alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1125.220 What contracts and subcontracts, in addition to those listed in 2 CFR 180.220, are covered transactions?

Although the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.220(c) allows a Federal agency to do so (also see optional lower tier coverage in the figure in the appendix to 2 CFR part 180), the Department of Defense does not extend coverage of nonprocurement suspension and debarment requirements beyond first-tier procurement contracts under a covered nonprocurement transaction.
§ 1108.20 Acquisition cost. *Acquisition cost* means the cost of an asset to a recipient or subrecipient, including the cost to ready the asset for its intended use. ( a ) For example, when used in conjunction with: ( 1 ) The purchase of equipment, the term means the net invoice price of the equipment, including the cost of any modifications, attachments, accessories, or auxiliary apparatus necessary to make it usable for the purpose for which it is acquired.
( 2 ) Equipment that a recipient or subrecipient constructs or fabricates—or software that it develops—under an award, the term includes, when capitalized in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP): ( i ) The construction and fabrication costs of that equipment; and
( ii ) The development costs of that software.
( b ) Ancillary charges, such as taxes, duty, protective in-transit insurance, freight, and installation may be included in, or excluded from, the acquisition cost in accordance with the recipient's or subrecipient's regular accounting practices.
JOHNP. BAKER, 

Plaintiff, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FILED 

NO'J \ 8 2010 

o' trlct & Bankruptcy Clerk, u'Stl\' ISOistrict ot Columbia 

courts tor e 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action NolO 1977 

u.s. SENATE, et al., 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and 

pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint. 

Plaintiff alleges that the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 

("AEDP A") violates the United States Constitution by setting a time limit within which a 

prisoner must seek habeas relief. He demands an Order directing the Congress to repeal these 

measures and directing the United States District Court for the District of Arizona to review his 

habeas petition. Even if this Court were authorized to grant the relief petitioner demands and if 

the defendants were amenable to suit, his complaint must be dismissed. 

The Supreme Court has held that the AEDPA "does not preclude [its review of] an 

application for habeas corpus relief, although it does affect the standards governing the granting 

of such relief," Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 654 (1996), and "[t]he added restrictions which 

the [AEDPA] places on second habeas petitions ... do not amount to a 'suspension' of the writ 

contrary to Article I, § 9" of the United States Constitution, id. at 664. 1 Because the complaint 

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when 

in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 2. 
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(b )(1). 

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

DATE: tb ~ ZoIO
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 795 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 795

 Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Dahab and 
            Northern Sinai, Egypt, on April 24 and 26, 2006.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2006

   Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia (for himself, Mr. Issa, Mr. Wexler, Mr. 
  Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Baird, Mr. McDermott, and Ms. Watson) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                       on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Dahab and 
            Northern Sinai, Egypt, on April 24 and 26, 2006.

Whereas, on April 24 and 26, 2006, a series of explosions at Dahab and in 
        Northern Sinai, Egypt, planned and carried out by terrorists, resulted 
        in the deaths of scores of civilians and the injury of many others;
Whereas the people of Egypt have been subjected to several other deadly 
        terrorist attacks over the past years; and
Whereas President George W. Bush called President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to 
        extend condolences on behalf of the American people for the loss of 
        life: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks 
        on Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt and other terrorist attacks 
        directed against Egypt;
            (2) expresses its condolences to the families and friends 
        of those individuals who were killed in the attacks and 
        expresses its sympathies to those individuals who have been 
        injured;
            (3) joins with President George W. Bush in expressing the 
        solidarity of the people and Government of the United States 
        with the people and Government of Egypt as they recover from 
        these cowardly and inhuman attacks; and
            (4) expresses its readiness to support the Egyptian 
        authorities in their efforts to bring to justice those 
        individuals responsible for the recent attacks in Egypt and to 
        pursue, disrupt, undermine, and dismantle the networks which 
        plan and carry out such attacks.
                                 <all>
```
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 544 

Recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of National Adoption Month. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2005 

Mr. CAMP (for himself, Mr. OBERSTAR, and Mr. ROGERS of Michigan) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of National 

Adoption Month. 

Whereas there are millions of children worldwide awaiting 

permanent, safe, loving homes; 

Whereas there are presently more than 118,000 children in 

foster care homes in the United States waiting to be 

adopted; 

Whereas since 1987, between 118,000 and 127,000 children 

in the United States have been adopted each year; 

Whereas an estimated 2,100,000 children in the United 

States live with adoptive parents; 

Whereas approximately two percent of families in the United 

States include an adopted child; 
2 

•HRES 544 IH 

Whereas 6 in 10 Americans have had a personal experience 

with adoption, meaning they, a family member, or a close 

friend was adopted, has adopted a child, or has placed a 

child for adoption; 

Whereas loving and nurturing families are formed every day 

when committed and dedicated individuals make an important difference in the life of a child through adoption; 

and 

Whereas on November 2, 2005, the President proclaimed November 2005 as National Adoption Month: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes and supports the goals and ideals of National Adop3 tion Month. 

Æ
§ 1134.105 Performance reporting for construction awards. ( a ) *OMB guidance.* OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.328(c) notes that agencies rely heavily on onsite technical inspections and certified percentage of completion data to monitor progress under construction grants and cooperative agreements and states that agencies may require additional performance reports only when considered necessary.
( b ) *DoD implementation.* DoD Components may require performance reports under construction awards only when necessary and, to reduce recipient burdens, should coordinate the performance reporting with financial reporting to the maximum extent practicable.
( c ) *Award terms and conditions.* ( 1 ) If a DoD Component has general terms and conditions specifically for construction awards and does not need performance reports for those awards, it: ( i ) Should reserve Sections A through D of REP Article I in those terms and conditions;
( ii ) Must follow the specifications in §§ 1134.135 and 1134.145 to include the wording appendix A to this part provides for Sections E and G of REP Article I in those terms and conditions, in order to require recipients to promptly report significant developments and reserve the DoD Component's right to make site visits.
( iii ) Must follow the specifications in § 1134.140 to insert wording in Section F of REP Article I in those terms and conditions, to tell recipients where and how to submit any reports of significant developments.
( 2 ) If a DoD Component has general terms and conditions specifically for construction awards and determines that it needs performance reports for those awards: ( i ) It may tailor the template and content that appendix A to this part provides for Sections A through D of REP Article I in those terms and conditions, as needed to specify the reporting requirements or, as appropriate, instead integrate those requirements into REP Article II on financial reporting. The form, format, or data elements that the DoD Component specifies for any of those performance reports must comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as implemented by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, to use OMB-approved information collections if more than 9 recipients will be subject to the reporting requirement.
( ii ) It must follow the specifications in §§ 1134.135 through 1134.145 concerning Sections E through G of REP Article I in those terms and conditions, as described in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
Editorial Note on Part 180
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 180.705 What does the suspending official consider in issuing a suspension? ( a ) In determining the adequacy of the evidence to support the suspension, the suspending official considers how much information is available, how credible it is given the circumstances, whether or not important allegations are corroborated, and what inferences can reasonably be drawn as a result. During this assessment, the suspending official may examine the basic documents, including grants, cooperative agreements, loan authorizations, contracts, and other relevant documents.
( b ) An indictment, conviction, civil judgment, or other official findings by Federal, State, or local bodies that determine factual and/or legal matters, constitutes adequate evidence for purposes of suspension actions.
( c ) In deciding whether immediate action is needed to protect the public interest, the suspending official has wide discretion. For example, the suspending official may infer the necessity for immediate action to protect the public interest either from the nature of the circumstances giving rise to a cause for suspension or from potential business relationships or involvement with a program of the Federal Government.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 87]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33115]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1734]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Skechers USA, LLC 
(Distribution of Footwear); Moreno Valley, California

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for `` * * * the 
establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of 
entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the March Joint Powers Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade 
Zone 244, has made application to the Board for authority to establish 
a special-purpose subzone at the warehouse and distribution facility of 
Skechers USA, LLC, located in Moreno Valley, California, (FTZ Docket 5-
2008, filed 2/1/2008);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (73 FR 8031, 2/12/2008) and the application has been 
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status for activity related to footwear warehousing and distribution at 
the facility of Skechers USA, LLC, located in Moreno Valley, California 
(Subzone 244A), as described in the application and Federal Register 
notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of December, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-33115 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
| (logo) plante moran | **Plante & Moran, PLLC**

10 South Riverside Plaza

9th floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: 312.207.1040

Fax: 312.207.1066

plantemoran.com |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

 

We have examined National TaxSearch, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the Securities andExchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, set forth in Item1122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for theNational Tax Search TaxQ system (the “Platform”) as of and for theyear ended December 31, 2016. The Company has determined that only certainservicing criteria, 1122(d)(l)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v),1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to theactivities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activitiesperformed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.

 

Management is responsible forthe Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliancewith the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination wasconducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included a selection of a sample of transactionsand compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination periodand determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performedthose activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing ofselected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations,reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered bythis report. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may haveoccurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this reportfor the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination doesnot provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with theservicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for thePlatform is fairly stated in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC

 

Chicago, IL

January 27, 2017

 

 

(logo) Praxity 

MEMBER

GLOBAL ALLIANCE OF 

INDEPENDENT FIRMS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 28, 2014

d0324

Order 

Clerk

March 28, 2014

148123

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148123

COA: 317630

Shiawassee CC: 13-004372-AR

YONG XING DENG,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2012

- NM

- 061

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 88 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 88

   Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Energy and 
              Commerce in the One Hundred Ninth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2005

   Mr. Barton of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Energy and 
              Commerce in the One Hundred Ninth Congress.

    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (hereafter 
in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $21,388,076 for the One Hundred 
Ninth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $10,297,200 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2005, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2006; and
            (2) not more than $11,090,876 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2006, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2007.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2012-1156

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM205AD

737-52-1079 --- 12/16/83

737-52-1079, R1 --- 12/15/88

737-52-1079, R2 --- 7/20/89

737-52-1079, R3 --- 5/17/90

737-52-1079, R4 --- 2/21/91

737-52-1079, R5 --- 5/16/96

737-52A1079, R6 --- 11/18/99

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### § 71.121 Internal inspection.

The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall establish and execute a program for inspection of activities affecting quality by or for the organization performing the activity, to verify conformance with the documented instructions, procedures, and drawings for accomplishing the activity. The inspection must be performed by individuals other than those who performed the activity being inspected. Examination, measurements, or tests of material or products processed must be performed for each work operation where necessary to assure quality. If direct inspection of processed material or products is not carried out, indirect control by monitoring processing methods, equipment, and personnel must be provided. Both inspection and process monitoring must be provided when quality control is inadequate without both. If mandatory inspection hold points, which require witnessing or inspecting by the licensee's designated representative and beyond which work should not proceed without the consent of its designated representative, are required, the specific hold points must be indicated in appropriate documents.