alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
4.2306          Solicitation provision and contract clauses.(a) In all Federal Supply Schedules, Governmentwide acquisition contracts, and multi-agency contracts where FASCSA orders are applied at the order level, the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-28, Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders—Federal Supply Schedules, Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts, and Multi-Agency Contracts, in the basic contract solicitation and resultant contract (see 4.2304(b)(1)(ii)).                             (b) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.204-29, Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders—Representation and Disclosures—                                      (1)                         In all solicitations, except for Federal Supply Schedules, Governmentwide acquisition contracts, and multi-agency contracts.                                         (2)                         In all solicitations for Federal Supply Schedules, Governmentwide acquisition contracts, and multi-agency contracts, if FASCSA orders are applied at the contract level (see 4.2304(b)(1)(i)).                                                (c) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-30, Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders—Prohibition—                                      (1)                         In solicitations and contracts if the conditions specified at 4.2304(a)(1) apply, except for Federal Supply Schedules, Governmentwide acquisition contracts, and multi-agency contracts. For acquisitions where conditions specified at 4.2304(a)(2) apply, then the contracting officer shall use the clause with its Alternate I.                                         (2)                         In Federal Supply Schedules, Governmentwide acquisition contracts, and multi-agency contracts—                                                  (i)                               Where FASCSA orders are applied at the contract level, with its Alternate I in all solicitations and resultant contracts. See 4.2304(b)(1)(i).                                                     (ii)                               Where FASCSA orders are applied at the order level, with its Alternate II in all RFQs, or in all notices of intent to place an order. See 4.2304(b)(1)(ii).**Parent topic:** Subpart 4.23 Federal Acquisition Security Council.
Exhibit 32

                            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 Quarterly Report of U.S. Telesis Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Nicholas Rigopulos, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

          (1)       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                    13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                    amended; 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: May 7, 2004
                                        /s/ Nicholas Rigopulos
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name: Nicholas Rigopulos
                                        Title: Chief Executive/Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written 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.
#### § 210.8-04 Financial statements of businesses acquired or to be acquired.

Apply § 210.3-05 substituting §§ 210.8-02 and 210.8-03, as applicable, wherever § 210.3-05 references §§ 210.3-01 and 210.3-02.

[85 FR 54065, Aug. 31, 2020]
§ 204.36 Granting of a pre-offset hearing. ( a ) If the employee timely requests a pre-offset hearing or the timeliness is waived, the program official must: ( 1 ) arrange for a hearing official. If the hearing official is an administrative law judge, he or she shall be designated by the Chief Administrative Law Judge as set forth in 17 CFR 200.310(a)(2); and
( 2 ) provide the hearing official with a copy of all records on which the determination of the debt and any involuntary repayment schedule are based.
( b ) The hearing official shall notify the employee by personal service, by first class, registered or certified mail, or by a reliable commercial courier or overnight delivery service whether the employee is entitled to an oral or “paper” (*i.e.*, a review on the written record) hearing. (See 31 CFR 901.3(e).) Within 20 calendar days of receipt of this notice the employee shall provide the hearing official with a full description of all relevant facts, documentary evidence, and witnesses which the employee believes support his or her position. The hearing official may extend the time for the employee to respond to the notice for good cause shown.
( c ) If an oral hearing is scheduled, the hearing official shall notify the program official and the employee in writing of the date, time and location of the hearing. The place for the hearing shall be fixed by the hearing official with due regard for the public interest and the convenience and necessity of the parties, the participants, or their representatives.
( d ) If the employee is entitled to an oral hearing, but requests to have the hearing based only on the written submissions, the employee must notify the hearing official and the program official at least 3 calendar days before the date of the oral hearing. The hearing official may waive the 3-day requirement for good cause.
( e ) Failure of the employee to appear at the oral hearing may result in dismissal of the petition and affirmation of the program official's decision.
[58 FR 38520, July 19, 1993, as amended at 66 FR 54131, Oct. 26, 2001]
September 17, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DAVID REYNOLDS, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00589-CV V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

order signed by the court below on June 6, 2013. Having considered the motion 

and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, David Reynolds.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

 February 8, 2016 

MEMORANDUM TO: Victor M. McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM 

 SECY-15-0137 – PROPOSED PLANS FOR RESOLVING OPEN 

FUKUSHIMA TIER 2 & 3 RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Commission has approved staff’s proposed closure plans to resolve the remaining open 

Tier 2 and 3 recommendations developed in response to the March 11, 2011, accident at the 

Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. The Commission has approved the staff’s 

recommendation to close the items identified in Group 1 (i.e., recommendations that should be 

closed now). 

For the recommendations placed in Group 2 (i.e., recommendations that the staff's initial 

assessment has concluded should be closed, but for which stakeholder interaction is warranted 

prior to finalizing its assessment) and in Group 3 (i.e., recommendations for which the staff has 

not yet completed its assessment, stakeholder interactions, and/or documentation), the staff 

should document the final results of each group's evaluation following its interaction with 

external stakeholders and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). 

With regard to the actions the staff has identified as Group 2 and Group 3, in the six-month 

status updates on post-Fukushima actions, the staff should continue to provide an update on 

these actions until they are closed. 

In addition for the Group 3 action regarding "Evaluation of Other Natural Hazards," as an interim 

deliverable, the staff should inform the Commission no later than May, 2016 of the results of 

Task 2, "Determine and apply screening criteria to appropriately exclude certain natural hazards 

from further generic evaluations, or exclude some licensees from considering certain hazards." 

The staff should leverage available information from the State-of- the-Art Reactor Consequence 

Analyses (SOARCA) evaluation of an ice condenser plant in completing its assessment of Tier 3 

Item 5.2, “Consideration of Reliable Vents for Other than Mark I and II Containments.” 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
### §16073. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this subpart $200,000,000, to remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 109–58, title VII, §723, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 821.)
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10644 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. BRANDON DANIELLE COLLIER , also known as Brandon Daniel Collier,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 301

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Brandon Danielle Collier appeals the 77

- month sentence imposed on his guilty plea conviction for possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) , 924(a)(2). We affirm. Reviewing for plain error, we reject the contention that the base offense level was assigned erroneously because the district court ignored Descamps v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), and impermissibly considered state court

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 18, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10644 Document: 00513045909 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2015No. 14

- 10644

documents to find that Collier had a prior Texas conviction for a controlled substance offense

. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)

. Collier’s arguments, if not foreclosed, are at least subject to reasonable dis pute. See United States v. Teran

- Salas , 767 F.3d 453, 459 (5th Cir. 2014), petition for cert. filed (Dec. 15, 2014) (No. 14

- 7593). A claim subject to reasonable dispute cannot succeed on plain error review

. Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Ell is , 564 F.3d 370, 377

- 78 (5th Cir. 2009). Reviewing for plain error, we reject also the contention that the district court reversibly erred by not reducing Collier’s federal sentence to account for time spent in state pretrial custody before the state sent ence is imposed

. S ee Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135. T he Sentencing Guidelines do not authorize a district court to grant such a reduction. United States v. Looney , No. 14

- 10203, 2015 WL 1534358 ( 5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2015) (unpublished) ; s ee United States v. Bal lard , 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) . In light of Looney , whether the district court committed clear and obvious err or is at least subject to reasonable dispute , and thus Collier has not shown plain error. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135; Ellis , 564 F.3d at 377

- 78. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-10644 Document: 00513045909 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2015
### Part A—Energy Data Base and Energy Information
### §6509. Other procedures

(a) Applicability of Certain Administrative Provisions.—Notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, subchapter II of chapter 5 and chapter 7 of title 5 are applicable in the administration of sections 6501 to 6507 and 6511 of this title.

(b) Judicial Review in General.—Notwithstanding the inclusion of representations and stipulations in a contract under section 6502 of this title, an interested person has the right of judicial review of any legal question which might otherwise be raised, including wage determinations and the interpretation of the terms "locality" and "open market".

(c) Judicial Review of Wage Determinations.—A person adversely affected or aggrieved by a wage determination under section 6502(1) of this title has the right of judicial review of the determination, or of the applicability of the determination, within 90 days after the determination is made, in the manner provided by chapter 7 of title 5. A person adversely affected or aggrieved by a wage determination is deemed to include a person in an industry to which the determination applies that is a supplier of materials, supplies, articles, or equipment that are purchased or intended to be purchased by the Federal Government from any source.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3810.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6509(a) | 41:43a(a). | June 30, 1936, ch. 881, §10(a), (b) (last sentence), (c), as added June 30, 1952, ch. 530, title III, §301, 66 Stat. 308; Pub. L. 103–355, title VII, §7201(2), (3), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3378. |
| 6509(b) | 41:43a(c). | |
| 6509(c) | 41:43a(b) (last sentence). | |

Section

Subsection (a) is substituted for "Notwithstanding any provision of section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act, such Act shall be applicable in the administration of sections 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 of this Act" in section 10 of the Act of June 30, 1936 (ch. 881), for consistency in the revised title and because of section 7(b) of Public Law 89–554 (5 U.S.C. note prec. 101).

In subsection (c), the words "has the right of judicial review" are substituted for "Review . . . may be had" for consistency with subsection (b) and with section 6510(b) of the revised title and because the review provided for in chapter 7 of title 5 is denominated as judicial review. The words "chapter 7 of title 5" are substituted for "section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act" on authority of section 7(b) of Public Law 89–554 (5 U.S.C. note prec. 101).
§ 209.1 Form D-A: Disclosure of assets and financial information. ( a ) Rules 410 and 630 of the Rules of Practice (17 CFR 201.410 and 201.630) provide that under certain circumstances a respondent who asserts or intends to assert an inability to pay disgorgement, interest or penalties may be required to disclose certain financial information. Unless otherwise ordered, this form may be used by individuals required to supply such information.
( b ) The respondent filing Form D-A is required promptly to notify the Commission of any material change in the answer to any question on this form.
( c ) Form D-A may not be withheld from the interested division. A respondent making financial information disclosures on this form after the institution of proceedings may make a motion, pursuant to Rule 322 of the Commission's Rules of Practice (17 CFR 201.322), for the issuance of a protective order to limit disclosure to the public or parties other than the interested division of the information submitted on Form D-A. A request for a protective order allows the requester an opportunity to justify the need for confidentiality. The making of a motion for a protective order, however, does not guarantee that disclosure will be limited.
( d ) No party receiving information for which a motion for a protective order has been made may transfer or convey the information to any other person prior to a ruling on the motion without the prior permission of the Commission or a hearing officer.
( e ) A person making financial information disclosures on Form D-A prior to the institution of proceedings, in connection with an offer of settlement or otherwise, may request confidential treatment of the information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. *See* the Commission's Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) regulations, 17 CFR 200.83. A request for confidential treatment allows the requester an opportunity to substantiate the need for confidentiality. No determination as to the validity of any request for confidential treatment will be made until a request for disclosure of the information under FOIA is received.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2031

DRUE CHICHI WALLACE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CECIL COUNTY FAIR, INC.; DON MOORE; JO ANN BASHORE; MONICA 

MASON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01802-GLR)

Submitted: September 30, 2021 Decided: January 21, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Megan T. Mantzavinos, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., 

Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Jeffrey W. Bredeck, ECCLESTON AND WOLF, P.C., 

Hanover, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Drue Chichi Wallace appeals the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging 

discrimination in violation of Title II of the Civil Right Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, civil 

conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and several related causes of action under state 

law for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Wallace claimed that her removal from county fairgrounds for possession of alcohol was, 

in fact, based on her religion. However, she does not assert that the responsible officials 

knew of her religious faith, so she has not established that her removal was a pretext for 

discrimination. Moreover, she contends that several of the Defendants conspired to have 

her removed, but again, she failed to assert that they knew of her religion. In short, she 

alleged no facts from which a discriminatory purpose could be inferred. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order. 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.

AFFIRMED
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MAY 22, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14316

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-20249-CR-MGC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

MARTIN BERNARD GASPARD, 

a.k.a. Martin Stevens, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(May 22, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Miguel Caridad, appointed counsel for Martin Gaspard, has moved to
2

withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and Gaspard’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
### §16537. Distinguished scientist program

#### (a) Purpose

The purpose of this section is to promote scientific and academic excellence through collaborations between institutions of higher education and National Laboratories.

#### (b) Establishment

The Secretary shall establish a program to support the joint appointment of distinguished scientists by institutions of higher education and National Laboratories.

#### (c) Qualifications

To be eligible for appointment as a distinguished scientist under this section, an individual, by reason of professional background and experience, shall be able to bring international recognition to the appointing institution of higher education or National Laboratory in the field of scientific endeavor of the individual.

#### (d) Selection

A distinguished scientist appointed under this section shall be selected through an open, competitive process.

#### (e) Appointment

#### (1) Institution of higher education

An appointment by an institution of higher education under this section shall be filled within the tenure allotment of the institution of higher education, at a minimum rank of professor.

#### (2) National Laboratory

An appointment by a National Laboratory under this section shall be at the rank of the highest grade of distinguished scientist or technical staff of the National Laboratory.

#### (f) Duration

An appointment under this section shall—

(1) be for a term of 6 years; and

(2) consist of 2 3-year funding allotments.

#### (g) Use of funds

Funds made available under this section may be used for—

(1) the salary of the distinguished scientist and support staff;

(2) undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral appointments;

(3) research-related equipment;

(4) professional travel; and

(5) such other requirements as the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the purpose of the program.

#### (h) Review

#### (1) In general

The appointment of a distinguished scientist under this section shall be reviewed at the end of the first 3-year allotment for the distinguished scientist through an open peer-review process to determine whether the appointment is meeting the purpose of this section under subsection (a).

#### (2) Funding

Funding of the appointment of the distinguished scientist for the second 3-year allotment shall be determined based on the review conducted under paragraph (1).

#### (i) Cost sharing

To be eligible for assistance under this section, an appointing institution of higher education shall pay at least 50 percent of the total costs of the appointment.

#### (j) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section—

(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;

(2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;

(3) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;

(4) $31,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;

(5) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and

(6) $33,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

(Pub. L. 110–69, title V, §5011, Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 620; Pub. L. 111–358, title IX, §902(e), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 4045.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2011—Subsec. (j)(4) to (6). Pub. L. 111–358 added pars. (4) to (6).
### §1574. Repealed. Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, §1(113), 65 Stat. 706

Section, act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 862, title V, §504, as added Aug. 8, 1946, ch. 912, §2, 60 Stat. 958, related to the use or reuse of structures or facilities of Federal agencies as educational facilities for persons receiving training courses or education under title II of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended (act June 22, 1944, ch. 268, title II, 58 Stat. 284).