alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Farley & Loetscher Manufacturing Company, appellee, v. William G. Merten; United Surety Company of Baltimore, appellant.

Filed January 30, 1914.

No. 17,365.

Rulings in *Oortright Metal Roofing Oo. v. Merten, ante,*p. 164, followed.

Appeal from the district court for Lancaster county: Albert J. Cornish, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Francis A.*Brogan, for appellant.

Burkett, *Wilson & Brown, contra.*

Rose, J.

This is an action on the bond of a public contractor who liad agreed for the consideration of $77,872 to construct for the state of Nebraska at the asylum for the insane at Norfolk a new fireproof wing, a cottage, and a non-fireproof storehouse. William G. Merten ivas the contractor. According to specific terms of the building contract, it obligated the contractor, under the penalty expressed in a bond thereto attached, “to furnish all labor, materials, *172machinery, appliances or things necessary to construct, equip and fully build, and complete ready for use,” the buildings mentioned. The improvements were to conform to plans and specifications attached to and made a part of the building contract. In the penal sum of $25,000, •with the state of Nebraska named as obligee, the bond on which the action is based, if enforceable, required- the contractor as principal and the United Surety Company of Baltimore as surety to faithfully perform the obligations imposed upon the contractor by the building contract. Plaintiff furnished materials for the buildings, and the contractor violated his agreement to pay for them. This is a suit on the bond for the price of the materials so furnished. Two defenses Avere interposed: (1) The bond Avas never mutually executed by the state and the surety. (2) Plaintiff was not entitled to the protection of the bond. Upon a trial of the issues in the district court, without the intervention of a jury, plaintiff recovered a judgment for the full amount of its claim, amounting to $4,444.32, •April 26, 1911.

For the reasons stated in *Cortright Metal Roofing Co. v.*Merten, *ante,*p. 164, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
§ 1230.205 Professional and technical services. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 1230.100 (a), does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or an extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement if payment is for professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid, proposal, or application for that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, “professional and technical services” shall be limited to advice and analysis directly applying any professional or technical discipline. For example, drafting of a legal document accompanying a bid or proposal by a lawyer is allowable. Similarly, technical advice provided by an engineer on the performance or operational capability of a piece of equipment rendered directly in the negotiation of a contract is allowable. However, communications with the intent to influence made by a professional (such as a licensed lawyer) or a technical person (such as a licensed accountant) are not allowable under this section unless they provide advice and analysis directly applying their professional or technical expertise and unless the advice or analysis is rendered directly and solely in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action. Thus, for example, communications with the intent to influence made by a lawyer that do not provide legal advice or analysis directly and solely related to the legal aspects of his or her client's proposal, but generally advocate one proposal over another are not allowable under this section because the lawyer is not providing professional legal services. Similarly, communications with the intent to influence made by an engineer providing an engineering analysis prior to the preparation or submission of a bid or proposal are not allowable under this section since the engineer is providing technical services but not directly in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action.
( c ) Requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving a covered Federal award include those required by law or regulation, or reasonably expected to be required by law or regulation, and any other requirements in the actual award documents.
( d ) Only those services expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
**EXHIBIT31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Stathis Kouninis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Tasker Products Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4. The issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer andhave:

(a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Intentionallyomitted in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8392]

(c) evaluated theeffectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(d) disclosed in thisreport any change in the issuer’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

5. The issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of theissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

August 14 , 2006
| /s/ Stathis Kouninis                              |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Stathis Kouninis                                  |   |
| Chief Financial  Officer, Treasurer and Secretary |
| (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)     |

 

----
§ 1181.170 Compliance procedures. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this section applies to all allegations of discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by the agency.
( b ) The agency shall process complaints alleging violations of section 504 with respect to employment according to the procedures established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613 pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791).
( c ) The Director shall be responsible for coordinating implementation of this section. Complaints may be sent to Director, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC, 20024-2135.
( d ) The agency shall accept and investigate all complete complaints for which it has jurisdiction. All complete complaints must be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. The agency may extend this time period for good cause.
( e ) If the agency receives a complaint over which it does not have jurisdiction, it shall promptly notify the complainant and shall make reasonable efforts to refer the complaint to the appropriate government entity.
( f ) The agency shall notify the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board upon receipt of any complaint alleging that a building or facility that is subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), or section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 792), is not readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons.
( g ) Within 180 days of the receipt of a complete complaint for which it has jurisdiction, the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the investigation in a letter containing— ( 1 ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law;
( 2 ) A description of a remedy for each violation found;
( 3 ) A notice of the right to appeal.
( h ) Appeals of the findings of fact and conclusions of law or remedies must be filed by the complainant within 90 days of receipt from the agency of the letter required by § 1181.170(g). The agency may extend this time for good cause.
( i ) Timely appeals shall be accepted and processed by the head of the agency.
( j ) The head of the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the appeal within 60 days of the receipt of the request. If the head of the agency determines that additional information is needed from the complainant, he or she shall have 60 days from the date of receipt of the additional information to make his or her determination on the appeal.
( k ) The time limits cited in paragraphs (g) and (j) of this section may be extended with the permission of the Assistant Attorney General.
( l ) The agency may delegate its authority for conducting complaint investigations to other Federal agencies, except that the authority for making the final determination may not be delegated to another agency.
[51 FR 4578, 4579, Feb. 5, 1986, as amended at 51 FR 4578, Feb. 5, 1986; 84 FR 22945, May 21, 2019]
§ 1174.28 Presentation of evidence. ( a ) The ALJ shall determine the admissibility of evidence.
( b ) Except as provided in this part, the ALJ shall not be bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence, but the ALJ may apply the Federal Rules of Evidence where he or she deems appropriate.
( c ) The ALJ shall exclude irrelevant and immaterial evidence.
( d ) The ALJ may exclude evidence, although relevant, if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
( e ) The ALJ shall exclude evidence, although relevant, if it is privileged under Federal law.
( f ) Evidence concerning compromise or settlement offers shall be inadmissible to the extent provided in Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
( g ) The ALJ shall permit the parties to introduce rebuttal witnesses and evidence.
( h ) All documents and other evidence taken for the record must be open to examination by all parties unless the ALJ orders otherwise.
§ 223.132 Policy. ( a ) The Forest Service shall solicit and consider timber sale bids from and award contracts only to responsible business concerns and individuals. Debarment and suspension by the Forest Service are discretionary actions that, taken in accordance with these regulations, are appropriate means to effectuate this policy.
( b ) Debarment and suspension shall be imposed only for the causes and in accordance with the procedures set forth in this subpart. The serious nature of debarment and suspension requires that these actions be imposed only in the public interest, for the Government's protection, and not for the purpose of punishment.
( c ) Debarment and suspension actions taken under this subpart shall be based on the administrative record, including any submissions and argument made by the purchaser or named affiliate in accordance with this subpart, and shall be limited in scope and duration to that necessary to protect the Government's interest.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1193

___________________________

Daniel Bryce Hurlbut

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Washington County Detention Center

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant

Sheriff Tim Helder; Karas Medical Team; Dr. Karas; Veronica Dockery; Ken

Hughes; Landon Harris; Regina Walker; Lieutenant Foster

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

John Doe Deputies

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant

Deputy Josve Velasco; Deputy Skinkis; Deputy Uriel Paredes

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

 ____________

 Submitted: September 6, 2019

Filed: September 11, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, former inmate Daniel Bryce Hurlbut appeals

the district court’s

1

adverse grant of summary judgment. Viewing the record and all

reasonable inferences in Hurlbut’s favor, see Allard v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d 768, 771

(8th Cir. 2015) (de novo review), we find no error in the district court’s thorough

analysis of Hurlbut’s claims.

2

 The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States DistrictJudge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

2We lack jurisdiction to consider Hurlbut’s challenges to a magistrate judge’s

adverse rulings on nondispositive pretrial matters, because he did not timely object

to those orders below. See Daley v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 415 F.3d 889, 893 n.9 (8th

Cir. 2005) (when parties do not consent to final disposition by magistrate, this court

lacks jurisdiction to consider direct appeal of magistrate’s order on nondispositive

pretrial matter). 

-2-
§ 14.91 Procedures. ( a ) Any application under the Act of March 4, 1911, for a line right-of-way in excess of 100 feet in width or for a structure or facility right-of-way of over 10,000 square feet must state the reasons why the larger right-of-way is required. Rights-of-way will not be issued in excess of such sizes in the absence of a satisfactory showing of the need therefor.
( b ) When an application is made for a right-of-way for a site for a water plant or for a communication structure or facility, the location and extent of ground proposed to be occupied by buildings or other structures necessary to be used in connection therewith must be clearly designated on the map by reference to course and distance from a corner of the public survey. In addition to being shown in connection with the main drawing, the buildings or other structures must be platted on the map in a separate drawing on a scale sufficiently large to show clearly their dimensions and relative positions. When two or more such proposed structures are to be located near each other, it will be sufficient to give the reference to a corner of the public survey for one of them provided all the others are connected therewith by course and distance shown on the map. The application must also state the proposed use of each structure, must show definitely that each one is necessary for a proper use of the right-of-way for the purpose contemplated in the Act of March 4, 1911. If the right-of-way is within reservation lands which are not covered by the public land surveys, the map shall be made in terms of the boundary survey of the reservation to the extent it would be required above to be made in terms of the public land survey.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         545,222
<SECURITIES>                                 5,660,781
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,908,583
<PP&E>                                          33,199
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,258
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,627,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,193,815
<BONDS>                                      1,729,221
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,205,778
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,478,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,627,239
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,622,184
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,196,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             409,247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,573,979)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (1,247,637)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,326,342)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,345,774)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.39)


</TABLE>
Case 16-29317 Doc 1 Filed 09/14/16 Entered 09/14/16 14:26:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 9
Case 16-29317 Doc 1 Filed 09/14/16 Entered 09/14/16 14:26:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 9
Case 16-29317 Doc 1 Filed 09/14/16 Entered 09/14/16 14:26:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 9
Case 16-29317 Doc 1 Filed 09/14/16 Entered 09/14/16 14:26:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 9
Case 16-29317 Doc 1 Filed 09/14/16 Entered 09/14/16 14:26:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 9
Case 16-29317 Doc 1 Filed 09/14/16 Entered 09/14/16 14:26:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 9
Case 16-29317 Doc 1 Filed 09/14/16 Entered 09/14/16 14:26:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 9
Case 16-29317 Doc 1 Filed 09/14/16 Entered 09/14/16 14:26:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 9
Case 16-29317 Doc 1 Filed 09/14/16 Entered 09/14/16 14:26:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 9
**EXHIBIT 33.9**

 

January 30, 2008David ZielkeFirst Vice President andAssistant General CounselWashington Mutual1301 Second AvenueSeattle, WA 98001RE: Restated Assessment Reporting Period – January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006Ladies and Gentlemen:Enclosed is a Restated Assessment for the Reporting Period of January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the " Restated Assessment") of American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (formerly, "SafecoFinancial Institution Solutions, Inc.") the "Asserting Party".The Restated Assessment identifies a material instance of noncompliance with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122 (d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations. Specifically, the Asserting Party did not have, during theapplicable reporting period, sufficient policies and procedures to capture the information with respect to the Platform Transactions necessary to determine compliance with §1122(d)(4)(xii). Please be advised that as of January 1, 2008, the Asserting Party has implemented practices and procedures to capture the information necessary to assess compliance with §1122(d)(4)(xii).Sincerely, /s/ John FroboseJohn FroboseSenior Vice President
#### § 1301.1 Purpose.

An agency, as defined in part 1305 of this chapter, must establish and maintain a formal structure for program governance that includes a governing body, a policy council at the agency level and policy committee at the delegate level, and a parent committee. Governing bodies have a legal and fiscal responsibility to administer and oversee the agency's Head Start programs. Policy councils are responsible for the direction of the agency's Head Start programs.

[89 FR 67805, Aug. 21, 2024]
§ 1321.33 Submission of the State plan or plan amendment to the Assistant Secretary for Aging for approval. ( a ) Each State plan, or plan amendment which requires approval of the Assistant Secretary for Aging as set forth at § 1321.31(a), shall be signed by the Governor, or the Governor's designee, and submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Aging to be considered for approval at least 90 calendar days before the proposed effective date of the plan or plan amendment according to guidance as set forth by the Assistant Secretary for Aging, except in the case of a waiver provided by the Assistant Secretary for Aging. Each State plan amendment which does not require the prior approval of the Assistant Secretary for Aging shall be submitted as set forth at § 1321.31(b).
( b ) In advance of the submission to the Assistant Secretary for Aging to be considered for approval, the State agency shall submit a draft of the plan or amendment to the appropriate ACL Regional Office at least 120 calendar days before the proposed effective date of the plan or plan amendment, except in the case of a waiver request or as otherwise provided in guidance as set forth by the Assistant Secretary for Aging. The State agency shall work with the ACL Regional Office in reviewing the plan or plan amendment for compliance.