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

- PART 2027 - PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS 
- PART 2030 - COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS 
- PART 2031 - CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 
- PART 2032 - CONTRACT FINANCING 
- PART 2033 - PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS 

- PART 2027 - PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS    - Subpart 2027.3 - Patent Rights Under Government Contracts     - 2027.305-3   Follow-up by Government.
    - 2027.305-70   Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
- PART 2030 - COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS    - Subpart 2030.2 - CAS Program Requirements     - 2030.201-5   Waiver.
- PART 2031 - CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES    - Subpart 2031.1 - Applicability     - 2031.109-70   Contract clauses.
- PART 2032 - CONTRACT FINANCING    - Subpart 2032.4 - Advance Payments for Non-Commercial Items     - 2032.402   General.
- PART 2033 - PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS    - Subpart 2033.1 - Protests     - 2033.103   Protests to the agency.
  - Subpart 2033.2 - Disputes and Appeals     - 2033.204   Policy.
    - 2033.211   Contract Claims - Contracting officer's decision.
    - 2033.215   Contract clause.
#### PFEIFFER, Appellant, v. IRON ELEVATOR & TRANSFER CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 27, 1915.)

Action by Ida Pfeiffer, as administratrix, etc., against the Iron Elevator & Transfer Company.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal (from 164 App. Div. 966, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1106) to Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KURNIAWAN SALIM,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70070

Agency No. A077-302-674

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 9, 2012** 

Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Kurniawan Salim, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

OCT 15 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-70070

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Wakkary

v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), we deny the petition for review.

Salim does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive finding that his asylum claim

was time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.

1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are

waived). Similarly, he does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s

denial of CAT relief. See id.

Salim contends that he suffered past persecution and that he will be

persecuted in the future due to his beating during the 1998 riots, the bombing of his

wife’s church, and the attack and robbery of his brother. Substantial evidence

supports the BIA’s finding that Salim’s experiences in Indonesia did not rise to the

level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009)

(incidents of mistreatment, including beating at the hands of rioters, did not compel

finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding

that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Salim failed to show sufficient

individualized risk to establish it is more likely than not he would be persecuted on

account of his Chinese ethnicity if returned to Indonesia. See id. at 977-79; see

also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will

need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to
3 10-70070

prevail than would an asylum applicant”). The record belies Salim’s contention

that the BIA improperly found him not credible with respect to individualized-risk

evidence. Accordingly, Salim’s withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 31.2

              SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


I, Philip S. Payne, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BNP Residential
Properties, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      (a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      (b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

      (a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.



August 12, 2003                        /s/ Philip S. Payne
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Philip S. Payne
                                   Executive Vice President and
                                   Chief Financial Officer


                                       27
<PAGE>
#### PEOPLE ex rel. McNAMARA v. WALDO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 24, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Cornelius McNamara, against Rhine-lander Waldo, as Commissioner. F. J. Sullivan. of New York City, for relator. T. Farley, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Writ dismissed, and proceeding affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATIONS

Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350



The undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the
foregoing quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed by Fountain Powerboat Industries, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                                                                
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 4, 2004 |  | /s/Reginald M. Fountain, Jr.                                   
|                       |  | Reginald M. Fountain, Jr. President and Chief
Executive Officer
|                       |  |                                                                
|Date: November 4, 2004 |  | /s/ Irving L. Smith                                            
|                       |  | Irving L. Smith Chief Financial
Officer                        



Page 27
#### MARSOFF v. FAST.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County.

December, 1914.)

Venue (§ 4*) — Tbansitory Actions — Change of Place of Trial.

A transitory action should be tried in the county where the transaction involved occurred, unless a large preponderance o£ the witnesses live in another county; and plaintiff, bringing an action in another county, cannot prevent a change to the proper county, where he fails to show that the majority of the witnesses live in or near the other county.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Venue, Cent. Dig. § 3; Dec. Dig. § 4.*]

Action by Mattie Marsoff against Edward Fast. . On motion tc change place of trial.

Granted.

*419Lackey & Dibbell, of Phoenicia, for the motion.

Grauer & Rathlcopf, of New York City, opposed.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. *&*Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

GIEGERICH, J.

Under the well-settled rule that transitory actions should be tried in the county where the transactions involved in the controversy took place, unless a large preponderance of the witnesses live in another county (Fluckiger v. Haber, 144 App. Div. 65, 128 N. Y. Supp. 739, and cases there cited), this motion to change the venue to Greene county should be granted. It was there that the accident occurred, and the plaintiff has failed to show that the majority of the witnesses live in or near Bronx county, in which she has brought her action. On the contrary, even assuming that the two witnesses whose residence is in dispute reside in New York City, still a greater number who have actual knowledge of the circumstances of the accident and-its effect on the plaintiff, and her statements as to such circumstances and effects, undisputedly reside in Greene county.

The motion is granted, with $10 costs. Settle order on notice.
#### Allen M. Schwartz et al., Individually and on Behalf of Certain Stockholders of Video Editing Service of America, Inc., Respondents, v Emil Haviv et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 10, 1979, granting plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment, is unanimously reversed, without costs on appeal, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and said motion for default judgment is denied on condition that defendants-appellants shall pay to plaintiffs the sum of $300 costs within 20 days after service of a copy of the order determining this appeal; and in the event that such payment is not made within such time, the order appealed from is unanimously affirmed, without costs on appeal. Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 8, 1980, denying defendants-appellants’ motion for an order vacating their default judgment is dismissed, without costs, as academic in view of the foregoing determination. Defendants-appellants’ default in answering was for the most part an inadvertence lasting a relatively "short time and did not result in any prejudice to plaintiffs. A final judgment should not be granted on the basis of such an inadvertence where it appears that appellants have at least an arguable defense. It was at all times clear to plaintiffs, and all other parties, that defendants-appellants. did not intend to default and were actively contesting the action. However, some sanction should be imposed on defendants-appellants for their failure to make timely service of the answer which resulted in the motions and orders now under review (even though probably all of this work could have been avoided if plaintiffs’ attorneys had bothered to make a telephone call to defendants’ attorneys before making the motion for default judgment), and accordingly we have imposed the condition of $300 costs. In view of the failure of respondents to comply with the requirement of record references in their brief, no costs on appeal will be allowed. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1119 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1119

Urging the people of the United States to observe October of each year 
            as Italian and Italian-American Heritage Month.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 5, 2018

   Mr. Pascrell (for himself and Mr. Amodei) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Urging the people of the United States to observe October of each year 
            as Italian and Italian-American Heritage Month.

Whereas Italian and Italian-American Heritage Month is an appropriate time to 
        recognize the enormous contributions the Italian and Italian-American 
        people have made to this country and the world throughout our history, 
        including generals, admirals, philosophers, statesmen, musicians, 
        athletes, and Nobel Prize-winning scientists;
Whereas Italian and Italian-American Heritage Month is held to salute the 
        Italian and Italian-American community and to exhibit appreciation for 
        their culture and their heritage that have immeasurably enriched the 
        lives of the people of this Nation and the world;
Whereas the strength and success of the United States, the vitality of our 
        communities, and the effectiveness of our American society depend, in 
        great measure, upon the distinctive and sterling qualities demonstrated 
        by our various ethnic groups, exemplified by members of the Italian and 
        Italian-American community, who share with us their rich and unique 
        heritage; and
Whereas it is fitting and proper that October of each year be observed as 
        Italian and Italian-American Heritage Month throughout the United 
        States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That in order to recognize the enormous contributions 
Italian and Italian-American people have made to this country and the 
world throughout our history, the House of Representatives urges the 
people of the United States to acknowledge an Italian and Italian-
American Heritage Month and to observe the month with appropriate 
events and activities.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 31988D0197 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31988D0197

**88/197/EEC: Commission Decision of 18 February 1988 approving the plan relating to the examination for hormone residues submitted by Denmark (Only the Danish text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 094 , 12/04/1988 P. 0023 - 0023 *

*****

COMMISSION DECISION

of 18 February 1988

approving the plan relating to the examination for hormone residues submitted by Denmark

(Only the Danish text is authentic)

(88/197/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 86/469/EEC of 16 September 1986 concerning examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas, by document of 25 June 1987, Denmark sent the Commission a plan setting out the national measures taken on the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I (A), Groups I and II to Directive 86/469/EEC;

Whereas examination of this plan, as modified, has shown that it conforms to the provisions laid down in Directive 86/469/EEC, and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The plan relating to the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I (A), Groups I and II to Directive 86/469/EEC submitted by Denmark is hereby approved.

Article 2

Denmark shall adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions for the implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.

Done at Brussels, 18 February 1988.

For the Commission

Frans ANDRIESSEN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No L 275, 26. 9. 1986, p. 36.
**Louisiana**

**Louisiana 07 Grant**
Mexoro Exhibit 10.19


    Return
      to Main Document

     

    Exhibit
      10.19


    AGREEMENT
      TO EXTEND DUE DATE

    


    This
      Agreement is entered into on the _____ day of July 2006 by and between Sunburst
      de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of the
      United Mexican States (“Sunburst de Mexico”) and Minera Rio Tinto, S.A. De C.V.,
      a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of the United Mexican States
      (“MRT”).

    


    WHEREAS,
      pursuant to an agreement entered into by the parties on August 18, 2005,
      Sunburst de Mexico is obligated to pay MRT $60,000 on August 2, 2006 as part
      of
      the payments required for the purchase of eight mineral concessions in the
      Guazaparez area of Mexico; and

    


    WHEREAS,
      MRT has agreed to extend the due date for such payment by ninety
      days.

    


    NOW
      THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties agree as
      follows:

    


    
      	1.  	
              MRT
                agrees to extend the due date for the payment on the Guazaparez
                concessions (with title numbers 209497, 212890, 226217, 211040, 223664,
                213572, 220788, and 226884) by ninety
                days.

            


    

    


    
      	2.  	
              Sunburst
                de Mexico will pay $60,000 to MRT on October 31,
                2006.

            


    

    


     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF the
      parties have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and year first mentioned
      above.

     

    


    


    Minera
      Rio Tinto, S. A. De C. V.

    


    


    By:
      /s/Minera Rio Tinto

    


    


    Sunburst
      de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

    


    


    


    By:
      /s/Sunburst de Mexico
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.
 Small Business Administration
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New York (FEMA—1869—DR), dated 12/31/2009. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flooding Associated with Tropical Depression Ida and a Nor'easter. *Incident Period:*
                         11/12/2009 through 11/14/2009. *Effective Date:*
                         12/31/2009. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         03/01/2010. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/01/2010.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 12/31/2009, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Nassau, Suffolk. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.625Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 120066 and for economic injury is 120076. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2010-324 Filed 1-11-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### HARRIS, Respondent, v. CLYNDON CONTRACTING CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by Samuel Harris against the Clyndon Contracting Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### State of Kansas, *Appellee,*v. Anthony L. Davis, *Appellant.*

No. 47,905

Opinion filed December 13, 1975.

*Michael Moline,*of Pendergraft, Cohen, Howard & Moline, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.

*Stephen E. Robison,*assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and *Curt T. Schneider,*attorney general, *Keith Sanborn,*district attorney, and *Stephen M. Joseph,*assistant district attorney, were with him on the brief for the appellee.

Fromme, J.

Affirmed.
#### Archives

Background photo (titled "Concertina") by Benjamin Busch. See his powerful collection, "Art in War," in Volume 19 

1989 Vol 1, No. 1

1990 Vol 2, No. 1

1991 Vol 3, No. 1

1989 Vol 1, No. 2

1990 Vol 2, No. 2

1991 Vol 3, No. 2

1992 Vol 4, No. 1

1993 Vol 5, No. 1

1994 Vol 6, No. 1

1992 Vol 4, No. 2

1993 Vol 5, No. 2

1994 Vol 6, No. 2

1995 Vol 7, No. 1

1996Vol 8, No. 1

1997 Vol 9, No. 1

1995 Vol 7, No. 2

1996 Vol 8, No. 2

1997 Vol 9, No. 2

1998 Vol 10, No. 1

1999 Vol 11, No. 1

2000 Vol 12, No. 1

1998 Vol 10, No. 2

1999 Vol 11, No. 2

2000 Vol 12, No. 2

2001 Volume 13

2002 Volume 14

2003 Volume 15

2004 Volume 16

2005 Volume 17

2006 Volume 18

2007 Volume 19

2008 Volume 20

2009 Volume 21

2010 Volume 22

2011 Volume 23

2012 Volume 24

2013 Volume 25

2014 Volume 26

2015 Volume 27

2016 Volume 28

2017 Volume 29

2018 Volume 30

2019 Volume 31

2020 Volume 32

2021 Volume 33

2022 Volume 34

##### Folios