alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1629.402 Foreign contracts.

The clause set forth in section 1652.229–70 shall be inserted in all FEHBP contracts performed

outside the United States, its possessions, and Puerto Rico.

Parent topic: Subpart 1629.4—Contract Clauses
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 10, 2011.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

                    1.                     *Connemara Bancorp, Inc.,*                     Dallas, Texas; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of First Amherst Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First National Bank, both in Amherst, Texas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 13, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-31617 Filed 12-15-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Case 2:06-cv-00738-MEF-WC Document 5 Filed 12/13/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00738-MEF-WC Document 5 Filed 12/13/2006 Page 2 of 2
Deriving Nutrient Criteria for the Benchmark Population

Deriving nutrient criteria from the benchmark population begins with a population of nutrient 

values from the dataset from the proposed rule and identified as “allstr00.txt” in the associated 

data files and provided in docket at proposal 1/2010. This data set contains data from Florida’s 

STORET database and FDEP’s GWIS database, with data screened to meet data quality 

objectives based on QA rule 62-160. The data set contains approximately 280,000 observations 

at 9,401 sites.

The following steps were followed to identify the final population of benchmark sites from 

which the percentiles are calculated:

1. All records from allstr00.txt were merged with the file containing associated WBID 

identifier codes and nutrient regions (“sites01.final.txt”, provided by FDEP). The unique 

site identifier code (“ORG_Station”) was used for this merge.

2. All samples with TN or TP data were retained.

3. All records were merged by the unique site identifier code with land cover information 

in the riparian corridor (“ldi.corridor.txt”). All samples with a Landscape Development 

Index (LDI) >2 were flagged for exclusion (“Exclude = 1”). Sites with no riparian corridor 

LDI value were also excluded.

4. All records were merged by the unique site identifier code to a summary of “best 

professional judgment” by Florida DEP (“s.bpj.site.txt”). This summary was based on 

expert opinion of district biologists, site visits by FDEP staff, digital ortho-quad aerial 

surveys, FDEP staff discussions, and EPA analysis of LDI. Sites identified in this screen 

were flagged (“Exclude = 1”). Sites with no documentation to indicate a best 

professional judgment summary were also excluded.

5. Sites in WBIDs matching WBID identifier codes on EPAs 303(d) list (“s.303d.txt”) based 

on impairments due to nutrients and dissolved oxygen were flagged (“Exclude =1”).

6. Sites in WBIDs with a watershed landscape development index, LDI >3, were flagged 

(“s.ldi.txt”) (“Exclude = 1”).

7. Sites in WBIDs with average nitrate/nitrite concentrations (“s.nox.new.txt”) > 0.35 mg/L 

were flagged (“Exclude = 1”).

8. Sites in WBIDs with an average stream condition index (SCI) scores (“s.sci.wbid.txt”) <40 

were flagged (“Exclude = 1”).
The following steps were followed to derive the criteria, based on this benchmark data set:

A new unique identifier was created for each sample based on the WBID and the year in which 

the sample was collected. 

Final distributions for each of the 5 nutrient regions were computed as the geometric mean 

values of TN and TP for each WBID-Year. 

Only WBID-Years calculated using at least 4 samples were included in the final distributions.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2


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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of SEDONA Corporation on Form
10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Anita M.
Primo, Chief Financial Officer of SEDONA Corporation certify, pursuant Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
         (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
SEDONA Corporation.


Dated: November 15, 2004            /s/ ANITA M. PRIMO
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial Officer)
Subpart 828.1 - Bonds and Other Financial

Protections

Parent topic: PART 828 - BONDS AND INSURANCE

828.106 Administration.

828.106-70 Bond premium adjustment.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.228-70, Bond Premium Adjustment, in

solicitations and contracts when performance and payment bonds or payment protection is required.

828.106-71 Assisting service-disabled veteran-owned and

veteran-owned small businesses in obtaining bonding.

VA prime contractors are encouraged to assist SDVOSB concerns and VOSB concerns in obtaining

subcontractor performance and payment bonds. Mentors are especially encouraged to assist their

protégés in obtaining bid, payment, and performance bonds as prime contractors and bonds as

subcontractors when bonds are required.

828.106-72 Contract provision.

Insert 852.228-72, Assisting Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned and Veteran-Owned Small Businesses

in Obtaining Bonds, in solicitations that include FAR clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee.
3406.001 Applicability.

(b) FSA—This part does not apply to proposed contracts and contracts awarded based on other than

full and open competition when the conditions for successive systems modules set forth in 3417.70

are utilized.

Parent topic: PART 3406—COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS
§ 20.1206 Planned special exposures. A licensee may authorize an adult worker to receive doses in addition to and accounted for separately from the doses received under the limits specified in § 20.1201 provided that each of the following conditions is satisfied— ( a ) The licensee authorizes a planned special exposure only in an exceptional situation when alternatives that might avoid the dose estimated to result from the planned special exposure are unavailable or impractical.
( b ) The licensee (and employer if the employer is not the licensee) specifically authorizes the planned special exposure, in writing, before the exposure occurs.
( c ) Before a planned special exposure, the licensee ensures that the individuals involved are— ( 1 ) Informed of the purpose of the planned operation;
( 2 ) Informed of the estimated doses and associated potential risks and specific radiation levels or other conditions that might be involved in performing the task; and
( 3 ) Instructed in the measures to be taken to keep the dose ALARA considering other risks that may be present.
( d ) Prior to permitting an individual to participate in a planned special exposure, the licensee ascertains prior doses as required by § 20.2104(b) during the lifetime of the individual for each individual involved.
( e ) Subject to § 20.1201(b), the licensee does not authorize a planned special exposure that would cause an individual to receive a dose from all planned special exposures and all doses in excess of the limits to exceed— ( 1 ) The numerical values of any of the dose limits in § 20.1201(a) in any year; and
( 2 ) Five times the annual dose limits in § 20.1201(a) during the individual's lifetime.
( f ) The licensee maintains records of the conduct of a planned special exposure in accordance with § 20.2105 and submits a written report in accordance with § 20.2204.
( g ) The licensee records the best estimate of the dose resulting from the planned special exposure in the individual's record and informs the individual, in writing, of the dose within 30 days from the date of the planned special exposure. The dose from planned special exposures is not to be considered in controlling future occupational dose of the individual under § 20.1201(a) but is to be included in evaluations required by § 20.1206 (d) and (e).
[56 FR 23396, May 21, 1991, as amended at 63 FR 39482, July 23, 1998]
Subpart 2442.3 - Contract Administration

Office Functions

Parent topic: PART 2442 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES

2442.302-70 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall include clause 2452.242-72, Post-award Orientation Conference, in

solicitations and contracts when the contractor will be required to attend a post-award orientation

conference. The contracting officer shall indicate whether the contractor must attend the conference

in person or via electronic communication.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.600 Scope of subpart. This subpart prescribes procedures applicable to licensing proceedings which involve an early submittal of site suitability information in accordance with § 2.101(a-1), and a hearing and early partial decision on issues of site suitability, in connection with an application for a permit to construct a utilization facility which is subject to § 51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the type specified in § 50.21(b)(2) or (3) or § 50.22 of this chapter or is a testing facility. This subpart also prescribes procedures applicable to proceedings for a construction permit for a utilization facility which is subject to § 51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the type specified in § 50.21(b)(2) or (3) or § 50.22 of this chapter, or proceedings for a combined license under part 52 of this chapter, either of which includes a request to conduct the activities authorized under § 50.10(d) of part 50 of this chapter in advance of issuance of the construction permit or combined license, and submits an application in accordance with § 2.101(a)(9). ( a ) The procedures in §§ 2.601 through 2.609 apply to all applications under this subpart.
( b ) The procedures in §§ 2.611 through 2.619 apply to applications for a permit to construct a utilization facility which is subject to § 51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the type specified in § 50.21(b)(2) or (3) or § 50.22 of this chapter or is a testing facility.
( c ) The procedures in §§ 2.621 through 2.629 apply to applications for combined license under part 52 of this chapter for a nuclear power facility.
( d ) The procedures in §§ 2.641 through 2.649 apply to phased applications for construction permits or combined licenses which request limited work authorizations to be issued in advance of issuance of the construction permit or combined license (*i.e.*, a phased application).
[72 FR 49478, Aug. 28, 2007, as amended at 72 FR 57440, Oct. 9, 2007]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      10,070,537
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,676,030
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      39,168,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,565,677
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,749,223
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,565,677
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,824,309
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,538,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,746,446
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,796,692
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,796,692
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,796,692
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    33.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Subpart 2446.5 - Acceptance

Parent topic: PART 2446 - QUALITY ASSURANCE

2446.502 Responsibility for acceptance.

2446.502-70 Contract clause.

The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.246-70, Inspection and Acceptance, in all

solicitations and contracts.
223 So.2d 871

#### Octave J. DASPIT v. SCHWEGMANN BROS. GIANT SUPER MARKETS et al.

No. 49932.

June 27, 1969.

In re: Octave Daspit applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 222 So.2d 545.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-12-00488-CR

NO. 09-12-00489-CR

_________________

RODNEY DALE HUNT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 10-09996 and 10-09998

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Rodney Dale Hunt pled guilty in 

cause number 10-09996 to the second degree felony offense of aggravated assault. 

In cause number 10-09998, Hunt pled guilty to the second degree felony offense of 

aggravated assault. 

The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Hunt guilty of both 

offenses, but deferred finding him guilty, and placed him on community 
2

supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Hunt’s 

unadjudicated community supervision in both cases. At the hearing on the motion 

to revoke, Hunt pled “true” to three violations of the terms of his community 

supervision in cause number 10-09996. Hunt pled “true” to six violations of the 

terms of his community supervision in cause number 10-09998. In cause number

10-09996, the trial court found that Hunt violated the terms of the community 

supervision order, found Hunt guilty of aggravated assault, revoked Hunt’s 

community supervision, and imposed a sentence of fifteen years of confinement. In 

cause number 10-09998, the trial court found that Hunt violated the terms of his 

community supervision order, found Hunt guilty of aggravated assault, revoked 

Hunt’s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of fifteen years of 

confinement. The court ordered both sentences to run concurrently. 

Hunt’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional 

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeals in both cases are frivolous. See 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High 

v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On March 21, 2013, we granted 

an extension of time for appellant to file pro se briefs. We received no response 

from the appellant.
3

We have reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel’s 

conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal in either cause. Therefore, we 

find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. 

Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We 

affirm the trial court’s judgments.

1

AFFIRMED.

 ___________________________

 CHARLES KREGER

 Justice

Submitted on June 21, 2013

Opinion Delivered July 10, 2013

Do not publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

 

1 Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
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 strike (Doc. No. 34)

is set for submission, without oral argument, on April

27, 2007, with all briefs due by said date.

DONE, this the 12th day of April, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 35 Filed 04/12/2007 Page 1 of 1
SUBCHAPTER G - CONTRACT

MANAGEMENT

PART 2042 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

PART 2045 - GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

PART 2042 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

Subpart 2042.570 - Differing Professional Views (DPV)

2042.570-1 Policy.

2042.570-2 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

Subpart 2042.8 - Disallowance of Costs

2042.803 Disallowing costs after incurrence.

PART 2045 - GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

Subpart 2045.3 - Providing Government Property to Contractors

2045.370 Providing Government property (in general).

2045.371 Property accountability procedures.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cr-193-MEF

)

JOSHUA WAYNE HESTER )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Sentencing (Doc.

#48) filed on February 12, 2007, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The sentencing hearing set for February

15, 2007 is continued to April 6, 2007 at 9:00 A.M. in the United States Courthouse, One

Church Street, Courtroom 2A, Montgomery, Alabama.

DONE this 14th day of February, 2007.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 49 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 1 of 1
Subpart 1902.1 - Definitions

Parent topic: PART 1902 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS

1902.101 Definitions.

As used throughout this regulation, the following words and terms are used as defined in this

subpart unless (a) the context in which they are used clearly requires a different meaning or (b) a

different definition is prescribed for a particular part or portion of a part.

Board means the Broadcasting Board of Governors, acting through any of its duty authorized

officials.

Board Procurement Executive means the Director, Office of Contracts.

AR/CO means Authorized Representative of the Contracting Officer (see 1942.202-70).

Contracting activity means the Office of Contracts, which has the responsibility to contract for the

acquisition of supplies and services (including construction).

Head of the Board (also called Board head) means the Board Director or Deputy Director; and the

term authorized representative means any person, persons or board (other than the contracting

officer) authorized to act for the Head of the Board.

Purchasing Activity means an office with one or more Level I or Level II Small Purchases

Contracting Officer(s) exercising limited redelegations of contracting officer authority.

BBG means the Broadcating Board of Governors.
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 10 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Hannon Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2018 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “report”), I, Jeffrey A. Lipson, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.




It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.





Date: March 26 , 2019





By:/s/ Jeffrey A. LipsonName:  Jeffrey A. LipsonTitle:    Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer
RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

2006-0705.

#### Terry v. Caputo.

Ottawa App. No. OT-05-009, 165 Ohio App.3d 638, 2006-Ohio-866. Reported at 115 Ohio St.3d 351, 2007-Ohio-5023, 875 N.E.2d 72. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.