alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                5


<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                   3,402
<SECURITIES>                             350,000
<RECEIVABLES>                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         0
<PP&E>                                   24,816
<DEPRECIATION>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,088,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    3,995,000
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                                 1,527
<OTHER-SE>                               (1,907,841)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,088,686
<SALES>                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         0
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            2,424,434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         24,680
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (2,449,114)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (2,449,114)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                             (2,449,114)
<EPS-BASIC>                              (2.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (2.48)


</TABLE>
#### 16.204 Fixed-price incentive contracts.

A fixed-price incentive contract is a fixed-price contract that provides for adjusting profit and establishing the final contract price by a formula based on the relationship of final negotiated total cost to total target cost. Fixed-price incentive contracts are covered in subpart 16.4, Incentive Contracts. See 16.403 for more complete descriptions, application, and limitations for these contracts. Prescribed clauses are found at 16.406.

[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 59 FR 11387, Mar. 10, 1994; 62 FR 12695, Mar. 17, 1997]
#### 1446.501 General.

Acceptance of supplies or services shall be documented as prescribed in DIAR Subpart 1446.6.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,941
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,384
<ALLOWANCES>                                       350
<INVENTORY>                                     16,914
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,566
<PP&E>                                          72,513
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,418
<BONDS>                                         19,633
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        442
<COMMON>                                         1,026
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,508
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,414
<SALES>                                         20,351
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,351
<CGS>                                           15,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    49
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,917
<INCOME-TAX>                                       720
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,197
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,197
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19
        

</TABLE>
1319.811-3 Contract clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause 1352.219-70, *Section 8(a) Direct Award (Deviation),* in direct contracts and purchase orders processed under the Partnership Agreement. The clauses at FAR 52.219-11, Special 8(a) Contract Conditions, 52.219-12, Special 8(a) Subcontract Conditions, and 52.219-17, Section 8(a) Award, *shall not be used.*
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause 1352.219-71, *Notification to Delay Performance (Deviation),* in solicitations and purchase orders issued under the Partnership Agreement.
( c ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause 1352.219-72, *Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) Concerns, Alternate III (Deviation),* when the acquisition is processed under the Partnership Agreement.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40583

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANDRES GERARDO GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-2016-1

Before DENNIS, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andres Gerardo Gonzalez, federal prisoner #28490-379, pleaded guilty 

to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine

and was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment. Gonzalez now moves for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s 

order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 12, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40583 Document: 00515307460 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2020
No. 19-40583

2

Although it is not clear whether Gonzalez’s notice of appeal was timely, 

the time limit for filing a notice of appeal in a criminal case is not jurisdictional 

and may be waived. United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (5th Cir. 

2007). We therefore pretermit the issue whether his notice of appeal was 

timely filed. See id. at 389.

By moving for leave to proceed IFP in this court, Gonzalez is challenging 

the district court’s ruling that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh 

v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Boutwell, 896 F.2d 884, 

889-90 (5th Cir. 1990). In resolving Gonzalez’s challenge, we confine our 

analysis of the issue of good faith to asking “whether the appeal involves legal 

points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted).

Gonzalez fails to address the district court’s reasons for its denial of his 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion or his IFP motion. An issue must be briefed to be 

preserved. FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8). Gonzalez does not satisfy this 

requirement, as he does not state “the reasons he deserves . . . relief” from the 

district court’s IFP ruling. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); 

see Boutwell, 896 F.2d at 890. Because Gonzalez has not shown that he will 

raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal, his motion to appeal IFP is DENIED, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 219-20; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-40583 Document: 00515307460 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2020
#### 1316.505 Ordering.

The department's Task and Delivery Order Ombudsman is designated in CAM 1301.70.
#### 1333.211 Contracting officer's decision.

All contracting officer decisions on claims shall be reviewed by Procurement Counsel before submission to the contractor.
#### Bernice Lane, Appellant, v. Epstein’s Edco Process Dry Cleaners Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

Motion granted to prosecute appeal on original stenographic minutes of trial.
### SUBCHAPTER V—FOREIGN STUDENTS AND EXCHANGE VISITORS
#### 1437.7100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for acquiring information collection services which are subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*)
### §2269. Gifts of property; acceptance and administration by Secretary of Agriculture; Federal tax law consideration; separate fund in Treasury; regulations

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to accept, receive, hold, utilize, and administer on behalf of the United States gifts, bequests, or devises of real and personal property made for the benefit of the United States Department of Agriculture or for the carrying out of any of its functions. For the purposes of the Federal income, estate, and gift tax laws, property accepted under the authority of this section shall be considered as a gift, bequest, or devise to the United States. Any gift of money accepted pursuant to the authority granted in this section, or the net proceeds from the liquidation of any property so accepted, or the proceeds of any insurance on any gift property not used for its restoration shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States for credit to a separate fund and shall be disbursed upon order of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary of Agriculture may promulgate regulations to carry out the provisions of this section.

(Pub. L. 95–442, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1065.)
#### Janice Harbin et al., Respondents, v. Fred L. Harbin, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, arising out of an automobile accident, brought against the defendant by his wife and three minor children who were passengers in his automobile at the time of the accident, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 28, 1961, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
1239.203 Applicability. ( a ) Solicitations for information and communication technology supplies and services may require submission of a section 508 Checklist available at *https://www.section508.gov/sell/vpat .*
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Vernal Frederick Seymour v. Walter H. Wilkins, as Warden of Attica Prison.

Motion for leave to prosecute appeal as a poor person denied. Memorandum: The appeal from the judgment of conviction is pending and the matter sought to be raised in habeas corpus may be presented on the argument of that appeal. Under the order enlarging time for that appeal, it will be heard no later than the September 1962 Term of this court.
#### In the Matter of New York State Restaurant Association, Inc., Appellant, v. Board of Standards and Appeals of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

In an article 78 [Civ. Prae. Act] proceeding in the nature of certiorari to review and annul a wage order issued by respondent board petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term which sustained respondents’ special appearance challenging its jurisdiction of their *913persons upon the ground that no notice or order to show cause to bring on the proceeding was served in the manner provided by section 1289 of the Civil Practice Act and directing the dismissal of the petition accordingly. Appellant first erroneously filed the petition in this court; thereafter on its motion we removed and transferred it and the hearing thereon to the Special Term of the Supreme Court, Albany County (Civ. Prac. Act, § 110; 17 A D 2d 753); upon reargument we adhered to our original decision and further stated: “We do not pass upon any jurisdictional or other questions that may be properly raised before the Special Term upon proper application.” (18 A D 2d 1135.) A brief but in our opinion satisfactory answer to the argument that the filing and service of the petition without more conferred on the court in personam jurisdiction of respondents was given by Special Term: “Jurisdiction of the person of a * " “ respondent is obtained by some form of service of process. ° * * In the case of an article 78 proceeding, it is by service of a notice of application to a court having jurisdiction, returnable before such court at a definite time and place or by an order to show cause returnable in the same manner.” (38 Mise 2d 1023, 1024; *Matter of Carey*v. *Moore,*244 App. Div. 763; *People ex rel. Northehester Corp.*v. *Miller,*288 N. Y. 163, mot. for rearg. den. 289 IT. Y. 634; Third Annual Report of N. Y. Judicial Council, 1937, pp. 161, 176; 22 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, § 375, p. 468.) Since petitioner’s default was jurisdictional the remedial provisions of section 105 of the Civil Practice Act are unavailing. *(People ex rel. Northehester Corp.*v. *Miller,*supra;*Arnold*v. *Mayal Realty Co.,*299 N. Y. 57, 60.) Appellant can draw no succor from our prior decisions on a “ law of the case ” theory since, as already noted, we not only expressly declined to pass upon any jurisdictional question by reserved to respondents the right to raise such at Special Term upon an appropriate application. Order affirmed, with $10 costs. Gibson, J. P., Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Regina McPheeters

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.:

1:12−cv−00592

Honorable John F.

Grady

Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad

Corporation, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, May 29, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable John F. Grady: The status hearing set for July

18, 2012 is canceled and reset to July 25, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. Mailed notice(cdh, )

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: 1:12-cv-00592 Document #: 10 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:24
#### 13.303-7 Completion of BPAs.

An individual BPA is considered complete when the purchases under it equal its total dollar limitation, if any, or when its stated time period expires.
Case: 1:12-cv-00408 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:10
Case: 1:12-cv-00408 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:11
Case: 1:12-cv-00408 Document #: 6 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:12
#### 14.213-14.214 [Reserved]
1516.405-270 Definitions. ( a ) *Performance Evaluation Board (PEB).* Group of Government officials responsible for assessing the quality of contract performance and recommending the appropriate fee.
( b ) *Fee Determination Official.* Individual responsible for reviewing the recommendations of the PEB and making the final determination of the amount of award fee to be awarded to the contractor.
[60 FR 43404, Aug. 21, 1995. Redesignated at 73 FR 1981, Jan. 11, 2008]
**HHT/Harman Exempt Pellet Heat Data**

**Model Heater Type**  **Fuel Type EPA Weighted**  **Test Method Name/**  **Exempt Wood Pellets**  **Ave. Emissions used by Lab**  **Burn Rate Emissions**  **Burn Rate Emissions** **Burn Rate Emissions** **Burn Rate Emissions** **Burn Rate Emissions**  **Number Pellet**  **Other g/hour**  **5H-5G1-5G2-5G3 kg/hour**  **g/hour kg/hour**  **g/hour kg/hour**  **g/hour kg/hour**  **g/hour kg/hour**  **g/hour** 1 Exempt-Pellet Pellet/Pellet Corn (1) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2 Exempt-Pellet Wood Pellets, Corn, Cherry Pits 1.42 5G3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 Exempt-Pellet Pellet 2.40 5G3 NA NA 1.804 1.257 1.893 1.121 2.231 1.381 NA NA XXV Exempt-Pellet Wood Pellets 0.90 5H 0.590 0.760 NA NA NA NA 1.960 0.990 NA NA ACCENTRAExempt-Pellet Wood Pellets 0.40 5H 0.640 0.290 NA NA NA NA 1.650 0.520 NA NA PF100 Exempt-Pellet Wood Pellets 1.10 5H 0.640 0.660 NA NA NA NA 5.200 1.570 NA NA P-68 Exempt-Pellet Wood Pellets 1.80 5H 0.750 1.300 NA NA NA NA 3.540 2.300 NA NA P-61 Exempt-Pellet Wood Pellets 1.67 5G 0.480 0.610 0.830 0.580 1.440 1.440 3.040 4.400 NA NA

(1) Tested for exemption, not EPA, Intertek confirmed. + 75% efficiency hhv. +99% combustion efficiency. **Extra Run Category 1**  **Category 2 Category 3**  **Category 4**
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 816 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow rollovers from 529 

programs to ABLE accounts. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 4, 2017 

Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. BURR, and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 

rollovers from 529 programs to ABLE accounts. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘ABLE Financial Plan5 ning Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ROLLOVERS TO ABLE PROGRAMS FROM 529 PRO7 GRAMS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (i) of section 529(c)(3)(C) 

9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik10 ing ‘‘or’’ at the end of subclause (I), by striking the period 


SSpencer on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 816 IS

1 at the end of subclause (II) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by 

2 adding at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘(III) to an ABLE account (as 

4 defined in section 529A(e)(6)) of the 

5 designated beneficiary or a member of 

6 the family of the designated bene7 ficiary. 

8 Subclause (III) shall not apply to so much 

9 of a distribution which, when added to all 

10 other contributions made to the ABLE ac11 count for the taxable year, exceeds the lim12 itation under section 529A(b)(2)(B).’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to distributions after the date of 

15 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In conditionwith the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the“Company”) for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, GeorgeG. Usher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By                       | /s/  George G. Usher |   |
|--------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
| George G.  Usher,        |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| April 30,  2004          |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
11.105 Items peculiar to one manufacturer. Agency requirements shall not be written so as to require a particular brand name, product, or a feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company, unless— ( a ) ( 1 ) The particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government's requirements, and market research indicates other companies' similar products, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency's minimum needs;
( 2 ) ( i ) The authority to contract without providing for full and open competition is supported by the required justifications and approvals (see 6.302-1); or
( ii ) The basis for not providing for maximum practicable competition is documented in the file (see 13.106-1(b)) or justified (see 13.501) when the acquisition is awarded using simplified acquisition procedures.
( 3 ) The documentation or justification is posted for acquisitions over $25,000. (See 5.102(a)(6).)
( b ) For multiple award schedule orders, see 8.405-6.
( c ) For orders under indefinite-quantity contracts, see 16.505(a)(4).
[60 FR 48238, Sept. 18, 1995, as amended at 61 FR 39192, July 26, 1996; 62 FR 263, Jan. 2, 1997; 62 FR 10710, Mar. 10, 1997. Redesignated and amended at 64 FR 32742, June 17, 1999; 71 FR 57360, Sept. 28, 2006; 77 FR 193, Jan. 3, 2012]
#### 1403.570-2 Procedures.

If a contractor requests a determination as to the propriety of such promotional material, the response shall be coordinated with the cognizant Public Affairs Office and Ethics Officer.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 28, 2021

No. 04-21-00152-CR

Vincent MACRI,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1997CR3321

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On April 21, 2021, the Bexar County District Clerk erroneously filed a clerk’s record in 

this court, which contained a pro se pleading entitled “Motion for New Trial Out of Time 

Appeal.” This pleading was filed by the pro se in trial court cause number 97CR3321. The 

pleading requests relief from the trial court and not the court of appeals. However, before this 

court determined the nature of the filing, we inadvertently assigned an appellate number to the 

“Motion for New Trial Out of Time Appeal.” We therefore ORDER appeal number 04-21-

00152-CR be treated as a closed case for administrative purposes and ORDER the clerk of this 

court to administratively close appeal number 04-21-00152-CR. The clerk of this court is also 

directed to inform the Bexar County District Clerk of the erroneous filing.

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of April, 2021.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court