alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11.9202 Acquisition of FAA certified parts for

depot level repairable (DLR) items.

(a) The contracting officer shall acquire FAA certified parts for DLR items based on the requiring

activity’s requirements and acceptable sources, as stated in documentation that accompanies the

purchase request and in the following:

(1) Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) Form 761, Acquisition Method Code (AMC)/ Acquisition

Method Suffix Code (AMSC) Screening Analysis Worksheet (SAW); and the current version of the

Purchase Request Process System generated Oracle Report entitled “AMC/AMSC SAW Report.”

They contain the basic item description and information; screening and/or evaluation remarks;

AMC/AMSC codes; testing, inspection, and acceptance requirements; and miscellaneous spares

information. The requirement for FAA certification is stated in the “Remarks” Subsection of the

“Screening/Evaluation/Remarks” Section.

(2) AFMC Form 807, Recommended Quality Assurance Provisions and Special Inspection:

Requirements, which contains special inspection requirements and/or instructions for the

procurement of FAA certified parts.

(b) Offerors not listed on the AFMC forms must provide a Source Approval Request (SAR) to the

contracting officer to be considered for future awards. The contracting officer shall submit the SAR

to the product specialist. The product specialist will facilitate the processing of the SAR with the

requiring activity.

(c) Government surplus material is not acceptable for FAA certified parts. The contractor shall

furnish only new, unused material.

(d) Contracting officers shall include procurement note C22 in all solicitations and awards when

procuring FAA certified parts for DLR items.

*****

C22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Certified Parts – Depot Level Repairable (DLR) Items

(DEC 2018)

Offerors not identified by the requiring activity as an acceptable source are ineligible for award. To

be considered for future awards, ineligible offerors must submit to the contracting officer a Source

Approval Request, which must be approved by the requiring activity.

*****

Parent topic: SUBPART 11.92 – FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) CERTIFIED PARTS
**EXHIBIT 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

       In connection with the quarterlyreport of CNB Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, L.Ford Sanders, II, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of CNBCorporation, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002that:
| 1. | The  above-listed Form 10-Q 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 above-listed Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Company. |
| Date:  August  8, 2008 | /s/L.  Ford Sanders, II             L. Ford  Sanders, II  Executive Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |
|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |                                                                                                                                                                                  |
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 30 56

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Trav is Ro ss

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

D r

. M a r y C a r p e n t e r , D i r e c t o r o f P r i s o n H e a l t h C a r e , i n h e r i n d i v i d

u a l a n d o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Pie rre

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 7, 2 01 7 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 14 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, BOW MAN, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

So ut h Dak ot a in m at e Trav is Ro s s a p p e a ls aft er th e Dis tri ct Co ur t gr an te d 1

su m m ary jud gm en t to th e de fen da nt in hi s 4 2 U

. S

. C . § 19 83 act io n. Afte r de no vo

The Hon or ab le Ro be rto A. Lan ge , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

.rev ie w, se e Pet ers on v. Kop p, 75 4 F.3 d 59 4, 59 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), we co nc lu de th at Dr.

Carp en te r was en ti tl ed to so ve rei gn im m un it y on Ro ss ’s of

fic ia l-c ap aci ty cl ai m s fo r da m ag es

. See Ken tu ck y v. G r a h a m, 4 7 3 U.S. 15 9, 16 6 (1 98 5) (“ [A]n of fic ia l-c ap aci ty su it is

. . . to be tre at ed as a su it ag ai ns t th e [g ov ern m en t] en ti ty.”); Alab am a v . Pug h, 4 38 U.S. 78 1, 7 82 (19 78 ) (p er cu ria m ) (n ot in g t ha t u nl es s a s ta te

co ns en te d to th e fil in g of a su it b y a p r iv at e pa rty, su ch a su it is ba rred by th e Elev en th Amend m en t). W e fu rth er co nc lu de th at Ro ss fai le d to sh ow th at Dr. Carp en te r was de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to hi s se rio us m ed ic al ne ed s. See Bart on v. Tab er, 82 0 F.3 d 95 8, 96 4– 65 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th e de li be rat e-i nd iff eren ce st an da rd ); Ro e v. Crawf

or d, 51 4 F.3 d 78 9, 79 9 (8 th Ci r.) (“ [I ]f a p r oc ed ur e is no t

m ed ic al ly ne ces sa ry , th en th ere is no ne ces si ty fo r a do ct or ’s at te nt io n.” ), cert

. de ni ed , 55 5 U.S. 82 1 (2 00 8) ; Gof

f v. Harp er, 60 F.3 d 51 8, 52 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (o bs erv in g th at “i n th e pr is on co nt ex t, a req ue st fo r in jun ct iv e rel ie f m

us t al way s be vi ewed wit h
gr eat cau ti on ” g iv en th e co m pl ex it ie s i nh eren t i n p ris on ad m in is tra ti on ).

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FORM 10-Q AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>           6,421,516
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>          3,596,551
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                     47,681
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>               96,581
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  3,740,813
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>          80,151
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                80,151
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                         0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>        6,485,627
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>             150,570
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>             150,570
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>               0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                 0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>       (2,824,965)
<NET-ASSETS>                    3,660,662
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                       0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                     481
<OTHER-INCOME>                          0
<EXPENSES-NET>                    (16,140)
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>            16,621
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                0
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>               0
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>              16,621
<EQUALIZATION>                          0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                   0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>             0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                     0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>             16,621
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>              0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>              36,003
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                   (16,090)
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>            3,652,351
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>               24.62
<PER-SHARE-NII>                         0
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                 24.62
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                      (0.4)

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6991

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GARRICK L. WILSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(CR-02-146)

Submitted: March 4, 2005 Decided: April 7, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Garrick L. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Garrick L. Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582 (2000). In criminal cases, the defendant must file his

notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R.

App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310

(4th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in

nature and ten-day appeal period applies). With or without a

motion, the district court may grant an extension of time to file

of up to thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect or good

cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d

351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). We previously remanded this appeal to

the district court to determine whether Wilson could demonstrate

excusable neglect or good cause to excuse his untimely notice of

appeal. After giving Wilson an opportunity to provide information

supporting a finding of good cause or excusable neglect, to which

Wilson did not respond, the district court denied an extension of

the time to file a notice of appeal.

The district court entered its order denying the motion

for reduction of sentence on April 15, 2004; the notice of appeal

was filed on May 25, 2004. Because Wilson failed to file a timely

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the

appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Wilson’s motion

for a certificate of appealability. We dispense with oral argument
- 3 -

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

DONNA DORSEY DAVIS, etc., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv766-MHT

) 

RICHARD M. DORSEY, etc., )

and CD&O, L.L.C., etc., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (doc. no. 5)

is denied.

DONE, this the 18th day of October, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 11 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 35.4

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

American Express Bank, FSB

American Express Issuance Trust II

Reporting Period January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of American Express Bank, FSB (AEFSB), a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Express Travel Related
Services Company, Inc. (TRS), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Supplemental Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 12, 2013, among TRS, AEFSB, American Express Centurion Bank, and American Express Receivables Financing
Corporation VIII LLC (as amended from time to time, the Agreement), does hereby certify that:

1. AEFSB performs
certain servicing procedures on behalf of TRS under the Agreement.

2. The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Certificate.

3. A review of AEFSBs activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

4. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, AEFSB has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the
reporting period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March, 2018.



|                           |  |                                         
|-------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB
|                           | 
|By:                        |  | /s/ Denise D. Roberts                   
|Name:                      |  | Denise D. Roberts                       
|Title:                     |  | Chief Financial Officer                 
|                           | 
|By:                        |  | /s/ Brady P. Bagley                     
|Name:                      |  | Brady P. Bagley                         
|Title:                     |  | Vice President  Controller, U S Banking
#### Jose Rivera, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 745]

In a claim to recover damages for medical malpractice, the claimant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Scuccimarra, J.), dated February 18, 2005, as granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is denied, and the claim is reinstated.

The claimant commenced this claim to recover damages for medical malpractice. The defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim. However, in support of its cross motion, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, either that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice during the diagnosis and treatment of the claimant, or, if there was, that the alleged departure was not a proximate cause of any of the damages alleged *(cf. Mullally v State of New York,*289 AD2d 308 [2001]; *Kagan v State of New York,*221 AD2d 7 [1996]; *Stanback v State of New York,*163 AD2d 298 [1990]). Thus, the cross motion should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the claimant’s opposing papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>


       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                 JUN-30-1997

<CASH>                                   7,106,830 
<SECURITIES>                                  0    
<RECEIVABLES>                           11,735,409 
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0    
<INVENTORY>                                   0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        18,842,239 
<PP&E>                                   9,452,351 
<DEPRECIATION>                                0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          28,321,939 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      220,578 
<BONDS>                                       0    
<COMMON>                                      0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0    
<PREFERRED>                                   0    
<OTHER-SE>                              24,686,672 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            28,321,939 
<SALES>                                    793,254 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,691,668 
<CGS>                                         0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              251,956 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           249,392 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          1,190,320 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      1,001,963 
<DISCONTINUED>                                0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0    
<CHANGES>                                     0    
<NET-INCOME>                             1,001,963 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                14.27 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                14.27 

        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.5



LOGO

1123 Servicer Compliance Statement

Transactions Listed With SEC

I, Michael
C. Koster, Executive Vice President of EverBank, certify that:



| | (a) | A review of EverBank (the Servicer) activities during the period ending December 31, 2013, (Reporting Period) and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement as identified on
Schedule A has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                         
|-------------- |  | ------------------------
|March 25, 2014
|               | 
|By:            |  | /s/ Michael C. Koster   
|               | 
|Name:          |  | Michael C. Koster       
|               | 
|Title:         |  | Executive Vice President



---

Schedule A

Transactions Listed with the SEC 2013

Deals in full compliance



|                              |  |                                                      
|----------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Security or Deal              |  | Master Servicer of Trustee or Investor               
|Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-1 |  | Wells Fargo Bank  Master Servicer
Citibank - Trustee
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Matthew Walker, Appellant.

Order of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated March 20, 1968, affirmed. No opinion. The notices of appeal, dated in February, 1968, erroneously referred to the order appealed from as being dated February 19, 1968. We have treated them as valid (Code Crim. Pro., § 524-c). Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Annual Report of NutraLife BioSciences, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Edgar Ward, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.





|Date: April 1, 2019 |                                                              
|------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |                                                              
|By:                 | */s/ Edgar Ward*                                             
|                    | Edgar Ward                                                   
|                    | Chief Executive Officer and President                        
|                    | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.