each required disclosure

of its use of workforce and facilities in the People’s Republic of China, if it employs one or more

individuals who perform work in the People’s Republic of China on a covered contract.

(2) If the Contractor is a covered entity, the Contractor shall disclose for the Government’s fiscal

years 2023 and 2024, the Contractor’s employment of one or more individuals who perform work in

the People’s Republic of China on any covered contract. The disclosures shall include—

(i) The total number of such individuals who perform work in the People’s Republic of China on the

covered contracts funded by DoD; and

(ii) A description of the physical presence, including street address or addresses in the People’s

Republic of China, where work on the covered contract is performed.

(c) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall insert this clause, including this paragraph (c), without

alteration other than to identify the appropriate parties, in all subcontracts that meet the definition

of a covered contract.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 252.225 RESERVED
#### Ellard *v.*Smith.

September 24, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Jones. Habersham superior court. June 1, 1912.

*Sam Kimzey*and *McMillan & Erwin,*for plaintiff-in error.

*J. C. Edwards & Sons*and J. *R. Sutton,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

1. In an action for the purchase-price of cross-ties, there was evidence to the effect that the ties were to be delivered in wagon-load lots at a place designated, and that the purchaser agreed to inspect the ties as each load was delivered. There was no error in charging the jury as follows: “I charge you that if the ties were to be delivered by Mr. Smith, the plaintiff, to the defendant, and that the defendant was to inspect them as they were delivered by the wagon-load, and if he had an opportunity of so inspecting them, and that if he discovered that the ties were not coming up and being delivei-ed according to contract, that then it was his duty to have notified the plaintiff of that fact.”

2. The contract provided that the ties should be of specified dimensions. There was evidence, though contradicted, to the effect that a large number did not conform to the specifications; also to the effect that the purchaser did not acc.ept any of the ties. It was error to charge as follows: *(a)*“I charge you, on the other hand, if the ties were reasonably within the measurements of the contract between the parties as to size, and were of the class, reasonably of the class, and sort of ties that were to be delivered to him, and if they were delivered, then it would have been the duty of Mr. Ellard, the purchaser, if he was the purchaser, to have received the ties and paid for them.” (6) “Now, if the ties were delivered to Mr. Ellard where he pointed out they should have been, and they were reasonably up to the contract as to specifications, size and kind of timber, and it was his duty to receive them, and you find him liable for them, then you could not credit that account for any amount that he claims he is damaged, but it would be your duty to find the full purchase-price of the amount against the defendant.”

3. The other grounds of the amended motion for a new trial are without merit.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### BUTZGY, Appellant, v. SCHNEIDER et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 26, 1914.)

Action by Ludwig Butzgy against Heinrich Schneider and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs; but the finding of fact designated second, appearing at folio 53 of the record on appeal, is reversed and set aside, as being contrary to the evidence in the case.
pwc(logo)

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

** **

To****the Board of Directors and shareholdersof CoreLogic, Inc.:

 ****

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanyingReport on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the “Company”), a subsidiaryof CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’sRegulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial taxservice provider (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv),1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which theCompany has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsiblefor the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’sassertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.Our examination included testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Companyperformed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selectedservicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detectnoncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balancesor amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination providesa reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance withthe servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that theCompany complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for all loansfor commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider is fairlystated, in all material respects.

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas TX 75201-2997*

*T: 214-746-6500, F: 214-712-6660,*www.pwc.com**
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 19 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 19 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 19 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 3 of 3
46.313 Contracts for dismantling,

demolition, or removal of improvements.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.246-13, Inspection-Dismantling, Demolition, or

Removal of Improvements, in solicitations and contracts for dismantling, demolition, or removal of

improvements.

Parent topic: Subpart 46.3 - Contract Clauses
§ 983.89 Termination. ( a ) The Secretary may at any time terminate the provisions of this part.
( b ) The Secretary shall terminate or suspend the operations of any or all of the provisions of this part whenever it is found that such provisions do not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
( c ) The Secretary shall terminate the provisions of this part at the end of any fiscal period whenever it is found that such termination is favored by a majority of producers who, during a representative period, have been engaged in the production of pistachios: *Provided,* That such majority has, during such representative period, produced for market more than fifty percent of the volume of such pistachios produced for market, but such termination shall be announced at least 90 days before the end of the current fiscal period.
( d ) Within six years of the effective date of this part the Secretary shall conduct a referendum to ascertain whether continuance of this part is favored by producers. Subsequent referenda to ascertain continuance shall be conducted every six years thereafter. The Secretary may terminate the provisions of this part at the end of any fiscal period in which the Secretary has found that continuance of this part is not favored by a two thirds (2 ⁄ 3) majority of voting producers, or a two thirds (2 ⁄ 3) majority of volume represented thereby, who, during a representative period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in the production for market of pistachios in the production area. Such termination shall be announced on or before the end of the production year.
( e ) The provisions of this part shall, in any event, terminate whenever the provisions of the Act authorizing them cease.
[69 FR 17850, Apr. 4, 2004. Redesignated at 74 FR 56540, Nov. 2, 2009]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE RYLAND
ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION FOUR FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 09/30/96 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             286
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  344388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         331626
<COMMON>                                            10
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1055 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    344388
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 27926
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   227
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               27699
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3523

AN ACT

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running on the

period of limitations while such claims are pending.

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

2

S 3523 ES

1 SECTION 1. TAX COURT REVIEW OF REQUESTS FOR EQUI2 TABLE INNOCENT SPOUSE RELIEF.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 6015(e)

4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to petition

5 for tax court review) is amended by inserting ‘‘or in the

6 case of an individual who requests equitable relief under

7 subsection (f)’’ after ‘‘who elects to have subsection (b)

8 or (c) apply’’.

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

10 (1) Section 6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(II) of the Internal

11 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘or

12 request is made’’ after ‘‘election is filed’’.

13 (2) Section 6015(e)(1)(B)(i) of such Code is

14 amended—

15 (A) by inserting ‘‘or requesting equitable

16 relief under subsection (f)’’ after ‘‘making an

17 election under subsection (b) or (c)’’, and

18 (B) by inserting ‘‘or request’’ after ‘‘to

19 which such election’’.

20 (3) Section 6015(e)(1)(B)(ii) of such Code is

21 amended by inserting ‘‘or to which the request under

22 subsection (f) relates’’ after ‘‘to which the election

23 under subsection (b) or (c) relates’’.

24 (4) Section 6015(e)(4) of such Code is amended

25 by inserting ‘‘or the request for equitable relief
†

3

S 3523 ES

1 under subsection (f)’’ after ‘‘the election under sub2 section (b) or (c)’’.

3 (5) Section 6015(e)(5) of such Code is amended

4 by inserting ‘‘or who requests equitable relief under

5 subsection (f)’’ after ‘‘who elects the application of

6 subsection (b) or (c)’’.

7 (6) Section 6015(g)(2) of such Code is amend8 ed by inserting ‘‘or of any request for equitable relief

9 under subsection (f)’’ after ‘‘any election under sub10 section (b) or (c)’’.

11 (7) Section 6015(h)(2) of such Code is amend12 ed by inserting ‘‘or a request for equitable relief

13 made under subsection (f)’’ after ‘‘with respect to an

14 election made under subsection (b) or (c)’’.

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

16 this section shall apply to requests for equitable relief

17 under section 6015(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of

18 1986 with respect to liability for taxes which are unpaid

19 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Passed the Senate September 30 (legislative day,

September 29), 2006.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3523

AN ACT

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to

such claims are pending.the running on the period of limitations whileequitable innocent spouse relief and to suspendprovide that the Tax Court may review claims for
#### Doris Russell, Respondent, v. Gerald Russell, Appellant.

In an action for separation, defendant husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered February 4, 1966, after a nonjury trial, which *inter alia*granted plaintiff a separation and dismissed defendant’s counterclaim for annulment on the ground of invalidity of a Florida divorce decree which plaintiff had procured against a prior husband. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and new trial granted, with costs (if any) to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. The trial court erred in rejecting defendant’s offer of proof to show that a Florida divorce decree obtained by plaintiff against a prior husband, without personal service of process upon him and without appearance by him, was invalid. A collateral attack of this nature is permissible *(Williams*v. *North Carolina,*325 U. S. 226; *Cook*v. *Cook,*342 U. S. 126; *Rudyk*v. *Rudyk,*278 App. Div. 837; *Gruttemeyer*v. *Gruttemeyer,*285 App. Div. 1185; *Aspromonte*v. *Aspromonte,*4 A D 2d 689; *Apelbaum*v. *Apelbaum,*7 A D 2d 911). The *Rosenstiel*and *Wood*decisions (16 N Y 2d 64) are not pertinent. Each of the foreign divorce decrees considered therein was granted upon the physical appearance of one spouse and the voluntary appearance of the other spouse, through an authorized attorney. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., concurs in the result, with the following memorandum: I am concurring only because I deem myself bound by the prior decisions of this court in *Gruttemeyer v*. *Gruttemeyer*(285 App. Div. 1185) and *Newburger*v. *Newburger*(17 A D 2d 968). However, I think those decisions (as well as the First Department’s decision in *Jackson*v. *Jackson,*274 App. Div. 43) based their holdings on prior Court of Appeals decisions which were not directly in point (see, e.g., *Fischer*v. *Fischer,*254 N. Y. 463; *Lefferts*v. *Lefferts,*263 N. Y. 131; *Davis*v. *Davis,*279 N. Y. 657; *Landsman*v. *Landsman,*302 N. Y. 45). Further, if I did not consider myself bound by *Gruttemeyer*and *Newburger,*I would be inclined to hold that the present defendant is equitably estopped to attack the ex parte Florida divorce obtained by plaintiff from her prior husband with funds supplied by this defendant.
Vea esta página en español

Learn How Deposit Insurance Works

## What Does Deposit Insurance Cover?

FDIC deposit insurance protects money you hold at an FDIC-insured bank in traditional deposit accounts like:
                        - Checking Accounts,
                        - Savings Accounts,
                        - Money Market Deposit Accounts (MMDAs), and
                        - Certificates of Deposit (CDs).

Coverage is automatic when you open one of these types of accounts at an FDIC-insured bank. Learn more about what’s covered:

Are My Accounts Covered?Is My Bank Insured?How Much of My Money is Insured? Check our Electronic Deposit Insurance Calculator

## What Financial Products are Not Covered?

The FDIC only insures your money if it is in a deposit account at an FDIC-insured bank. Banks offer some financial products and services that are not deposits, and the FDIC does not insure them. These include:
                        - Mutual Funds
                        - Annuities
                        - Life Insurance Policies
                        - Stocks and Bonds
                        - Crypto Assets
                        - Municipal Securities
                        - Safe Deposit Contents

What FDIC Insurance Doesn’t Cover

## How Do You Get An Insured Account?

Large and small banks across the country offer deposit accounts backed by FDIC deposit insurance. Coverage is automatic when you open one of these types of accounts at an FDIC-insured bank. If you are in one of the 5.9 million U.S. households without a bank account, and you are looking to open an account, FDIC has resources to help get you started.

GET BANKED!

## Consumer FAQ

Our Frequently Asked Questions page provides details on deposit insurance coverage, FDIC actions in the event of a bank failure, finding an insured bank, and more.

Frequently Asked Questions About Deposit Insurance

## Information for Bankers

The FDIC has created useful resources to help bankers provide depositors with accurate information on deposit insurance. We also host webinars that cover the basics of deposit insurance, advanced insurance topics, and insurance coverage for bankers.

Deposit Insurance Coverage Webinars for BankersFinancial Institutions Employee’s Guide to Deposit InsuranceInformation on Deposit Insurance Assessments

## Additional Links

### Crypto Fact Sheet

### Information on Scammers and Fake Banks

### Get Banked

### Deposit Insurance Fund

### When a Bank Fails

### BankFind Suite: Find Institutions by Name & Location

**Need Help?**

## Contact the FDIC

Call us at **1-877-275-3342 (1-877-ASK-FDIC)** to determine your deposit insurance coverage or ask any other specific deposit insurance questions.

Visit the FDIC Information and Support Center to submit a request, share a complaint, check on the status of a complaint or inquiry, or securely exchange documents with the FDIC.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3565 

To designate Sandoval County, Valencia County, and Torrance County, New 

Mexico as new Southwest Border High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 

counties. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 26, 2006 

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To designate Sandoval County, Valencia County, and Torrance County, New Mexico as new Southwest Border 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area counties. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAF4 FICKING AREA. 

5 The Southwest Border High Intensity Drug Traf6 ficking Area for the State of New Mexico under the High 

7 Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program of the Office 

8 of National Drug Control Policy shall include Sandoval 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 3565 IS

1 County, Valencia County, and Torrance County, New 

2 Mexico. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
#### § 986.92 Agents.

The Secretary may name, by designation in writing, any person, including any officer or employee of the USDA or the United States to act as their agent or representative in connection with any of the provisions of this part.
#### BRAUN, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by Catherine Braun against the City of New York.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### § 959.102 Communications.

Unless otherwise provided in the order, or by specific direction of the committee, all reports, applications, submittals, requests and communications in connection with the order shall be addressed to the South Texas Onion Committee, at its principal office.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3384 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3384

  To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain drawback 
                 claims relating to petroleum products.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain drawback 
                 claims relating to petroleum products.

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

SECTION 1. DRAWBACK CLAIMS RELATING TO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, the Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection shall, not later than 90 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, liquidate or reliquidate each 
drawback claim described in subsection (c) at the full amount in each 
such claim.
    (b) Payment of Amounts Due.--Any amounts owed by the United States 
pursuant to liquidations or reliquidations under subsection (a) shall 
be paid by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection within 90 days 
after such liquidation or reliquidation.
    (c) Drawback Claims.--The drawback claims referred to in subsection 
(a) are the following:

 
 
 
Drawback Claim Number:              Filing Date:
  AA6/0304490-7...................  11/06/98
  AA6/0304381-8...................  10/12/98

                                 <all>
```