alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TITLE: "Short-Run , Fast Schedule Duplicating/Copying" / Program 2804-SP

Term: April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016 (w/ 4 Options)

 


Basis Flash Printing

Item No. DESCRIPTION of State 330 Code 32886

Award UNIT RATE COST

I. COMPLETE PRODUCT (except Items II & III):

Running Per 100 Copies

Black Image Only

(a) 81⁄2 x 11" Cover and/or Text ...............................per page 470 x 4.30 2,021.00

(b) 17 x 11" foldins ....................................per printed side 1 x 9.25 9.25

Drawings-Black Image Only

(c) 24"x 36" drawings ................per each copied one side only 1 336.00 336.00

Color Copying

(d) Color copying 81⁄2 x 11" ...........per leaf copied one side only 1 x 30.00 30.00

(e) Color copying 81⁄2 x 11" ............per leaf copied face & back 1 x 50.00 50.00

(f) Color copying 17 x 11" ............per leaf copied one side only 1 x 47.85 47.85

(g) Color copying 17 x 11" .............per leaf copied face & back 1 x 75.30 75.30

II. PAPER: Per 100 page-size leaves

(a) White and Colored Xerographic 20 lb. 20 x 1.61 32.20

(b) White, Litho Coated Text, 80 lb. 1 x 3.10 3.10

(c) White #1 Offset Book Smooth Finish, 60 lb. 185 x 2.15 397.75

(d) White and Colored Vellum Finish Cover, 50 or 65 lb. 55 x 4.10 225.50

(e) White or Colored Index, 110 lb. 1 x 5.08 5.08

(f) Clear Mylar or Vinyl, 10 mil. Thick 1 x 35.00 35.00

III. ADDITIONAL OPERATIONS:

(a) Wrapping (Shrink Film or Kraft paper) .................per wrap 50 x 0.55 27.50

(b) Wire stitching (with one or two stitches) ..........per 100 books 1 x 13.10 13.10

(c) Binding with plastic combs of suitable capacity (including 

punching and cost of plastic combs) ................per 100 books 1 x 190.00 190.00

(d) Binding with spiral wire of suitable capacity (including

punching and cost of wires) ..........................per 100 books 1 x 190.00 190.00

(e) Folding (continuous folds) ...............................per 100 forms 1 x 2.50 2.50

(f) Drilling (per run) ......................................per 100 leaves 28 x 1.65 46.20

(g) Collating Government furnished materials and/or slipsheeting between sets .....................................per 100 pieces 1 x 3.48 3.48

CONTRACTOR TOTALS $3,740.81

DISCOUNT if any AWARDED NET

DISCOUNTED TOTALS $3,740.81

 Page 1 of 1
#### In re ESTATE of Lillian B. WHITEHEAD, Deceased.

No. 72-676.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
---

EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Brian Richardson, Chief Financial Officer of Dynamotive
Energy Systems Corporation (the Company), hereby 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:

(i)         the Annual
Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006
(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

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



| | By:    | /s/
      Brian Richardson
| | ------ | --------------------------
| |        |                           
| | Name:  | Brian Richardson          
| |        |                           
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer   
| |        |                           
| | Date:  | June 27, 2007             



This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
#### The Lessee of EBE WALTER and wife *vs.*HETTY A. MILLER et al.

A devise of a “plantation with all the lands adjoining," &c., without words of limitation, gives but a life estate to the devisee, though the land devised be subject to the dower of testator’s widow.

Parol proof not admissible of the testator’s intention.

This was an ejectment for a tract of land of which James Miller, died seized, having devised thus : “ I give and bequeath unto my son James F. Miller, my plantation, whereon I now live, with all the *152lands adjoining by the names, &c., excepting that my wife Letty Miller is to have her thirds out of this said part given to my son James F. Miller, during her natural life.”

He gave also to his said wife certain specific property and one-third part of his clear moveable property,” and for his wife’s thirds, to be taken out of the part he gave to his son James F. Miller, during her natural life.

He gave to his daughter Mary C. Miller, certain land and $550 out of his moveable property, “ and then the one-third part of all the balance of his clear moveable estate not otherwise given away, to her and her heirs forever.”

The question was whether James F. Miller took for life, or in fee. The plaintiff’s counsel contended that it was but a life estate, and that on the death of James F. Miller, the land deceended to the heirs-at-law of the testator of whom Mrs. Walter was one. They cited 1 *Cowp. Rep.*235; 2 *Jerm. on Wills*170; 7 *Term Rep.*631; 9 *East. Rep.*268; 33 *Com. Law Rep.*74; 31 *Ibid*350.

The defendant’s counsel gave to the word “plantation” the force of the word *estate;*and also insisted that a general devise without limitation, subject to a life estate, gave a fee by implication; but .

*Cullen*and Bayard, for plaintiff.

*Houston*and Layton, for defendant.

*The Court*

charged that James F. Miller took only a life estate under this devise.

On the trial the defendants offered evidence of the testator’s declarations of his intention, which was objected to and ruled out. [1 *Greenl. Evid.*338 § 287.]

Verdict for plaintiff.
Office of Civil Rights

Findings of Discrimination

FY 2023 2nd Quarter

Pursuant to the Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2020

Date of 

Finding

Agency Date(s) Discrimination 

Occurred

Law Violated

2/2/2023 GSA 10/9/2019 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964

9/22/2022 GSA 10/25/19-2/13/20 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973

3/15/2022 GSA 10/4/2018 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964; and the Pregnancy 

Discrimination Act of 1978

12/16/2021 GSA 9/20/2016 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964

2/11/2021 GSA 6/2019-2/11/2021 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973

RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS: This Notice also informs all employees, former employees, and applicants for employment of the 

rights and protections available to them under Section 201 of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 

Retaliation Act of 2002, as amended (No FEAR Act), Federal Antidiscrimination Laws, and Whistleblower Protection Laws. Please 

see the No FEAR Act Notice at the following link for more information: No Fear Act
# Modified Telecommuter Work Agreement for Telework Center

                - Title:  Modified Telecommuter Work Agreement for Telework Center 
                - Form #:         GSA3654A      
                - Current Revision Date:  Obsolete
                - Authority or Regulation:  
                - Special Instructions:             Form cancelled 05/2011 with no replacement..    

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
#### Raymond HENNIG, Appellant, v. Robert HENNIG, as Administrator of the Estate of Mary J. Hennig, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 66-748.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 10, 1967.

On Rehearing July 5, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 16, 1967.

Selkowitz, Corrigan, Fromberg & From-berg, Miami, for appellant.

J. M. Flowers, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The court, sua sponte, dismisses this appeal, inasmuch as it is an appeal from an order which is not final.

It is so ordered.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY, and SWANN, JJ.

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

This cause was originally dismissed, sua sponte, by the court as an appeal from an order which was not final. Appellant was granted a rehearing on the order of dismissal, at which the appellee conceded that the decree was a final adjudication upon the merits. See old Rule 1.35(b), 1954 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., as amended. We thereupon reinstate this appeal and proceed to consider the issues raised herein. We find this to be of no avail because we have not been provided with a complete and sufficient record upon which to review the issues involved. We must, therefore, affirm.1

Affirmed.

1

. Morceau v. Meader, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 242; Wilder v. Altman, Fla.App. 1965, 179 So.2d 250; Williams v. Williams, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 488.
#### John C. NABORS, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 47606.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 14, 1974.

Ross & Ross (Fred A. Ross, Sr.) (Fred A. Ross, Jr.), Jackson, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Ben H. Walley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

PATTERSON, Justice:

This appeal arises from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Grenada County denying a petition entitled “Motion to Vacate Judgment in the Nature of a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis”, but which permitted an appeal to this Court from a judgment on July 28, 1972, upon a conviction for burglary.

During the course of the hearing on the petition the record of the original trial was introduced into evidence without objection and is now filed in the clerk’s office of this Court. The assignments of error by Nabors relate to the original trial and his brief is in support thereof.

The state’s brief is not responsive to the assignments of error nor the argument of Nabors, but rather is directed to the propriety of the trial court in granting this appeal. The state relies particularly upon Section 753, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (1956), as well as State v. Ridinger, 279 So.2d 618 (Miss.1973), for its argument that the bond for appeal was not timely made and hence the appeal was improperly granted. The record on the petition for writ of error coram nobis reflects that Nabors was twenty years of age at the time of the hearing. The saving clause of Section 753, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (1956), which was then in effect, permitted the appeal granted by the trial judge. This section is in part as follows:

> Appeals to the supreme court shall be taken within ninety (90) days next after the rendition of the judgment or decree complained of, and not after, *saving to persons under a disability of infancy or unsoundness of mind the like period after the disability shall have been removed.*(Emphasis added.)

In view of this legislative enactment we do not reach the argument advanced under *Ridinger, supra.*

The assignments of error and the brief of the appellant relating to the original trial, being presently filed, the Court is of the opinion that the state should file its reply brief within the time designated by the rules of the Court with appropriate time for a rebuttal brief, if desired, to be filed thereafter.

Affirmed with directions.

All Justices concur.
#### MARSH *v.*SINCLAIR.

Dismissal and Nonsuit — Reinstatement—Abuse op Discretion— Court Rules.

There was no abuse of discretion in declining to reinstate plaintiffs ’ suit for accounting, dismissed for want of prosecution, although they had obtained *ex parte*order to produce books and records, where it is apparent that their petition for said order was dilatory and for purpose of delay (Court Rule No. 40, §6).

Appeal from Wayne; Smith (Guy E.), J., presiding.

Submitted January 12, 1932.

(Docket No. 101, Calendar No. 36,078.)

Decided June 6, 1932.

’' Bill by Ralph J. Marsh and another against Norman G. Sinclair and another for an accounting. Bill dismissed. Plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

*Louis B. Ver Wiebe,*for plaintiffs.

*Miller, Baldwin é Boos,*for defendants.

*385Clark, C. J.

Bill for accounting was filed March 6, 1930, answer on May 16th, and *praecipe*on May 22d following. Nothing further appears until May 1, 1931, when the cause was listed as' case number 7 on the chancery call for assignment.

On that day plaintiffs filed a petition to produce boohs and records and obtained *ex parte*from Hon. Adolph F. Marschner, presiding judge, an order to produce.

The cause continued on call on May 4th as number 7, and on May 5th as number 3, and was assigned on that day to Hon. Gruy E. Smith, circuit judge. The cause came on for hearing, defendants appearing, plaintiffs not appearing. The bill was dismissed for want of prosecution. Plaintiffs moved to reinstate before the trial judge and were refused. They brought on for hearing a like motion before Judge Marschner and it was denied. The motion was renewed again and denied.

Plaintiffs appeal and contend that under section 6, Court Rule No. 40, the *ex parte*order to produce operated to stay proceedings, to take the case off the call, and to continue.

It is apparent that Judge Marschner’s refusal to sustain his order to produce and that the other orders declining to reinstate are due to the fact that plaintiffs’ petition for order to produce was dilatory and for purpose of delay. We find no abuse of discretion in declining to reinstate the cause.

Affirmed. Costs to defendants.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest,' and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0406 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID ALLEN PEIN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 31 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 24 2024

04/24/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0406
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 844

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a permanent

extension of the research credit.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1993

Mrs. LLOYD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

a permanent extension of the research credit.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CRED4 IT.

5 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Section 41 of the Internal

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subsection

7 (h).

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (1) of

9 section 28(b) of such Code is amended by striking sub10 paragraph (D).
2

•HR 844 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after June

3 30, 1992.

Æ
#### THE STATE vs. CHARLES W. TOWNSEND.

An *arrest*may be lawfully made *before*exhibiting the authority.

Indicted for resisting a a public officer in the performance of his duty.

Constable Wolfe having process against the defendant for assault and battery, arrested him, when he refused to go, took off his coat, and resisted. He swore he would kill the officer, and got a gun, threatened and attempted to shoot. The officer fled behind a building ; and the defendant afterwards drove him away with stones. Wolfe produced the process, stated its purport and made known his authority; but the defendant defied his authority, resisted and as*488saulted him and those he called, to his assistance, and drove them all off. The defence was, that the arrest was made rudely, without explaining its object; that the defendant offered to go before the magistrate on the same day; and two of defendant’s witnesses denied the production of the warrant.

*Mr. Rodney,*for the defence, insisted that the officer was bound to produce, or state the substance of, his warrant before the arrest, to make resistance unlawful.

*The Court*

said, that with regard to a known public officer of the county, it was not necessary for him either to. produce his warrant or state his character and authority *before*making the arrest. The arrest itself is the laying hands on the defendant; and it might be defeated by the ceremony of producing and explaining a paper before the arrest is made. It is quite time to produce the authority on the demand of the party arrested, and after the arrest. Every one is bound to know the character of an officer who is acting within his proper jurisdiction, and every citizen is bound to submit peaceably to such officer, until he can demand and investigate the cause of his arrest. If the officer have no proper warrant for the arrest, he is liable to the defendant, who can suffer no wrong from submitting to the law; but if he resist before such investigation, and the officer have authority, he is indictable for obstructing such officer in the discharge of his duty.

The defendant was convicted, and fined twenty-five dollars and costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 33 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 33

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President 
should call for a vote in the General Assembly and Security Council of 
 the United Nations to convene a United Nations Conference on Reforms, 
and should initiate proposals to expand the membership of the Security 
      Council and strengthen the United Nations peacekeeping role.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1993

   Mr. Penny (for himself, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Hughes) submitted the 
 following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President 
should call for a vote in the General Assembly and Security Council of 
 the United Nations to convene a United Nations Conference on Reforms, 
and should initiate proposals to expand the membership of the Security 
      Council and strengthen the United Nations peacekeeping role.

Whereas the United Nations has more than tripled its membership since it was 
        chartered in 1945;
Whereas the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council has 
        remained unchanged with 5 members since its creation in 1945;
Whereas the nonpermanent membership of the Security Council was expanded from 6 
        to 10 members in 1963;
Whereas the end of the Cold War has resulted in a new international balance of 
        power, as well as in new global problems and threats, which create the 
        need for a more representative United Nations Security Council and a 
        more effective and efficient United Nations peacekeeping role; and
Whereas in the last 4 years the United Nations has established 13 peacekeeping 
        operations involving a total of 47,000 troops and an annual budget of 
        more than $2,000,000,000: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the President--
            (1) should call for a vote in the General Assembly and 
        Security Council of the United Nations to convene a United 
        Nations Conference on Reforms;
            (2) should initiate a proposal to expand the United Nations 
        Security Council by creating a new group of permanent members 
        without the veto power and by increasing the number of 
        nonpermanent members; and
            (3) should initiate a proposal to create a United Nations 
        Endowment Fund for Peacekeeping Operations and a United Nations 
        Peacekeeping Reserve Force.

                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Nicholas RR., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Paul B. Dusek, as Warren County Attorney, Respondent.

[735 NYS2d 828]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Warren County (Breen, J.), entered April 26, 2001, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, to revoke an order of probation.

We have consistently held that a violation petition unsupported by nonhearsay allegations is jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed *(see, Matter of Shannon F.,*276 AD2d 847; *Matter of Steven DD.,*243 AD2d 890; *Matter of Michael C.,*238 AD2d 680). We reiterate that compliance with Family *681Court Act § 360.2 (2) is a necessary prerequisite to Family Court having jurisdiction over a juvenile respondent and that this requirement cannot be waived. Since the instant petition alleges its essential facts upon information and belief and is otherwise unsupported by nonhearsay allegations, it should have been dismissed and we need not reach the merits of Family Court’s determination.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DELRAY BEACH, Florida, a Florida corporation not for profit; and Kiwanis Club of Delray Beach, Florida, a Florida corporation not for profit, Petitioners, v. Jane L. ROBINSON and R. Forster Robinson, her husband, Respondents.

No. 42843.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 16, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 265 So.2d 387.

ERVIN, Acting C. J, and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ, concur.