alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Part 5314 - Sealed Bidding       DAFFARS PART 5314 Knowledge Center          **2019 Edition**          *Revised: June 2023*                                       Subpart 5314.2 - SOLICITATION OF BIDS                                                         5314.201-7 Contract Clauses                                                                             Subpart 5314.4 - OPENING OF BIDS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT                                                         5314.407-3 Other Mistakes Disclosed Before Award    Subpart 5314.2 - SOLICITATION OF BIDS    5314.201-7  Contract Clauses       (b)(2) See MP5301.601(a)(i).         (c)(2) See MP5301.601(a)(i).Subpart 5314.4 - OPENING OF BIDS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT           5314.407-3 Other Mistakes Disclosed Before Award       (e) See MP5301.601(a)(i).         (h) The contracting officer shall maintain the records required by FAR 14.407-3(h) in the contract file.
DENIED and Opinion Filed July 5, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00577-CV 

No. 05-24-00580-CV 

No. 05-24-00581-CV 

IN RE LEONARD MCKEITH HILL, Relator 

Original Proceedings from the Criminal District Court No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F-2154278, F-2159441, F-2253217 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Kennedy 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

In his May 14, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, relator contends that the 

trial court failed to give him jail-time credit on his sentence when the sentence was 

imposed pursuant to article 42.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and that 

the trial court has since failed or refused to correct the judgment to reflect the 

appropriate credit despite relator’s multiple nunc pro tunc motions raising the issue. 

Mandamus relief is generally available to address such a failure. See Ex parte 

Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (per 

curiam). However, we are unable to consider whether it would be appropriate here 
 –2– 

because relator failed to provide competent evidence supporting his contentions and 

his petition otherwise does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See In re Backusy, 

No. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 14, 2023, 

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(h), 52.3(j), 

52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1), 52.7(a)(2). 

For example, relator failed to file with his petition an appendix or record 

containing certified or sworn copies of the documents showing the matter 

complained of and any other documents material to his claim for relief, such as the 

judgment and relator’s nunc pro tunc motions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 

52.7(a)(1); In re Skinner, No. 05-23-00930-CV, 2023 WL 6618295, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas Oct. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (explaining that it is 

relator’s burden to provide the Court with a sufficient record to show entitlement to 

mandamus relief). Additionally, relator omitted the rule 52.3(j) certification required 

for consideration of mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Stewart, No. 

05-19-01338-CV, 2020 WL 401764, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2020, orig. 

proceeding) (mem. op.) (explaining that our precedent requires “exceptionally strict 

compliance” with rule 52.3(j)). 

 
 –3– 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 

240577F.P05 

 

/Amanda L. Reichek/

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE
# 519.001 Definitions.

**Parent topic:**Part 519 - Small Business Programs
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 28, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 28, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22A0623. JASMINE A. RICHARDSON v. AVID ACCEPTANCE, LLC.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On December 09, 2021, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors 

and a brief no later than December 20, 2021. As of the date of this order, the appellant's 

enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed 

abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
#### Ralph C. Morgan v. Margaret R. Morgan.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Present—Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Seott, Dowling and Page, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.2
  **I, Leonard M. Anthony, certify that:** 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of International SteelGroup Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES of thisreport any changes in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, asdiscussed in ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES of this report, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: July 30, 2004  /s/ Leonard M. Anthony       Leonard M. Anthony   Chief Financial Officer
25
### subpart 1—part d eligible individuals and prescription drug benefits
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1241

GLADIS MERCEDES AMAYA

- DIAZ; E.J.A.D. , Petitioners ,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : November 20, 2023 Decided: January 4, 2024

Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denie d by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Vincent Rivas

- Flores, KONARE LAW , Frederick, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General , Brianne Whelan Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel , Matthew A. Spurlock, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1241 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Gladis Mercedes Amaya

- Diaz and her minor child , natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Amaya

- Diaz’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
reviewed the record and Amaya

- Diaz ’s claims and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252( b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief, see INS v.
Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
In re Amaya

- Diaz (B.I.A. Feb. 6 , 202 3 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1241 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
§ 147.7 Maintenance of transcripts, recordings and minutes of closed meetings. ( a ) The Commission shall make and maintain a complete transcript or electronic recording adequate to record fully the proceedings of each meeting or portion of meeting closed to the public, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) ( 1 ) In the case of each meeting or portion of meeting closed to the public pursuant to § 147.3(b) (8), (9)(i), (9)(ii) or (b)(10), or any combination thereof, the Commission shall make and maintain either a complete transcript or recording as described in paragraph (a) of this section, or a set of minutes.
( 2 ) When the Commission elects to keep minutes under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the minutes shall fully and clearly describe all matters discussed at the closed meeting or closed portion thereof, and shall provide a full and accurate summary of any actions taken, and the reasons therefor, including a description of each of the views expressed on any item, and a record of any roll call vote taken which reflects the vote of each Commissioner on the question. All documents considered in connection with any actions taken shall be identified in such minutes.
#### Morton J. Golding et al., Respondents, v. Morris Rosenberg, Appellant, and Samuel Kronsky et al., Doing Business as Samuel Kronsky Co., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the plaintiffs-respondents. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Breitel and Bergan, JJ.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1369V

UNPUBLISHED

SHERRIE LEWIS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: May 6, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Decision Awarding Damages; Pain 

and Suffering; Influenza (Flu) 

Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for petitioner.

Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On September 9, 2019, Sherrie Lewis filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that suffered left shoulder injuries related to vaccine 

administration (SIRVA), resulting from the influenza (flu) vaccination received on 

September 12, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit 

of the Office of Special Masters.

On May 6, 2021, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to 

compensation for SIRVA. On April 29, 2021, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c)

report and proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be 

awarded $57,500.00. Proffer at 4. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic 

Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the 

internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact 

medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. 

If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from 

public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner 

is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum 

payment of $57,500.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount

represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 15(a). 

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.
No: III-14-031 July 22, 2014

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Issues Confirmatory Order to Entergy Regarding Palisades Nuclear Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a Confirmatory Order related to the Palisades 

nuclear plant, which has agreed to a series of corrective actions for failure to follow procedures to verify a 

security supervisor’s qualifications to perform specific security duties. The plant is located in Covert, 

Mich., five miles south of South Haven.

The Order stems from a settlement that was reached under the NRC’s Alternative Dispute 

Resolution process, requested by plant-owner Entergy to address the December 2012 incident. The 

violation occurred when a security manager assigned a security supervisor to perform security duties 

without verifying the supervisor’s qualifications. The supervisor also failed to ensure he was qualified to 

perform his assigned security duties. The NRC evaluated the security significance of the matter and 

determined it was of very low significance.

The NRC’s ADR process includes mediation facilitated by a neutral third party, with no decisionmaking authority, who assists the NRC and a licensee in reaching an agreement when there are differences 

regarding an enforcement action. 

A mediation session between the NRC staff and Entergy was held on May 15 and a settlement was 

reached. A confirmatory order, issued on July 22, outlines the corrective actions and steps Entergy has 

agreed to take to address the violation. 

Those steps include actions such as ensuring proper verification of training credentials for staff and 

management across the Entergy fleet; taking a wide range of actions to strengthen safety culture; making 

presentations on this event to the reactor community; creating specific requirements for selection and 

development of security managers; and conducting an effectiveness review of the corrective actions.

“Using the ADR process allowed us to achieve not only compliance with NRC requirements, but a 

wide range of corrective actions that go beyond those the agency may get through the traditional 

enforcement process,” said NRC Region III Administrator Cynthia Pederson. “The company will be 

reporting to the NRC as it implements the corrective actions and is required to provide us with a letter 

discussing the basis for concluding that the company has fully met the conditions of the order.”

A copy of the Confirmatory Order will be available on the NRC’s website.
#### Zinia Morini et al., Respondents, v. Thomas M. Murphy et al., Defendants, and Katherine Surdi, as Executrix of John Surdi, Deceased, et al., Appellants.

Action by plaintiff Zinia Morini to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained when a taxicab owned and operated by the defendants Murphy struck the rear of an automobile operated by said plaintiff and owned by her husband, plaintiff Joseph Morini. Plaintiff husband sues to recover for medical expenses and loss of services. The collision is alleged to have been caused by the negligent operation of the taxicab and an automobile owned by defendant Surdi Homes, Inc., and alleged to have been operated by its president, John Surdi. The jury rendered a verdict for $25,000 in favor of plaintiff wife and for $6,000 in favor of plaintiff husband against all defendants. Defendants Surdi appeal from the judgment entered thereon. After the notice of appeal had been served and filed, defendant John Surdi died, and Katherine Surdi, his executrix, was substituted for him. Judgment insofar as it is in favor of respondents and against appellants reversed on the law and the facts, the action severed insofar as it is against defendants Murphy, and a new trial granted as to appellants, with costs to abide the event. The jury’s verdict, insofar as it imports a finding that the deceased operator of the automobile of appellant Surdi Homes, Inc., was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate concurring cause of the accident, is against the weight of the credible evidence. In addition, it was error for the trial court to admit in evidence, as proof tending to establish appellants’ negligence, the report to the Motor Yehiele Bureau made by defendant Thomas Murphy, the operator of the taxicab. *(Trampusch*v. Kastner, 242 App. Div. 803; *Newcomb*v. *Frink,*278 Ajpp. Div. .-998.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Compulsory Accounting of Louis J. Levine et al., as Executors of Jacob Levine, Deceased, Respondents. Benjamin Koenigsberg, Appellant.

It fairly appears from the proof that by reason of the services of petitioner, an attorney, appointment of an administrator of an estate with alleged assets of no more than $500 was superseded by probate of a will, with a concession on the part of the executors that assets totaled approximately $40,000. The services were of benefit generally to all of the legatees and particularly to those of charitable nature, which had received only a nominal amount prior to the petitioner’s services but thereafter were paid in full. On all of the facts, the petitioner is entitled to be paid out of general assets and in consequence, as a creditor of the estate, is entitled to compel an accounting. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3860 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3860

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the responsibilities 
  of small businesses with respect to the employment and reemployment 
                          rights of veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2012

Mr. Garamendi (for himself and Mr. Rush) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the responsibilities 
  of small businesses with respect to the employment and reemployment 
                          rights of veterans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Help Veterans Return to Work Act''.

SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESSES AND VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS.

    (a) Undue Hardship for Small Businesses.--Section 4312(d) of title 
38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``if such employer is 
        a small business concern'' before the semicolon; and
            (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``if such employer is 
        a small business concern'' after ``on the employer''.
    (b) Small Business Concern.--Section 4303 of such title is amended 
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(17) The term `small business concern' has the meaning 
        given that term under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 
        U.S.C. 632).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 301.40 [Reserved]
### §§1395t–1, 1395t–2. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–234, title II, §202(a), Dec. 13, 1989, 103 Stat. 1981

Section 1395t–1, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, §1841A, as added July 1, 1988, Pub. L. 100–360, title II, §212(a), 102 Stat. 739; amended Oct. 13, 1988, Pub. L. 100–485, title VI, §608(d)(10)(A), 102 Stat. 2415, provided for the creation of the Federal Catastrophic Drug Insurance Trust Fund.

Section 1395t–2, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, §1841B, as added July 1, 1988, Pub. L. 100–360, title II, §213, formerly §213(a), 102 Stat. 741, as redesignated Oct. 13, 1988, Pub. L. 100–485, title VI, §608(d)(11), 102 Stat. 2415, provided for the creation of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Account.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Jan. 1, 1990, see section 202(b) of Pub. L. 101–234, set out as an Effective Date of 1989 Amendment note under section 401 of this title.
### §15253. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15253 was editorially reclassified as section 50323 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.