alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 601.205 Professional and technical services. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 601.100 (a), does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or an extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement if payment is for professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid, proposal, or application for that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, “professional and technical services” shall be limited to advice and analysis directly applying any professional or technical discipline. For example, drafting of a legal document accompanying a bid or proposal by a lawyer is allowable. Similarly, technical advice provided by an engineer on the performance or operational capability of a piece of equipment rendered directly in the negotiation of a contract is allowable. However, communications with the intent to influence made by a professional (such as a licensed lawyer) or a technical person (such as a licensed accountant) are not allowable under this section unless they provide advice and analysis directly applying their professional or technical expertise and unless the advice or analysis is rendered directly and solely in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action. Thus, for example, communications with the intent to influence made by a lawyer that do not provide legal advice or analysis directly and solely related to the legal aspects of his or her client's proposal, but generally advocate one proposal over another are not allowable under this section because the lawyer is not providing professional legal services. Similarly, communications with the intent to influence made by an engineer providing an engineering analysis prior to the preparation or submission of a bid or proposal are not allowable under this section since the engineer is providing technical services but not directly in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action.
( c ) Requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving a covered Federal award include those required by law or regulation, or reasonably expected to be required by law or regulation, and any other requirements in the actual award documents.
( d ) Only those services expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.63 Participation in license reviews. ( a ) The State, affected units of local government, and affected Indian Tribes may participate in license reviews as provided in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.
( b ) In addition, a State, or an affected unit of local government, or an affected Indian Tribe may submit a proposal to the Director to facilitate its participation in the review of the license application. The proposal may be submitted at any time and must contain a description and schedule of how the State, or affected unit of local government, or affected Indian Tribe wishes to participate in the review, or what services or activities the State, or affected unit of local government, or affected Indian Tribe wishes the NRC to carry out, and how the services or activities proposed to be carried out by the NRC would contribute to this participation. The proposal may include educational or information services (seminars, public meetings) or other actions on the part of NRC, such as establishing additional public document rooms or employment or exchange of State personnel under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act.
( c ) The Director shall arrange for a meeting between the representatives of the State, or affected unit of local government, or affected Indian Tribe and the NRC staff, to discuss any proposal submitted under paragraph (b) of this section, with a view to identifying any modifications that may contribute to the effective participation by such State, or affected unit of local government, or Tribe.
( d ) Subject to the availability of funds, the Director shall approve all or any part of a proposal, as it may be modified through the meeting described in paragraph (c) of this section, if it is determined that: ( 1 ) The proposed activities are suitable in light of the type and magnitude of impacts that the State, or affected unit of local government, or affected Indian Tribe may bear;
( 2 ) The proposed activities— ( i ) Will enhance communications between NRC and the State, or affected unit of local government, or affected Indian Tribe;
( ii ) Will make a productive and timely contribution to the review; and
( iii ) Are authorized by law.
( e ) The Director shall advise the State, or affected unit of local government, or affected Indian Tribe whether its proposal has been accepted or denied. If all or any part of a proposal is denied, the Director shall state the reason for the denial.
( f ) The NRC shall place all proposals submitted under this section, and responses to them, in the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) Library.
[66 FR 55792, Nov. 2, 2001, as amended at 68 FR 58816, Oct. 10, 2003]
#### McAVOY v. TIDE WATER OIL CO.

(No. 6684.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 24, 1914.)

Judgment (§ 161*)—Opening Default—Service of Copy of Reply.

A motion to open a default in the service of a reply must be denied, unless a copy of the proposed reply be served with the motion papers.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. §§ 317, 318; Dec. Dig. § 161.*]

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by Clifford F. McAvoy, as trustee in bankruptcy, against the Tide Water Oil Company. Plaintiff moved to open his default in the service of a reply. From an order granting the motion, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.

Walter B. Walker, of New York City, for appellant.

David W. Kahn, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from must be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs, on the ground that no copy of the proposed reply was served with the motion papers (Schumpp v. Interurban St. R. Co, 81 App. Div. 576, 81 N. Y. Supp. 366), with leave to the plaintiff, upon payment of such costs, to renew the motion on proper papers.
120 STAT. 1882 PUBLIC LAW 109–345—OCT. 13, 2006

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4768:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Sept. 20, considered and passed House.

Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–345

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 777 Corporation Street in Beaver, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Robert Linn Memorial Post Office

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ROBERT LINN MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 777 Corporation Street in Beaver, Pennsylvania,

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert Linn Memorial

Post Office Building’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘Robert Linn Memorial Post Office Building’’.

Approved October 13, 2006.

Oct. 13, 2006

[H.R. 4768]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-10327

Summary Calendar

 

ARABIAN SHIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CV-624-BD

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

January 28, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arabian Shield Development Company appeals the district

court’s order granting the CIA’s motion for summary judgment. 

Arabian Shield sought judicial review of the CIA’s decision

denying Arabian Shield’s requests for information under the

Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA). The CIA

denied the requests because it determined that the fact of the

existence or nonexistence of the requested information was

classified pursuant to Executive Order 12958, and would relate

directly to information concerning intelligence sources and 
No. 99-10327

-2-

methods which the Director of Central Intelligence has the

responsibility to protect from disclosure pursuant to the

National Security Act of 1947, 50 U.S.C. § 403(d)(3). Thus, the

information was exempt from disclosure under FOIA §§ 552(b)(1)

and (b)(3).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Arabian Shield has not shown that the district court erred in

concluding that the CIA had met its burden of establishing an

exemption under FOIA § 552(b)(1). See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). 

Nor has Arabian Shield shown that the district court erred in

concluding that the information was exempt from disclosure under

FOIA § 552(b)(3). See Knight v. CIA, 872 F.2d 660 (5th Cir.

1989).

AFFIRMED.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 170 

Of inquiry requesting the President to transmit certain information to the 

House of Representatives respecting a claim made by the President 

on February 16, 2005, at a meeting Portsmouth, New Hampshire, that 

there is not a Social Security trust. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mr. KUCINICH (for himself, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. WATSON, Mr. 

JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CLAY, 

Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. STARK, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. 

SANDERS, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. SERRANO, 

Ms. LEE, Mr. OWENS, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. NADLER, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. 

WATERS, Mr. FARR, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. MEEKS of New 

York, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. 

HONDA, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. FILNER, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, and Mr. 

GEORGE MILLER of California) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

RESOLUTION 

Of inquiry requesting the President to transmit certain information to the House of Representatives respecting a 

claim made by the President on February 16, 2005, 

at a meeting Portsmouth, New Hampshire, that there 

is not a Social Security trust. 

1 Resolved, That the President is requested to transmit 

2 to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days 

3 after the date of the adoption of this resolution, informa-
2 

•HRES 170 IH 

1 tion in the possession of the President that provides spe2 cific evidence for the following statement that the Presi3 dent made on February 16, 2005, at a meeting Ports4 mouth, New Hampshire: ‘‘And by the way, there is not 

5 a Social Security trust’’. 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 133 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 133

   Expressing support for designation of April 11 as ``National Pet 
   Adoption Day'' and the month of April as ``National Pet Adoption 
   Month'' to highlight the important role pets play in the lives of 
                        United States citizens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2017

Mr. Williams (for himself, Mr. Veasey, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. 
  Jones, Mr. Cicilline, Ms. Titus, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Joyce of Ohio, Mr. 
   Grijalva, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Donovan, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. 
  Cohen, Mr. Roskam, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Faso) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing support for designation of April 11 as ``National Pet 
   Adoption Day'' and the month of April as ``National Pet Adoption 
   Month'' to highlight the important role pets play in the lives of 
                        United States citizens.

Whereas April 11 would be an appropriate date to designate as ``National Pet 
        Adoption Day''; and
Whereas the month of April would be an appropriate month to designate as 
        ``National Pet Adoption Month'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of ``National Pet Adoption 
        Day'' and ``National Pet Adoption Month'' to highlight the 
        important role pets play in the lives of United States 
        citizens;
            (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation 
        calling upon the people of the United States to observe 
        ``National Pet Adoption Day'' and ``National Pet Adoption 
        Month'' with appropriate ceremonies and activities; and
            (3) encourages the people of the United States to adopt 
        pets from local animal shelters and rescues.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ethel Bosted, Appellant, v. Larsen Baking Co., Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed April 19, 1968, which disallowed a claim for death benefits. The history of the case is as follows: On June 1, 1959 the claimant’s husband died while at work; on June 13, 1962 the board affirmed an award of death benefits; on November 8, 1963 this court reversed the decision of the board and remitted the case (19 AD 2d 924); on August 8, 1967 a Referee again awarded death benefits; on April 19, 1968 the board reversed the Referee and disallowed the claim. The board has found that the death “ was due to a pre-existing advanced coronary disease and not to any work activities which required any greater exertion than the ordinary wear and tear of life.” This finding is supported by the testimony of Dr. Clark for the employer which constitutes substantial evidence. Whether or not there was excessive work activity was for the board to decide and we have no alternative to affirmance. (See *Matter of Palermo*v. *Gallucci & Sons,*5 N Y 2d 529; *871
      *Matter of Bobb*v. *Weaderhorn Constr. Co.,*8 A D 2d 888.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as
an officer of Archon Corporation (the Company), for purposes of 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:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



May 14, 2003



|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    PAUL W. LOWDEN                                                           
|Paul W. Lowden Chairman of the Board and President (Principal Executive Officer)



|                                                                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    CHARLES W. SANDEFUR                                                                           
|Charles W. Sandefur Director and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)



A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Archon Corporation, and will be retained by Archon Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<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>                                       3,648,661
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,342,928
<ALLOWANCES>                                    93,777
<INVENTORY>                                    226,210
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,501,322
<PP&E>                                       2,365,353
<DEPRECIATION>                               (474,275)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,709,804
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,910,846
<BONDS>                                      5,185,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,394
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,255,872
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,709,804
<SALES>                                      2,515,327
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,637,873
<CGS>                                        1,733,984
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,704,341
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (312,032)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,540,040
<INCOME-TAX>                                   600,616
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            939,424
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   939,424
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |                                                                                                                         
|---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Corporate Trust Services
 MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road Columbia, MD 21045
 Tel:  410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380

Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich
Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-1

Per the Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 1, 2014 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized
officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period):

(a) A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such
officers supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 1, 2016



|              
|--------------
|LOGO          
|              
|Kristen Cronin
|Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
#### § 50.100 Revocation, suspension, modification of licenses, permits, and approvals for cause.

A license, permit, or standard design approval under parts 50 or 52 of this chapter may be revoked, suspended, or modified, in whole or in part, for any material false statement in the application or in the supplemental or other statement of fact required of the applicant; or because of conditions revealed by the application or statement of fact of any report, record, inspection, or other means which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license, permit, or approval on an original application (other than those relating to §§ 50.51, 50.42, and 50.43(b)); or for failure to manufacture a reactor, or construct or operate a facility in accordance with the terms of the permit or license, provided, however, that failure to make timely completion of the proposed construction or alteration of a facility under a construction permit under part 50 of this chapter or a combined license under part 52 of this chapter shall be governed by the provisions of § 50.55(b); or for violation of, or failure to observe, any of the terms and provisions of the act, regulations, license, permit, approval, or order of the Commission.

[72 FR 49504, Aug. 28, 2007, as amended at 89 FR 57720, July 16, 2024]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

_________________________________

FREDERICK ROSS, #85881 *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 2:06-CV-771-ID

 

SHERIFF D.T. MARSHALL, et al., *

Defendants. * 

 __________________________________

ORDER ON MOTION

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Upon

consideration of the proposed amendment to the complaint in which Plaintiff seeks to name

additional plaintiffs to this cause of action and for the reasons stated in the court’s order

entered August 31, 2006 (Doc. No. 3), it is

ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 9) be and is

hereby DENIED. 

DONE, this 26th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00771-ID-SRW Document 10 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 1 of 1