alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# SUBCHAPTER E—GENERAL CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS   

- PART 1227—PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS 
- PART 1228—BONDS AND INSURANCE 
- PART 1231—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 
- PART 1232—CONTRACT FINANCING 
- PART 1233—PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS 

- PART 1227—PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS    - Subpart 1227.3—Patent Rights Under Government Contracts     - 1227.304   Procedures.
    - 1227.304-4   Appeals.
    - 1227.305   Administration of patent rights clauses.
    - 1227.305-4   Protection of invention disclosures.
- PART 1228—BONDS AND INSURANCE    - Subpart 1228.1—Bonds and Other Financial Protections     - 1228.106   Administration.
    - 1228.106-470   Contract clause-notification of payment bond protection.
    - 1228.106-6   Furnishing information.
    - 1228.106-70   Execution and administration of bonds.
    - 1228.106-71   Performance and payment bonds for certain contracts.
    - 1228.106-7100   Waiver.
    - 1228.106-7101   Exception.
  - Subpart 1228.3—Insurance     - 1228.306   Insurance under fixed-price contracts.
    - 1228.306-70   Contracts for lease of aircraft.
    - 1228.307-1   Group insurance plans.
    - 1228.311-1   Contract clause.
- PART 1231—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES    - Subpart 1231.2—Contracts With Commercial Organizations     - 1231.205   Selected costs.
    - 1231.205-3270   Precontract costs—incurrence of costs.
- PART 1232—CONTRACT FINANCING    - Subpart 1232.7—Contract Funding     - 1232.770   Incremental funding during a Continuing Resolution.
    - 1232.770-1   Scope of section.
    - 1232.770-2   Definition.
    - 1232.770-3   General.
    - 1232.770-4   Policy.
    - 1232.770-5   Limitations.
    - 1232.770-6   Procedures.
    - 1232.770-7   Clause.
  - Subpart 1232.9—Prompt Payment     - 1232.905-70   Payment documentation and process—form of invoice.
  - Subpart 1232.70—Electronic Invoicing Requirements     - 1232.7000   Scope of subpart.
    - 1232.7001   Definition.
    - 1232.7002   Electronic payment requests—invoices.
    - 1232.7003   Payment system registration.
    - 1232.7003-1   Electronic authentication.
    - 1232.7004   Waivers.
    - 1232.7005   Contract clause.
- PART 1233—PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS    - Subpart 1233.1—Protests     - 1233.103   Protests to the agency.
    - 1233.104   Protests to GAO.
  - Subpart 1233.2—Disputes and Appeals     - 1233.211   Contracting officer's decision.
    - 1233.214   Alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
#### JOHNSON COUNTY SAVINGS BANK, Respondent, v. SHEROW, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by the Johnson County Savings Bank against L. Minor Sherow.

No opinion. Judgment of the county court of Westchester county affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 33.4b

 

|        |                                                                                        |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                   |
|        | 260 Interstate North Circle, SE

Atlanta, GA 30339 

T 770.763-4000 

www.assurant.com |

 

February 13, 2020

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH §1122 (d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii) of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2019 TO DECEMBER 31, 2019

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”) which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs with respect to all mortgage backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform Transactions”). The Asserting Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transaction.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period.

American Security Insurance Company Standard Guaranty Insurance Company TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.

|                                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |
| /s/ Michael Campbell                                   |
| By: Michael Campbell                                   |
| President of American Security Insurance Company       |
| And Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and           |
| Sr. Vice President of TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. |

 

 

Date:  February 13, 2020
PGI 206.304 Approval of the justification.       (a)(S-70) For a non-competitive follow-on to a previous award for the same supply or service supported by a justification for other than full and open competition citing the authority at FAR 6.302-1—          (i) The justification shall include a copy of the previous justification to assist the approval authority in determining whether the planned actions to remove any barriers to competition cited on the previous justification were completed; and          (ii) The approval authority shall determine whether the planned actions were completed. If the actions were not completed, the justification for the follow-on acquisition shall be approved by the approval authority one-level above the approval authority for the previous justification (see FAR 6.304). If the previous justification was approved by the Senior Procurement Executive (SPE), the approval remains at the SPE level.    **Parent topic:** PGI 206.3 -OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


Exhibit No. 27
ENCORE COMPUTER CORPORATION
Financial Data Schedule
(Unaudited)
(in thousands)

For the six months ended Sept 28, 1997

 Cash and cash items                            4,461
 Marketable securities                              0
 Notes and accounts receivable-trade            8,839
 Allowances for doubtful accounts                -912
 Inventory                                      7,711
 Total current assets                          21,221
 Property, plant and equipment                 80,274
 Accumulated depreciation                     -50,836

 Total assets                                  51,959

 Total current liabilities                    100,087
 Bonds, mortgages and similar debt                518
 Preferred stock mandatory redemption               0
 Preferred stock no mandatory redemption           49
 Common stock                                     376
 Other stockholders' equity                   -50,374
 Total liabilities & equity                    51,959
 Sales of tangible products                    11,428
 Total revenues                                23,116
 Cost of tangible goods sold                   18,138
 Total costs applicable to revenues            30,585
 Other costs and expenses                       1,281
 Provision for doubtful accounts and notes        378
 Interest and amortization of debt discount     4,778
 Income before taxes and other items          -56,271
 Income tax expense                               194
 Income/loss from continuing operations       -56,465
 Discontinued operations                            0
 Extraordinary items                                0
 Cumulative effect of accounting changes            0

 Net income or loss                           -56,465
 Earnings per share-primary                     -2.09
 Earnings per share-fully diluted               -0.28
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

PATRICK O’NEAL HEARD, #1665216, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv691-WHA

)

SYLVESTER FOLKS, et al., ) 

)

Respondents. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of Petitioner’s Voluntary Motion to Dismiss Action without

Prejudice (Doc. #13), filed on May 30, 2007, it is

ORDERED that the Respondents shall show cause, if any there be, on or before June

11, 2007 why the motion should not be granted. The motion will be taken under submission on

that day for determination without oral hearing.

DONE this 4th day of June, 2007.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00691-WHA-WC Document 15 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
2007-2302.

#### Walburn v. Dunlap.

Vinton App. No. 06CA655, 2007~Ohio-5398. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 3 of the court of appeals’ Entry filed December 3, 2007:

“In a case involving multiple claims, is a judgment in the declaratory judgment action a final appealable order when the trial court finds that an insured is entitled to coverage, includes a Civ.R. 54(B) certification, but does not address the issue of damages?”

Lanzinger and Cupp, JJ., dissent.

The conflict cases are *Baheshtaein v. Am. State Ins. Co.,*Montgomery App. No. 20839, 2005-Ohio-5907, *Tinker v. Oldaker,*Franklin App. Nos. 03AP-671 and 03AP-1036, 2004-Ohio-3316, and *Walter v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*Summit App. No. 21032, 2002-Ohio-5775.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2007-2150, *Walburn v. Dunlap,*Vinton App. No. 06CA655, 2007-Ohio-5398.
```

[109th Congress Public Law 340]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ340.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 1864]]

Public Law 109-340
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To authorize the Government of Ukraine to establish a memorial on 
  Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the 
 manmade famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933. <<NOTE: Oct. 13, 
                          2006 -  [H.R. 562]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 40 USC 8903 note.>> AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH 
                              MEMORIAL.

    (a) In General.--The Government of Ukraine is authorized to 
establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to 
honor the victims of the Ukrainian famine-genocide of 1932-1933.
    (b) Compliance With Standards for Commemorative Works.--The 
establishment of the memorial shall be in accordance with chapter 89 of 
title 40, United States Code (commonly known as the ``Commemorative 
Works Act''), except that sections 8902(a)(1), 8906(b)(1), 8908(b)(2), 
and 8909(b) shall not apply with respect to the memorial.
SEC. 2. <<NOTE: 40 USC 8903 note.>> LIMITATION ON PAYMENT OF 
                    EXPENSES.

    The United States Government shall not pay any expense for the 
establishment of the memorial or its maintenance.

    Approved October 13, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 562:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 109-244 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 151 (2005):
                                    Nov. 16, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 152 (2006):
                                    Sept. 29, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### Cloud *et al. v.*Ford, administratrix.

July 19, 1913.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Ellis. Fulton superior court. March *22,*1913.

*Lowndes Calhoun,*for plaintiffs.

*Charles W. Smith*and *M. A. Hale,*for defendant.

Beck, J.

No errors of law are alleged to have been committed upon the trial of the ease, and there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before CRISFIELD, LAWRENCE , and GASTON
, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v.
Tara E . H udson Sergeant (E

- 5 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

No. 201800 1 38

Decided: 23 October 201 9

. Appeal from the United States Navy

- M arine Corps Trial Judiciary. Military Judge s : Lieutenant Colonel R. D. M errill , U S MC (arraignment); Lieutenant Colonel R. Mattioli , USMC (motions and trial) . Sentence adjudged 7 December 201 7 by a special court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Base Quantic o, Virginia , consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authority: reduction to pay grade E

- 1, confinement for eight months , and a bad

conduct discharge.
For Appellant: Lieutenant Jeremy J. Wall, JAGC, USN.
For Appellee: L ieutenant Jonathan Todd , JAGC, USN; Major Kelli A. O’Neil , USMC.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be cited as persuasive authority under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2.

_________________________U nited States v. H udson , No. 2018001 38

2 PE R CURIAM : The appellant was found guilty by a military judge, contrary to h er pleas, of three specifications of unauthorized absence, two specifications of disrespect to ward a superior commissioned officer, five specifications of contempt toward a superior non

- commissioned officer, one specification of disobeying a superior non

- commissioned officer, and one specification of making a false official statement
, in violation of Article s 86, 89, 91, and 107 , Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § § 8 86, 889, 891, and 907 (201 6 )

. The appellant asserts three assignments of error: (1) her convictions are legally and factually insufficient because the government’s witnesses were biased against her; (2) the military judge erred in denying in part her Artic le 13 , UCMJ, motion for unlawful pretrial punishment; and (3) her sentence is inappropriately severe given that her offenses were all military

- specific and are normally handled administratively

. All three assignments of error are raised pursuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982). Having carefully considered the assignments of error, we find them to be without merit. See United States v. Clifton, 35 M.J. 79 (C.M.A. 1992) ; United States v. Matias , 25 M.J. 356, 363 (C.M.A. 1987)
, cert. d enied , 485 U.S

. 968 (1988).
T he approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and no error materially prejudicial to the appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Arts. 59 and 66, UCMJ. Accordingly, the findings and sentence as approved by th e convening authority are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

#### §§ 4.561-4.569 [Reserved]
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 7485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3202]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group; Health, Behavior, and Context 
Subcommittee.
    Date: February 22, 2010.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military 
Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.
    Contact Person: Michele C. Hindi-Alexander, PhD, Division of 
Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy 
Shriver, National Institute For Child Health & Development, 6100 
Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20812-7510, (301) 435-
8382, [email protected].
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 4, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-3202 Filed 2-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
#### § 993.21d Reserve prunes.

*Reserve prunes* means those prunes which must be withheld in satisfaction of a reserve obligation arising from application of a reserve percentage established by the Secretary pursuant to § 993.54.

[30 FR 9798, Aug. 6, 1965]
2009.570-10 Remedies.       In addition to other remedies permitted by law or contract for a breach of the restrictions in this subpart or for any intentional misrepresentation or intentional nondisclosure of any relevant interest required to be provided for this section, the NRC may debar the contractor from subsequent NRC contracts.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2009.5 - Organizational Conflicts of Interest
#### Flagg *v.*The State.

June 11, 1913.

Indictment for rape. Before Judge Thomas. Bibb superior court. March 29, 1913.

*W. D. McNeil,*for plaintiff in error. *T. S. Felder, attorney-general,*and *John P. Boss, solicitor-general,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

The verdict was supported by the evidence, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
§ 205.192A Burden of proof. ( a ) In a Proposed Remedial Order proceeding the ERA has the burden of establishing a prima facie case as to the validity of the findings of fact and conclusions of law asserted therein. The ERA shall be deemed to meet this burden by the service of a Proposed Remedial Order that meets the requirements of § 205.192(d) and any supplemental information that may be made available under § 205.193A.
( b ) Once a prima facie case has been established, a person who objects to a finding of fact or conclusion of law in the Proposed Remedial Order has the burden of going forward with the evidence. Furthermore, the proponent of additional factual representations has the burden of going forward with the evidence.
( c ) Unless otherwise specified by the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals or his designee, the proponent of an order or a motion or additional factual representations has the ultimate burden of persuasion.
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Clean Systems Technology
Group, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), David Robbins, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 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 result of operations of the
Company.


Date: April 12, 2005

By: /S/ JACOB LUSTGARTEN
---------------------------
Jacob Lustgarten
Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board


            This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
836.7001 Unique construction and architectengineer services forms.

Contracting officers may use the following forms, as prescribed in this subpart, for construction,

architect-engineer services or dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements contracts as set

forth below and in the referenced prescriptions:

(a) VA Form 6298, Architect-Engineer Fee Proposal (see 853.236-70). VA Form 6298, ArchitectEngineer Fee Proposal, shall be used as prescribed in 836.606-70.

(b) VA Form 2138, Order for Supplies or Services (Including Task Orders for Construction or A-E

Services) (see 853.236-71). VA Form 2138, Order for Supplies or Services (Including Task Orders for

Construction or A-E Services), may be used for ordering supplies or services, including task orders

for Construction or A-E services, to include dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements.

(c) VA Form 10101, Contractor Production Report (see 853.236-72). Contractors may use VA Form

10101, Contractor Production Report or a contractor generated form containing the same type of

information contained in the form, as required by 836.573 which prescribes the clause at

852.236-79, Contractor Production Report.

Parent topic: Subpart 836.70 - Unique Forms for Contracting for Construction, Architect-Engineer

Services, and Dismantling, Demolition, or Removal of Improvements
Subpart 1204.1—Contract Execution

Parent topic: PART 1204—ADMINISTRATIVE AND INFORMATION MATTERS

1204.103 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at FAR 52.204–1, Approval of Contract, filled in as

appropriate, in solicitations and contracts when approval to award the resulting contract must be

obtained from an official at a level above the contracting officer.
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*December 19, 2007*

[Cite as *12/1912007 Case Announcements,*2007-Ohio-6770.]

DISCIPLINARY CASES

2006-1197.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson.

On application for reinstatement of Bryan Bright Johnson, Attorney Registration No. 0003981. Application granted, respondent reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio, and probation imposed.