alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 180
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 180.200 What is a covered transaction? A covered transaction is a nonprocurement or procurement transaction that is subject to the prohibitions of this part. It may be a transaction at— ( a ) The primary tier, between a Federal agency and a person (see appendix to this part); or
( b ) A lower tier, between a participant in a covered transaction and another person.
Exhibit 10.9
 DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS
60 WALL STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005
  
 Re: Wellman, Inc. Credit Agreement dated as of February 27, 2008
 Funds Administrator Administrative Agent Credit
Agreement




---



##### 



Very truly yours,DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS,as Administrative AgentBy:
    
    /s/ Marguerite SuttonTitle:
    
    DirectorBy:
    
    /s/ Enrique LandaetaTitle:
    
    Vice President
 
 WELLMAN, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Keith R. PhillipsTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T NELS ON DO M I NG UEZ- SANCHEZ, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70214 A ge nc yN o. A 094- 337- 950 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 29, 2010 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , L E A V Y , an dG R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N e l s on D om i ngue z - S a nc he z , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of E l S a l va dor , pe t i t i ons f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd is m is s in g h is appe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on pr e t e rm i tt i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f o rT e m p o r a ryP r o te c te dS ta tu s . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e 

# FI LED JU L 26 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70214 2 r e v ie w d e n o v o c o n s titu tio n a l an dle g a l q u e s tio n s , I tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 8 8 9 , 8 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n dw e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . W e r ej ec tD om i ng uez- S anchez’ s c on t ent i on thatthe B IA i m prop er l y e nt er ed ar e m o v a l o r d e rin th e f ir s t in s tan c e . See L olon g v. G on zales , 484 F . 3d 1173, 1178 & n. 2 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( en banc) (“ [W ] here the B IA re vers es an IJ ’ s grantof re l i ef that , by defi ni t i on , fol l ow s an i ni t i aldet erm i nat i on by the IJthatthe al i en i s i n fac t r e m o v ab le , a n o r d e ro f

d e p o rta tio n h a s a lr e a d yb e e n p r o p e r lye n te r e db yth e I J .” ) . W e a ls o r e

je c t D o m in g u e z - S a n c h e z ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e I Jv io la te dh is s t a tut orya nd c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o c ouns e l byi s s ui ng aw r i tt e n de c i s i on gr a nt i ng hi m the on l y f

orm of re l i ef

for w hi ch he w as el i gi bl e. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### HYLAND v. FINK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

Action by Catherine Hyland against Valentine Fink.

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed.
§ 200.463 Recruiting costs. ( a ) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, and provided that the size of the staff recruited and maintained is in keeping with workload requirements, costs of “help wanted” advertising, operating costs of an employment office necessary to secure and maintain an adequate staff, costs of operating an aptitude and educational testing program, travel costs of employees while engaged in recruiting personnel, travel costs of applicants for interviews for prospective employment, and relocation costs incurred incident to recruitment of new employees, are allowable to the extent that such costs are incurred pursuant to the non-Federal entity's standard recruitment program. Where the non-Federal entity uses employment agencies, costs not in excess of standard commercial rates for such services are allowable.
( b ) Special emoluments, fringe benefits, and salary allowances incurred to attract professional personnel that do not meet the test of reasonableness or do not conform with the established practices of the non-Federal entity, are unallowable.
( c ) Where relocation costs incurred incident to recruitment of a new employee have been funded in whole or in part to a Federal award, and the newly hired employee resigns for reasons within the employee's control within 12 months after hire, the non-Federal entity will be required to refund or credit the Federal share of such relocation costs to the Federal Government. See also § 200.464.
( d ) Short-term, travel visa costs (as opposed to longer-term, immigration visas) are generally allowable expenses that may be proposed as a direct cost. Since short-term visas are issued for a specific period and purpose, they can be clearly identified as directly connected to work performed on a Federal award. For these costs to be directly charged to a Federal award, they must: ( 1 ) Be critical and necessary for the conduct of the project;
( 2 ) Be allowable under the applicable cost principles;
( 3 ) Be consistent with the non-Federal entity's cost accounting practices and non-Federal entity policy; and
( 4 ) Meet the definition of “direct cost” as described in the applicable cost principles.
[78 FR 78608, Dec. 26, 2013, as amended at 79 FR 75887, Dec. 19, 2014; 85 FR 49569, Aug. 13, 2020]
EXHIBIT 32.2



STRATEX NETWORKS, INC.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 periodic report of Stratex Networks, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Carl A. Thomsen, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the
United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company at
the dates and for the periods indicated.



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                       |  |                                       
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: February 9, 2006 |  | /s/ Carl A. Thomsen                   
|                       |  | Carl A. Thomsen                       
|                       |  | Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
IV 

House Calendar No. 192 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 862 

[Report No. 109–498] 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2006 

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with 

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported 

from the Committee on Rules. 

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the 

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to 

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported on the legislative day of June 13, 2006, providing 

6 for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5576) making appro7 priations for the Departments of Transportation, TreasVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:59 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR862.RH HR862

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

HRES 862 RH

1 ury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, 

2 District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fis3 cal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other pur4 poses. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
House Calendar No. 192 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 862 

[Report No. 109

–498] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

tions reported from the Committee on Rules. with respect to consideration of certain resoluJUNE 12, 2006 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 180

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 180.990 Preponderance of the evidence.

*Preponderance of the evidence* means proof by information that, compared with information opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.
#### In re HILLS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 12, 1914.)

In the matter of the final judicial settlement of the account of proceedings of Arthur T. Hills, as executor, etc., of Margaret Isabella Williams, deceased.

No opinion. Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester County affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHI NGTON, DC 20460 

JUL - 5 2011 


OFFICE OF 

AIR AND R.AD!,t.TION 

Mr. Byron T. Burrows, P.E. 

Manager, Air Programs 

Environmental, Health and Safety 

Tampa Electric Company 

Post Office Box III 

Tampa, Florida 33601-0111 

Dear Mr. Burrows: 

Thank you for your letter of June 2, 2011, requesting an extension of the public comment period 

for the proposed "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oilfired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired 

Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-CommercialInstitutional Steam Generating Units" (the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule), which was 

published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2011. The proposal identified a public comment 

period of 60 days; that period would have ended on July 5, 2011 . The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, however, recently announced an extension ofthe comment period by 30 days 

to August 4. 

While we are extending the comment period, we are not seeking to extend the 

November 16,2011, deadline for signature of the final rule, and remain committed to meeting 

that deadline. 

The 30-day extension will provide the public with a 140-day period to review the proposal. As 

you know, interested parties were aware of the posting on March 16, 2011, ofthe signed 

proposal on the EPA's website (http://www.epa.gov/ttniatw/utility/utilitypg.html), along with 

much of the pertinent supporting documentation (including the analyses used in establishing the 

proposed emission limits and the technical support documents). The proposal was published a 

little over six weeks later, on May 3, marking the beginning of the formal public comment 

period. This will provide the public with approximately 140 days to review and provide written 

comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents. It will also provide at least 60 days 

for other documentation that was not posted on the website until after the proposed rule was 

signed. Due to the substantive issues specific to this rulemaking, this cominent period is 

significantly longer than statutorily required. 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www epa gov 


Rec yc led/Recyclable· Pn Ie wi th Vegetable 0,1 Based Inks on 100% Pastconsumer. Process ChlOrine Free Recycled Paper 

Again, thank you for your letter. We look forward to the timely receipt of your comments. 

ina McCarthy 

Assistant Administrator
ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT



 Exhibit 10.20 
 ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT 
 THIS ASSIGNMENT (the “Assignment”) is made effective as of this
6th day of June, 2006, by and between APPLE SIX HOSPITALITY TEXAS, L.P., a Virginia limited partnership (the “Assignor”), and APPLE SEVEN HOSPITALITY TEXAS, L.P., a Virginia limited partnership (the “Assignee”).

 RECITALS 
 A. The
Assignor and BMC Hotel Property, Ltd. (“Seller”), have executed a Purchase Contract dated June 21, 2005 (the “Contract”) whereby Seller agreed to sell, and the Assignor agreed to purchase, certain real property located in
Brownsville, Texas, and more particularly described in the Contract. 
 B. The Assignor now desires to assign its rights under the Contract
to the Assignee. 
 WITNESSETH 
 FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid, other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Assignment. The Assignor hereby assigns and conveys to Apple Texas all of its right, title and interest in, to and under the Contract.

 2. Assumption. The Assignee hereby assumes and agrees to perform all of the Assignor’s obligations under the Contract.








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Assignment as of the day first above written.

  

			
	ASSIGNOR:
	
	APPLE SIX HOSPITALITY TEXAS, L.P., a
	Virginia limited partnership
	
	By Apple Six Texas General, Inc., its general partner
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Justin G. Knight

	Name:	 	Justin G. Knight
	Title:	 	President
	
	ASSIGNEE:
	
	APPLE SEVEN HOSPITALITY TEXAS, L.P., a
	Virginia limited partnership
	
	By Apple Seven Texas General, Inc., its general partner
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Justin G. Knight

	Name:	 	Justin G. Knight
	Title:	 	President
#### PENSCHUCK v. WULFF BROS. & MIlLLER, Inc.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by Charles 0. Penschuck agpinst Wulif Bros. & Muller, Incorporated.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs. Order filed.
§ 170.310 Non-Federal entity. *Non-Federal entity* has the meaning given in 2 CFR 200.1 and also includes all of the following, for the purposes of this part: ( a ) A foreign organization;
( b ) A foreign public entity; and
( c ) A domestic or foreign for-profit organization.
[85 FR 49526, Aug. 13, 2020]
#### LUEDEKE, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 11, 1914.)

Action by Rose Luedeke, as administratrix, etc., against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

No opinion. Motion for reargument (164 App. Div. 104,149 N. Y. Supp. 525) denied, with $10 costs. Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied.
# 595, SHEET 1

# 595, SHEET 2

# 595, SHEET3

# 595, SHEET4

# INSTRUCTIONS, SHEET 1

# INSTRUCTIONS, SHEET 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 25

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 25.430 Foreign organization.

*Foreign organization* has the meaning given in 2 CFR 200.1.
§ 95.13 Maintenance of records. ( a ) Each licensee, certificate holder or other person granted facility clearance under this part shall maintain records as prescribed within the part. These records are subject to review and inspection by CSA representatives during security reviews.
( b ) Each record required by this part must be legible throughout the retention period specified by each Commission regulation. The record may be the original or a reproduced copy or a microform provided that the copy or microform is authenticated by authorized personnel and that the microform is capable of producing a clear copy throughout the required retention period. The record may also be stored in electronic media with the capability for producing legible, accurate, and complete records during the required retention period. Records such as letters, drawings, or specifications must include all pertinent information such as stamps, initials, and signatures. The licensee, certificate holder, or other person shall maintain adequate safeguards against tampering with and loss of records.
[53 FR 19263, May 27, 1988, as amended at 62 FR 17691, Apr. 11, 1997; 72 FR 49562, Aug. 28, 2007]
*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 circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20098

MICHAEL GREENLEE; MARSHA GREENLEE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-263)

February 5, 1999

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, POLITZ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael ane Marsha Greenlee appeal an adverse summary judgment in their

action seeking refund of the balance of the sum paid in settlement of past due tax

claims. Having considered the briefs and oral arguments of counsel and pertinent

parts of the record, and finding no reversible error, the judgment appeal is

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MAGICWORKS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,412,036
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,574,563
<ALLOWANCES>                                   671,603
<INVENTORY>                                  1,001,291
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,787,498
<PP&E>                                       2,702,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                 573,771
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,552,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,572,767
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,420
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,039,401
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,552,304
<SALES>                                      9,434,868
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,434,868
<CGS>                                        5,964,706
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,417,850
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             184,190
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                869,223
<INCOME-TAX>                                   337,716
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            531,507
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   531,507
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
#### KROMER, Appellant, v. KLETT, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 29, 1914.)

Action by Edward Kromer against Louisa Klett, individually and as executrix, etc., of Martin Klett, deceased.

No opinion. The examination and decision of this case have not been affected by any alleged insufficiency in the findings, but upon the pertinent facts it is considered that the judgment should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1125.
#### § 3513.437 What method do I use to communicate to a participant the requirements described in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.435?

To communicate to a participant the requirements described in 2 CFR 180.435 of the OMB guidance, you must include a term or condition in the transaction that requires the participant's compliance with subpart C of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by subpart C of this part, and requires the participant to include a similar term or condition in lower-tier covered transactions.