alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2902.101 Definitions.       (a) Commonly used words and terms are defined in FAR subpart 2.1. This part 2902 gives DOL-specific meanings for some of these words and terms and defines other words and terms commonly used in the DOL acquisition process.          (b) The following words and terms are used as defined in this subpart unless the context in which they are used clearly requires a different meaning, or a different definition is prescribed for a particular part or portion of a part:          *Competition Advocate* The Competition Advocate for the Department of Labor is appointed by the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management and is defined in FAR 6.5 and 2906.5. If the appointee is recused from a procurement action, the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management may designate another official to act in that capacity.          *Contracting Activity* means an agency or component office within the Department of Labor with specific responsibility for managing contract functions pursuant to one or more warrants signed by the Senior Procurement Executive (or the Office of the Inspector General for its contracting activity).          *Contracting Officer's Technical Representative* means the individual appointed by the contracting officer to represent the Department of Labor's programmatic interests on a Department of Labor contract, task order, or delivery order. This individual is responsible to the contracting officer for overseeing receipt and acceptance of goods/services by the Government, reporting on the contractor's performance, and approving/disapproving payment to the contractor. Authority is otherwise limited to giving technical direction to the contractor within the framework of the contract (see 2901.603-71). This position may go by other titles, such as: a technical point of contact (TPOC) or Contacting Officer's Representative (COR).          *Head of Agency* (also called agency head), for the FAR and DOLAR only, means the Secretary of Labor or his/her designee except that the Secretary of Labor is the Head of Agency for acquisition actions, which by the terms of a statute or delegation must be performed specifically by the Secretary of Labor; the Inspector General is the Head of Agency in all cases for the Office of the Inspector General.          *Head of Contracting Activity* (HCA) means the official who has overall responsibility for managing the contracting activity, when the contracting activity has more than one person with a warrant issued by the Senior Procurement Executive or, in the case of the Office of the Inspector General, issued by the Inspector General or his/her designee. Each Head of Agency may designate HCA(s) as appropriate to be responsible for managing contracting activities within his or her respective Agency.          *Senior Procurement Executive* means the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management or his/her designee.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2.1 - Definitions
----

| 1. | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the company for the quarterly period      ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange      Commission on the date hereof (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. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | 11/12/09 |   | /s/Thomas K. Derbyshire             |
|--------|----------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   |     |   | Thomas      K. Derbyshire           |
|   |     |   | Vice      President, Treasurer, and |
|   |     |   | Principal      Financial Officer    |

----
#### In the Matter of Charles L. Gurney, II, et al., Appellants, v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Buffalo, Respondent and Children’s Hospital of Buffalo, Intervenor-Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Same Memorandum as in *Matter of Gurney*v. *Zoning Board of Appeals,*32 A D 2d 738), decided concurrently herewith. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Special Term dismissing petition to review determination of Zoning Board of Appeals.) Present — Del Vecchio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Henry, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Allchester Development Company, Inc. Sidney H. Posner et al., Respondents; William Katz et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding for judicial dissolution of a corporation, instituted by shareholders, the appeal is from a final order of Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 8, 1969, which granted the application. Final order reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for a new hearing and a new determination. The questions of fact have not been considered. The learned Justice at Special Term erred in denying appellants the right to introduce evidence at the hearing in opposition to the proposed corporate dissolution. Section 1109 of the Business Corporation Law mandates that the allegations and proofs of the parties be heard and the facts determined with respect to the proposed dissolution. Although the Justice may have been justifiably provoked by appellants’ tactics before and during the hearing, he nevertheless should have accorded the parties a full hearing, instead of terminating the proceeding abruptly, before petitioners had completed their *661case, and granting the relief requested (cf. *Matter of Stewart [Citizens Cas. Co.],*23 N Y 2d 407). We wish to note, however, that our reversal is in no respect a condonation of appellants’ tactics; to the contrary, we strongly disapprove them. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE 
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Alpha Spacecom, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





December 24, 2003

/s/ Xuedong Hu

Name: Xuedong Hu

Title: Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Terence Sien

Name: Terence Sien

Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Linwood Williams, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on November 1, 1978, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sullivan, Markewich, Silverman and Yesawich, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v ) CR. NO. 2:06cr209-WKW

)

BRIDGET Y. TAYLOR also known as )

BRIDGET MADISON )

ORDER

The court finds from a review of the pleadings in this matter that the defendant who

is presently in state custody is eligible for the appointment of counsel pursuant to the

Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Federal Defender be and is hereby appointed to represent the

defendant for all further proceedings. Appointed counsel shall file a written notice of

appearance with this court.

Counsel is DIRECTED to file a financial affidavit not later than ten (10) days from

the date of this order.

Done this 14 day of September, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 11 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 78 FR 34247, June 7, 2013.

§ 1.19 Other committees, boards, and panels. Under section 161a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission may establish advisory bodies to make recommendations to it. Currently, four committees are in existence. ( a ) The Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) was established by the Atomic Energy Commission in July 1958. The ACMUI, composed of physicians and scientists, considers medical questions referred to it by the NRC staff and renders expert opinions regarding medical uses of radioisotopes. The ACMUI also advises the NRC staff, as requested, on matters of policy regarding licensing of medical uses of radioisotopes.
( b ) The Licensing Support Network Advisory Review Panel (LSNARP) was established by the Commission on October 3, 1989, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1011(e) of the Commission's regulations. The LSNARP provides advice to the Commission on the design, development, and operation of the Licensing Support Network (LSN) an electronic information management system for use in the Commission's high-level radioactive waste (HLW) licensing proceeding. Membership consists of those interests that will be affected by the use of the LSN, and selected Federal agencies with expertise in large-scale electronic information systems. The individual representatives of these interests and agencies possess expertise in management information science and in managing records of the Commission's licensing process for the HLW repository.
[52 FR 31602, Aug. 21, 1987, as amended at 54 FR 53314, Dec. 28, 1989; 68 FR 75389, Dec. 31, 2003; 79 FR 75737, Dec. 19, 2014]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM D. BOWDEN, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06CV665-WHA

 )

MISSION PETROLEUM CARRIERS, )

ANTONIO MARTINEZ NAVARRO, )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Motion for Contempt and/or Motion to Compel Production and

Compliance with Subpoena to a Non-Party, filed on April 11, 2007, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the defendants shall show cause in writing on or before April 26, 2007 as

to why the motion should not be granted. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this court’s

order to the non-party, Southeast Pallet & Box Co, 4596 Washington Ferry Road, Montgomery,

Alabama 36108.

DONE this 12th day of April, 2007.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00665-WHA-WC Document 34 Filed 04/12/2007 Page 1 of 1
Subpart 2908.4 - Federal Supply Schedules

Parent topic: PART 2908 - REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

2908.404 Using schedules.

Small business considerations, procedures regarding both prime and subcontracting, and clearances

specified in DOLAR 2919 apply to GSA Federal Supply Schedule Orders above the simplified

acquisition threshold. Procedures to be followed may be modified by the Office of Small Business

Program as appropriate in order to comply with GSA Federal Supply Schedule procedures (e.g., first

tier contracts may be required to report their commercial subcontracting goals to the DOL Office of

Small Business Programs).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS OF
FINANCIAL POSITION STATEMENTS OF OPERAITONS AND UNASSIGNED DEFICIT AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        14,031,089
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                       14,031,087
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                         14,137,000
<EQUITIES>                                  32,387,193
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              46,418,282
<CASH>                                       9,030,464
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           7,756,111,016
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                      0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                               3,585,426
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                            163,879,309
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,600,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  68,120,618
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             7,756,111,016
<PREMIUMS>                                 724,898,896
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          2,420,505
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                 243,926,975
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,312,265
<INCOME-TAX>                                   142,414
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,169,851
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,169,851
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 1, 2009 

d0325 

Order 

 

April 1, 2009 

136595 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136595 

 COA: 274235 

Shiawassee CC: 06-003593-FC 

JEREMY DAVID STUCKEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 10, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of People v Idziak (Docket No. 137301) is pending on appeal before this Court and 

that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for 

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decision in that case.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Community Financial Corporation, (the
Company) for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jody D. Graybill, President 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. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                      |  |     |  |                              
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: August 11, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jody D. Graybill         
|                      |  |     |  | Jody D. Graybill             
|                      |  |     |  | President                    
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)



19
Case 1:06-cr-00185-CSC Document 12 Filed 11/07/2006 Page 1 of 1
Second Amendment to Asset Purchase Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
 BY
AND BETWEEN SARA LEE CORPORATION, 
 SARAMAR, LLC AND FARMER BROS. CO. 
 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT (this “Second Amendment”) to the Asset Purchase Agreement is made by Sara Lee Corporation,
Saramar, LLC and Farmer Bros. Co. 
 W I T N E S S E T H:

 WHEREAS, Sara Lee Corporation, Saramar, LLC and Farmer Bros. Co. entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement by and among Sara
Lee Corporation, Saramar, LLC and Farmer Bros. Co. dated December 2, 2008 (the “Agreement”), and thereafter amended the Agreement by a First Amendment dated February 27, 2009; and 
 WHEREAS, Section 10.2 of the Agreement allows the parties to amend the Agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties agreed in Section 6.2 of the Agreement to use their best efforts to demonstrate to certain multiemployer pension
plans described in Section 6.2 of the Agreement that no bond or escrow is required from Farmer Bros. Co. under Section 4204 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and the regulations promulgated
thereunder; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement in order to permit the Western Conference of Teamsters
Pension Fund to grant Farmer Bros. Co. a variance from the bond/escrow requirement under Section 4204 of ERISA and the regulations thereunder, and 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows: 
 I. 

Section 6.2(d)(iii) of the Agreement shall be amended by placing a period after the phrase “. . . is not paid”
in the first sentence and by deleting the remainder of such sentence. 
 II. 
 This amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if all parties hereto had signed the same document.

 III. 
 This amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with and otherwise subject to the provisions of Section 10.8 of the Agreement. 
 IV. 
 Except as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect as prior to this Second Amendment. 
 [signatures appear on next page] 








			
	SARA LEE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Helen N. Kaminski
	Name:	 	Helen N. Kaminski
	Title:	 	Assistant General Counsel, Corporate & Securities and Assistant Secretary
		
	Date:	 	12-16-09


  

			
	SARAMAR, LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Mark S. Silver
	Name:	 	Mark S. Silver
	Title:	 	Vice President and Assistant Secretary
	Date:	 	12/16/09


  

			
	FARMER BROS. CO.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Drew H. Webb
	Name:	 	Drew H. Webb
	Title:	 	COO
	Date:	 	12-017-09
Exhibit 10.8This Power Contract Supplement has been filed to provide investors with information regarding itsterms. It is not intended to provide any other factual information about the Tennessee ValleyAuthority. The representations and warranties of the parties in this Power Contract Supplementwere made to, and solely for the benefit of, the other parties to this Power Contract Supplement.The assertions embodied in the representations and warranties may be qualified by informationincluded in schedules, exhibits or other materials exchanged by the parties that may modify orcreate exceptions to the representations and warranties. Accordingly, investors should not rely onthe representations and warranties as characterizations of the actual state of facts at the timethey were made or otherwise.
 

 
**AGREEMENT**
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 7 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40030 Summary Calendar

RODNEY J. GIBSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNIDENTIFIED SHAW, Warden at Coffield Unit; UNIDENTIFIED CARR, CO III at Coffield Unit; UNIDENTIFIED ALLAN, CO III at Coffield Unit; UNIDENTIFIED WILCOX, Sgt. at Coffield Unit; TDC DIRECTOR, James A. Collins,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

(6:94-CV-129)

August 7, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM:

Rodn ey J. Gibson, #598104, appeals the judgment of the

district court dismissing his civil rights action with prejudice.

He argues that the distr ict court should have considered his2

objections to the m agistrate judge’s report and recommendation

following the evidentiary hearing, he was not given proper notice

of the evidentiary hearing, and Defendant Carr was not entitled to

qualified immunity. We have reviewed the record and Gibson’s brief

and conclude that Gibson has not demonstrat ed any error that

deprived him of his due process right of notice of the evidentiary

hearing. S ee Rodriguez v. Bowen

, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Ci r

.

1988). The motion for injunctive relief is DENIED.

The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. S ee

Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R.

42.2. We caution Gibson that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposit ion of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Gibson is further cautioned to

review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous beca use they have been previously

decided by this Court.

APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

#### § 989.3 Person.

*Person* means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or any other business unit.
#### § 959.90 Personal liability.

No member or alternate of the committee nor any employee or agent thereof, shall be held personally responsible, either individually or jointly with others, in any way whatsoever, to any handler or to any person for errors in judgment, mistakes, or other acts, either of commission or omission, as such member, alternate, agent, or employee, except for acts of dishonesty, willful misconduct, or gross negligence.
Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 68 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 1 of 1