alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# SUBCHAPTER C - CONTRACTING METHODS AND CONTRACT TYPES

- PART 2914 - SEALED BIDDING 
- PART 2915 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION 
- PART 2916 - CONTRACT TYPES 
- PART 2917 - SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS 

- PART 2914 - SEALED BIDDING    - Subpart 2914.4 - Opening of Bids and Award of Contract     - 2914.404-1   Cancellation of invitations after opening.
    - 2914.407-3   Other mistakes disclosed before award.
    - 2914.408   Award.
    - 2914.408-1   General.
- PART 2915 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION    - Subpart 2915.4 - Contract Pricing     - 2915.405-70   Determining fair and reasonable price.
  - Subpart 2915.5 - Preaward, Award, and Postaward Notifications, Protests, and Mistakes     - 2915.508   Discovery of mistakes.
  - Subpart 2915.6 - Unsolicited Proposals     - 2915.604   Agency points of contact.
    - 2915.605   Content of unsolicited proposals.
    - 2915.606   Agency procedures.
- PART 2916 - CONTRACT TYPES    - 2916.000   Scope of part.
  - Subpart 2916.5 - Indefinite-Delivery Contracts     - 2916.505   Ordering.
  - Subpart 2916.6 - Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts     - 2916.603-2   Application.
- PART 2917 - SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS    - 2917.000   Scope of part.
  - Subpart 2917.2 - Options     - 2917.202   Use of options.
    - 2917.207   Exercising options.
  - Subpart 2917.5 - Interagency Acquisitions Under The Economy Act     - 2917.500   Scope of subpart.
    - 2917.501   Definitions.
    - 2917.502   General.
    - 2917.503   Determinations and findings requirements.
    - 2917.504   Ordering procedures.
    - 2917.504-70   Signature authority and internal procedures.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Capuano, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings Cotmty, dated September 27, 1967, affirmed on the opinion of the Criminal Term. Beldock, P." J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                        845,378
<SECURITIES>                  0                         <F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                 106,137
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              0
<PP&E>                        10,655,476                <F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                3,340,227
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                8,596,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         209,329
<BONDS>                       6,159,219                 <F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      1,805,649                 <F4>
<OTHER-SE>                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  8,596,068 
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              473,508                   <F5>
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 245,170                   <F6>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              35,424                    <F7>
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0           
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            134,866
<INCOME-PRETAX>               0
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0       
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  58,048
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0
<FN>
<F1>   "SECURITIES" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN JOINT VENTURE
<F2>   "PP&E" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN REAL ESTATE [LAND AND
BUILDING]
<F3>   "BONDS" REPRESENTS MORTGAGES PAYABLE
<F4>   "COMMON" REPRESENTS TOTAL PARTNERS CAPITAL
<F5>   "TOTAL REVENUES" REPRESENTS RENTAL, INTEREST, AND OTHER
INCOME
<F6>   "TOTAL COSTS" REPRESENTS TOTAL EXPENSES LESS INTEREST
EXPENSE
<F7>   "OTHER EXPENSES" REPRESENTS INTEREST IN JOINT VENTURES'
NET INCOME/LOSS
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cv-00738-MEF-WC Document 3 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### Belle Siegel, Respondent, v Aaron Siegel, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 1, 1979, which, *inter alia,*held him in contempt and awarded arrears of alimony and a counsel fee to plaintiff. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s contention that the order of Special Term holding him in contempt and requiring that he pay $8,400 in arrears was improper, in that he was not granted an evidentiary hearing, is without merit. A full hearing concerning defendant’s financial ability to comply with the divorce decree was held seven months prior to the application for an order holding him in contempt, and defendant has not raised a genuine issue as to his ability to comply with the prior judgment and orders of the Supreme Court (see *Passonno v Passonno,*73 AD2d 718; *Shkolnik v Shkolnik,*52 AD2d 817). We have considered the remaining contentions of defendant and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
#### § 956.25 Alternates.

An alternate member of the committee shall act in the place and stead of the member for whom such person is an alternate, during such member's absence. In the event of the death, removal, resignation, or disqualification of a member, that member's alternate shall serve until a successor to such member has qualified and is selected.
Case 2:06-cr-00203-MHT-CSC Document 33 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99.2

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     OF POLLUTION RESEARCH AND CONTROL CORP.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly annual report on Form 10-QSB (the "Form
10-QSB") for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, of Pollution Research and Control
Corp. (the "Issuer").

I, Jacques Tizabi, the Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer certify that to the
best of my knowledge:

     (i) the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
78o(d)); and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Issuer.

Dated: August 19, 2003.



                              /s/ JACQUES TIZABI
                              ----------------------------
                              NAME: JACQUES TIZABI



                                       20
<PAGE>




                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                     OF POLLUTION RESEARCH AND CONTROL CORP.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly annual report on Form 10-QSB (the "Form
10-QSB") for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, of Pollution Research and Control
Corp. (the "Issuer").

I, Michael Collins, the Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer certify that to
the best of my knowledge:

     (i) the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
78o(d)); and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Issuer.

Dated: August 19, 2003.


                                   /s/ MICHAEL COLLINS
                                   ----------------------------
                                   NAME: MICHAEL COLLINS



                                       21
<PAGE>
#### § 1048.5 Violations.

Willful unauthorized entry, or willful unauthorized introduction of weapons or dangerous materials into or upon real property subject to this part, constitutes a violation of these regulations. Violation of these regulations is a misdemeanor, and a person convicted of violating these regulations is subject to the maximum fine permitted by law, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
§ 958.25 Duties. It shall be the duty of the committee: ( a ) At the beginning of each fiscal period, or as soon thereafter as practicable, to meet and organize, to select a chairman and such other officers as may be necessary, to select subcommittees of committee members, and to adopt such rules and regulations for the conduct of its business as it may deem advisable;
( b ) To act as intermediary between the Secretary and any producer or handler;
( c ) To furnish to the Secretary such available information as he may request;
( d ) To appoint such employees, agents, and representatives as it may deem necessary and to determine the salaries and define the duties of each such person;
( e ) To investigate from time to time and to assemble data on the growing, harvesting, shipping and marketing conditions with respect to onions and to engage in such research and service activity which relate to the production, handling or marketing of onions as may be approved by the Secretary;
( f ) To keep minutes, books, and records which clearly reflect all of the acts and transactions of the committee and such minutes, books, and records shall be subject to examination at any time by the Secretary or his authorized agent or representative;
( g ) To make available to producers and handlers the committee voting record on recommended regulations and on other matters of policy;
( h ) Prior to each fiscal period, to submit to the Secretary a budget of its proposed expenses for such fiscal period, together with a report thereon;
( i ) To cause the books of the committee to be audited by a competent accountant at least once each fiscal period, and at such other time as the committee may deem necessary or as the Secretary may request; and the report of such audit shall show the receipt and expenditure of funds collected pursuant to this part; a copy of each such report shall be furnished to the Secretary and a copy of each such report shall be made available at the principal office of the committee for inspection by producers and handlers; and
( j ) To consult, cooperate, and exchange information, with other onion marketing committees and other individuals or agencies in connection with all proper committee activities and objectives under this subpart; and
( k ) To recommend nominees for the public member and alternate.
[22 FR 26, Jan. 3, 1957. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 41 FR 36196, Aug. 27, 1976; 47 FR 8000, Feb. 24, 1982]
#### § 955.82 Duration of immunities.

The benefits, privileges, and immunities conferred upon any person by virtue of this part shall cease upon the termination of this part, except with respect to acts done under and during the existence of this part.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            6-MOS   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                MAR-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                 1,712
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                            682
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                           16,219
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           0*
<PP&E>                                   280
<DEPRECIATION>                           188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        26,567
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      0*
<BONDS>                               15,736
<COMMON>                                  29
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                             6,015
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          26,567
<SALES>                               29,269
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      29,713
<CGS>                                 25,393
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         29,145
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          568
<INCOME-TAX>                              35
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      533
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                             533
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.20
                                   
   
* - the Company does not present a classified balance sheet


</TABLE>
#### § 959.91 Separability.

If any provision of this subpart is declared invalid, or the applicability thereof to any person, circumstance, or thing is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this subpart, or the applicability thereof to any other person, circumstance, or thing, shall not be affected thereby.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

THERESA LOUISE BATSON , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 680

[ August 26, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; William L. Roby , Judge; L.T. Case No. 56

- 2008

- CF

- 004134

- A

.

Theresa Louise Batson, Florida City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

A

ffirmed.

C ONNER , C.J., D AMOORGIAN and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Liza Minnelli, Appellant, v M’Hammed Soumayah, Respondent.

Submitted December 10, 2007;

decided January 15, 2008

Reported below, 41 AD3d 388.

*1029Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN, DIVISION

HON. CHARLES S. COODY, MAG JUDGE AT MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA

DATE COMMENCED: January 4, 2007 11:00 a.m.

DATE COMPLETED: January 4, 2007 11:05 a.m.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *

vs * 2:06cr206-MHT

ALETHIA ADRIANNE SCOTT *

__________________________________________________________________________________________

GOVERNMENT APPEARANCES: DEFENDANT

*

No appearance necessary * Kevin Butler

*

____________________________________________ *____________________________________________

COURT OFFICIALS PRESENT:

Joyce Taylor, Courtroom Deputy

Mitchell Reisner, Court Reporter

PROCEEDINGS:

EX PARTE HEARING CONCERNING SUBJECTS ADDRESSED 

IN LETTER FROM DEFENDANT

11:00 a.m. Court convenes

Court's discussions regarding purpose of this proceeding.

Mr. Butler states he believes letter is a sentencing statement instead of any type of

request. Mr. Butler states that Ms. Scott is asking for sentencing consideration.

Ms. Scott's explanation to the court as to what she is stating in letter.

Court's statements to Ms. Scott regarding guilty plea that has already been taken and

that this case will not be dismissed.

Mr. Butler considers that a sentencing statement and not request for dismissal.

Ms. Scott states she understand.

Court states that letter is part of the record and the issues will be raised at sentencing.

11:05 a.m. Court recessed.

Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 60 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Santos Suarez, Appellant, v John Byrne et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 16, 2007;

decided October 16, 2007

Reported below, 40 AD3d 546.

Motion for poor person relief granted.
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Photogen Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brooks
Boveroux, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ BROOKS BOVEROUX
-------------------------------------
Brooks Boveroux
Chief Financial Officer
August 19, 2002

                                      29
#### Joseph Srob, Respondent, v. Raymohnt Realty, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Sheldon Selikoff, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Joseph Srob, Respondent, v. Raymount Realty, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Sheldon Selikoff, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

In consolidated actions to foreclose mortgages on real property and for money damages, defendant Selikoff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 2, 1969, as denied his motion to dismiss the second and third causes of action in the complaint in each action, for failure to state a cause of action. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements; in accordance, the words “the motion and” are stricken from the decretal paragraph of the order; and defendant Selikoff’s motion granted, with leave to plaintiff to serve amended complaints as against said defendant. Plaintiff may serve such amended complaints within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. The second and third causes of action in the two complaints are insufficient. The gravamen of the second cause of action in each complaint purports to be the wrongful inducement of plaintiff, by means of fraudulent representations, to purchase certain mortgages. The gravamen of the third causes of action is the wrongful causing of the mortgages to become subordinated to other mortgages. The only connection shown between appellant and the wrongs allegedly perpetrated is the existence of appellant’s name in the captions of the complaints, each of which captions contains the names of 18 defendants. The complaints do not set forth the material facts of the transactions relied upon *1003in relation to appellant. The complaints do not specifically allege, nor are there facts alleged from which it can be reasonably inferred, that appellant actively participated in the claimed wrongdoing (ef. *Nemenyi*v. *Raymond Int.,*22 A D 2d 657). Nor is there any showing of a relationship between appellant and the tort-feasors named in the body of the complaints or between appellant and plaintiff which would justify the inference that there was some duty owed to plaintiff which was violated by defendant *(Jennings*v. *Burlington Ind.,*19 A D 2d 877, 878; 24 N. Y. Jur., Fraud and Deceit, § 17). As stated by the last cited authority (p. 52), “there can be no fraud in law or in fact without a breach of some legal or equitable duty, and * s ° the relationship between the parties must be such that the one making the representation owes a duty of care.” The otherwise insufficient causes are not rendered sufficient as to appellant by the allegations of conspiracy among the defendants *(Von Au*V. Magenheimer, 126 App. Div. 257, 262). Christ, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Latham and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 869
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 869 appear at 84 FR 45646, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 869.201 Agricultural product certificates; format. Each inspection, grade, class, weight or combination certificate issued under the Act by a licensee to perform such services must be: ( a ) In a format prescribed by AMS;
( b ) Issued and maintained in a consecutive order; and
( c ) As prescribed in the applicable licensing or provider agreement and authorized by AMS.
161 So.2d 276

#### J. M. MENEFEE et al. v. Samuel W. PIPES, Jr., et al.

No. 47104.

March 11, 1964.

In re: Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company and the heirs of Samuel W. Pipes applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Ouachita. 159 So.2d 439.

Writ refused. The result reached by the Court of Appeal is correct.

McCALEB, J.,

concurs in the refusal of the application principally on the ground that, since defendants did not redeem the land from the State, they have not complied with the prerequisites set forth in LSA — R.S. 9:5803. and, consequently, are not entitled to claim that prescription was not suspended during the time that title was in the State.
TERMINATION AGREEMENT OF LOAN AGREEMENT


 


This Termination agreement of Loan Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into in Baoding as of February 10, 2010 by the following parties. 


 


Party A: Baoding Shengde Paper Co., Ltd


 


Registration Address: Nanwaihuan Road, Xushui County, Hebei Province, China


 


Party B: Liu Zhenyong


ID:13062519630822311X


Address:Liuzhuang, Cuizhuang Town, Xushui County, Hebei Province


 


Party C: Zhao Shuangxi


ID:13242319640606005X


Address:Hujiaying, Liucun Town, Xushui County, Hebei Province


 


Party D: Liu Xiaodong


ID:132423197408117114


Address:#113, No 268, Chaoyang South Avenue, Xinshi District, Baoding City, Hebei Province


 


Party A, B, C and D are referred to as “each party” and “parties” collectively.


 


The Parties have entered into Loan Agreement on the June 24th, 2009. The parties hereby agree to terminate the Loan Agreement and none of the parties shall be held liable to the other parties.


 


[No text below]


 






[Signature Page] 


 


Party A: Baoding Shengde Paper Co., Ltd


(seal)


 


Signature: /s/Liu Zhenyong


Name: Liu Zhenyong


Legal Representative/Authorized Representative


 


Party B: Liu Zhenyong


Signature: /s/Liu Zhenyong


 


Party C: Zhao Shuangxi


Signature: /s/Zhao Shuangxi


 


Party D: Liu Xiaodong 


Signature: /s/Liu Xiaodong
#### Jose Zaccour, Respondent, v. Edmond Zaccour, an Incompetent, by Mortimer J. Goodstein, as Ancillary Committee, Appellant.

Order entered September 9, 1968, denying motion to compel plaintiff’s attorney to deposit into court certain fees and disbursements following the execution of a default judgment, unanimously reversed on the facts and the law, without costs and without disbursements. On the record before us it is not clear whether the retainer was contingent or otherwise. The letter of April 3, 1968, without clarification, would indicate that the arrangement between the plaintiff and his attorney may have been contingent in nature and that the attorney exercised some control over the division of the amount resulting from the litigation. “ Where, then, a fee is contingent, restitution of moneys received will be directed against an attorney as well as a party in the event of an adverse determination”. *(Mormilo*v. *Allied Stevedores Corp.,*8 A D 2d 217, 218.) This, on the rationale that both shared risk as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation. If a debtor-creditor relationship exists however, recovery will be *746denied. *(Millfield Realty Co.*v. *Catena,*257 N. Y. 515.) Under all the circumstances of this case, including the mental state of the defendant at the time of the default, the fact that payment of part of the fee may have- been ratified, and the possibility of laches, prejudicial to the attorney, a hearing is plainly indicated before any determinative ruling may be made as to the amount, if any, to be repaid. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to Special Term for disposition following a hearing by a Special Referee, concerning the true nature of the attorney’s fee arrangement, and relevant issues, the Referee to be appointed on application to Special Term. Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, McGivern and Markewich, JJ.; Nunez, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to affirm for the reasons stated by Special Term.