alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1042.550 Sex as a bona fide occupational qualification.

A recipient may take action otherwise prohibited by §§ 1042.500 through 1042.550 provided it is shown that sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for that action, such that consideration of sex with regard to such action is essential to successful operation of the employment function concerned. A recipient shall not take action pursuant to this section that is based upon alleged comparative employment characteristics or stereotyped characterizations of one or the other sex, or upon preference based on sex of the recipient, employees, students, or other persons, but nothing contained in this section shall prevent a recipient from considering an employee's sex in relation to employment in a locker room or toilet facility used only by members of one sex.
(September 10, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tony *561Vandergouw, Appellant.

Motion for permission to proceed as a poor person and for assignment of counsel denied on the ground that appellant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that he is financially unable to obtain counsel.
# Subpart 425.1 - Buy American Act - Supplies

Source:                                70 FR 48, Jan. 3, 2005, unless otherwise noted.                               

**Parent topic:**PART 425 - FOREIGN ACQUISITION

## 425.102 [Reserved]

## 425.103 Exceptions.

(a) The Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) shall make the determination prescribed in FAR 25.103(a). 

(b) Copies of determinations of nonavailability in accordance with FAR 25.103(b)(2) or 25.202(a)(2), for articles, material or supplies not listed in FAR 25.104, may be submitted to the SPE for submission to the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC).   

## 425.104 Nonavailable articles.

Information required by FAR 25.104(b) shall be submitted to the SPE for submission to the CAAC.   

## 425.105 Determining reasonableness of cost.

The SPE may make the determination prescribed in FAR 25.105(a). Requests for a determination by the SPE shall be submitted by the HCA, in writing, and shall provide a detailed justification supporting why evaluation factors higher than those listed in FAR 25.102(b)(1) and (2) should be applied to determine whether the offered price of a domestic end product is unreasonable.   

## 425.108 [Reserved]
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Reportof Greene County Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”), I, R. Stan Puckett, Chairman of theBoard and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|          |   | /s/          |   | R. Stan Puckett                           |
|--------------------|--------|--------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|     |   |    |   | R. Stan Puckett                           |
|          |   |    |   | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive |
|          |   |    |   | Officer                                   |

 

Date:  November 7, 2006

 

----
316.603-3 Limitations.

An official one level above the contracting officer shall make the written determination, to be

included in the contract file, that no other contract type is suitable and to approve all letter contract

modifications. No letter contract or modification can exceed the limits prescribed in FAR

16.603-2(c).

Parent topic: Subpart 316.6 - Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3261 

To suspend temporarily the duty on porcelain lamp-holder housings containing 

sockets. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2006 

Mr. FRIST (for Mrs. DOLE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on porcelain lamp-holder 

housings containing sockets. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PORCELAIN LAMP-HOLDER 

4 HOUSINGS CONTAINING SOCKETS. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.85.31 Porcelain lamp-holder housings containing sockets (provided for in subheading 8536.61.00) ................................ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3261 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
Subpart 1804.1—Contract Execution

Parent topic: PART 1804—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

1804.170 Contract effective date.

“Contract effective date” means the date agreed upon by the parties for beginning the period of

performance under the contract. In no case shall the effective date precede the date on which the

contracting officer or designated higher approval authority signs the document. Costs incurred

before the contract effective date are unallowable unless they qualify as precontract costs (see FAR

31.205–32) and the clause prescribed at 1831.205–70 is used.
ENCORE COMPUTER CORPORATION
Computation of Loss per Share       Exhibit 11
                                                                     
(in thousands except per share data)
                                                    Three Months Ended
                                                    March 30,  March 31,
Primary                                                 1997      1996
Net Loss                                            ($20,023) ($16,897)
Series B, D, E, F and G Preferred
 Stock Dividends                                           0    (5,954)
Series B, D, E, F, G and H Accumulated
 Preferred Stock Dividends                            (6,860)        0
Net loss attributable to
 common shareholders                                ($26,883) ($22,851)
Weighted average common
 shares outstanding                                   37,276    36,350
Series A assumed converted                             7,364     7,364
Weighted avg shares outstand                          44,640    43,714
Loss per common share                                 ($0.60)   ($0.52)
Assuming Full Dilution
Net loss                                            ($20,023) ($16,897)
Wghtd avg common shares outstand                      37,276    36,350
Series A assumed converted                             7,364     7,364
Series B assumed converted                            23,392    21,242
Series D assumed converted                            35,794    32,503
Series E assumed converted                            36,587    33,223
Series F assumed converted                            17,120    12,437
Series G assumed converted                            18,370     6,388
Series H assumed converted                            11,235         0
Series I assumed converted                             1,659         0
Exercise of options reduced by the number
 of shares purchased
 with proceeds                                         2,786     3,709
Weighted avg shares outstand                         191,583   153,216
Net loss per share                                    ($0.10)   ($0.11)
Although specific page/line or paragraph cites are made to all factual statements made in the 1

memorandum brief, Defendants rely on the depositions and affidavits referenced in their entirety and

reserve the right to further cite to the depositions or affidavits relied upon, if necessary, when replying to

any response Plaintiff might file to this motion.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

KEITH LAWSON, )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

)

V. ) CASE NO.: 03:06-CV-641-WKW

)

CITY OF ALEXANDER CITY, )

MAYOR BARBARA H. YOUNG AND )

DANNY PEPPERS in their individual )

capacities, )

)

DEFENDANTS.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COME NOW Defendants in the above-styled cause, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56, move this Court to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants in that there is

no genuine issue of material fact to be submitted to a jury and judgment should be entered in their

favor as a matter of law as to all Plaintiff’s claims. In support of this motion, Defendants rely upon

the following: 

1. All pleadings filed in this matter.

2. Exhibits A through E, attached hereto1

Exhibit A - Deposition of Keith Lawson

Exhibit B - Affidavit of Mayor Barbara Young

Exhibit C- Affidavit of Danny Peppers

Exhibit D- Affidavit of Jason Locke

Exhibit E - Affidavit of Eugene Mahan

Case 3:06-cv-00641-WKW-TFM Document 15 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

Exhibit F - Copy of 2004 Lee Staffing Application

Exhibit G - Copy of Williams’ Police Report

Exhibit H - Copy of Thomas’ Police Report

3. Memorandum Brief, submitted contemporaneously herewith.

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendants request summary judgment be

granted in their favor and all Plaintiff’s claims dismissed as a matter of law.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this the 30 day of July 2007. th

 /S/ Elizabeth Brannen Carter 

Randall Morgan [8350-R70R]

Elizabeth Brannen Carter [3272-C-38-E]

HILL, HILL, CARTER, FRANCO,

 COLE & BLACK, P.C.

425 South Perry Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0116

(334) 834-7600

(334) 263-5969 facsimile

Rmorgan@hillhillcarter.com

Counsel for Defendant

OF COUNSEL:

HILL, HILL, CARTER, FRANCO

 COLE & BLACK, P.C.

Post Office Box 116

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0116

(334) 834-7600

(334) 263-5969

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I Hereby Certify that I have this date served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion

for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Defendants with the Clerk of the Court for the United States

District Court, for the Middle District of Alabama, using the CM/ECF system which will send

notification of such filing to: Ethan R. Dettling, Esquire (eDettling@wcqp.com) and Jon Craig

Goldfarb, Esq. (Jgoldfarb@wcqp.com), this the 30 day of July 2007. th

/S/ Elizabeth Brannen Carter 

Of Counsel

Case 3:06-cv-00641-WKW-TFM Document 15 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 2 of 2
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 23 - 00018 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF H.P., A CHILD On Appeal from the 140th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No . 2021 - 544,580 , Honorable Kelley Tesch , Associate Judge Presiding 

### February 16 , 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Appellant, S.S. , attempts to appeal the associate judge’s order terminating h er parental rights to H.P., a child. 1 The associate judge signed the “report and order ” on January 23, 2023. A day later, S.S. filed a “Notice of Appeal From Associate Judge’s Ruling and Request for De Novo Trial .” Although the title of the document includes “Notice of Appeal,” it only req uest s a de nov o hearing before the referring court
.

1 To protect the privacy of the parties involved, we refer to the m by their initials. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 109.002(d); T EX . R. A PP . P . 9.8(b)(2).2

Generally, appellate courts only have jurisdiction over final judgments. Lehmann v. Har - Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) ; see also See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 109.002(b) (permitting appeals from final orders)
. Because S.S. filed a request for de novo review within three working days of the associate judge’s order, the order is not a final order
. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . §§ 201.007(14), (16) ( concerning finality of associate judge orders) ; 201.015 ( permitting de novo hearing s before referring court) , 201.016(b) ( identifying controlling date for purposes of appeal); 201.2041(a) ( concerning associate judge orders in child protection cases); 201.2042 ( permitting de novo hearings before referring court in child protection cases)
. And, we have found no statutory authority granting an immediate appeal from such an interlocutory order. See Stary v. DeBord , 967 S.W.2d 352, 352
– 53 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam) ( “A ppellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals from interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction .” )
. By letter of January 26, 2023 , we notified S.S. that it did not appear we had jurisdiction over the appeal . We direc ted h er to show grounds for continuing the appeal by February 6 , 2023, or we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. S.S. did not respond to our letter and has had no further communication with this Court to date
. Because there is no final order in this case , we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.3(a) Per Curiam
§ 218.3 Definitions. *DOE* means the Department of Energy established by the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), and includes the Secretary of Energy or his delegate.
*EPCA* means the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-163), as amended.
*Firm* means any association, company, corporation, estate, individual, joint-venture, partnership, or sole proprietorship or any other entity however organized including charitable, educational, or other eleemosynary institutions, and the Federal Government including corporations, departments, Federal agencies, and other instrumentalities, and State and local governments. The ERA may, in regulations and forms issued in this part, treat as a firm: ( a ) A parent and the consolidated and unconsolidated entities (if any) which it directly or indirectly controls,
( b ) a parent and its consolidated entities,
( c ) an unconsolidated entity, or
( d ) any part of a firm.
*IEA* means the International Energy Agency established to implement the IEP.
*IEP* means the International Energy Program established pursuant to the Agreement on an International Energy Program signed at Paris, France, on November 18, 1974, including ( a ) the Annex entitled “Emergency Reserves”,
( b ) any amendment to such Agreement that includes another nation as a Party to such Agreement, and
( c ) any technical or clerical amendment to such Agreement.
*International energy supply emergency* means any period ( a ) beginning on any date that the President determines allocation of petroleum products to nations participating in the IEP is required by chapters III and IV of the IEP and
( b ) ending on a date on which he determines such allocation is no longer required.
*Oil* means crude oil, residual fuel oil, unfinished oil, refined petroleum product and natural gas liquids, which is owned or controlled by a firm, including any petroleum product destined, directly or indirectly, for import into the United States or any foreign country, or produced in the United States but excludes any oil stored in or owned and controlled by the United States Government in connection with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve authorized in section 151, *et seq.,* of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-163).
*Person* means any individual, firm, estate, trust, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, company, joint-venture, corporation, governmental unit or instrumentality thereof, or a charitable, educational or other institution, and includes any officer, director, owner or duly authorized representative thereof.
*Supply order* means a written directive or a verbal communication of a written directive, if promptly confirmed in writing, issued by the DOE pursuant to subpart B of this part.
*United States* when used in the geographic sense means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the territories and possessions of the United States, and the outer continental shelf as defined in 43 U.S.C. 1331.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7210
In Re: STEVE ALLEN STEELMAN, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-107-5-V, CR-94-11-5-V) Submitted: January 25, 2000 Decided: February 8, 2000 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steve Allen Steelman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Steve Allen Steelman has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court to compel the district court to enter a final order in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action, which he filed in the district court in August 1997. We deny Steelman’s request without prejudice to his refiling a request for mandamus relief from this Court should the district court not act within a reasonable time from this opinion. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances, see Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976), and Steelman carries the heavy burden of establishing that he has no other adequate means to attain relief and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). We have reviewed the district court’s docket report in this case and conclude that after an inordinately lengthy delay in its consideration of Steelman’s case, the court has resumed active consideration of it. Therefore, it appears that a decision from the court is forthcoming, and Steelman’s entitlement to mandamus relief is not at this point clear and indisputable. We therefore deny Steelman’s petition without prejudice to his refiling should the court not issue a decision within a reasonable time. We grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Conference Call Between 

Veolia Environmental Services (Veolia) and EPA 

March 8, 2012 (10:00 am – 12:00 noon)

Call-in information: 

Toll-free dial-in number: (877) 226-9607

Participant conference code: 6693830375

1. Introductions

2. Purpose of the call

3. Veolia’s significant modification request

a. Extrapolation of metal feed rates

o What is EPA’s position on Veolia’s proposed extrapolation rates? 

b. Feedstream Analysis Plan

o 40 C.F.R. §63.1209(c) requires each subject facility to have a feedstream 

analysis plan (FAP) “that is sufficient to document compliance with the 

applicable feed rate limits.” What is EPA’s position on Veolia’s FAP? 

c. Ongoing enforcement issues

o As part of an enforcement investigation, the National Enforcement 

Investigations Center (NEIC) inspected Veolia’s Sauget facility in late 2008. 

How could the findings of that investigation affect EPA’s decision on the 

significant modification request? 

4. Other topics as necessary
March 8, 2012 Meeting With Veolia Page 2 of 2

Table 1. Veolia's Proposed Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs)

Col. ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Unit # Metal

Metal 

Feed 

Rates 

During 

2008 

Testing 

(lb/hr)a

EPA 

Revised 

Metal Feed 

Rates 

During 

2008 

Testing 

(lb/hr)b

Highest 

12-hr 

Rolling 

Average 

Metal 

Feed Rate 

7/1/04-

1/1/08 

(lb/hr)

Test Feed 

Rate As a % 

of the 

Highest 12-

hr Rolling 

Average of 

Historical 

Values

Veolia’s 

3/2/10 

Proposed 

Extrapola

ted 

Feedrate 

(lb/hr)c

Est. Stack 

Conc. @ 

Veolia's 

Proposed 

OPLs 

(μg/dscm @ 

7% O2)

d

HWC 

MACT 

Limit (40 

C.F.R. § 

63.1219); 

μg/dscm @ 

7% O2 

2

Hg 0.00185 0.00165 0.0054 34% 0.0057 182 130

LVM 46.8 47.2 84.5 55% 140 20 92

SVM 62.9 63.6 50.6 124% 189 65 230

3

Hg 0.00185 0.0018 0.00545 34% 0.0057 178 130

LVM 47.7 47.7 77.3 62% 143 70 92

SVM 64.3 64.3 72.1 89% 193 173 230

4

Hg 0.026 0.0214 0.05981 43% 0.078 87 130

LVM 50.3 50.3 69.9 72% 151 30 92

SVM 63.6 63.6 58.4 109% 191 81 230

Table Notes:

a. Feed rate calculated by EPA (& proposed by Veolia in the 2010 application) from offsite 

spike rates and PSC Republic’s moisture content.

b. Feed rate calculated by EPA in March 2010 using calculated Hg spike composition & 

offsite waste feed concentrations.

c. Calculated by escalating the metal feed rate during testing (Column 2) by a factor of 3.

d. Stack concentrations are estimated from exhaust parameters and the "removal 

efficiencies" reported by Veolia in the March 2010 application.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3292 

To suspend temporarily the duty on dual-press sandwich makers with floating 

upper lid and lock. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on dual-press sandwich 

makers with floating upper lid and lock. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DUAL-PRESS SANDWICH MAKERS WITH FLOAT4 ING UPPER LID AND LOCK. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.85.21 Dual-press sandwich makers with floating upper lid and lock (provided for in 

subheading 8516.60.60) .......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 3292 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32.1



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 Amendment No. 1 to theAnnual Report of SQN AIF IV, L.P. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned, Jeremiah Silkowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended;
    and                   
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                             
|(2) | The
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
    of the Company.



A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the SEC or its staff upon request.



|Date:
    April 15, 2019          | 
|--------------------------------- | 
|                                  | 
|/s/
    Jeremiah Silkowski        | 
|Jeremiah
    Silkowski            | 
|Chief
    Executive Officer       | 
|(Principal
    Executive Officer) |