alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 56.6 Information requirements. ( a ) Each DoD Component shall maintain a log of all complaints that are filed with it or its recipients under this part. The log shall contain the complainant's name (last name, first, and middle initial) and address (street address, city, State, and zip code), the recipient's name (if this refers to a person, last name, first, and middle initial) and address (street address, city, State, and zip code), the nature of the complaint, and the current status of the complaint investigation or resolution. Each DoD Component shall submit a narrative summary report on complaints by memorandum to the ASD(MRA&L), or designee, before July 15 and January 15 of each year. This reporting requirement has been assigned Report Control Symbol DD-M(SA)1596.
( b ) Each DoD Component shall submit a narrative report by memorandum to the ASD(MRA&L), or designee, whenever, pursuant to enclosure 4 of this directive, the DoD Component notifies an applicant or recipient that noncompliance with this part is indicated. The report shall include the recipient's name (if this refers to a person, last name, first, and middle initial) and address (street address, city, State, and zip code), the date (YYMMDD) and nature of the finding, and the name of the applicable federally assisted program or activity. This reporting requirement has been assigned Report Control Symbol DD-M(AR)1597.
( c ) The recordkeeping requirements contained in § 56.9(c)(2), have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. chapter 35 and have been assigned OMB No. 0704-0102.
EIS International, Inc. and Subsidiaries           Exhibit 11

                 Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings
                  (in thousands, except for per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Three Months Ended    Nine Months Ended 
                                                             September 30,        September 30,
                                                           1997     1996        1997        1996
                                                         --------  --------   --------     --------
<S>                                                      <C>       <C>       <C>          <C>      
Income (loss) from continuing operations                 $ 1,548   $(5,491)  $   (615)    $(16,782)
Discontinued operations                                        -    (1,395)         -       (2,776)
                                                         -------   -------   --------     -------- 
Net income (loss)                                        $ 1,548   $(6,886)  $   (615)    $(19,558)
                                                         =======   =======   ========     ======== 

Weighted average number of common and
 common equivalent shares:
     Common shares outstanding                            11,505    10,971     11,289       10,560
     Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants,                                              -
     primary computation                                     382         -          -
                                                         -------   -------   --------     -------- 
Weighted average number of common and
common equivalent shares utilized in the primary
income (loss) per share computation:                      11,887    10,971     11,289       10,560
     Additional dilutive effect of stock options and
     warrants, fully diluted computation                       -         -          -            -
                                                         -------   -------   --------     -------- 
Weighted average number of common and
common equivalent shares utilized in the fully
diluted loss per share computation                        11,887    10,971     11,289       10,560
                                                         =======   =======   ========     ======== 
Primary and fully diluted income (loss) per share:
     Continuing operations                               $  0.13   $ (0.50)$    (0.05)    $  (1.59)
     Discontinued operations                                   -     (0.13)      -           (0.26)
                                                         -------   -------   --------     -------- 
     Primary and fully diluted income (loss) per share   $  0.13   $ (0.63)$    (0.05)    $  (1.85)
                                                         =======   =======   ========     ======== 
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CANDACE BUSH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 11 C 9188

)

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) has filed its Answer and

Defenses (“ADs”) to the ADA action brought against it by Candace

Bush. This sua sponte memorandum opinion and order addresses a

repeatedly occurring problematic aspect of that responsive

pleading.

Many of the Answer’s responses (Answer ¶¶3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 15,

21 and 23) follow an invocation of the disclaimer of some of

Bush’s allegations--a disclaimer that tracks the language of Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(b)(5)--by stating that Starbucks “therefore, denies

them.” This Court has had to deal with distressing frequency

with the oxymoronic nature of such a combination--indeed, as

chance would have it, Starbucks’ counsel has been tagged with one

of this Court’s opinions on the subject so recently in another

case that counsel have noticed up a motion for presentment on

January 25 in which they seek leave to file an Amended Answer to

cure that flaw.

There is no need for counsel to spend their time (for which
this Court would require that they not bill the client) for that

purpose. Instead the quoted phrase is simply stricken from each

of the cited paragraphs of the Answer. This action remains set

for a February 28 status hearing.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 23, 2012

2
#### In the Matter of James C. Black et al., Individually and as a Committee Representing Other Tenants in Premises 55-59 Perry Street and 264-272 West Fourth Street, New York, Appellants, v. Robert E. Herman, as State Rent Administrator, et al., Respondents.

Order entered on February 26, 1962 unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the *637respondents. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA Rain Taxonomy for Degraded Visual Environment MitigationThis Technical Memorandum (TM) provides a description of a rainfall taxonomy that defines the detailed characteristics of naturally occurring rainfall. The taxonomy is based on raindrop size measurements collected around the globe and encompasses several different climate types. Included in this TM is a description of these rainfall observations, an explanation of methods used to process those data, and resultant metrics comprising the rain taxonomy database. Each of the categories in the rain taxonomy are characterized by a unique set of raindrop sizes that can be used in simulations of electromagnetic wave propagation through a rain medium.Document ID20180002207Acquisition SourceMarshall Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsGatlin, P. N.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Petersen, W. A.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Date AcquiredApril 6, 2018Publication DateMarch 1, 2018Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberMSFC-E-DAA-TN52539NASA/TM-2018-219882M-1458Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.KeywordsmeteorologyaviationPrecipitationAvailable DownloadsNameType20180002207.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 552.89 Activities. ( a ) Examples of authorized activities are listed in appendix C.
( b ) Activities listed in appendix D are not authorized on Ft. Lewis and no permit will be issued.
§ 750.33 Damages. ( a ) *Generally.* The measure of damages is determined by the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. When there is a conflict between local and applicable Federal law, the latter governs. 28 U.S.C. 1346(b).
( b ) *Limitations on liability.* The United States is not liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages. In a death case, if the place where the act or omission complained of occurred provides for only punitive damages, the United States will be liable in lieu thereof, for actual or compensatory damages. 28 U.S.C. 2674.
( c ) *Setoff.* The United States is not obligated to pay twice for the same injury. Claimants under the FTCA may have received Government benefits or services as the result of the alleged tort. The cost of these services or benefits shall be considered in arriving at any award of damages. For example, the cost of medical or hospital services furnished at Government expense, including TRICARE payments, shall be considered. Additionally, benefits or services received under the Veterans Act (38 U.S.C. 101-800) must be considered. *Brooks* v. *United States,* 337 U.S. 49 (1949).
( d ) *Suit.* Any damage award in a suit brought under the FTCA is limited to the amount claimed administratively unless based on newly discovered evidence. 28 U.S.C. 2675(b). Plaintiff must prove the increased demand is based on facts not reasonably discoverable at the time of the presentment of the claim or on intervening facts relating to the amount of the claim.
[57 FR 4722, Feb. 7, 1992, as amended at 72 FR 53420, Sept. 19, 2007]
#### Maude S. Savage, as Administratrix of the Estate of Victor Savage, Deceased, Respondent, v. Beth David Hospital, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and for conscious pain and suffering, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 9, 1960, which denies its motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiff’s alleged willful failure to appear for an examination before trial pursuant to notice. It appears that plaintiff is a resident of Florida. The order denies the motion without prejudice to renewal if plaintiff does not submit to an examination whenever she returns to New York City, and in any event “on a date proximate to the trial, or by written interrogatories.” Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Report to Congress.**
 
2013
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.4/2:W 29/
Item Number:0620-A (online)
CGP systemNumber:001056506
 
May 14, 2018
§ 536.74 Scope for claims under the Military Claims Act. ( a ) The guidance set forth in this subpart applies worldwide and prescribes the substantive bases and special procedural requirements for the settlement of claims against the United States for death or personal injury, or damage to, or loss or destruction of, property: ( 1 ) Caused by military personnel or civilian employees (enumerated in § 536.23(b)) acting within the scope of their employment, except for non-federalized Army National Guard soldiers as explained in subpart F of this part; or
( 2 ) Incident to the noncombat activities of the armed services (see AR 27-20, Glossary).
( b ) A tort claim arising in the United States, its commonwealths, territories, and possessions may be settled under this subpart if the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) does not apply to the type of claim under consideration or if the claim arose incident to noncombat activities. For example, a claim by a service member for property loss or damage incident to service may be settled if the loss arises from a tort and is not payable under AR 27-20, Chapter 11.
( c ) A tort claim arising outside the United States may be settled under this subpart only if the claimant has been determined to be an inhabitant (normally a resident) of the United States at the time of the incident giving rise to the claim. See § 536.136(b).
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3841-19

IN THE MATTER OF THE

RE-ADOPTION OF 

N.J.A.C. 8:33E BY THE 

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF HEALTH.

____________________________

Submitted January 18, 2022 – Decided January 25, 2022

Before Judges Fasciale and Firko.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Health.

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, LLP, attorneys for 

appellant (James A. Robertson, of counsel and on the 

briefs; John W. Kaveney, on the briefs).

Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Mark D. McNally, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This appeal was initially scheduled for oral argument on January 18, 2022. 

The court being advised by the parties that the issues in dispute have been 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-3841-19

amicably resolved, the appeal is accordingly dismissed with prejudice and 

without costs to either party.
§ 1697.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This regulation provides procedures for the collection by administrative offset of a federal employee's salary without his/her consent to satisfy certain debts owed to the federal government. These regulations apply to all federal employees who owe debts to the Selective Service System and to current employees of the Selective Service System who owe debts to other federal agencies. This regulation does not apply when the employee consents to recovery from his/her current pay account.
( b ) This regulation does not apply to debts or claims arising under: ( 1 ) The Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, 26 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.;*
( 2 ) The Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 301 *et seq.:*
( 3 ) The tariff laws of the United States; or
( 4 ) Any case where a collection of a debt by salary offset is explicitly provided for or prohibited by another statute (e.g., travel advances in 5 U.S.C. 5705 and employee training expenses in 5 U.S.C. 4108).
( c ) This regulation does not apply to any adjustment to pay arising out of an employee's selection of coverage or a change in coverage under a federal benefits program requiring periodic deductions from pay if the amount to be recovered was accumulated over four pay periods or less.
( d ) This regulation does not preclude the compromise, suspension, or termination of collection action where appropriate under the standards implementing the Federal Claims Collection Act 31 U.S.C. 3711 *et seq.* 4 CFR parts 101 through 105 and 45 CFR part 1177.
( e ) This regulation does not preclude an employee from requesting waiver of an overpayment under 5 U.S.C. 5584, 10 U.S.C. 2774 or 32 U.S.C. 716 or in any way questioning the amount or validity of the debt by submitting a subsequent claim to the General Accounting Office. This regulation does not preclude an employee from requesting a waiver pursuant to other statutory provisions applicable to the particular debt being collected.
( f ) Matters not addressed in these regulations should be reviewed in accordance with the Federal Claims Collection Standards at 4 CFR 101.1 *et seq.*
No. 8199.

#### Doyle, Admr., *v.*The Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Co.

(Decided October 13, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Jackson county.

*Mr. E. G. Powell*and *Mr. J. K. McGlung,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. B. D. Marshall; A. E. Jacobs*and *A. MoL. Marshall,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
#### STATE v. MARLEY

No. 351P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 832

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 September 1997.
§ 770.3 Fishing regulations. ( a ) All persons possessing the proper state license and Base permit are permitted to fish in the areas designated by the Annual Fishing Regulations on Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA, on any authorized fishing day. A Base Fishing Privilege Card is required for all persons aged 16 to 65.
( b ) Fishing is permitted on all waters within the boundaries of Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA, unless otherwise posted, under the conditions and restrictions and during the periods provided by Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA. Information regarding specific regulations for each fishing area must be obtained from the Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Branch, Building 5-9 prior to use of Base fishing facilities.
( c ) In addition to the requirements of the Laws of Virginia, the following additional prohibitions and requirements are in effect at Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA. ( 1 ) No trout lines are permitted in Marine Corps Base waters;
( 2 ) No Large Mouth Bass will be taken, creeled or possessed in a slot limit of 12-15 inches in length. All Large Mouth Bass within this slot will be immediately returned to the water;
( 3 ) No Striped Bass will be taken, creeled or possessed under the size of twenty (20) inches in length. All Striped Bass under this size will be immediately returned to the water.
[41 FR 22345, June 3, 1976, as amended at 48 FR 23205, May 24, 1983; 65 FR 53591, Sept. 5, 2000]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Lawrence Carroll, Appellant, v. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

•Motion by appellant to dispense with printing denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
§ 339.6 Non-significant guidance documents. ( a ) If the guidance document is determined to be non-significant within the meaning of § 339.7 of this part, the appropriate DoD or OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer will advise the proposing component to proceed with issuance of the guidance.
( b ) For each such guidance document, the proposing component should forward it to the appropriate authority for approval. OSD PSAs or equivalents can delegate in writing the authority to approve non-significant guidance documents to subordinate officials at or above the level of a General/Flag Officer, Senior Executive Service member, or equivalent. The proposing component should include a statement in the action memorandum to the approving authority that the guidance document has been reviewed and cleared as non-significant by OIRA.
( c ) After the approving authority signs the non-significant guidance document, it should be forwarded to the DoD Regulatory Program staff for publication on the department's guidance document website located at *https://open.defense.gov/Regulatory-Program/Guidance-Documents/*.
12.602 Streamlined evaluation of offers. ( a ) When evaluation factors are used, the contracting officer may insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 52.212-2, Evaluation— Commercial Products and Commercial Services, in solicitations for commercial products or commercial services or comply with the procedures in 13.106 if the acquisition is being made using simplified acquisition procedures. When the provision at 52.212-2 is used, paragraph (a) of the provision shall be tailored to the specific acquisition to describe the evaluation factors and relative importance of those factors. However, when using the simplified acquisition procedures in part 13, contracting officers are not required to describe the relative importance of evaluation factors.
( b ) Offers shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria contained in the solicitation. For many commercial products or commercial services, the criteria need not be more detailed than technical (capability of the item offered to meet the agency need), price, and past performance. Technical capability may be evaluated by how well the proposed products or services meet the Government requirement instead of predetermined subfactors. Solicitations for commercial products or commercial services do not have to contain subfactors for technical capability when the solicitation adequately describes the intended use of the commercial product or commercial service. A technical evaluation would normally include examination of such things as product or service literature, product samples (if requested), technical features, and warranty provisions. Past performance shall be evaluated in accordance with the procedures in section 13.106 or subpart 15.3, as applicable. The contracting officer shall ensure the instructions provided in the provision at 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and the evaluation criteria provided in the provision at 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services, are in agreement.
( c ) Select the offer that is most advantageous to the Government based on the factors contained in the solicitation. Fully document the rationale for selection of the successful offeror including discussion of any tradeoffs considered.
[60 FR 48241, Sept. 18, 1995, as amended at 61 FR 39192, July 26, 1996; 62 FR 264, Jan. 2, 1997; 62 FR 51270, Sept. 30, 1997; 62 FR 64917, Dec. 9, 1997; 86 FR 61024, Nov. 4, 2021]