alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26599]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Parts 217 and 219


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical 
Amendments

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide needed editorial 
changes.

DATES: Effective November 13, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Manuel Quinones, Defense 
Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B941, 3060 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 571-372-6088; 
facsimile 571-372-6094.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This final rule amends the DFARS as follows:
    1. Directs contracting officers to additional procedures and 
guidance by adding references at 217.207 to DFARS PGI 217.207.
    2. Corrects paragraph designation at 219.201.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 217 and 219

    Government procurement.

Manuel Quinones,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 217 and 219 are amended as follows:

0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 217 and 219 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority:  41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

PART 217--SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS

0
2. Revise section 217.207 to read as follows:


217.207  Exercise of options.

    (c) In addition to the requirements at FAR 17.207(c), exercise an 
option only after determining that the contractor's record in the 
System for Award Management database is active and the contractor's 
Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, Commercial and 
Government Entity (CAGE) code, name, and physical address are 
accurately reflected in the contract document. See PGI 217.207 for the 
requirement to perform cost or price analysis of spare parts prior to 
exercising any option for firm-fixed-price contracts containing spare 
parts.

PART 219--SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS


219.201  [Amended]

0
3. Amend section 219.201 by redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as 
paragraphs (c) and (d) respectively.
[FR Doc. 2014-26599 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

METAL MANAGEMENT, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No: 1:20-cv-03202

)

FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE )

COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL [FRCP 41(a)] AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Metal Management, Inc. and Defendant, Factory Mutual Insurance Company,

hereby stipulate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) that this action, having been settled 

and compromised in its entirety, be dismissed with prejudice as to all claims, causes of action, and 

parties, with each party bearing that party’s own attorney’s fees and costs.

MASINI, VICKERS & HADSELL, P.C.

By: /s/ Thomas A. Vickers 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, METAL MANAGEMENT, INC.

SENAK KEEGAN GLEASON & SMITH, LTD.

By: /s/ Thomas B. Keegan 

Attorneys for Defendant, FACTORY MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY

Dated: October 4, 2021 

Case: 1:20-cv-03202 Document #: 43 Filed: 10/04/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:267
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), IT 

IS ORDERED THAT THIS ACTION BE, AND HEREBY IS, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 

as to all claims, causes of action, and parties, with each party bearing that party’s own attorney’s 

fees and costs. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

Dated: ________________________

 

THOMAS M. DURKIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 1:20-cv-03202 Document #: 43 Filed: 10/04/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:268
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

METAL MANAGEMENT, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No: 1:20-cv-03202

)

FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE )

COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL [FRCP 41(a)] AND ORDER 

OF DISMISSAL TO DEFENDANT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 4, 2021, Plaintiff, METAL MANAGEMENT, 

INC., served the Notice of Service of Stipulation of Dismissal [FRCP 41(a)] and Order of 

Dismissal to Defendant, in the above-captioned lawsuit upon counsel of record for Defendant, 

FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, via electronic mail using the following email 

addresses: Thomas B. Keegan: tkeegan@skgsmlaw.com and Edward W. Gleason: 

egleason@skgsmlaw.com.

Respectfully submitted,

MASINI, VICKERS & HADSELL, P.C.

By: /s/ Thomas A. Vickers 

Thomas A. Vickers

tav@mvhlawpc.com

MASINI, VICKERS & HADSELL, P.C.

150 S. Wacker Drive, 24th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 224-1520

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 1:20-cv-03202 Document #: 43 Filed: 10/04/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:269
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Thomas A. Vickers, an attorney, hereby certify that on October 4, 2021, I caused a copy 

of the foregoing document to be filed electronically using the Electronic Filing System of the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, which provided 

copies to all attorneys of record.

 /s/ Thomas A. Vickers 

Case: 1:20-cv-03202 Document #: 43 Filed: 10/04/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:270
#### Murdock *v.*Holland’s Heirs.

ERROR to the *Franklin*Circuit Court.

Suit in chancery against an administrator to account, &c. The accounts of the defendant were referred to a master, and the defendant was to give the complainant notice of the time of appearing before the master. No step was taken by the defendant during the next vacation. The Court at a subsequent term, no good reason being given for the defendant’s default, rendered a final decree, on bill, answer, and proofs, against the defendant. Held, that there was no error in the *115proceeding. *Held,*also, that mistakes, &c. in the settlement of administrators’ accounts in the Probate Court, may be cor-reeled by a Court of chancery (1).

D. J. *Caswell,*for the plaintiff.

*D. Wallace,*for the defendants.

*M'Kinney,*J., having been of counsel in the cause, was absent.

(1)

*Allen*v. *Clark,*Vol. 2, of these Rep. *343.*—Brackenridge v. *Holland,*id. *377.*—Ray *et ux.*v. *Doughty et al., November*term, 1835, post.
Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW   Document 1-1   Filed 02/02/16   Page 1 of 1

- Blank Page
#### B. M. Jones v. Thomas Barber.

Signatures — Proof—Non Est Factum — Comparison of Handwriting.

It is error, on the trial of an issue of non est factur, to permit the plaintiff, against the objections of the defendant, to prove certain papers produced by the witness, to have been executed by the de*483fendant, and to submit them to the jury, to prove by comparison, that the note sued on was signed by the defendant.

APPEAL PROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT.

May 23, 1871.

*Tames, Harding, Thompson, for appellant.*

*Durham, Van Winkle, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

This action was commenced by Clifton Rodes against Mitchell and Jones, as makers, and Barber, as endorser of a negotiable note for $5,300, which, during the pendency of the suit was assigned to Barber, who by an order of court was substituted for the plaintiff, and the case being dismissed as to Mitchell, progressed to a trial and judgment against Jones, who prosecutes this appeal for a reversal of the judgment.

The principal issue tried, being on a plea of *non est factum,*the only essential question is as to the action of the court in permitting the plaintiff, against the objection of the defendant, to prove certain paper, produced by the witnesses, to have been executed by the defendant, and to submit them to the jury to prove by comparison that the note sued on was signed by the defendant.

This was erroneous according to reported decisions of this court. *(Woodard, etc., vs. Spiller,*1 Dana 179; *McAlaster vs. McAlaster, 7*B. Monroe 269; *Hawkins v. Grimes,*13 B. Monroe 257.)

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial and other proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
House Calendar No. 132

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 311

[Report No. 105–391]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of certain resolutions in

sion sine die.preparation for the adjournment of the first sesNOVEMBER 7, 1997

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 132

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 311

[Report No. 105–391]

Providing for consideration of certain resolutions in preparation for the

adjournment of the first session sine die.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 7, 1997

Ms. PRYCE, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of certain resolutions in preparation for the adjournment of the first session sine die.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House a joint resolu3 tion waiving certain enrollment requirements with respect

4 to certain specified bills of the One Hundred Fifth Con5 gress. The joint resolution shall be considered as read for

6 amendment. The previous question shall be considered as

7 ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without

8 intervening motion except: (1) One hour of debate equally
2

HRES 311 RH

1 divided and controlled by the majority leader and the mi2 nority leader or their designees; and (2) one motion to

3 commit.

4 SEC. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall

5 be in order to consider in the House a joint resolution

6 appointing the day for the convening of the second session

7 of the One Hundred Fifth Congress. The joint resolution

8 shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous

9 question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolu10 tion to final passage without intervening motion except:

11 (1) One hour of debate equally divided and controlled by

12 the majority leader and the minority leader or their des13 ignees; and (2) one motion to commit.

14 SEC. 3. The Speaker, the majority leader, and the

15 minority leader may accept resignations and make ap16 pointments to commissions, boards, and committees fol17 lowing the adjournment of the first session sine die as au18 thorized by law or by the House.

19 SEC. 4. A resolution providing that a committee of

20 two Members of the House be appointed to wait upon the

21 President of the United States and inform him that the

22 House of Representatives has completed its business of the

23 session and is ready to adjourn, unless the President has

24 some other communication to make to them, is hereby

25 adopted.
3

HRES 311 RH

1 SEC. 5. A concurrent resolution providing that the

2 two Houses of Congress assemble in the Hall of the House

3 of Representatives on Tuesday, January 27, 1998, at 9

4 p.m., for the purpose of receiving such communication as

5 the President of the United States shall be pleased to

6 make to them is hereby adopted.

7 SEC. 6. House Resolution 306 is laid on the table.
#### FRANK SCAMPORINO, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, ANDREW SCAMPORINO, AND ANDREW SCAMPORINO, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. CHAPMAN CHEVROLET CO., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued February 7, 1945

Decided April 19, 1945.

For the plaintiffs-appellants, *Ward & McGinnis*and *Louis C. Friedman (Peter J. McGinnis,*of counsel).

For the defendant-respondent, *McCarter, English*<£• *Egner (Yerling 0. Eniema-n,*of counsel).

*28Pee Curiam.

We concur in the conclusion of the Supreme Court that the judgment of nonsuit be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Perskie, reserving, however, the question of an intervening cause. The court held that under the proofs the defendant was not guilty of any act of negligence by reason of the parking of his automobile truck on the vacant lot, nor the failure to provide it with a guard, nor the failure to have kept the cap of the gasoline tank of the truck under lock and key, because such acts did not constitute a dangerous agency invoking the “foresight for harm” doctrine. It also concluded that the infant plaintiff’s injuries were occasioned by an intervening cause, the throwing of the burning stick by a third party.

Having found that the proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries was not the result of any act of wrongdoing on the part of the defendant, it became unnecessary to consider the question of whether there was an intervening cause in the act of an independent agency which destroyed the causal connection between the alleged negligent act of the defendant complained of and the wrongful injury.

*For affirmance*■— The Chancellor, Parker, Case, Bobine, Heher, Portee, Colie, Wells, Raiterty, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— None.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A2 35 2

. LOUI S F. R EYNAUD, IV v . FI V E OAKS D EVELOPMENT, I NC.

Th i s act i o n b eg an as a d i s p o s s es s ory p ro ceed in g in m ag i s t rat e co u rt , wh i ch

t ran s ferred t h e cas e to t h e s u p eri o r co u rt

. On A p ri l 26
, 2 0 1 9, t h e su p eri o r co u rt
i s su ed a fi n al o rd er g ran t i n g t he p l ai n t i ff’ s m o t i o n t o i s s u e a wri t o f p o s s es s io n

. Lo u i s Rey n au d fi l ed a n o ti ce o f ap p eal o n M ay 7 , 2 01 9

. W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. Gen eral ly
, a n o t ice o f ap p eal m u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 day s o f en t ry o f t h e o rd er

s o u g ht to b e ap p eal ed

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). Th e u n d erl y in g s u b ject m at t er o f an
ap p eal
, h o wev er, co n t ro l s o v er t h e rel i ef s o u g h t i n d et erm i n i n g t h e p ro p er ap p el l at e
p ro ced ure. See Reb i ch v. Mi les
, 2 6 4 Ga. 4 6 7, 4 6 7 -4 6 8 (4 4 8 SE2 d 19 2 ) (1 9 94 ). Th e

u n d erl y i n g s u b

ject m at t er h ere i s a d i sp o ss es s o ry ju d g m en t

. Un d er OCGA § 4 4 -7 -5 6,

ap p eal s in d i s p o s s es s o ry a c t i o n s m u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n s ev en d ay s o f t h e d at e t h e ju d g m en t was en t ered

. See Ra y M. W r i g h t
, In c. v. Jo n es , 2 3 9 Ga. Ap p

. 5 2 1
, 5 2 2 -5 2 3 (5 2 1 SE2 d 4 5 6 ) (1 99 9 ). Th e p ro p er an d t i m el y fi l i n g of a n o t i ce o f ap p eal i s an ab s o lu t e req u i rem en t t o co n fer ju ri s d i ct i o n o n t h i s Co u rt

. Id

. at 5 2 3

. Rey n au d ’ s

n o t i ce o f ap p eal i s u n t i m el y , as i t was fi l ed 11 day s aft er en t ry of t h e o rd er h e s eek s July 11, 2019t o ap p eal . Acco rd i n g l y , t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s di ct i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 07/11/2019
#### Fred Hawkins *v.*Hennig & Speed.

Judicial Sales — Partial Eviction Acceptance — Deed—Indemnity.

Where land is sold under a judgment and a deed of conveyance made, the purchaser, upon the discovery of the fact that some of the parties were not properly before the court, is entitled to indemnity against a partial eviction by the holders of the unconveyed title.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

June 16, 1871.

*534*Harlan & Newman, for appellant.*

*Thomas Speed, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

If, as is insisted for the appellant, the judgment rendered 26th September, 1868, is erroneous, to the appellant’s prejudice, it was subject to reversal by a direct appeal to this court, but however erroneous that judgment may have been, we are satisfied the newly discovered facts alleged and proved in this action, as grounds for a new trial, were properly adjudged to be insufficient for that purpose.

But, as it appears that the title of C. W. Parker was to some extent incomplete, some of the heirs of Samuel Parker never having conveyed their interest in the property, and the court could not perfect the title, even by adjudging a conveyance from C. W. Parker, as it attempted to do, in the original suit, and it being alleged by the appellant in his amended petition, and the fact not denied that the heirs and devisees of Margret Wilson were non residents of this state, so that the warranty in Mrs. Wilson’s deed to the appellant was probably insufficient as a guaranty to the appellant against a partial eviction by the holders of the unconveyed title, the appellant was entitled to indemnity or relief of some kind, notwithstanding his acceptance of the deed of Mrs. Wilson, and the judgment for a conveyance, but that relief ought not, upon the facts disclosed in this case, to have ben a recission of the contract, while the judgment of September, 1868, remained unreversed, but the court should have directed an enquiry as to the proportional value of the interest unconveyed according to the contract, prove, and set it off against the same amount of the notes for part of the price in the hands of Hennig and Speed, and especially so as no offer was made to indemnify the appellant against the apprehended loss. *(Golden v. Maupin, 2*J. J. Marshall 237; *Hatcher, etc., vs. Andrews, etc.,*5 Bush 561.)

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
**Exhibit      32.2**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

|   | (1) | The                Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31,                2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the                date                hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section                13(a)                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (3) | Information                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of                the                dates and for the periods expressed in the                Report. |
|--|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted), Edward T. Shonsey, the Chief Executive Officer of Diversa Corporation (the Company), and Anthony E. Altig, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Periodic Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic
Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 10, 2007



|                        |  |  |  |                                                           
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ EDWARD T. SHONSEY   |  |  |  | /s/ ANTHONY E. ALTIG                                      
|Edward T. Shonsey       |  |  |  | Anthony E. Altig                                          
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filling of Diversa Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form
10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

*CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Granite City Food & Brewery Ltd. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Steven J. Wagenheim, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Dated: | December 21,  2004 | By                                     | /s/ Steven  J. Wagenheim |   |
|--------|--------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |               | Steven J.  Wagenheim                   |
|   |               | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----