alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
15.404-3 Subcontract pricing considerations. ( a ) The contracting officer is responsible for the determination of a fair and reasonable price for the prime contract, including subcontracting costs. The contracting officer should consider whether a contractor or subcontractor has an approved purchasing system, has performed cost or price analysis of proposed subcontractor prices, or has negotiated the subcontract prices before negotiation of the prime contract, in determining the reasonableness of the prime contract price. This does not relieve the contracting officer from the responsibility to analyze the contractor's submission, including subcontractor's certified cost or pricing data.
( b ) The prime contractor or subcontractor shall— ( 1 ) Conduct appropriate cost or price analyses to establish the reasonableness of proposed subcontract prices;
( 2 ) Include the results of these analyses in the price proposal; and
( 3 ) When required by paragraph (c) of this subsection, submit subcontractor certified cost or pricing data to the Government as part of its own certified cost or pricing data.
( c ) Any contractor or subcontractor that is required to submit certified cost or pricing data also shall obtain and analyze certified cost or pricing data before awarding any subcontract, purchase order, or modification expected to exceed the certified cost or pricing data threshold, unless an exception in 15.403-1(b) applies to that action. ( 1 ) The contractor shall submit, or cause to be submitted by the subcontractor(s), certified cost or pricing data to the Government for subcontracts that are the lower of either— ( i ) $15 million or more; or
( ii ) Both more than the pertinent certified cost or pricing data threshold and more than 10 percent of the prime contractor's proposed price, unless the contracting officer believes such submission is unnecessary.
( 2 ) The contracting officer should require the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the Government (or cause submission of) subcontractor certified cost or pricing data below the thresholds in paragraph (c)(1) of this subsection and data other than certified cost or pricing data that the contracting officer considers necessary for adequately pricing the prime contract.
( 3 ) Subcontractor certified cost or pricing data shall be submitted in the format provided in Table 15-2 of 15.408 or the alternate format specified in the solicitation.
( 4 ) Subcontractor certified cost or pricing data shall be current, accurate, and complete as of the date of price agreement, or, if applicable, an earlier date agreed upon by the parties and specified on the contractor's Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. The contractor shall update subcontractor's data, as appropriate, during source selection and negotiations.
( 5 ) If there is more than one prospective subcontractor for any given work, the contractor need only submit to the Government certified cost or pricing data for the prospective subcontractor most likely to receive the award.
[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 71 FR 57367, Sept. 28, 2006; 75 FR 53133, 53146, Aug. 30, 2010; 80 FR 38297, July 2, 2015; 85 FR 62488, Oct. 2, 2020]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Oliver S. Smith, Appellant.

Defendant appeals: (1) from an order of the County Court, Kings County, dated September 18, 1959, denying, after a hearing, his *coram nobis*application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered April 30, 1947, convicting him, on his plea of guilty, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to serve a term of 5 to 20 years; and (2) from an order of said court, dated September 18, 1959, denying his motion for reargument. On February 6, 1953, defendant was resentenced, as a second felony offender, to serve a term of 5 to 15 years. In 1956, the first prior felony was vacated; and on August 24,1956, defendant was resentenced, as a first felony offender, to serve a term of 5 to 7 years. Order dated September 18,1959, denying defendant’s *coram nobis*application, reversed on the law and matter remitted to the County Court for a further hearing for the purpose hereinbelow stated. No findings or questions of fact have been considered. Appeal from the order of September 18, 1959, denying reargument, dismissed. This order is not appealable. The indictment upon which defendant entered the guilty plea charged him with robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and possession of a dangerous weapon. Defendant contends that in 1947, when he pleaded guilty to robbery in the third degree, he relied: (a) on the court’s statement that, if found guilty of robbery in the first degree, as charged, he would have to be sentenced as a second offender in view of Ms prior conviction in Virginia, and could receive a prison term of up to 60 years; and (b) on the court’s promise that, if he entered the guilty plea to the lesser offense (robbery in the third degree), the court would sentence Mm to no more than 15 years, as a second offender. In 1956, in a habeas *668corpus proceeding, the prior Virginia conviction was vacated on the ground that it had been procured without due process. The ground for this *comm nobis*application is that the court’s statement with respect to sentencing as a second offender constituted a fraud, since the Virginia conviction was invalid, even though it was not so declared until some years later. During defendant’s cross-examination on the hearing upon this application, he was asked whether he had committed the holdup in question. However, he was not given an opportunity to answer. An objection was taken to the question; colloquy followed, during the course of which the court indicated that it would be a waste of time to take further evidence; and no further evidence was in fact adduced. In the interests of justice, a further hearing should be held and the circumstances under which defendant entered the guilty plea should be fully explored. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MILAGRAS RAMOS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 1114

)

TARGET CORPORATION, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM

In response to this Court’s brief March 26 memorandum order

that identified some flaws in the original Answer filed by Target

Corporation (“Target”) in this personal injury action, Target’s

counsel has just filed its Amended Answer to the Complaint

brought against it by Milagras Ramos (“Ramos”). This memorandum

(not an order) is written because this Court finds two of the

denials contained in that pleading to be puzzling.

First, Target provides a flat-out denial to this allegation

in Complaint ¶ 2:

That at the time and place aforesaid, plaintiff was

lawfully upon the premises for shopping, and was a

business invitee pursuant to defendant’s invitation.

Is it contended that Ramos was a trespasser or otherwise

unlawfully in Target’s store? If not, what is the basis for the

denial?

Second, Target’s outright denial of this allegation in

Complaint ¶ 6 is troubling for a different reason:

Case: 1:12-cv-01114 Document #: 13 Filed: 03/30/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:35
That the plaintiff then and there sustained serious and

permanent injuries, including but not limited to,

injuries to her left knee and back. That the plaintiff

sustained pain, suffering, disability, loss of a normal

life, and disfigurement and incurred medical expenses

in treatment of her injuries.

Those allegations, unlike Ramos’ other allegations, contain no

assertions as to causation -- only Ramos’ injuries and their

affect on her life style are asserted. Just how can Target issue

a denial to the first sentence and the last part of the second,

when its Notice of Removal expressly predicates the existence of

the requisite over-$75,000 amount in controversy by referring to

Ramos’ “injury to her knee and back with medical bills exceeding

$42,000.00”? And as for the rest of the second sentence, Target

clearly cannot say that Ramos’ statements are untrue.

This Court is not ordering Target’s counsel to return to the

drawing board once again. At or before the next scheduled status

hearing, however, counsel should be prepared to address the

questions posed here.

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 30, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-01114 Document #: 13 Filed: 03/30/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:36
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------


                            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 Fairmount Chemical Co., Inc.
("Fairmount") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jerrel Branson, Chief Executive Officer of Fairmount, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief that:

(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 Fairmount.



/s/ Jerrel Branson
-----------------------
Jerrel Branson
Chief Executive Officer
September 23, 2002
### §380. Repealed. Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 790, §2, 69 Stat. 674

Section, acts Mar. 16, 1906, ch. 951, §5, 34 Stat. 64; Feb. 24, 1925, ch. 308, §5, 43 Stat. 972, provided for an annual report to Congress. See section 361g of this title.

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

#### Existing Rights and Liabilities

Any rights or liabilities existing under this section as unaffected by repeal, see section 2 of act Aug. 11, 1955, set out as a note under former section 361 of this title.
### **CHAPTER 6—IMMIGRATION**
1503.1002 Policy. Government contractors must conduct themselves with the highest degree of integrity and honesty. Contractors should have standards of conduct and internal control systems that: ( a ) Are suitable to the size of the company and the extent of their involvement in Government contracting;
( b ) Promote such standards;
( c ) Facilitate timely discovery and disclosure of improper conduct in connection with Government contracts; and
( d ) Ensure corrective measures are promptly instituted and carried out.
FY 2023 AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT 195 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Other Information (Unaudited)

Summary of Financial Statement Audit 

and Management Assurances

The following tables provide a summarized report on the Department’s financial statement audit and its management assurances. 

For more details, the auditors’ report can be found beginning on page 100 and the Department’s management assurances on 

page 41.

Summary of Financial Statement Audit

Audit Opinion: Disclaimer of Opinion

Restatement: No

Material Weaknesses Beginning 

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Ending Balance

Total Material Weaknesses 1 1 0 1 1

Summary of Management Assurances

Effectiveness of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting—Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

(FMFIA) 2

Statement of Assurance: Modified

Material Weaknesses Beginning 

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total Material 

Weaknesses 0 1 0 0 0 1

The Department had 1 material weakness in the design and operation of the internal control over financial reporting.

Effectiveness of Internal Control Over Operations—FMFIA 2 

Statement of Assurance: Unmodified

Material Weaknesses Beginning 

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total Material 

Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conformance with Financial Management System Requirements—FMFIA 4

Statement of Assurance: Modified

Nonconformances Beginning 

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total Nonconformances 0 2 0 0 0 2

Compliance with Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA)

Agency Auditor

1. System Requirements Lack of compliance noted Lack of compliance noted

2. Federal Accounting Standards Lack of compliance noted Lack of compliance noted

3. U.S. Standard General Ledger at Transaction Level No lack of compliance noted No lack of compliance noted
SECOND AMENDMENT
 TO THE
TELLABS ADVANTAGE PROGRAM SAVINGS PLAN

Effective as set forth below, this Amendment is made as of the 1st day of January, 2002, by Tellabs Operations, Inc. (the "Corporation"), a Delaware corporation:

WHEREAS, an error was made by the third party administrator ("TPA") in the administration of the Section 7.11 of the Tellabs Advantage Program (the "Plan") relating to loans; and

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan pursuant to Article Eleven to reflect the temporary administrative process used by the TPA of the Tellabs Plan to calculate the loan amount available to Participants for the period of January 1, 2002 through March 26, 2002;

NOW, THEREFORE, Section 7.11(c) of the Plan is amended as follows, but all other sections of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect:

1.  Effective January 1, 2002 and continuing through March 26, 2002 the first paragraph of subsection 7.11(c) of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

"The amount of any loan: (1) shall not be less than $1,000: and (2) shall not exceed 50% of the amount which the Participant would be entitled to receive from the vested balance of all of a Participant's Accounts; and (3) may not, even if  (1) and (2) above are met, exceed the vested balance of all of a Participant's Accounts less the vested balance of a Participant's Retirement Account and his Profit Sharing Account attributable to post-1992 Profit Sharing Contributions, if he had resigned from the service of the Employer and all Affiliates on the Valuation Date immediately preceding the date of such authorization; provided, however, that the Administrative Committee may, in its sole discretion, approve a loan in an amount less than $1,000 in the event that a Participant demonstrates financial hardship; provided further, however, that the amount of such loan shall not exceed $50,000 reduced by the greater of:.".

2.	Effective March 27, 2002, the first paragraph of subsection 7.11(c), as set forth above, is deleted and replaced with the following language which appeared prior to the amendment set forth above:

"The amount of any loan shall not be less than $1,000 and shall not exceed 50% of the amount which the Participant would be entitled to receive from his Accounts other than his Retirement Account and his Profit Sharing Account attributable to post-1992 Profit Sharing Contributions, if he had resigned from the service of the Employer and all Affiliates on the Valuation Date immediately preceding the date of such authorization; provided, however, that the Administrative Committee may, in its sole discretion, approve a loan in an amount less than $1,000 in the event that a Participant demonstrates financial hardship; provided further, however, that the amount of such loan shall not exceed $50,000 reduced by the greater of:"
14.101 Elements of sealed bidding. Sealed bidding is a method of contracting that employs competitive bids, public opening of bids, and awards. The following steps are involved: ( a ) *Preparation of invitations for bids.* Invitations must describe the requirements of the Government clearly, accurately, and completely. Unnecessarily restrictive specifications or requirements that might unduly limit the number of bidders are prohibited. The invitation includes all documents (whether attached or incorporated by reference) furnished prospective bidders for the purpose of bidding.
( b ) *Publicizing the invitation for bids.* Invitations must be publicized through distribution to prospective bidders, posting in public places, and such other means as may be appropriate. Publicizing must occur a sufficient time before public opening of bids to enable prospective bidders to prepare and submit bids.
( c ) *Submission of bids.* Bidders must submit sealed bids to be opened at the time and place stated in the solicitation for the public opening of bids.
( d ) *Evaluation of bids.* Bids shall be evaluated without discussions.
( e ) *Contract award.* After bids are publicly opened, an award will be made with reasonable promptness to that responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the invitation for bids, will be most advantageous to the Government, considering only price and the price-related factors included in the invitation.
[48 FR 42171, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1737, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985]
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 17-BG-230

IN RE: ANTOINE I. MANN,

Respondent. DDN: 413-16

Bar Registration No. 433378

BEFORE: Glickman and Beckwith, Associate Judges, and Farrell, Senior Judge. 

ORDER

(Filed – April 13, 2017)

On consideration of Disciplinary Counsel’s report regarding petitioner’s 

petition for reinstatement wherein Disciplinary Counsel informs the court that Mr. 

Mann has demonstrated that he is fit to resume the practice of law, and it appearing 

that petitioner is eligible to file the petition for reinstatement, see In re Mann, 883

A.2d 887 (D.C. 2005), it is 

ORDERED that petitioner’s petition for reinstatement is granted. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that Antoine I. Mann is hereby reinstated to the Bar 

of the District of Columbia. 

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer Certification

 

 

In connectionwith the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December31, 2002 (the “Report”) by Independent Bankshares, Inc. (“Registrant”), each ofthe undersigned hereby certifies that:

 

1.                    TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

 

2.                    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Registrant.

 
|   | Date: March  7, 2003 |
|--------|----------------------|

 
|   | /s/ Tom C.  Nichols                                |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Tom C. Nichols                                     |
|   | Chairman, President & Chief Executive  Officer |

 

 
|   | /s/ Don E.  Cosby                                       |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Don E. Cosby                                            |
|   | Executive Vice President & Chief  Financial Officer |

 

** **
|   | *A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906  has been provided to Independent Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by  Independent Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.* |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

----
FY 2019 AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 131

CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, as amended, requires agencies to make 

regular and consistent inflationary adjustments of civil monetary penalties to maintain their deterrent effect. To 

improve compliance with the act, and in response to multiple audits and recommendations, agencies should report 

annually in the Other Information section the most recent inflationary adjustments to civil monetary penalties to ensure 

penalty adjustments are both timely and accurate.

Location for Penalty Update Details:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/01/2019-00670/adjustment-of-civil-monetary-penalties-for-inflation

Table 9.

Penalty Authority Date of Previous 

Adjustment

Date of Current 

Adjustment

Current Penalty 

Level

Failure to provide information for cost of higher education 20 USC 

1015(c)(5) 15-Jan-18 2-01-19 $38,549

Failure to provide information regarding teacherpreparation programs20 USC 

1022d(a)(3) 15-Jan-18 2-01-19 $32,110

Violation of Title IV of the HEA 20 USC 1082(g) 15-Jan-18 2-01-19 $57,317

Violation of Title IV of the HEA 20 USC 

1094(c)(3)(B) 15-Jan-18 2-01-19 $57,317

Failure to disclose information to minor children and parents 20 USC 

1228c(c)(2)(E) 15-Jan-18 2-01-19 $1,692

Improper lobbying for government grants and contracts 31 USC 

1352(c)(1) 15-Jan-18 2-01-19 $20,134 to $201,340

False claims and statements 31 USC 3802(a)(1) 15-Jan-18 2-01-19 $11,463
#### § 634.3 Explanation of abbreviations and terms.

Abbreviations and special terms used in this subpart are explained in the Glossary of AR 190-5. It is available on the internet at: *www.usapa.army.mil.*
### -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 38 40 42 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲


## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/17 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■


## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●


## ★ ● ● ● ●
# Volume

# Sheet1
### §§162 to 164a. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–224, title IV, §438(a)(1), June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 454

Section 162, act Aug. 20, 1912, ch. 308, §9, 37 Stat. 318, authorized rules and regulations as necessary for carrying out the purposes of this chapter.

Section 163, acts Aug. 20, 1912, ch. 308, §10, 37 Stat. 318; Pub. L. 97–461, §2, Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2523, set forth penalties for violations of provisions of this chapter or regulations promulgated thereunder.

Section 164, act Aug. 20, 1912, ch. 308, §10, 37 Stat. 318, set forth duty of United States attorneys to prosecute violations of this chapter.

Section 164a, act Aug. 20, 1912, ch. 308, §10, as added May 1, 1928, ch. 462, 45 Stat. 468, authorized search and seizure of nursery stock and plant products by Department of Agriculture employees.