alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### General Services Administration

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - 48 CFR Part 52
          - [FAC 2023-06; Item IV; Docket No. FAR-2023-0052; Sequence No. 4]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

# ACTION:

Final rule.

# SUMMARY:

                            This document makes an amendment to the Federal Acquisition                                   ( print page 69526)                                Regulation (FAR) in order to make needed editorial changes.                        

# DATES:

Effective November 6, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                            Ms. Lois Mandell, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), at 202-501-4755 or                             *GSARegSec@gsa.gov.*                             Please cite FAC 2023-06, Technical Amendments.                        

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This document makes editorial changes to 48 CFR part 52.

# List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 52

      - Government procurement

William F. Clark,

Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

# PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority:40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016); and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

2. Amend section 52.212-3 by— 

a. Revising the date of the provision; 

b. Removing from paragraph (k)(1) introductory text “(1) ☐ Maintenance” and adding “☐ (1) Maintenance” in its place; and 

c. Removing from paragraph (k)(2) introductory text “(2) ☐ Certain” and adding “☐ (2) Certain” in its place. 

The revision reads as follows:

52.212-3

* * * * *

## Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2023)

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2023-21323 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
No. 62764.

#### R. H. Macy Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

c.

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hoods the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *United States*v. *Accurate Millinery Co., Roberts, Reilly & Sons, et al.*(42 C.C.P.A. 229, C.A.D. 599), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Virchow Krause****& company****Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We have examined WestLake Settlement Services, LLC's compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB applicable to WestLake (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008: 1122(d)(4)(xi) Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or insurance payments) are made on or before the related penalty or expiration dates, as indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for such payments, provided that such support has been received by the servicer at least 30 calendar days prior to these dates, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements. 1122(d)(4)(xii) Any late payment penalties in connection with any payment to be made on behalf of an obligor are paid from the servicer's funds and not charged to the obligor, unless the late payment was due to the obligor's error or omission. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with these servicing crit eria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. In our opinion, WestLake Settlement Services, LLC complied with, in all ma terial respects, the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008. **/s/ Virchow Krause & Company, LLP**Virchow Krause & Company, LLP February 25, 2009 **Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP**Certified Public Accountants & Consultants  An Independent Member of Baker Tilly International
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Bank of America, N.A., * From the 259th District Court

of Jones County,

 Trial Court No. 024557.

Vs. No. 11-21-00137-CV * October 21, 2021

Rolan F. Floyd, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has considered Bank of America N.A.’s motion to dismiss this 

appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance 

with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of 

this appeal are taxed against Bank of America, N.A.
From: rjsmom5@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:07:08 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Laura Krzyzanowski

Villa Park, IL 60181
From: mpmichalak@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:52:21 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Patricia Michalak

Perrysburg, OH 43551
From: bmastaw@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:48:48 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Brian Mastaw

Sault Sainte Marie, MI 49783
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF THE 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 Annual Report of Wellesley Capital Management Corp., (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 for the  year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven Adelstein, President  (principal executive officer) of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge:  (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.  Date: August 20, 2012  /s/ Steven Adelstein Steven Adelstein President  (principal executive officer)
Case No. 14,188.

#### In re TROTH.

[19 N. B. R. 253; 12 N. J. Law J. 147; 36 Leg. Int. 158.]

District Court, D. New Jersey.

April 8, 1879.

Baxkudptcy — Composition.

The court may give effect to composition proceedings in cases of voluntary bankruptcy, although the bankrupt has by his own acts and conduct deprived himself of the right to obtain a discharge.

*215[Id the Diatter of Henry Troth, a bankrupt]

P. B. Voorhees, for bankrupt.

S. B. Huey, for opposing creditors.

1

 [Reprinted from 19 N. B. R. 253, by permission.]

NIXON, District Judge.

[I have given a

careful attention to the testimony taken to sustain the specifications against the resolution for composition, and find no satisfactory proof that the court ought not to confirm the resolution and order it to be recorded.] 2 The most serious question arises from the fact that the petition was voluntary and was filed after the bankrupt had made an assignment under state law. A fair construction of the act in reference to a composition does not seem to preclude the court from giving effect to the proceedings in such cases, although the bankrupt has by his own acts and conduct deprived himself of obtaining a discharge in bankruptcy. So held in Re Haskell [Case No. 6,192], and I can see no controlling reason why his conclusion should not be adopted as a proper interpretation of the law. Judge Blatchford went a step farther in Re Odell [Id. 10.427], and decided that the refusal of the court to grant a discharge for a cause set forth in section 5110 was not a bar to a composition subsequently agreed to by the requisite number of creditors. They are presumed to be familiar with all the facts, and if they assent to the composition with such knowledge, the court should assume that they understand their interests and that it will be best for all concerned, under the circumstances, that the resolution should be recorded, and it is so ordered.

2

 [From 36 Leg. Int. 158.]
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JOSEPH ELIJAH AGEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHANE STEVENSON, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1506-MJP-MAT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion for a 90-day extension of the pretrial deadlines set by the court

in the Order of January 19, 2006. (Doc. #19). Plaintiff did not attach a certificate of service to

the motion and it therefore appears that defendants have not been served with a copy of the

motion. Having considered the motion, and the balance of the record, the court does hereby find

and ORDER as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is deficient in several respects. First, it

does not contain a certificate of service demonstrating that he mailed a copy of the motion to

defendants, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. See Fed. R.

Case 2:05-cv-01506-MJP Document 27 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

PAGE -2

Civ. Pro. 5(a); Local Rule CR 5(f). Second, plaintiff failed to note the motion for consideration

by the court on a specific date, as required by the Local Rules. See Local Rule CR 7(b)(1).

Ordinarily, the court would not consider a motion that had these procedural defects.

However, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se and because defendants do not appear to suffer

any prejudice by the granting of the motion, the court will overlook these deficiencies and

plaintiff’s motion (Doc. #26) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is advised that in the future, if he files

a document that has not been served on defendants, the court will not consider the motion

and will direct the Clerk to strike the motion.

(2) The deadline for completing discovery is hereby extended until June 24, 2006; the

deadline for filing any dispositive motions is extended until July 23, 2006; and the deadline for

filing the Joint Pretrial Statement is extended until September 22, 2006.

(3) The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendants, and

to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman.

DATED this 6th day of March , 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01506-MJP Document 27 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 2
From: valerieangelino@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:58:40 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

valerie angelino

Los Angeles, CA 90042
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS MICHAEL CORDERO,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5705FDB

ORDER RE:

ALLEGATIONS OF

VIOLATION OF

CONDITIONS OF

SUPERVISION

THIS MATTER came on for a revocation hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation

Office alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The U.S. Probation Office has filed a petition alleging violations of the terms and conditions of

 supervision, and the defendant waived his right to a hearing and admitted to the violations. 

The court found the defendant to be in violation and scheduled a disposition revocation hearing

to be held at the time and date below set forth before Judge FRANKLIN D BURGESS:

Date of hearing: JUNE 5, 2008

Time of hearing: 9:00 A.M.

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant:

( X ) After the May 8, 2008, revocation hearing, United States Probation Officer Michael

Markham had an opportunity to visit the defendant’s mother’s residence. The

probation officer has deemed the residence as suitable placement for the defendant

pending the outcome of the revocation proceedings. THE DEFENDANT IS TO BE

IMMEDIATELY RELEASED FROM THE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER. HE

IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO RESIDE AT THE APPROVED RESIDENCE, subject

to the terms and conditions of his current term of supervision. 

( ) Be detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any other person

 or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

 by the court for further proceedings.

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services

Office.

May 19, 2008.

s/ Franklin D Burgess 

Franklin D. Burgess, U.S. District Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05705-BHS Document 59 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 1