alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1532.1220 What will the EPA debarring official consider in making a decision on my reinstatement request? ( a ) The EPA debarring official will consider all information and arguments contained in the administrative record in support of, or in opposition to, your request for reinstatement, including any findings of material fact.
( b ) The debarring official will also consider any mitigating or aggravating factors that may relate to your conviction or the circumstances surrounding it, including any of those factors that appear in 2 CFR 180.860 that may apply to your situation.
( c ) Finally, if disqualification applies to a business entity, the debarring official will consider any corporate or business attitude, policies, practices and procedures that contributed to the events leading to conviction, or that may have been implemented since the date of the misconduct or conviction. You can obtain any current policy directives issued by the EPA that apply to CAA or CWA disqualification or reinstatement by contacting the Office of the EPA Debarring Official, U.S. EPA, Office of Grants and Debarment (3901R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 914 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 914

Condemning the use of photographs of military caskets and funerals for 
              partisan political and fundraising purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2006

  Mr. Cole of Oklahoma submitted the following resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Condemning the use of photographs of military caskets and funerals for 
              partisan political and fundraising purposes.

Whereas 314 of our servicemen and women have given their lives in prosecutng the 
        war in Afghanistan;
Whereas 2,543 of our servicemen and women have given their lives prosecuting the 
        war in Iraq;
Whereas the families of the servicemen and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan 
        deserve the thanks of a grateful Nation;
Whereas the families and friends of the servicemen and women killed in Iraq and 
        Afghanistan have suffered immensely at the loss of their loved ones; and
Whereas the families of the servicemen and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan 
        deserve to have their privacy respected: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives condemns the use of 
photographs of military caskets and funerals for partisan political and 
fundraising purposes.
                                 <all>
```
PGI 232.410 Findings, determination, and

authorization.

If an advance payment procedure is used without a special bank account, replace paragraph (a)(4) of

the Findings, Determination, and Authorization for Advance Payments at FAR 32.410 with:

“(4) The proposed advance payment clause contains appropriate provisions as security for advance

payments. These provisions include a requirement that the outstanding advance payments will be

liquidated from cost reimbursements as they become due the contractor. This security is considered

adequate to protect the interest of the Government.”

Parent topic: PGI 232.4 -ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL

ACQUISITIONS
(logo) KATZ

SAPPER

& MILLER

 

**Report ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

Managing Member

Park Bridge LenderServices LLC

New York, NY

 

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of 2017 Compliance by ParkBridge Lender Services LLC with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’sReport”), that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”) complied withthe servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31,2017, excluding those criteria determined by management and noted as notapplicable (N/A) within Exhibit B to Management’s Report. The transactionscovered by this report are only those transactions processed by the Company inits capacity as trust advisor or operating advisor for the asset backedsecurities transactions (the “Platform”) identified in Management’s Report.Reference Exhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by thisexamination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion onmanagement’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted inaccordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidenceabout the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Ourexamination included tests on a sample basis of the servicing activitiesrelated to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed thoseselected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria duringthe specified period, and performingsuch other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedureswere limited to the selectedservicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by thisreport and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicingactivities related to each asset backed transaction included in the Platform. An examination is not designed to detectnoncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the periodspecified above or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the Company’sservicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that ourexamination provides areasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legaldetermination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertionthat the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteriaidentified in Exhibit B to Management’s Report with respect to the transactionsidentified in Exhibit A to Management’s Report as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2017, for the Platform, is fairly stated, in all material aspects.

 

 

/s/ Katz, Sapper& Miller LLP 

 

 

New York, NY

February 15, 2018
Exhibit 32.1

 

Certification of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Ted Goldthorpe, the Chief Executive Officer and President, in connection with the Annual Report of Logan Ridge Finance Corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)	the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: March 14, 2022

 

|        |                                       |        |  |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|--|
|   |                                  |   |
|   | /s/ Ted Goldthorpe                    |
|   | Ted Goldthorpe                        |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer and President |   |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |   |
|   | Logan Ridge Finance Corporation       |   |

 

----
§ 200.216 Prohibition on certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment. ( a ) Recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to: ( 1 ) Procure or obtain;
( 2 ) Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
( 3 ) Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system. As described in Public Law 115-232, section 889, covered telecommunications equipment is telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities). ( i ) For the purpose of public safety, security of government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure, and other national security purposes, video surveillance and telecommunications equipment produced by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities).
( ii ) Telecommunications or video surveillance services provided by such entities or using such equipment.
( iii ) Telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced or provided by an entity that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of the National Intelligence or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reasonably believes to be an entity owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of a covered foreign country.
( b ) In implementing the prohibition under Public Law 115-232, section 889, subsection (f), paragraph (1), heads of executive agencies administering loan, grant, or subsidy programs shall prioritize available funding and technical support to assist affected businesses, institutions and organizations as is reasonably necessary for those affected entities to transition from covered communications equipment and services, to procure replacement equipment and services, and to ensure that communications service to users and customers is sustained.
( c ) See Public Law 115-232, section 889 for additional information.
( d ) See also § 200.471.
Home Page

About the CommissionContacting The Commission*Guidelines*- NewsletterRules of Practice & Procedure(PDF)

Guidelines Manuals and AmendmentsPublications and Resourses Guide (PDF)Federal Sentencing StatisticsReports to CongressAnnual Reports and Statistical SourcebooksResearch Projects and Working Group Reports

Office of Education & SentencingPracticeGuidelines EducationalMaterialsGuidelines TrainingManualGuidelines Training VideotapesGuidelines WorksheetsCourt DecisionsTraining Opportunities/ Announcements 

Organizational        Guidelines and ComplianceOrganizational Guidelines Advisory Group

Site        MapEmployment OpportunitiesInformation on Document FormatsCase Return Receipt FormSign up for E-Mail Updates

|  |
|--|

----

# Court Decisions

## Supreme Court Case Law

Supreme Court Cases on Sentencing Issues (September          2004) (.PDF) This document summarizes Supreme Court decisions in cases          involving the Commission, the federal sentencing guidelines, and other          related issues.

## Selected Guideline Application Decisions

Selected Guideline            Application Decisions 1996 (.PDF) This document contains selected        case annotations from federal circuits for 1996.

Selected Guideline            Application Decisions 1995 (.PDF) This is a summary of selected            cases, organized according to pertinent guideline section, involving            application of the federal sentencing guidelines or related sentencing            issues for 1995.

## Selected Guideline Application Decisions by Circuit

These documents present specific decisions by circuit courts regarding          the federal sentencing guidelines.

DC Circuit (April 2004) (.PDF)

First Circuit (May 2004)(.PDF) 

Second Circuit (April 2004) (.PDF) 

Third Circuit (April 2004)(.PDF) 

Fourth Circuit (September 2004) 

Fifth Circuit ( March 2004) (.PDF) 

Sixth Circuit (October 2003) (.PDF) 

Seventh Circuit (October 2003) (.PDF) 

Eighth Circuit (August 2004) (.PDF)

Ninth Circuit (July 2004) (.PDF)

Tenth Circuit (August 2004) (.PDF)

Eleventh Circuit (July 2004) (.PDF)

## Circuit Conflicts

Resolving Circuit Conflicts - Part            I (.PDF)

Resolving Circuit Conflicts - Part II (.PDF)

Circuit Conflicts Addressed by Commission            Amendment (.PDF)

Circuit Conflicts (for Review and            Consideration During 1997-98) Contains circuit conflict issues            identified by the Commission, for which staff will develop additional            information and amendment options. 

##  

### News

Commission Meeting Information

Federal    Register Notices

 Press Releases

Guidelines Newsletters

Public Meeting Minutes

Public Hearing Testimony

### Advisory Groups & Other Related Links

Probation Officers Advisory Group

Organizational Guidelines Advisory Group

 Practitioner's  Advisory Group

State Sentencing Commissions

Federal Judiciary Links

### Other Items of Interest

 Sign  up for E-Mail Updates from the USSC - Listserv

 Letter  to former Commission Employees 

Case  Return Receipt Form
#### *In re*MARRIAGE OF SCOTT BRADEN *et al.*—(SCOTT BRADEN, Petitioner-Appellee, *v.*CYNTHIA SUE BRADEN, Respondent-Appellant—(ROBERT BRADEN *et al.,*Appellees).)

Fifth District

No. 79-33

Opinion filed March 30, 1979.

*536Linda Corvallis Stewart, of Stewart and Stewart, of West Frankfort, for appellant.

Robert W. Lewis, of Benton, for appellees.

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

On September 11, 1978, Scott Braden filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage to Cynthia Braden and asked that the custody of the parties’ minor child, Mendi Sue, be awarded to him. Cynthia filed a response and counterclaim seeking to retain custody of Mendi, who was approximately three months old.

After a hearing, the trial court awarded custody of Mendi to her paternal grandparents, Robert and Betty Braden. Cynthia sought a stay of judgment pending appeal, which was denied by the trial court.

Recognizing that as a practical matter, the party who retained custody of Mendi during this appeal would be the party in whose custody Mendi would be likely to remain unless the appeal were decided with uncommon dispatch, we held oral arguments on Cynthia’s motion for emergency stay on March 1, 1979, and established an expedited briefing schedule. We granted the requested stay, and directed the trial court to order Mendi returned to Cynthia’s custody.

 It is clear that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration in determining who shall have custody of that child. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 40, par. 602(a).) While we recognize that those interests may, in unusual circumstances, be served most effectively by placement with a custodian other than the child’s natural parent, the law presumes that it is in the child’s best interest to be raised by his natural parent absent a clear showing to the contrary. *Eaton v. Eaton*(1970), 50 Ill. App. 3d 306, 365 N.E.2d 647.

 The evidence in this case discloses no “perfect” placement among the alternatives presented to the court. Both Scott and Cynthia have *537demonstrated instances of erratic and immature behavior; however, it is uncontroverted that Cynthia has been diligent in attending to Mendi’s needs and we do not believe that her nurture of the child can be characterized as substandard. In contrast, Scott has had minimal contact with the child, and has not willingly provided her with substantial support. The paternal grandfather did not see Mendi at all until these proceedings began, and the paternal grandmother visited her only twice, immediately after her birth. Under these facts, we hold that the trial court erred in awarding custody of Mendi Sue Braden to Robert and Betty Braden, and we further hold that it is in the best interests of the child that custody remain with her mother, Cynthia Braden, subject to reasonable visitation of Scott Braden to be fixed by the trial court.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Franklin County is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

. Reversed and remanded.

KUNCE and KASSERMAN, JJ., concur.
#### § 2424.1155 What is the effect of a limited denial of participation on a suspension or a debarment?

The imposition of a limited denial of participation does not affect the right of the Department to suspend or debar any person under this part.
§ 176.130 Noncompliance. The award official must— ( a ) Review allegations of violations of section 1605 of the Recovery Act;
( b ) Unless fraud is suspected, notify the recipient of the apparent unauthorized use of foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods and request a reply, to include proposed corrective action; and
( c ) If the review reveals that a recipient or subrecipient has used foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods without authorization, take appropriate action, including one or more of the following: ( 1 ) Process a determination concerning the inapplicability of section 1605 of the Recovery Act in accordance with § 176.120.
( 2 ) Consider requiring the removal and replacement of the unauthorized foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods.
( 3 ) If removal and replacement of foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods used in a public building or a public work would be impracticable, cause undue delay, or otherwise be detrimental to the interests of the Federal Government, the award official may determine in writing that the foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods need not be removed and replaced. A determination to retain foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods does not constitute a determination that an exception to section 1605 of the Recovery Act applies, and this should be stated in the determination. Further, a determination to retain foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods does not affect the Federal Government's right to reduce the amount of the award by the cost of the steel, iron, or manufactured goods that are used in the project or to take enforcement or termination action in accordance with the agency's grants management regulations.
( 4 ) If the noncompliance is sufficiently serious, consider exercising appropriate remedies, such as withholding cash payments pending correction of the deficiency, suspending or terminating the award, and withholding further awards for the project. Also consider preparing and forwarding a report to the agency suspending or debarring official in accordance with the agency's debarment rule implementing 2 CFR part 180. If the noncompliance appears to be fraudulent, refer the matter to other appropriate agency officials, such as the officer responsible for criminal investigation.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                             STRATEX NETWORKS, INC.

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Charles D. Kissner, Chief Executive
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.

Date: August 13, 2003                                /s/ Charles D. Kissner
                                                     ------------------------
                                                         Charles D. Kissner
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
#### Alvin Dicker, Respondent, v. Pauline Dicker, Appellant.

In an action for divorce based on a separation decree which defendant had been awarded in 1963, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 22, 1969, as (1) denied the defendant wife’s motion to dismiss the complaint; (2) denied her motion for a counsel fee on said motion to dismiss, without prejudice to renewal at the trial, etc., and, in otherwise granting her a counsel fee, limited the allowance to $500; (3) denied her motion to increase the alimony she had been awarded in the separation decree so as to require plaintiff to pay for their adult son’s college tuition; (4) denied her motion to restrain plaintiff from entering her residence (which he does when he visits their adult son who resides there), without prejudice to renewal if warranted by plaintiff’s future conduct; and (5) granted plaintiff’s cross motion to vacate a notice to examine him before trial. Order affirmed, without costs *(Schacht*v. *Schacht,*32 A D 2d 201; *Kaplan*v. *Kaplan,*31 A D 2d 247). Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000813040
<NAME> Greyhound Lines, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,852
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                       298
<INVENTORY>                                      4,494
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,354
<PP&E>                                         452,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                 117,849
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 586,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,247
<BONDS>                                        240,990
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     60,000
<COMMON>                                           594
<OTHER-SE>                                     117,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   586,518
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               571,202
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  395,456
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,730
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,020
<INCOME-TAX>                                       248
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,772
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 25,323
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,889)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 200.333 Fixed amount subawards.

With prior written approval from the Federal awarding agency, a pass-through entity may provide subawards based on fixed amounts up to the Simplified Acquisition Threshold, provided that the subawards meet the requirements for fixed amount awards in § 200.201.