alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 176.150 Notice of Required Use of American Iron, Steel, and Manufactured Goods—Section 1605 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. When requesting applications or proposals for Recovery Act programs or activities that may involve construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work, and do not involve iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods covered under international agreements, the agency shall use the notice described in the following paragraphs in their solicitations: ( a ) *Definitions.* Manufactured good, public building and public work, and steel, as used in this notice, are defined in the 2 CFR 176.140.
( b ) *Requests for determinations of inapplicability.* A prospective applicant requesting a determination regarding the inapplicability of section 1605 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5) (Recovery Act) should submit the request to the award official in time to allow a determination before submission of applications or proposals. The prospective applicant shall include the information and applicable supporting data required by paragraphs at 2 CFR 176.140(c) and (d) in the request. If an applicant has not requested a determination regarding the inapplicability of 1605 of the Recovery Act before submitting its application or proposal, or has not received a response to a previous request, the applicant shall include the information and supporting data in the application or proposal.
( c ) *Evaluation of project proposals.* If the Federal Government determines that an exception based on unreasonable cost of domestic iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods applies, the Federal Government will evaluate a project requesting exception to the requirements of section 1605 of the Recovery Act by adding to the estimated total cost of the project 25 percent of the project cost, if foreign iron, steel, or manufactured goods are used in the project based on unreasonable cost of comparable manufactured domestic iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods.
( d ) *Alternate project proposals.* ( 1 ) When a project proposal includes foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods not listed by the Federal Government at 2 CFR 176.140(b)(2), the applicant also may submit an alternate proposal based on use of equivalent domestic iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods.
( 2 ) If an alternate proposal is submitted, the applicant shall submit a separate cost comparison table prepared in accordance with 2 CFR 176.140(c) and (d) for the proposal that is based on the use of any foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods for which the Federal Government has not yet determined an exception applies.
( 3 ) If the Federal Government determines that a particular exception requested in accordance with 2 CFR 176.140(b) does not apply, the Federal Government will evaluate only those proposals based on use of the equivalent domestic iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods, and the applicant shall be required to furnish such domestic items.
#### § 1108.380 Termination.

*Termination* means the ending of an award or subaward, in whole or in part, at any time prior to the planned end of period of performance.
#### § 820.22 Informal conference.

The Director may convene an informal conference to discuss any situation that might be a violation of the Act or a DOE Nuclear Safety Requirement, its significance and cause, any correction taken or not taken by the person, any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and any other useful information. The Director may compel a person to attend the conference. This conference will not normally be open to the public and there shall be no transcript.
###### Editorial Note on Part 9

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 9 appear at 82 FR 52825, Nov. 15, 2017.

#### § 9.68 NRC statement of explanation.

The Inspector General, or the Executive Director for Operations or the EDO's designee, may if deemed appropriate, prepare a concise statement of the reasons why the requested amendments or corrections were not made. Any NRC “Statement of Explanation” must be included in the system of records in the same manner as the “Statement of Disagreement”. Courtesy copies of the NRC statement and of the notation of the dispute as marked on the original record must be furnished to the individual who requested correction or amendment of the record.

[55 FR 33648, Aug. 17, 1990]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             138
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,222
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,145
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,961
<PP&E>                                         170,075
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,873
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,414
<BONDS>                                         38,710
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           137
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,124<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,075
<SALES>                                         42,164
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,164
<CGS>                                           10,703
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 610
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,655
<INCOME-TAX>                                       563
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,092
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09

<FN>
<F1> 5-02 (31) NET OF TREASURY STOCK
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Dr. Premanand V. WAGH, Appellant, v. James L. DENNIS, Chancellor; Thomas A. Bruce, Dean, in their individual and official capacities as agents of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Appellees.

No. 81-1534.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 7, 1982.

Decided May 11, 1982.

*667John W. Walker, Richard Quiggle, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.

Nelwyn Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., Ray Trammell, Gen. Counsel, Fayetteville, Ark., for appellees.

Before HEANEY, HENLEY and McMIL-LIAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Premanand V. Wagh appeals the dismissal by the district court1 of his complaint asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 as being barred by the three-year Arkansas statute of limitations governing liabilities created by statute. Ark.Stat. Ann. § 37-206. We affirm.

Appellant asserts that since his case involves termination of his written employment contract that the five-year Arkansas statute of limitations governing actions on written contracts should control. Ark.Stat. Ann. § 37-209. This argument is without merit. The choice between sections 37-209 and 37-206 for a civil rights action involving termination or non-renewal of an employment contract has been presented to this court on several occasions and each time this court has held that the appropriate statute of limitations is section 37-206. *Marshall v. Kirkland,*602 F.2d 1282 (8th Cir. 1979); *Martin v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.,*568 F.2d 58 (8th Cir. 1977); *Clark v. Mann,*562 F.2d 1104 (8th Cir. 1977).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
[No. 9901.

Department One.

October 9, 1911.]

#### Robertson Mortgage Company, *Respondent,*v. Magnolia Heights Company *et al., Appellants.**1*

Appeal — Decisions Reviewable — Final Orders- — Denting Modification of Judgment. An order denying a motion to modify a decree is not appealable where the motion was based only on errors reviewable on appeal from the final judgment.

Motions to dismiss appeals from the superior court for King county, Neal, J., entered May 4, 1911.

Granted.

*Shepard Flett, Brady*& *Rummens,*and *Roberts, Battle, Hulbert*& *Tennant,*for appellants.

*John T. Condon,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 117 Pac. 1121.

Parker, J.

— This cause is before us upon motions of respondent to dismiss the appeals attempted to be taken by the defendants, Magnolia Heights Company, W. H. B. Thomas and wife, and Westmoreland Company, from an order of the.superior court for King county denying their applications for modification of a final foreclosure decree theretofore- rendered against them in that court.

A careful reading of the applications seeking modification of the final decree fails to disclose any grounds for modification as prayed for, other than such as are based upon alleged errors committed by the superior court in the proceedings upon which that final decree rests. -It has-been repeatedly held by this court that an order denying a motion to vacate a final judgment when the motion involves only alleged errors occurring in the cause in which the judgment is rendered is not appealable; but that a review of such errors must be sought in this court by a direct appeal from the final judgment. *Sound Inv. Co. v. Fairhaven Land Co.,*45 Wash. *262,*88 Pac. 198; *State v. Tenney,*63 Wash. 486, 115 Pac. 1080.

*261An application to modify a final decree, based alone upon alleged errors committed by the court in the cause in which the decree was rendered, is the same in principle as an application to vacate a final judgment or decree because of such errors. Each is equally an effort to have reviewed mere errors occurring in the cause, otherwise than by an appeal from the final judgment or decree. If errors could be reviewed by such method, the time limit for taking appeals would be rendered practically ineffectual.

The appeals are dismissed.

Dunbar, C. J., Crow, Mount, and Gose, JJ., concur.
§ 820.34 Accelerated decision. ( a ) *General.* The Presiding Officer, upon motion of any party or *sua sponte,* may at any time render an Accelerated Decision in favor of the Director or the respondent as to all or any part of the adjudication, without further hearing or upon such limited additional evidence, such as affidavits, as he may require, if no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as to all or any part of the adjudication. In addition, the Presiding Officer, upon motion of the respondent, may render at any time an Accelerated Decision to dismiss an action without further hearing or upon such limited additional evidence as he requires, on the basis of failure to establish a *prima facie* case or other grounds that show no right to relief on the part of the Director.
( b ) *Effect of Accelerated Decision.* ( 1 ) If an Accelerated Decision is rendered as to all the issues and claims in the adjudication, the decision constitutes an Initial Decision of the Presiding Officer, and shall be filed with the Docketing Clerk.
( 2 ) If an Accelerated Decision is rendered on less than all issues or claims in the adjudication, the Presiding Officer shall determine what material facts exist without substantial controversy and what material facts remain controverted in good faith. He shall thereupon file an interlocutory order specifying the facts that appear substantially uncontroverted, and the issues and claims upon which the adjudication will proceed.
Exhibit 31.3 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 302 OF 

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Martin Driscoll, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Spring Bank Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: April 30, 2019 

 

|                                                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Martin Driscoll                                                  |
| Martin Driscoll                                                      |
| President and Chief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer) |
**Exhibit 31.1**
**Section 302 Certification**
I, Ernest S. Rady, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Westcorp; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have;
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure 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 otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial data; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     Date: May 4, 2004      By /S/ ERNEST S. RADY       Ernest S. Rady   Chairman of the Board and   Chief Executive Officer
PGI 219.800 General.

A copy of the Partnership Agreement (PA) between DoD and the Small Business Administration

(SBA) is available here.

Parent topic: PGI 219.8 -CONTRACTING WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (THE

8(A) PROGRAM)
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.10
                        FINANCIAL SECURITY ASSURANCE INC.
                               31 West 52nd Street
                            New York, New York 10019

                                                              July 20, 2006


AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.
801 Cherry Street, Suite 3900
Fort Worth, Texas  76102

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
Sixth and Marquette Avenue
MAC N9311-161
Minneapolis, Minnesota  55479

Re:  AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2006-A-F
     -------------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

                  Reference is made to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as
of July 12, 2006 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among AmeriCredit
Automobile Receivables Trust 2006-A-F, AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., as
Servicer (the "Servicer"), AFS Funding Trust, as Seller ("Funding Trust") and
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Trust Collateral Agent and Backup
Servicer (the "Backup Servicer"). Except as otherwise specified, capitalized
terms used and not defined herein have the respective meanings specified in the
Sale and Servicing Agreement.

                  Financial Security Assurance Inc. hereby agrees that,
notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in Section 4.14 of the
Sale and Servicing Agreement, it shall be obligated (in the absence of the
occurrence of a Servicer Termination Event under Section 9.1 of the Sale and
Servicing Agreement which would permit termination of the Servicer by Financial
Security, and in the absence of any other permitted termination of the Servicer
thereunder) to extend each 90-day term of the Servicer, prior to the
otherwise-applicable expiration date thereof, in a manner contemplated or
permitted by such Section 4.14.

                  This letter is written for the benefit of the Servicer, the
Seller, the Trust Collateral Agent and their respective successors in such
capacities.

                                Very truly yours,

                                FINANCIAL SECURITY ASSURANCE INC.


                                By: /s/ Mark J. Castiglione
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Name: Mark J. Castiglione
                                    Title: Managing Director
#### § 1122.105 Where to find the terms and conditions.

(a) Appendices A through D of this part provide standard wording of terms and conditions for the four articles of national policy requirements. The articles address the rights and responsibilities of the Government and the recipient related to those national policy requirements.

(b) The following table shows which national policy terms and conditions may be found in each appendix to this part:

| In . . . | You will find terms and conditions specifying recipients' rights and responsibilities related to . . . | That would appear in an award within NP Article . . . |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Appendix A | Non-discrimination national policy requirements | I. |
| Appendix B | Environmental national policy requirements | II. |
| Appendix C | National policy requirements concerning live organisms | III. |
| Appendix D | Other national policy requirements | IV. |
§ 1128.215 Payment requirements for institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, local governments, and Indian tribes. ( a ) *Policy.* OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.305 addresses the use of three payment methods for grants and cooperative agreements—advance payments, reimbursement, and working capital advances. Two of the methods pertain to a DoD Component's general terms and conditions, as described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. ( 1 ) *Advance payments.* With the possible exception of construction awards, as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a DoD Component's general terms and conditions must authorize each recipient to request payments in advance as long as the recipient maintains, or demonstrates the willingness to maintain, both: ( i ) Written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between its receipt of funds from the Federal Government and its disbursement of the funds for project or program purposes; and
( ii ) Financial management systems that meet the standards for fund control and accountability specified in the wording of FMS Article I (see Subpart A and appendix A to this part).
( 2 ) *Reimbursement.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions may specify the reimbursement method if the awards using those terms and conditions will support construction projects financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions* — ( 1 ) *General.* Appendix B provides wording for Section B of FMS Article II that a DoD Component: ( i ) Must use in general terms and conditions for non-construction awards to authorize recipients to request advance payments; and
( ii ) May use in general terms and conditions for construction awards if it elects to authorize recipients of those awards to request advance payments.
( 2 ) *Alternative award terms and conditions.* A DoD Component may develop an alternative to appendix B's wording for Section B of FMS Article II to use in general terms and conditions for construction awards, if it elects to specify reimbursement as the payment method for those awards. The alternative: ( i ) Would replace appendix B's wording for paragraph B.1 with wording to specify the reimbursement method of payment;
( ii ) Must include appendix B's wording for paragraphs B.2.b and c, B.4, and B.5, which may be renumbered as appropriate, because those paragraphs apply to reimbursements as well as advance payments;
( iii ) Should omit appendix B's wording for paragraphs B.2.a, B.3, and B.6 because those paragraphs apply specifically to advance payments; and
( iv ) Must inform recipients that the DoD payment office generally makes payment within 30 calendar days after receipt of the request for reimbursement by the award administration office, unless the request is reasonably believed to be improper.
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0483**