alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Resolving Contract Disputes through Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques

The Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613, as amended, establishes procedures 

and requirements for asserting and resolving contract disputes between government contractors 

and executive agencies. 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation requires federal agencies to provide for inexpensive, 

informal, procedurally simple, and expeditious resolution of protests filed by a contractor through 

the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques, third party neutrals, and another 

agency’s personnel. Agencies are encouraged to use ADR procedures to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

The General Accountability Office (GAO) may also use ADR processes to resolve bid protests 

lodged by private entities competing for government contracts. Procedures for protests to GAO 

are found at 4 CFR Part 21, GAO Bid Protest Regulations, and can be found on GAO’s website 

at: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/bid/bibreg.html.

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Board was established by Section 847 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 to hear and decide contract disputes between 

government contractors and executive agencies under the provisions of the Contract Disputes 

Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613, as amended. The Board’s authority extends to all agencies 

other than the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the 

Navy, the Department of the Air Force, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the 

United States Postal Service, the Postal Rate Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

The Board uses a variety of techniques intended to shorten and simplify, when appropriate, the 

formal proceedings normally used to resolve contract disputes. The Board fully supports the use 

of ADR in all appropriate cases; it encourages the prompt, expert, and inexpensive resolution of 

contract disputes. In addition, the Board provides to executive agencies, when jointly requested 

by an agency and its contractor, alternative dispute resolution services on contract-related 

matters, whether arising before or after a contract award. Additional information can be found at: 

http://www.cbca.gsa.gov.
### **CHAPTER 40—INDEPENDENT COUNSEL**

Sec.
591.
Applicability of provisions of this chapter.
592.
Preliminary investigation and application for appointment of an independent counsel.
593.
Duties of the division of the court.
594.
Authority and duties of an independent counsel.
595.
Congressional oversight.
596.
Removal of an independent counsel; termination of office.
597.
Relationship with Department of Justice.
598.
Severability.
599.
Termination of effect of chapter.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1987**—Pub. L. 100–191, §2, Dec. 15, 1987, 101 Stat. 1293, amended chapter 40 heading and analysis generally, substituting items 591 to 599 for former items 591 to 598.

**1986**—Pub. L. 99–554, title I, §144(g)(1), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3097, substituted "40" for "39" as chapter designation.

**1983**—Pub. L. 97–409, §2(a)(1)(A), Jan. 3, 1983, 96 Stat. 2039, substituted "independent counsel" for "special prosecutor" in chapter heading and in items 592, 594, and 596.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan GONZALEZ-GUERRA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40862.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Gonzalez-Guerra (Gonzalez) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after a previous deportation. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L,Ed.2d 435 (2000). We need not decide the applicability of the plea-agreement waivers in this case because the issue that Gonzalez raises is foreclosed.

Gonzalez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Gonzalez contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert, denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Gonzalez properly concedes that his argu*262ment is foreclosed in light of *AlmendarezTorres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22540-CMA

DOUG LONGHINI,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, 

INC. and SOUTH MIAMI CONVENIENCE 

STORE, INC.,

Defendants.

______________________________________________/

JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, and Defendants, SUNSHINE GASOLINE 

DISTRIBUTORS, INC. and SOUTH MIAMI CONVENIENCE STORE, INC., hereby advise the 

Court that the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the instant case pending 

execution of a Settlement Agreement. The parties will file a Stipulation dismissing this Action 

with prejudice once the settlement agreement is executed, which they reasonably expect to do no 

later than 45 days from the date of this Notice. Accordingly, the Parties, respectfully request that 

the Court vacate all currently set dates and deadlines.

Respectfully submitted this 8

th

, day of September, 2020.

/s/ Anthony J. Perez

ANTHONY J. PEREZ

Florida Bar No.: 535451

GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

4937 S.W. 74th Court, Unit #3

Miami, FL 33155

Telephone: (305) 553- 3464

Facsímile: (305) 553-3031

Primary Email: ajperezlaw@gmail.com;

aquezada@lawgmp.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff

/s/ Edward S. Polk

EDWARD S. POLK

Florida Bar No.: 239860

MARC A. RAPAPORT

Florida Bar No.: 1008359

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

9150 S. Dadeland Boulevard, 14th Floor

Miami, Florida 33256

Telephone: (305) 350-5338

Primary Email: edward.polk@csklegal.com;

Marc.rapaport@cslklegal.com

Counsel for Defendants

Case 1:20-cv-22540-CMA Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court 

by using the CM/ECF system. I further certify a copy of the foregoing was sent by CM/ECF to 

all counsel of record on this 8

th

, day of September, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

 GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

4937 S.W. 74th Court, No. 3

Miami, FL 33155

Telephone: (305) 553-3464

Facsimile: (305) 553-3031

Primary E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com

 Secondary E-Mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com

aquezada@lawgmp.com

By: /s/ Anthony J. Perez____ 

 ANTHONY J. PEREZ

 Florida Bar No.: 535451

 

Case 1:20-cv-22540-CMA Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 134.1213 Equal Access to Justice Act.

A prevailing appellant is not entitled to recover attorney's fees. Appeals to OHA from final SBA loan review decisions under the PPP are not proceedings that are required to be conducted by an Administrative Law Judge under § 134.603.
HomeAbout NRCSafety Culture

# Safety Culture and Nuclear Materials

Establishing and maintaining a positive safety culture directly contributes to the safe and secure use of radioactive materials.  Licensees and other users of regulated material are primarily responsible to ensure that these materials are used safely and securely. Because weaknesses in safety culture or a deteriorating safety culture appear to increase the likelihood of performance problems and the consequences of those problems, the NRC encourages licensees to maintain a positive safety culture.

On this page:
            - Fuel Cycle Facilities
            - Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation

## Fuel Cycle Facilities

The NRC hosts an annual Fuel Cycle Information Exchange to discuss regulatory activities related to fuel cycle facilities, including discussions of safety culture.

## Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation

To reiterate the value and importance of safety culture, every public meeting sponsored by Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation includes a brief discussion of NRC safety culture, and copies of the Safety Culture Policy Statement brochure.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 20, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Safety Culture Policy Statement
          - Safety Culture and Nuclear Reactors
          - Safety Culture and Nuclear Materials
          - Safety Culture and Nuclear Security
          - Information for Agreement States
          - Safety Conscious Work Environment
          - Outreach and Education Materials
          - Public Meetings and Presentations
          - Contact Us

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Related Information

            - RIS 2012-01 Availability of the Safety Culture Policy Statement
            - Information for Agreement States

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 20, 2020
Exhibit 32.1



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 Fellows Energy Ltd. a Nevada corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, George S. Young, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Accounting 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 result of operations of the Company.



Date: April 29, 2004



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ George S. Young     
|George S. Young         
|Chief Executive Officer,
|President and Acting    
|Chief Accounting Officer
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 418

**Question 418:** This question refers to the answer to Question 91 in §20.1703. Please clarify this response, as indicated below.
> 
(a) Can NRC envision any purpose by which a licensee can use respiratory protection devices without having an approved respiratory protection program, e.g., meeting the provisions of §20.1703?

(b) For instance, work is being conducted where the licensee has determined there is no requirement for respiratory protection but workers prefer to use it anyway. From the workers perspective it is for protection. From the licensees viewpoint, it is simply for peace of mind, with the added benefit of being an ALARA effort. Is this usage subject to §20.1703?

**Discussion:**

If the answer to these questions is that §20.1703 applies to any conceivable use of respirators then this in essence is a directive for all licensees without approved equipment or an approved program to discard all respiratory protection equipment. It cannot be used even for ALARA purposes at less than DAC levels. It cannot be kept on hand for use in emergency response situations where any protection is useful in initial response conditions. (Note: As a basic presumption, assume that any use of respirators complies with the basic OSHA guidance for medical approval.)

**Answer:**
> 
(a) The requirements of 10 CFR 20.1703 must be met if the respiratory protection equipment is used to limit intakes of radioactive material pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1702. 10 CFR 20.1703 does not apply if the respiratory protection equipment is used for other purposes (e.g., for protection against harmful dusts, fogs, fumes, mists, gases, smokes, sprays, or vapors that are not radioactive); however, OSHA regulations (which include a requirement for a minimal acceptable respiratory protection program) do apply to most of these uses.

(b) Yes, assuming that the equipment will be used to limit intake, this usage is subject to 10 CFR 20.1703. The use of respiratory protection equipment without meeting the respiratory protection program requirements of 10 CFR 20.1703 (e.g., respirator not properly maintained, poor fit of respirator to wearer, untrained or improperly trained respirator user) can be hazardous to the worker, can lead to a false sense of protection, and cannot be justified on the basis of ALARA, worker peace of mind, or usefulness in an emergency.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1703)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
#### Theresa Behrens, Respondent, v. Solomon B. Behrens, Appellant.

Order entered March 18, 1948, granting in part defendant’s motion to vacate or modify plaintiff’s notice of examination before trial, unanimously modified by deleting from the notice of examination before trial the words “and all other relevant and pertinent facts concerning the within suit”, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Appeal from order entered March 18, 1948, granting in part defendant’s motion to quash subpoena duces tecum served on defendant in connection with the notice of examination before trial, unanimously dismissed. No opinion. Settle orders on notice. Present — Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
Case 1:20-cv-22583-UU Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 1 of 1
#### § 5511.2-1 Free use privilege; cutting by agent.

Free use permits will not be issued where the applicant owns or controls lands having an adequate supply of timber to meet his needs.

[35 FR 9790, June 13, 1970, as amended at 60 FR 50451, Sept. 29, 1995; 62 FR 51377, Oct. 1, 1997]
LPS63236
### §2247. Documentary evidence

On application for a writ of habeas corpus documentary evidence, transcripts of proceedings upon arraignment, plea and sentence and a transcript of the oral testimony introduced on any previous similar application by or in behalf of the same petitioner, shall be admissible in evidence.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 966.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Derived from H.R. 4232, Seventy-ninth Congress, first session. It is declaratory of existing law and practice.
LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 

6701 SUNSET DRIVE, SUITE 101, MIAMI, FL, 33143 • TELEPHONE (305) 665-9211

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case No.: 1:20-cv-22603-GOODMAN

[CONSENT]

Erik Chavez, individually, and on behalf of 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Grill Enterprises, LLC, a Florida limited 

liability company, d/b/a “Los Parrilleros” and 

“Parrilleros Tavern”, and; 

Ruben Sierra, individually,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF FILING RETAINER 

AGREEMENTS, BILLING, AND COSTS RECORDS

Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel and in compliance with the Court’s 

“Paperless Order” [ECF No. 201], hereby provide Notice of Filing the following described 

documents:

1. Authority to Represent agreement signed by Plaintiff Erik Chavez, attached as 

Exhibit 1;

2. Authority to Represent agreement signed by Plaintiff Leonel Diaz, attached as 

Exhibit 2;

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s costs records for the instant case, attached as Exhibit 3; and

4. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s billing records for the instant case, attached as Exhibit 4.

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 203 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 23, 2023 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court via CM/ECF and served on the parties listed in the 

Service List below in the manner indicated therein.

Anthony F. Sanchez, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101

Miami, Florida 33143

Tel.: 305-665-9211

By: /s/ Anthony F. Sanchez

Anthony F. Sanchez

Florida Bar No.789925

afs@laborlawfla.com

SERVICE LIST

Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 789925

afs@laborlawfla.com

faz@laborlawfla.com 

Counsel for Plaintiffs

ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.

6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101

Miami, Florida 33143

Tel: 305-665-9211

Todd W. Shulby, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 068365

tshulby@shulbylaw.com

llangford@shulbylaw.com

Counsel for Defendants

TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.

1792 Bell Tower Lane

Weston, Florida 33326

Tel: 954-530-2236

Fax: 954-530-6628

Via Notice of Electronic Filing

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 174742

brian@fairlawattorney.com

Co-Counsel for Defendants

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770

Coral Gables, Florida 33146

Tel: 305-230-4884

Via Notice of Electronic Filing

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 203 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2023 Page 2 of 2
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5278 

To amend the Plant Protection Act to require the publication of information 

on violations of wood packaging material regulations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 15, 2022 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Plant Protection Act to require the publication 

of information on violations of wood packaging material 

regulations, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transparency in 

5 Invasive Pests on Pallets Improvement Act of 2022’’ or 

6 the ‘‘TIPPI Act of 2022’’. 

7 SEC. 2. PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION ON VIOLATIONS OF 

8 WOOD PACKAGING MATERIAL REGULATIONS. 

9 Subtitle C of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7751 

10 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5278 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 439. PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION ON VIOLATIONS 

2 OF WOOD PACKAGING MATERIAL REGULA3 TIONS. 

4 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on January 1, 2024, 

5 the Secretary shall make publicly available on the website 

6 of the Department of Agriculture information on each vio7 lation of the regulations on wood packaging material (in8 cluding solid wood pallets, crates, spools and other pack9 aging, and solid wood dunnage) under subpart I of part 

10 319 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor 

11 regulations), with respect to cargo entering the United 

12 States. 

13 ‘‘(b) CONTENTS.—The information made publicly 

14 available under subsection (a) shall include, for each viola15 tion— 

16 ‘‘(1) the date of the violation; 

17 ‘‘(2) the type of violation; 

18 ‘‘(3) the type of insect found if the violation is 

19 an insect infestation; 

20 ‘‘(4) the type of wood packaging material; 

21 ‘‘(5) information from the International Sani22 tary and Phytosanitary Measures No. 15 mark on 

23 the wood packaging material (including country, fa24 cility number, and treatment type); 

25 ‘‘(6) the port of entry of the wood packaging 

26 material containing the commodity being shipped; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 5278 IS

1 ‘‘(7) the country of origin of shipment of the 

2 wood packaging material containing the commodity 

3 being shipped; and 

4 ‘‘(8) the commodity shipped in the wood pack5 aging material. 

6 ‘‘(c) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section establishes a 

7 cause of action against the Animal and Plant Health In8 spection Service relating to the publication of information 

9 pursuant to this section.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 446

**Question 446:** In this example, an individual has worked at the licensee's facility earlier in the current year and was required to be monitored because the individual accessed a high radiation area. During this period, the individual's monitored dose did not exceed 10% of a limit. Now the individual is performing other work at the licensee's facility in the restricted area, but no longer has access to high radiation area. An evaluation based on the individual's new job scope shows that the individual is not likely to exceed 10% of a limit for their entire period of work during the year at the licensee's facility. 
> 
(a) May the personnel dose monitoring of the individual be discontinued on the basis that the individual is not likely to exceed 10% of a limit and the individual no longer has access to high radiation areas? 

(b) If so, must the individual's dose monitoring results, acquired during the period of required monitoring, still be reported in accordance with §20.2206 "Reports of Individual Monitoring"? The purpose of these questions is to determine under what conditions required individual monitoring may be discontinued as no longer required.

**Answer:**
> 
(a) Yes. 

(b) Yes.

(References: 10 CFR 20.1502, 10 CFR 20.2206)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 CASE NO. 20-61208-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt 

SIMPLIFIED IMAGING & DIAGNOSTICS, 

SIMPLIFIED IMAGING SOLUTIONS LLC, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PETER ROUVELAS M.D. P.C., 

Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

ORDER REQUIRING SCHEDULING REPORT 

AND CERTIFICATES OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

 The parties are directed to prepare and file a joint scheduling report, as required by Local 

Rule 16.1, by August 10, 2020. In addition, by August 10, 2020, the parties, including 

governmental parties, must file certificates of interested parties and corporate disclosure 

statements that contain a complete list of persons, associated persons, firms, partnerships, or 

corporations that have a financial interest in the outcome of this case, including subsidiaries, 

conglomerates, affiliates, parent corporations, and other identifiable legal entities related to a party. 

Throughout the pendency of the action, the parties are under a continuing obligation to amend, 

correct, and update the certificates. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 27th day of July 2020. 

 ________________________________ 

 ROY K. ALTMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record 

Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page 1 of 1