alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 302-2.106 May we waive statutory or regulatory limitations relating to relocation allowances for employees relocating to/from remote or isolated locations?

Yes, the agency head or their designee may waive any statutory or regulatory limitations for employees relocating (to/from a remote or isolated location) when determining that failure to waive the limitation would cause an undue hardship on the employee.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12254, Feb. 16, 2024]
#### § 109-38.300 Scope.

This subpart prescribes the requirements governing the use of Government motor vehicles for official purposes by designated contractors.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Collier, Appellant.

[628 NYS2d 513]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered February 16, 1994, convicting him of *407criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court should not have accepted his plea of guilty without further inquiry into the availability of an agency defense. However, upon our review of the minutes of the plea proceedings, we conclude that an agency defense was not suggested by the defendant’s factual recitation *(see, People v Gaither,*153 AD2d 587). Moreover, the record demonstrates that the plea allocution satisfied the basic requirements of *People v Harris*(61 NY2d 9).

Appellate review of the remaining issue raised by the defendant was effectively waived by him as part of his plea bargain. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed *(see, People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273; *People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Wyeth (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2006 (the Report), I, Kenneth J. Martin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.

Dated: May 9, 2006

By: /s/

Kenneth J. MartinKenneth J. MartinChief Financial Officer and Vice Chairman
No. 10-10968.

#### Gollehon *v.*Mahoney, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 301-52.22 Will any late payment fees I receive be reported as wages on a Form W-2?

No, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has determined that the late payment fee is in the nature of interest (compensation for the use of money). Your agency will report payments in accordance with IRS guidelines.

[FTR Amdt. 90, 65 FR 3056, Jan. 19, 2000]
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 737 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 737

 To amend the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979 
to eliminate restrictions on the provision of air transportation to and 
                        from Love Field, Texas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 1999

 Mr. Tiahrt (for himself, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, and Mr. Moran of Kansas) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979 
to eliminate restrictions on the provision of air transportation to and 
                        from Love Field, Texas.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That section 29 of the International Air Transportation Competition Act 
of 1979 (94 Stat. 48; 49) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
#### Carlton L. ADAMS v. ALABAMA DEP’T OF CORR.

CR-14-0153

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

01/30/2015

Affirmed
#### ALEXANDER WALDRON, Respondent, *v.*THE CITIZENS’ GAS-LIGHT COMPANY OF LONG ISLAND CITY and others, Appellants.

*Bonds payable at a pw'tivalw' place —failw'e of holder to present them thm'e*— *wai/ow'.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the trial of this action by the court, without a jury.

The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage given by the defendant. The interest was payable at the office of the company in Long Island City, upon surrender of the interest coupons annexed to the bond of the company. On the 14th of April, 1876, the day before the interest was due, the plaintiff had an interview with the defendant’s president, E. B. Litchfield, at No. 46 Pine street, New York. Litchfield said he would be unable to pay the interest on the next day. On the 15th day of April, 1876, Litchfield asked plaintiff to wait a few days and he would bring him the money. Litchfield employed a Mr. Olney to borrow the money of plaintiff, with which to pay this interest. The plaintiff declined, and Litchfield told plaintiff that unless he could get the loan the interest could not be paid. The defendant insisted that the plaintiff could not recover, because he had failed to present the coupon for payment at the office of the company.

The court at General Term said: “ If a demand at the office of the company was a condition precedent to an action, it was waived by the president’s request that plaintiff should wait for a few days, *367when the company could pay the interest. *(Underwood*v. *The Fa/rmers’ Joint-Stook Ins. Oo., 57*N. Y., 500; *Young*v. *Hunter,*6 id., 204.) When a bond is payable at a particular place, if the defendant means to avail himself of a failure to make such demand, he must answer that he was ready at the time and place to pay. *{Wolcott*v. *Van Santvoord, 17*J. R., 248.) Judgment affirmed, with costs.”

*JD. P. Ba/ma/rd,*for the appellants. *Wm. P. Fiero,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Dykman, J., concurred; Gilbert, J., not sitting.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Order entered July 16, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00072

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

LAWRENCE CLARK SANDL IN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416

- 82012

- 2012



### O RDER

Appellee’s July 14, 2014 motion for extension of time to file appellee’s brief is

GRANTED . Appellant’s brief received by the Clerk of the Court on July 14, 2014 is DEEMED
timely filed on the date of this order.

/s/ L ANA MYERS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                          26,250
<SECURITIES>                                     4,478
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     86,829
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               175,431
<PP&E>                                         138,734
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 349,858
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           95,914
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   349,858
<SALES>                                        102,445
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,110
<CGS>                                           74,331
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  103,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (842)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (303)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       350
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000005588
<NAME> AMERICAN PAD AND PAPER CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             674                     674
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,612                  78,612
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (987)                   (987)
<INVENTORY>                                    157,882                 157,882
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               250,167                 250,167
<PP&E>                                         171,918                 171,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                (23,108)                (23,108)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 641,101                 641,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,356                 117,356
<BONDS>                                        368,547                 368,547
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           274                     274
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,231                 115,231
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   641,101                 641,101
<SALES>                                        176,462                 493,456
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,462                 493,456
<CGS>                                          148,246                 401,419
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  163,726                 447,231
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (112)                   (233)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    51                     372
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,851                  27,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,997                  18,812
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,350                   8,465
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,647                  10,347
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,647                  10,347
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06                     .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-24175-JAL

NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA 

PORTFOLIO) LLC D/B/A BIRD 

LUDLAM, GABLES AH, LLC D/B/A 

CAROLINA ALE HOUSE, WINNDIXIE STORES, INC. D/B/A WINNDIXIE #249 and ORSILLO 

ENTERPRISES INC D/B/A BIRD 

ROAD DAIRY QUEEN,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

JOINT STIPULATION OF FINAL DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant, WINNDIXIE STORES, INC. D/B/A WINN-DIXIE #249 (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned 

counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby STIPULATE 

AND AGREE that this matter has been settled and to the immediate dismissal of this action with 

prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

STIPULATED AND AGREED by Counsel for the Parties on the dates below written.

Respectfully submitted on May 19, 2023.

/s/ Anthony J. Perez

ANTHONY J. PEREZ

Florida Bar No. 535451

GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200

Coral Gables, Fl 33134

Telephone: (305) 553- 3464

Email: ajperez@lawgmp.com 

/s/ Susan V. Warner

SUSAN V. WARNER

Florida Bar No. 38205

FISHERBROYLES LLP

1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900

Miami, Florida 33131

Phone: (786) 310-0637

Email: susan.warner@fisherbroyles.com

Case 1:22-cv-24175-JAL Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the 

Court's electronic filing system upon all parties of record on May 19, 2023.

GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200

Coral Gables, Fl 33134

Telephone: (305) 553-3464

Facsimile: (305) 553-3031

Primary E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com

Secondary E-Mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com; 

dramos@lawgmp.com

By: ___/s/_Anthony J. Perez________

 ANTHONY J. PEREZ

Florida Bar No.: 535451

Counsel for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendant WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. 

D/B/A WINN-DIXIE #249

Case 1:22-cv-24175-JAL Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2023 Page 2 of 2
# Comments on: 2022-1764: Broadcom Corporation v. Netflix, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7650

ALVIN LEE GREGORY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-101-5) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvin Lee Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Heather A. Connolly, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Alvin Lee Gregory, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gregory has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15809]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a 
meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Procedures 
Advisory Committee (ATPAC) will be held to review present air traffic 
control procedures and practices for standardization, clarification, 
and upgrading of terminology and procedures.

DATES: The meeting will be held from July 17-19, 2000, from 9 a.m. to 5 
p.m. each day.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Department of 
Transportation, NASSIF Building, 400 7th Street, SW., Conference Rooms 
6332-6336, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Eric Harrell, Executive Director, 
ATPAC, Terminal and En Route Procedures Division, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-3725.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. app.2), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the ATPAC to be held July 17 through July 
19, 2000, at the Department of Transportation, NASSIF Building, 400 7th 
Street, SW., Conference Rooms 6332-6336, Washington, DC. The agenda for 
this meeting will cover: a continuation of the Committee's review of 
present air traffic control procedures and practices for 
standardization, clarification, and upgrading of terminology and 
procedures. It will also include:
    1. Approval of Minutes.
    2. Submission and Discussion of Areas of Concern.
    3. Discussion of Potential Safety Items.
    4. Report from Executive Director.
    5. Items of Interest.
    6. Discussion and agreement of location and dates from subsequent 
meetings.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the 
space available. With the approval of the Chairperson, members of the 
public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons desiring to 
attend and persons desiring to present oral statements should notify 
the person listed above not later than July 14, 2000. The next 
quarterly meeting of the FAA ATPAC is planned to be held from October 
2-5, 2000, in Washington, DC.
    Any member of the public may present a written statement to the 
Committee at any time at the address given above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 8, 2000.
Eric Harrell,
Executive Director, Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 00-15809 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
No. 11-1055.

#### Attard *v.*City of New York, New York, et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 105-57.013 Refunds. ( a ) If a hearing official, at a hearing held pursuant to § 105-57.005 of this part, determines that a debt is not legally due and owing to the United States, GSA will promptly refund any amount collected by means of administrative wage garnishment.
( b ) Unless required by Federal law or contract, refunds under this part will not bear interest.
#### § 102-75.1090 Can this delegation of authority to the Secretary of Agriculture be redelegated?

Yes, the Secretary of Agriculture may redelegate authority delegated in § 102-75.1075 to any officer or employee of the Department of Agriculture.
SCWC-21-0000294

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAIʻI,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

KYLE P. MCCORMICK,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-21-0000294; CASE NO. 1DTC-20-003868)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s Application for Writ 

of Certiorari, filed on September 23, 2022, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, October 26, 2022.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-21-0000294

26-OCT-2022

11:43 AM

Dkt. 3 ODAC
§ 105-68.825 What information must I provide to the debarring official if I contest a proposed debarment? ( a ) In addition to any information and argument in opposition, as a respondent your submission to the debarring official must identify— ( 1 ) Specific facts that contradict the statements contained in the Notice of Proposed Debarment. Include any information about any of the factors listed in § 105-68.860. A general denial is insufficient to raise a genuine dispute over facts material to the debarment;
( 2 ) All existing, proposed, or prior exclusions under regulations implementing E.O. 12549 and all similar actions taken by Federal, State, or local agencies, including administrative agreements that affect only those agencies;
( 3 ) All criminal and civil proceedings not included in the Notice of Proposed Debarment that grew out of facts relevant to the cause(s) stated in the notice; and
( 4 ) All of your affiliates.
( b ) If you fail to disclose this information, or provide false information, the General Services Administration may seek further criminal, civil or administrative action against you, as appropriate.
EXHIBIT 32.a



CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 registrant.



|               |  |                            
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:          |  |                            
|March 26, 2010 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|               |  |                            
|               |  | John P. Manning            
|               |  | Principal Executive Officer
|               |  |                            
|               |  |                            



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 registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.