alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2501. Reexamination after issue

(a) Any person may, within five years after the issuance of a certificate of plant variety protection, notify the Secretary in writing of facts which may have a bearing on the protectability of the variety, and the Secretary may cause such plant variety protection to be reexamined in the light thereof.

(b) Reexamination of plant variety protection under this section and appeals shall be pursuant to the same procedures and with the same rights as for original examinations. Abandonment of the procedure while subject to a ruling against the retention of the certificate shall result in cancellation of the plant variety certificate thereon and notice thereof shall be endorsed on copies of the description of the protected plant variety thereafter distributed by the Plant Variety Protection Office.

(c) If a person acting under subsection (a) makes a prima facie showing of facts needing proof, the Secretary may direct that the reexamination include such interparty proceedings as the Secretary shall establish.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title II, §91, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1552; Pub. L. 96–574, §17, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3351; Pub. L. 103–349, §13(o), Oct. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 3144.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103–349 substituted "the Secretary" for "he".

1980—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96–574 substituted "description" for "specification".

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

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–349 effective 180 days after Oct. 6, 1994, see section 15 of Pub. L. 103–349, set out as a note under section 2401 of this title.
**EXHIBIT 15**

TXU Gas Company:

Wehave made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial information of TXUGas Company (formerly ENSERCH Corporation) and subsidiaries (TXU Gas) for the periods ended September 30, 1999 and 1998, as indicated in our report dated November 11, 1999; because wedid not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

Weare aware that our report referred to above, which is included in TXU Gas' Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1999, is incorporated by reference inRegistration Statements No. 333-85769, 333-85769-01, 333-85769-02, 333-85769-03, 333-43811 and 333-43811-01 on Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3 of TXU Gas.

Wealso are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certifiedby an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE &TOUCHE LLP

Dallas,Texas
#### WORM et al. v. McKINLEY REALTY & CONSTRUCTION CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 17, 1906.)

Contracts—Action fob Services—Dismissal.

Dismissal of the complaint is error, though the testimony is insufficient as to most of the services alleged to have been rendered to defendant, there being evidence that defendant’s president requested plaintiffs to put certain work in defendant’s office, and that this was done, and the value thereof being shown and in no way disputed; this making a prima facie case.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District.

Action by Jacob Worm and another against the McKinley Realty & Construction Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BLANCHARD and DOW-LING, JJ.

Leopold Freiman, for appellants.

Morrison & .Schiff, for respondent.

DOWLING, J.

At the close of the testimony, upon motion of the defendant, the complaint was dismissed by the court for failure of proof. The plaintiffs claimed to recover for work performed for the defendant, first, upon buildings situated at 143d street; second, work done at the office of the defendant; third, work done at 140th street and Lenox avenue; and, fourth, work done at 950 Sherman avenue. The plaintiffs claim that the contracts under which the work was performed were made by one Newmark, the president of the defendant. The testimony given by the plaintiffs is very meagre and unconvincing, except as to one item. As to that there is testimony that the plaintiffs were requested by the defendant’s president to put into their office a wardrobe, shelvés, a desk, and some brackets, which was. done, and the .value thereof was shown and was in no way disputed. This testimony was sufficient to warrant a judgment for the .plaintiffs, and for the services thus proven they had proved a prima facie cas.e, and consequently the dismissal of the complaint was error.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.
Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 

PROPOSED 

Land Use Plan Amendment 

and 

FINAL

Environmental Impact Statement 

for the 

Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, 

Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices 

and 

Bridger-Teton and Medicine Bow National 

Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland

for

Public Lands Administered by the

Bureau of Land Management

Wyoming State Office

and

National Forest System Lands Administered by the

Medicine Bow and Bridger-Teton National Forests 

and

Thunder Basin National Grassland

May 2015
This page intentionally left blank.
#### Sherley Karpen, appellee, v. Elmer Jones, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,233.

Action for personal injuries sustained in automobile collision. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Philip L. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 13, 1925.

*637John A. Bloomingston, for appellant.

Irving G. Zazove, for appellee; Morris K. Levinson, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Johnston

delivered the opinion of the court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent Litigation,

et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−09308

Honorable James F.

Holderman

JW Marriott Chicago, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, July 3, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: Steven C. Cherny's

application to appear pro hac vice [784] is granted. Notice mailed by judge's staff(ntf, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 785 Filed: 07/03/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:25323
#### Joseph Sipka, appellee, v. Sam Berman, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,654.

Action of forcible entry and detainer. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William E. Yiner, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 9, 1925.

Isidore Brown, for appellant.

Stough, Harrington, Carolan & Loy, for appellee; Charles E. Loy, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### WILLIAMSON, Respondent, v. O’CONNOR, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 20, 1903.)

Action by Lorraine L. Williamson against Michael P. O’Connor, as executor.

C. E. Thorn, tor appellant.

A. C. Cowan, tor respondent.

No opinion. .Judgment affirmed, with costs.
### §3313. Payment of funds

Except as provided elsewhere in this Act or any other Act of Congress, funds available for allotment under this chapter shall be paid to each eligible institution or State at such time and in such amounts as shall be determined by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1467, Sept. 29, 1977, 91 Stat. 1018.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

For definition of "this chapter", referred to in text, see note set out under section 3102 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1977, see section 1901 of Pub. L. 95–113, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 1307 of this title.
#### 1201.403 Individual deviations.

The head of the contracting activity (HCA), or designee with a rank that is no lower than that of a Senior Executive Service (SES) official, may authorize individual deviations to the FAR and TAR, unless FAR 1.405(e) applies.
### §2135. Time period for disposal of dogs or cats by dealers or exhibitors

No dealer or exhibitor shall sell or otherwise dispose of any dog or cat within a period of five business days after the acquisition of such animal or within such other period as may be specified by the Secretary: Provided, That operators of auction sales subject to section 2142 of this title shall not be required to comply with the provisions of this section.

(Pub. L. 89–544, §5, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351; Pub. L. 91–579, §6, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1561.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1970—Pub. L. 91–579 inserted references to exhibitors and inserted proviso that operators of auction sales subject to section 2142 of this title shall not be required to comply with the provisions of this section.

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

#### Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 91–579 effective one year after Dec. 24, 1970, see section 23 of Pub. L. 91–579, set out as a note under section 2131 of this title.
13.303-6 Review procedures. ( a ) The contracting officer placing orders under a BPA, or the designated representative of the contracting officer, shall review a sufficient random sample of the BPA files at least annually to ensure that authorized procedures are being followed.
( b ) The contracting officer that entered into the BPA shall— ( 1 ) Ensure that each BPA is reviewed at least annually and, if necessary, updated at that time; and
( 2 ) Maintain awareness of changes in market conditions, sources of supply, and other pertinent factors that may warrant making new arrangements with different suppliers or modifying existing arrangements.
( c ) If an office other than the purchasing office that established a BPA is authorized to make purchases under that BPA, the agency that has jurisdiction over the office authorized to make the purchases shall ensure that the procedures in paragraph (a) of this subsection are being followed.
Fiscal Year 2003 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - PUERTO RICO

Maximum Required

Expenditures For 

Choice-Related Maximum Per-Child

Transportation Expenditure For

FY 2003 Title I And Supplemental Supplemental

LEA ID District Allocation* Educational Services** Educational Services***

4300030 PUERTO RICO 402,231,712 80,446,342 876.30

4399999 PART D SUBPART 2 0 0 0.00

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the Department's calculations. States also are permitted to reserve up to 1 percent of allocations for administration and must reserve

 2 percent of allocations (rising to 4 percent in fiscal year 2004) for school improvement activities. These adjustments will reduce the actual

 amounts available under all three columns of the table.

** An LEA must use up to an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation (the “20-percent reservation”) received from the State 

 to cover choice-related transportation costs for students who exercise a choice option and to pay for supplemental educational services for

 students whose parents request such services. The 20-percent reservation may include Title I, Part A funds or funding from other Federal,

 State, local, and private sources. The amount shown in this column is the Department’s estimate of the amount that affected LEAs - those

 with schools identifed for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring - may have to spend to meet this requirement. Actual 

 expenditures will depend on such factors as the number of students exercising either a choice option or supplemental educuational services and

 the costs of satisfying these requests. An LEA has discretion to determine the allocation of these funds between choice-related transportation

 and supplemental educational services, except that it must spend at least one-quarter of the 20-percent reservation - or an amount equal to

 5 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation - on each activity if there is demand for both from students and their parents.

*** An LEA that must arrange for supplemental educational services is required to pay, for each child receiving services, the lesser of the actual cost

 of the services or an amount equal to the LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation received from the State divided by the number of poor students in the

 LEA, as determined by estimates produced by the US Bureau of the Census. Thus the amount shown in this column reflects the statutory “cap”

 on per-child expenditures for supplemental educational services.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Herman M. Frietsch, certify that:
(1)  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of TeraForce Technology Corporation; (2)  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; (3)  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; (4)  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
(5)  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 31, 2005     /s/ HERMAN M. FRIETSCH   Herman M. Frietsch Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Plaintiffs, Alfredo Galdamez, Carlos Marban, Angel Campoverde, Abraham Ruiz, 

Teodoro Galvan, Joel Flores, Enrique Zamudio and Mario Valdivida, wish to dismiss the abovecaptioned putative class/collective action in its entirety, without prejudice, and pursue their 

claims individually through Darden’s Dispute Resolution Process (“DRP”). Defendants agree, 

and therefore, the parties hereby stipulate to Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of this action without 

prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party to bear its own fees and 

costs.

The parties further stipulate to tolling of the limitations period for Plaintiffs’ FLSA, 

IMWL, and IWPCA claims, which were raised in the July 16, 2012 Complaint, from January 31, 

2012 (the date that their claims were originally brought in this case when it was captioned Keith 

Jones, et al. v. Capital Grille Holdings, Inc., et al.) through January 4, 2013, only for Plaintiffs’ 

pursuit of those claims through DRP. Defendants do not stipulate to this tolling if Plaintiffs 

ALFREDO GALDAMEZ, CARLOS MARBAN, 

ANGEL CAMPOVERDE, ABRAHAM RUIZ, 

TEODORO GALVAN, JOEL FLORES, 

ENRIQUE ZAMUDIO and MARIO 

VALDIVIDA, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

CAPITAL GRILLE HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a 

THE CAPITAL GRILLE, GMRI, INC. and 

DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC.,

Defendants.

 

 Case No. 12 C 660

 Judge Feinerman

 Magistrate Judge Schenkier

Case: 1:12-cv-00660 Document #: 85 Filed: 01/04/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:606
pursue those claims in any court. The parties agree that Steps One and Two of the DRP (Open 

Door and Peer Review) have been satisfied or are waived. The parties stipulate that all other 

limitations periods and deadlines in the DRP will control. Therefore, Plaintiffs shall have thirty 

days from today to request mediation if they so choose, and they shall have thirty days after 

notice that mediation has concluded without resolution, or whatever additional time remains on 

their federal and state statutes of limitation, to request arbitration. 

Dated: January 4, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Christopher J. Williams

Christopher J. Williams 

Workers’ Law Office, P.C.

401 S. LaSalle St., Ste. 1400

Chicago, IL 60605

Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/Amy S. Ramsey

Amy S. Ramsey

Littler Mendelson

321 N. Clark St., Suite 1000

Chicago, IL 60654

Attorney for Defendants

Case: 1:12-cv-00660 Document #: 85 Filed: 01/04/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:607
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Amy S. Ramsey, an attorney, hereby certifies that on January 4, 2013, a copy of 

Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal was electronically filed with the U.S. District Court, 

Northern District of Illinois. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s 

electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. Parties may 

access this filing through the Court’s electronic system.

/s/Amy S. Ramsey

Counsel for Defendants

Firmwide:117333295.1 069299.1035

Case: 1:12-cv-00660 Document #: 85 Filed: 01/04/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:608
1342.102-70 Interagency contract administration and audit services. ( a ) Generally, the final invoice shall not be approved until a close-out audit has been performed and all outstanding issues have been negotiated or resolved on the following types of contracts valued at $500,000 and above: ( 1 ) Cost-reimbursement type contracts;
( 2 ) The cost-reimbursement portion of fixed-price contracts;
( 3 ) Letter contracts which provide for reimbursement of costs;
( 4 ) Time-and-materials contracts; and
( 5 ) Labor-hour contracts.
( b ) If a close-out audit is not required, an audit may be requested regardless of the contract value when the contracting officer determines that an audit is justified under one of the following circumstances: ( 1 ) There is some evidence of fraud or waste;
( 2 ) The contractor's performance under the contract has been questionable;
( 3 ) The contractor had a high incidence of unallowable costs under a previous contract;
( 4 ) The contract is with a newly-established firm, or a firm that has just begun dealing with the Government.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVE COOPER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

DAVID HAASE, in his official capacity as

Director, Real Property Utilization &

Disposal Division, Government Services

Administration; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 16795

D.C. No. 2:16

- cv

- 02649

- ESW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Eileen S. Willett, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 4, 2019 **

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

This action seeks judicial review pursuant t o the Administrative Procedure

Act (“APA”)

, 5 U.S.C. § 702

, of the decision of the General Services Administration

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 6 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

(“GSA”) to reject Steve Cooper ’s bid in an auction for real property. The district

court dismissed Cooper’s complaint for lack of subject ma tter jurisdicti on, citing

federal sovereign immuni ty . We have jurisdiction over Cooper’s appeal under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.

The APA waive s federal sovereign immunity when a plaintiff “suffering legal

wrong because of agency action” seeks “relief other than money damages.” 5 U.S.C.

§ 702. That waiver does not apply , ho wever, if the relief sought is “ expressly or

impliedly forbidden by another statute. ” Tucson Airport Auth. v. Gen. Dynamics

Corp. , 136 F.3d 641, 645 (9th Cir. 1998). The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491,

“impliedly forbids declaratory and injunctive relief and precludes [the APA § 702 ]

waiver of sov ereign immunity” for any claim founded upon an express or implied

contract with the United States. N. Side Lumber Co. v. Block , 753 F.2d 1482, 148 4

–

8 5 (9th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing 28 U.S.C.

§ 1491(a)(1))

.

Cooper seeks a judicial declaration that he entered into a contract with the

GSA when he submitted his bid. His claim thus falls outside the APA’s limited

waiver of sovereign immunity. Contrary to Cooper’s argument, his claim does not

arise out of a statute. The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act

(“FPASA”) does not provide for a private cause of action. See 40 U.S.C. § 545.

Moreover, the FP ASA confers no rights upon Cooper that exist independently of the3

purported contract. See Tucson Airport , 136 F.3d at 647.

AFFIRMED.
#### 1352.102 Incorporating provisions and clauses.

As stated in the FAR, provisions and clauses should be incorporated by reference in solicitations and contracts to the maximum practical extent, rather than being incorporated in full text. Incorporation by reference is the listing only by title, regulatory citation, and date of the provision or clause. The full text of the referenced solicitation provision or contract clause is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). FAR provisions and clauses are located at 48 CFR chapter 1 and CAM provisions and clauses are located at 48 CFR chapter 13.
### §7510. Commodities not income

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, commodities distributed under this chapter shall not be considered income or resources for any purposes under any Federal, State, or local law.

(Pub. L. 98–8, title II, §206, Mar. 24, 1983, 97 Stat. 36.)