alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1508.870 Contract clause.

Contracting Officers shall insert the contract clause at 1552.208-70, Printing, in all contracts which

require printing, duplication, binding, reproduction, and related services and are subject to the

provisions of the Government Printing and Binding Regulations published by the Joint Committee on

Printing, Congress of the United States.

Parent topic: Subpart 1508.8 - Acquisition of Printing and Related Supplies
#### In re LOEBL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

In the matter of Milton P. Loebl, an attorney.

No opinion. Referred to official referee. Settle order on notice.
#### § 39.49 Uranium sinker bars.

The licensee may use a uranium sinker bar in well logging applications only if it is legibly impressed with the words “CAUTION—RADIOACTIVE-DEPLETED URANIUM” and “NOTIFY CIVIL AUTHORITIES (or COMPANY NAME) IF FOUND.”

[65 FR 20345, Apr. 17, 2000]
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

In connection with the accompanyingQuarterly Report of Greene County Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the “Report”), I, R. Stan Puckett,Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

 

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

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Greene County Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by GreeneCounty Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

 
| Date:  | November 12, 2003                                  |   | /s/ R. Stan Puckett |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
|   | R. Stan Puckett                                    |
|   | Chairman of the Board  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             342,517
<SECURITIES>                                       857,250
<RECEIVABLES>                                        8,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,215,741
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,782,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               27,615
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        87,477,847
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,782,459
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    72,975
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      114,044
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (41,069)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (41,069)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (41,069)      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0       
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0       
                                                   


</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

)

In the Matter of the Extradition of )

MARIA del ROSARIO MORENO-VAZQUEZ ) CV. NO. 3:06cv761-MEF-CSC

a/k/a MARIA COONLEY )

)

______________________________________________________________________________

Motion to Withdraw As Counsel

______________________________________________________________________________

Office of International Affairs Senior Trial Attorney Andrea Tisi moves to withdraw as

co-counsel for the United States in this matter, because she will be going on detail for six months

to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. Assistant United States

Attorney Christopher Snyder will continue to represent the United States in this matter.

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of July, 2008.

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Andrea Tisi 

ANDREA TISI

Senior Trial Attorney

Criminal Division

Office of International Affairs

1301 New York Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

(202) 353-4469

Email: Andrea.Tisi@usdoj.gov

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 45 Filed 07/17/2008 Page 1 of 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

)

In the Matter of the Extradition of )

MARIA del ROSARIO MORENO-VAZQUEZ ) CV. NO. 3:06cv761-MEF-CSC

a/k/a MARIA COONLEY )

)

______________________________________________________________________________

Certificate of Service

______________________________________________________________________________

I hereby certify that on July 17, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the

following: Ben Elton Bruner.

/s/ Christopher A. Snyder 

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 45 Filed 07/17/2008 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 32
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 32 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 32.303 Criminal penalties. ( a ) Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides for criminal sanctions for willful violation of, attempted violation of, or conspiracy to violate, any regulation issued under sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the Act. For purposes of section 223, all the regulations in part 32 are issued under one or more of sections 161b, 161i, or 161o, except for the sections listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The regulations in part 32 that are not issued under subsections 161b, 161i, or 161o for the purposes of section 223 are as follows: §§ 32.1, 32.2, 32.8, 32.11, 32.14, 32.18, 32.21, 32.22, 32.23, 32.24, 32.26, 32.27, 32.28, 32.30, 32.31, 32.51, 32.53, 32.57, 32.61, 32.71, 32.72, 32.74, 32.301, and 32.303.
[57 FR 55073, Nov. 24, 1992, as amended at 59 FR 61781, Dec. 2, 1994; 73 FR 42674, July 23, 2008; 77 FR 43696, July 25, 2012]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 79309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31917]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 101124587-0586-01]
RIN 0648-BA47


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the South Atlantic States; Emergency Rule 
To Delay Effectiveness of the Snapper-Grouper Area Closure; Correction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Temporary rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the temporary rule that 
delays the effective date of the area closure for snapper-grouper 
specified in Amendment 17A to the Fishery Management Plan for the 
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) that was 
published in the Federal Register December 9, 2010.

DATES: Effective December 20, 2010, the effective date of the rule 
published in the Federal Register December 9, 2010 (75 FR 76890), is 
corrected to January 3, 2011, through June 1, 2011, unless NMFS 
publishes a superseding document in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anik Clemens, 727-824-5305; fax: 727-
824-5308; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0849666163264b646d656d667b4866676969266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95d4fbfcfebbd6f9f0f8f0fbe6d5fbfaf4f4bbf2fae3">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Need for Correction

    On December 9, 2010 (75 FR 76890), NMFS published an incorrect 
effective date in the DATES section of the temporary rule. The DATES 
section contained an incorrect effective date of January 3, 2010. The 
correct effective date for the temporary rule is January 3, 2011, 
through June 1, 2011, unless NMFS publishes a superseding document in 
the Federal Register. This document corrects that effective date.

Correction

    In FR Doc. 2010-30682 appearing on page 78158 in the Federal 
Register of December 9, 2010, correct the DATES section to read as 
follows:

DATES: This rule is effective January 3, 2011 through June 1, 2011, 
unless NMFS publishes a superseding document in the Federal 
Register.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: December 15, 2010.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-31917 Filed 12-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
September 29, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ELIE NASSAR AND RHONDA NASSAR, Appellants

NO. 14-14-00277-CV V.

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL

GROUP, DAVE BAKER, MARY HAMILTON AND MARCUS SMITH, 

Appellees

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, Liberty 

Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Group, Dave Baker, Mary 

Hamilton and Marcus Smith, signed March 14, 2014, was heard on the transcript 

of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We 

order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellants, Elie Nassar and Rhonda Nassar, jointly and severally, 

to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
SUBCHAPTER D - SOCIOECONOMIC

PROGRAMS

PART 2122 - APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS

PART 2124 - PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

PART 2122 - APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS

Subpart 2122.1 - Basic Labor Policies

2122.170 Contract clauses.

PART 2124 - PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Subpart 2124.70 - Protection of Individual Privacy

2124.102 General.

2124.102-70 Policy.

2124.104 Contract clauses.

2124.104-70 Contract clause.
#### Sara Ambalu, Appellant, v Michael Rosenthal et al., Respondents.

[813 NYS2d 672]

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated May 13, 2005, which denied her mo*500tion for a preliminary injunction and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by evidence showing that they properly cancelled the contract of sale in accordance with paragraph 14 of the rider to the contract *(see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri,*77 NY2d 157, 163 [1990]; *Nesdale v Banister,*18 AD3d 841 [2005]; *Eckel v Francis,*5 AD3d 719, 722 [2004]; *Palmieri v Higgins,*302 AD2d 374 [2003]; *Gartner v Young-Hee Lowe,*299 AD2d 198 [2002]). In response, the plaintiff failed to show the existence of a triable issue of fact requiring denial of the motion for summary judgment *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.
#### Roslynd Hornstein, Appellant, v Edward H. Wolf et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover compensatory and punitive damages for alleged malicious prosecution, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 13, 1979 which, upon defendants’ motion, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, on the grounds that it failed to state a cause of action and was premature. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Among the elements essential to the maintenance of a cause of action for malicious prosecution is a termination of the allegedly malicious proceeding which is favorable to the person who wishes to maintain the malicious prosecution action (see *Ellman v McCarty,*70 AD2d 150, 155). The proceeding upon which the instant plaintiff’s first cause of action was based was dismissed due only to the fact that the plaintiff therein had been dead for a number of years. In dismissing that proceeding the court granted leave to bring a proper action. Such a termination cannot be considered one favorable to the instant plaintiff. The proceeding underlying plaintiff’s second and third causes of action remains pending. Until that action is terminated favorably to her, she cannot maintain an action for malicious prosecution (see *Psaty v Fifth Ave. & 93rd St. Corp.,*132 Misc 278, affd 226 App Div 733; *Superior Tool & Die Co. v Bailey,*17 Misc 2d 614; *McClellan Agency v Cunningham, Nielsen & Molloy,*22 Misc 2d 372; see, also, 2 NY PJI, 812). Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### § 20.1203 Determination of external dose from airborne radioactive material.

Licensees shall, when determining the dose from airborne radioactive material, include the contribution to the deep-dose equivalent, lens dose equivalent, and shallow-dose equivalent from external exposure to the radioactive cloud (see appendix B to part 20, footnotes 1 and 2).

Note:

Airborne radioactivity measurements and DAC values should not be used as the primary means to assess the deep-dose equivalent when the airborne radioactive material includes radionuclides other than noble gases or if the cloud of airborne radioactive material is not relatively uniform. The determination of the deep-dose equivalent to an individual should be based upon measurements using instruments or individual monitoring devices.

[[56 FR 23396](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/56-FR-23396), May 21, 1991, as amended at [60 FR 20185](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/60-FR-20185), Apr. 25, 1995; [63 FR 39482](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/63-FR-39482), July 23, 1998]
Exhibit 32








Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, D.C. 20549





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gulf Coast Ultra Deep Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) for the year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of its knowledge:





(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, distributable income and changes in trust corpus of the Trust.








Date: March 23, 2018





/s/ Michael J. Ulrich


Michael J. Ulrich


Vice President


The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.,


as Trustee of Gulf Coast Ultra Deep Royalty Trust











The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
2106.7001 Applicability.       FAR part 6 has no practical application to the FEGLI Program because 5 U.S.C. chapter 87 exempts the FEGLI Program from competitive bidding.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2106.70 - Applicability
§ 990.42 Appeals under a State or Tribal hemp production plan. ( a ) *Appealing a State or Tribal hemp production plan application.* A State or Indian Tribe may appeal the denial of a proposed State or Tribal hemp production plan by the USDA to the AMS Administrator. ( 1 ) If the AMS Administrator grants a State or Indian Tribe's appeal of a denied hemp plan application, the proposed State or Tribal hemp production plan shall be established as proposed.
( 2 ) If the AMS Administrator denies an appeal, the proposed State or Tribal hemp production plan shall not be approved. Prospective producers located in the State or territory of the Indian Tribe may apply for hemp licenses under the terms of the USDA plan. The State or Indian Tribe may request a formal adjudicatory proceeding be initiated within 30 days to review the decision. Such proceeding shall be conducted pursuant to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rules of Practice Governing Adjudicatory Proceedings, 7 CFR part 1, subpart H.
( b ) *Appealing the suspension or termination of a State or Tribal hemp production plan.* A State or Tribe may appeal the revocation by USDA of an approved State or Tribal hemp production plan. ( 1 ) If the AMS Administrator grants a State or Indian Tribe's appeal of a State or Tribal hemp production plan suspension or revocation, the associated hemp production plan will remain in place and effective.
( 2 ) If the AMS Administrator denies an appeal, the State or Tribal hemp production plan will be suspended or revoked as applicable. Producers located in that State or territory of the Indian Tribe may continue to produce hemp under their State or Tribal license until the end the calendar year in which the State or Tribal plan's disapproval was effective or when the State or Tribal license expires, whichever is earlier. Producers may apply for a USDA license under subpart C of this part unless hemp production is otherwise prohibited by the State or Indian Tribe. The State or Indian Tribe may request a formal adjudicatory proceeding be initiated to review the decision. Such proceeding shall be conducted pursuant to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings, 7 CFR part 1, subpart H.
( c ) *Filing period.* The appeal of a State or Tribal hemp production plan suspension or revocation must be filed within the time-period provided in the letter of notification or within 30 business days from receipt of the notification, whichever occurs later. The appeal will be considered “filed” on the date received by the AMS Administrator. The decision to deny a State or Tribal plan application or suspend or revoke approval of a plan, is final unless the decision is appealed in a timely manner.
( d ) *Where to file.* Appeals to the Administrator must be filed in the manner as determined by AMS.
( e ) *What to include in appeal.* All appeals must include a copy of the adverse decision and a statement of the appellant's reasons supporting why the decision was not proper or made in accordance with applicable program regulations in this part, policies, or procedures.
Exhibit 32

Certification

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)

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 FNB United Corp., a North Carolina corporation (the Corporation), does hereby certify that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



|                  |  |  |  |                        
|----------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 9, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael C. Miller  
|                  |  |  |  | Michael C. Miller      
|                  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                  |  | 
|Date: May 9, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Jerry A. Little    
|                  |  |  |  | Jerry A. Little        
|                  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
#### GABIE, Appellant, v. NEWTON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Arthur Gabie against Homer C. Newton.

No opinion. Appeal withdrawn on consent. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1116.
226 So.2d 524

#### Mrs. Lilian D. CACIBAUDA, individually and as Natural Tutrix and Administratrix of the Estate of the Minor, Joseph Anthony Cacibauda, Jr., et al. v. E. S. GAIENNIE, Jr., Alvin R. Adams, Charles L. Jarreau, L. R. Stevens, Walter L. Stone, Wayne Snelson and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company.

No. 49961.

Oct. 1, 1969.

In re: E. S. Gaiennie, Jr., et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Plaquemines. 222 So.2d 632.

Application denied. The judgment complained of is not final.
#### GLENDENING v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.

(No. 6405.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 4, 1914.)

Action by George C. Glendening against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From an order denying a motion for an order requiring plaintiff to separately state and number causes of action, and to strike from the complaint matters as irrelevant and redundant, defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed. See, also, 163 App. Div. 489, 148 N. Y. Supp. 552.

Albert T. Benedict, of New York City, for appellant.

George Gordon Battle, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Accepting the contention of the plaintiff that he attempted to and did set out but one cause of action in his complaint, paragraphs 8, 9, all but the first six lines of paragraph 19, and paragraph 22 are irrelevant and redundant to said cause of action so claimed to be alleged. The order appealed from should therefore be modified, by providing that the matter indicated should be stricken from the complaint, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs to either party.
# 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.