alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 37.625 What cost principles or standards do I require for for-profit participants? ( a ) So as not to require any firm to needlessly change its cost-accounting system, your expenditure-based TIAs are to apply the Government cost principles in 48 CFR parts 31 and 231 to for-profit participants that currently perform under expenditure-based Federal procurement contracts or assistance awards (other than TIAs) and therefore have existing systems for identifying allowable costs under those principles. If there are programmatic or business reasons to do otherwise, you may grant an exception from this requirement and use alternative standards as long as the alternative satisfies the conditions described in paragraph (b) of this section; if you do so, you must document the reasons in your award file.
( b ) For other for-profit participants, you may establish alternative standards in the agreement as long as that alternative provides, as a minimum, that Federal funds and funds counted as recipients' cost sharing will be used only for costs that: ( 1 ) A reasonable and prudent person would incur in carrying out the research project contemplated by the agreement. Generally, elements of cost that appropriately are charged are those identified with research and development activities under the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (see Statement of Financial Accounting Standards Number 2, “Accounting for Research and Development Costs,” October 1974[1] ). Moreover, costs must be allocated to DoD and other projects in accordance with the relative benefits the projects receive. Costs charged to DoD projects must be given consistent treatment with costs allocated to the participants' other research and development activities (*e.g.,* activities supported by the participants themselves or by non-Federal sponsors).
( 2 ) Are consistent with the purposes stated in the governing Congressional authorizations and appropriations. You are responsible for ensuring that provisions in the award document address any requirements that result from authorizations and appropriations.
Footnotes -
37.625
[1] Copies may be obtained from the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), 401 Merritt 7, P.O. Box 5116, Norwalk, CT 06856-5116. Information about ordering also may be found at the Internet site *http://www.fasb.org* or by telephoning the FASB at (800) 748-0659.
Exhibit 32.2









                          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 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
     (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the year ended December 31, 2003, as
     filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
     "Report"), I, Stephan W. Zumsteg, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
     certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
     of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

         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 results of operations
            of the Company.


     February 17, 2004


     /s/ Stephan W. Zumsteg
     ---------------------------------
     Chief Financial Officer
#### EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMM. v. PEACE

No. 599A97

Case below: 122 N.C.App. 313

Notice of appeal by plaintiff pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question) retained 5 February 1998. Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 February 1998.
#### Olida S. Landgren v. R. H. Macy & Co.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted insofar as to permit the appeal to be heard upon a typewritten or mimeographed record, without printing the same, and upon typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points, upon condition that the appellant serves one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed record and one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points on the attorney for defendant-respondent and files 6 typewritten copies or 19 mimeographed copies of both *914the record on appeal and appellant’s points with this court. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### § 651.37 Public availability.

Documents incorporated into the EA or FNSI by reference will be available for public review. Where possible, use of public libraries and a list of POCs for supportive documents is encouraged. A depository should be chosen which is open beyond normal business hours. To the extent possible, the WWW should also be used to increase public availability of documents.
§ 553.22 Exceptions to policies for interment, inurnment, or memorialization at Arlington National Cemetery. ( a ) As a national military cemetery, eligibility standards for interment, inurnment, or memorialization are based on honorable military service. Exceptions to the eligibility standards for new graves are rarely granted. When granted, exceptions are for those persons who have made significant contributions that directly and substantially benefited the U.S. military.
( b ) Requests for an exception to the interment or inurnment eligibility policies shall be considered only after the individual's death.
( c ) Requests for an exception to the interment or inurnment eligibility policies shall be submitted to the Executive Director and shall include any documents required by the Executive Director.
( d ) The primary next of kin is responsible for providing and certifying the authenticity of all documents and swearing to the accuracy of the accounting provided to support the request for exception to the interment or inurnment eligibility policies.
( e ) Disapproved requests will be reconsidered only when the personal representative or next of kin submits new and substantive information not previously considered by the Secretary of the Army. Requests for reconsideration shall be submitted directly to the Executive Director. Requests for reconsideration not supported by new and substantive information will be denied by the Executive Director after review and advice from the Army General Counsel or his or her designee. The Executive Director shall notify the personal representative or next of kin of the decision of the reconsideration. The decision by the Secretary of the Army or the Executive Director, as the case may be, is final and not appealable.
( f ) Under no circumstances, will exceptions to policies be considered or granted for those individuals prohibited from interment by virtue of § 553.20 or § 553.21.
#### § 281.1 Purpose.

This part establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for settling personnel and general claims (under 31 U.S.C. 3702; 10 U.S.C. 2575, 2771, 4712, and 9712; 24 U.S.C. 420; 37 U.S.C. 554, and 32 U.S.C. 714) and for processing requests for an advance decision under 31 U.S.C. 3529.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134086 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134086 

 COA: 273562 
 Wayne CC: 03-012989 

ROBERT LEE JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d0830 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
#### Angel O. Pimental, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Pablo Pimental, et al., Respondents, v. Arthur Desouza, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, *981entered September 14, 1960 upon the decision of the court, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiffs for $2,713.25. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Mary H. Cilia, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal years ended
     December 31, 1999 and 2000 of Zond-PanAero Windsystem Partners I;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.


Date: March 30, 2005
                           /s/ MARY H. CILIA
                           ------------------------------
                           Mary H. Cilia
                           Chief Financial Officer
                           Zond Windsystems Management LLC, as General
                           Partner of Zond-PanAero Windsystem Partners I
#### § 965.701 Lead-based paint poisoning prevention.

The requirements of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4821-4846), the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4851-4856), and implementing regulations at part 35, subparts A, B, L, and R of this title apply to this program.

[64 FR 50229, Sept. 15, 1999]
Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Advisory Contract



 Exhibit 10(a) 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED ADVISORY CONTRACT 
 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 is made as of April 3, 2006, between B. F. Saul Company (the “Advisor) and B. F. Saul Real Estate Investment Trust (the
“Trust”). 
 WHEREAS, the Advisor and the Trust entered into an Amended and Restated Advisory Contract (the ‘Contract”)
effective as of October 1, 2005, which the Advisor and the Trust now wish to amend in certain respects, in accordance with and as contemplated by Paragraph 8.B. of said Contract, in order to adjust the Advisor’s monthly based compensation,

 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants therein and herein contained, it is agreed that the Amended
and Restated Advisory Contract is amended as follows: 
 Paragraph 3.A. is amended by changing the Advisory Fee from $503,000 to $579,000 per
month, of which the Trust is obligated to pay, less any amount contributed by Dearborn, L.L.C. pursuant to its contract. The change in the Advisory Fee shall be effective as of January 1, 2006. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above
written. 
  

			
	        B. F. SAUL REAL ESTATE
	            INVESTMENT TRUST
		
	By:	 	 /s/ B. Francis Saul III

		 	B. Francis Saul III
		 	Senior Vice President
	
	        B. F. SAUL COMPANY
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Ross E. Heasley

		 	Ross E. Heasley
		 	Vice President
#### GUIN v. GUIN

No. 352P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 829

Petition by defendant (The Atlanta Casualty Companies) for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 October 1997.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1408 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1408

Recognizing August 6, National Night Out, the national coming together 
  of Americans all over the Nation to unite and promote public safety.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2024

 Mrs. Torres of California (for herself and Mr. Fitzpatrick) submitted 
 the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing August 6, National Night Out, the national coming together 
  of Americans all over the Nation to unite and promote public safety.

Whereas, on the first Tuesday of August, the Nation will observe National Night 
        Out, a day to cultivate a better relationship between residents of a 
        community and their local law enforcement, and to promote public safety;
Whereas the participation in National Night Out by over 38,000,000 neighbors in 
        over 16,000 communities across the United States for over 40 years is 
        inspiring;
Whereas the relationship between local law enforcement and the residents which 
        they are sworn to protect is important in creating a true sense of 
        community;
Whereas general awareness of public safety has improved, because of the 
        continued efforts of communities to meet their law enforcement officers 
        and participate in National Night Out activities; and
Whereas National Night Out not only includes Americans on the mainland, but 
        includes those in United States territories and military bases to ensure 
        all are included in the effort of community building and public safety 
        awareness: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) encourages law enforcement departments to use National 
        Night Out to improve relationships with the communities they 
        serve;
            (2) encourages public safety departments to inform 
        communities--
                    (A) how to most effectively contact their 911 
                responders and emergency service providers; and
                    (B) how they carry out their duties; and
            (3) recognizes the impact that has been made for over 40 
        years in communities all over the United States of America by 
        National Night Out in creating a more united country by 
        fostering relationships between residents, neighbors, and local 
        law enforcement, and promoting public safety awareness.
                                 <all>
```
#### KOLBINSKY v. PARAMOUNT HOMES, INC.

No. 333P97

Case below: 126 NiC.App. 533

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 October 1997.
§ 536.65 Denial notice. ( a ) Where there is no reasonable basis for compromise, a settlement authority will deny a claim within his or her monetary jurisdiction or forward the claim recommending denial to the settlement authority that has jurisdiction. The denial notice will contain instructions on the right to sue or request reconsideration. The notice will state the basis for denial. No admission of liability will be made. A notice to an unrepresented claimant should detail the basis for denial in lay language sufficient to permit an informed decision as to whether to request appeal or reconsideration. In the interest of deterring reconsideration, appeal or suit, a denial notice may be releasable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or by the work product documents doctrine.
( b ) Regardless of the claim's nature or the statute under which it may be considered, letters denying claims on jurisdictional grounds that are valid, certain, and not easily overcome (and for this reason no detailed investigation as to the merits of the claim was conducted), must state that denial on such grounds is not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the claim or an admission of liability. In medical malpractice claims, the denial should state that the file is being referred to U.S. Army Medical Command for review. If sufficient factual information exists to make a tentative ruling on the merits of the claim, liability may be expressly denied.
Note to § 536.65 :
See § 536.53, on denying a claim for failure to substantiate. In addition, the procedures and rules in DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-69, settlement and approval authority, apply equally to the denial of claims. See also DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-75.
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1506 

Expressing profound sorrow over the death of Alexander Michel Odeh. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Mr. CORREA (for himself and Ms. TLAIB) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing profound sorrow over the death of Alexander 

Michel Odeh. 

Whereas Alexander Michel Odeh was born in Jifna, Palestine, 

on April 4, 1944, and resided in Orange County, California, for most of his adult life, including Santa Ana; 

Whereas Alex Odeh was a peace activist who worked to promote civil liberties for Arab-Americans in the United 

States and for civil and human rights around the world; 

Whereas Alex Odeh was also a published poet and a lecturer 

of Arabic language at Coastline College and California 

State University, Fullerton; 

Whereas Alex Odeh was the Southern California Regional Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) when, on October 11, 1985, he was killed 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 1506 IH 

when a pipe bomb exploded as he entered the ADC office 

in Santa Ana, California; 

Whereas Alex Odeh is survived by his wife, Norma Odeh, and 

his three daughters, Helena Odeh, Samya Odeh, and 

Susan Odeh; and 

Whereas those responsible for the act of domestic terrorism 

which killed Alex Odeh have yet to be brought to justice: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) the House of Representatives acknowledges 

3 with profound sorrow the death of Alexander Michel 

4 Odeh, a victim of domestic terrorism; 

5 (2) the House of Representatives tenders its 

6 deep sympathy to the members of the family of the 

7 late Mr. Odeh and the American-Arab Anti-Dis8 crimination Committee in their bereavement; 

9 (3) the Clerk of the House of Representatives 

10 will communicate this resolution to the Senate and 

11 transmit a copy thereof to the family of the de12 ceased; and 

13 (4) when the House of Representatives adjourns 

14 today, it adjourns as a further mark of respect to 

15 the memory of Mr. Odeh. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
### **CHAPTER 96—GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE**

Sec.
6701.
Global Climate Change Program.
6702.
Study of global climate change, agriculture, and forestry.
6703.
Repealed.
6704.
Office of International Forestry.
6705.
Line item.
6706.
Institutes of Tropical Forestry.
6707.
Urban forestry demonstration projects.
6708.
Repealed.
6709.
Interagency cooperation to maximize biomass growth.
6710.
Authorization of appropriations.
6711.
Carbon cycle research.
6712.
Greenhouse Gas Technical Assistance Provider and Third-Party Verifier Program.
#### BORNSTEIN et al. v. DISKIN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Practice—Striking Case from Calendar—Moving Papers—Sufficiency.

A motion to strike a case from the calendar was properly denied where it did not appear from the moving papers that the attorney for the defendant who appeared and answered was attorney for the codefendants, or that he knew that the latter had not been served, or that the case was not at issue by default.

Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.

Action by Joseph Bornstein and another against May Diskin and others. From an order denying a motion to strike the case from the calendar, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

*249Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

Menken Bros., for appellants.

Shapiro & Shapiro, for respondents.

MacLEAN, J.

It not appearing from the moving papers that the attorney for the defendant who did appear and answer was the attorney for the codefendants, or that he knew the latter had not been served, or that the case was not at issue by default, the court below properly refused to strike the case from its calendar, and its order must be affirmed, with costs.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Fly ing for: ________________________________

Contact: ______________

_______________ Phone: _________________________ Email: ___________________  What is your ultimate goal for making this video?  Demographic who you are trying to reach ?  Music and tempo preference for the video?  Venue that you would like to showcase? o Time of day - o Length of video - o Specific shots - o Specific people or items - o Other -  Text within the video?  Your high quality

logo and call to action ?  Our logo and splash page  Editing time, repository and sharing  Do y ou have an y questions or concerns?
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 135 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Ethics in the 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2023 

Mr. GUEST (for himself and Ms. WILD) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Ethics in the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Ethics (here4 after in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’), 

5 including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be 

6 paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House of Rep7 resentatives for committee salaries and expenses, not more 

8 than $9,276,290 for the One Hundred Eighteenth Con9 gress. 


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 135 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $4,517,066 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2023, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2024; and 

7 (2) not more than $4,759,224 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2024, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2025. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

The following is a list of subsidiaries of Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Nevada corporation, as of December 31, 2002:

|Name                          |  | Jurisdiction |  | Type of Entity |  | % Ownership |  
|----------------------------- |  | ------------ |  | -------------- |  | ----------- | -
|Xantech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. |  | Tennessee    |  | corporation    |  | 100         | %
|Pure-ific Corporation         |  | Nevada       |  | corporation    |  | 100         | %

1

---

QuickLinks