alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 1302.170 Abbreviations

AIR Additional Item Requirements

BPO Senior Bureau Procurement Official

CAAC Civilian Agency Acquisition Council

CAM Commerce Acquisition Manual

CAO Chief Acquisition Officer

CAR Commerce Acquisition Regulation

CFO/ASA Chief Financial Officer/Assistant Secretary for Administration

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO Contracting Officer

COR Contracting Officer's Representative

DAO Departmental Administrative Order

DOC Department of Commerce

DOO Departmental Organizational Order

D&F Determination and Findings

EVMS Earned Value Management System

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

HCA Head of Contracting Activity

HCO Head of Contracting Office

IRB Institutional Review Board

JOFOC Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OCI Organizational Conflict of Interest

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer

OFPP Office of Federal Procurement Policy

OIG Office of Inspector General

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OS Office of the Secretary

OSDBU Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

PE Procurement Executive

PTO Patent and Trademark Office

RFP Request for Proposals

SBA Small Business Administration

OU Operating Unit
#### Renault, Inc., Respondent, v. Auto Imports, Ltd., et al., Appellants.

Order, entered on April 18, 1963, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The motion was made by defendants to disqualify on ethical grounds the law firm presently appearing for plaintiff from its continued representation of the plaintiff in the preparation and trial of this action. The defendants urge that it will be improper for such firm and each of its members and associates to participate in the trial of this action in that it appears that certain partners therein will be material and necessary witnesses on the trial. Where the facts warrant it, a motion, such as this, may be entertained by the court in which a particular action is pending, to disqualify a particular attorney from appearing or further participating therein as an attorney for a party (see *Matter of Huie,*2 A D 2d 163; *Evyan Perfumes*v. *Hamilton,*22 Mise 2d 616), but the function of the court upon such a motion is restricted to the taking of such action as may be necessary to insure a proper representation of the parties and fairness in the conduct of the litigation. The motion may not be entertained for the purpose of obtaining an adjudication as to what constitutes professional misconduct on the part of an attorney (see *Erie County Water Auth,*v. *Western N. T, Water Co.,*304 N. Y. 342, 346), nor will the court utilize this motion for the purpose of laying down guide rules for the future conduct of an attorney on the speculation of what may develop during a litigation. There is no hard and fast rule that it is always improper, irrespective of the circumstances, for an attorney to appear as trial counsel in a case where his partner is a material witness. (See Drinker, Legal Ethics, pp. 158-159.) Order, entered on May 10, 1963, unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J, P,, Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### 1235.012 Patent rights.

Patent rights shall be in accordance with FAR part 27 and any OA implementing procedures in this part.
#### 1232.770-3 General.

The Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341, and FAR 32.702, state that no officer or employee of the Government may create or authorize an obligation in excess of the funds available, or in advance of appropriations unless otherwise authorized by law. A CR provides funding for continuing projects or activities that were conducted in the prior fiscal year for which appropriations, funds, or other authority was previously made available. Each CR is governed by the specific terms in that specific CR (*e.g.,* duration of the CR) and under certain CRs, the funding amounts available for award of some contract actions are inadequate to fund the entire amounts needed.
#### 1352.270-71 Pre-bid/pre-proposal conference and site visit.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1370.102, insert the following provision:

# Pre-Bid/Pre-Proposal Conference and Site Visit (APR 2010)

(a) The Government is planning a pre-proposal conference, during which potential contractors may obtain a better understanding of the work required.

(b) Offerors are encouraged to submit all questions in writing at least [____] days prior to the conference. Questions will be considered at any time prior to, or during, the conference; however, offerors will be asked to confirm verbal questions in writing. Subsequent to the conference, an amendment to the solicitation containing an abstract of the questions and the Government's answers, and a list of attendees, will be made publicly available.

(c) In order to facilitate conference preparations, contact the person identified in [Block __] on Standard Form [__] of this solicitation to make arrangements for security processing for entry of attendees into the Government facility.

(d) In no event shall failure to attend the pre-proposal conference constitute grounds supporting a protest or contract claim.

(e) Offerors are cautioned that, notwithstanding any remarks, clarifications, or responses provided at the conference, all terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged unless they are changed by written amendment. It is the responsibility of each offeror, prior to submitting a proposal, to seek clarification of any perceived ambiguity in the solicitation or created by an amendment of the solicitation.

(f) The pre-proposal conference will be held:

Date:

Time:

Location:

[Instructions: If the conference also includes a site or equipment inspection visit, insert the following paragraph]:

(g) During the conference, an opportunity to visit the site of the work, and, if applicable, inspect equipment on which maintenance or repairs are to be performed will be offered to attendees.

(h) Offerors are expected to satisfy themselves regarding all conditions that may affect the work required or the cost of contract performance. In no event shall failure to inspect the site and/or equipment constitute grounds for any protest or contract claim.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
Exhibit 4.1

Form of Convertible Note

Synthetic Blood International, Inc

Placement Agent Agreement

August 1, 2007



| |  | IC Invest, England (IC Invest) agrees to raise up to $500,000 for Synthetic Blood International, Inc. (the Company) in bridge money in unsecured promissory notes
|- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | The Company agrees to grant IC Invest, for an 8 week period from the date of this agreement, matching rights or participation rights up to 50% with respect to any
new equity financing the Company transacts during this period
|- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | The Company agrees to a 12% cash finders fee
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------



| |  | The Company agrees to grant to IC Invest 5 million 5 year warrants, prorated for the amount of bridge money raised. Warrants will be priced at $.242 and have
anti-dilution protection for two years or until promissory notes are paid in full. IC Invest agrees to a two year lock up period during which warrants cannot be converted to stock
|- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Robert NicoraSynthetic Blood International, Inc.IC Invest, England
#### 13.106 Soliciting competition, evaluation of quotations or offers, award and documentation.
FY 2023 AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT 154 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Other Information (Unaudited)

Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)

U.S. Department of Education 

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2023

(Dollars in Millions) 

(Unaudited)

Federal Student Aid Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education

Budgetary

Non-Budgetary Credit 

Reform Financing 

Accounts

Budgetary 

BUDGETARY RESOURCES

Unobligated Balance from Prior Year Budget Authority (Net) (Note 17) $ 19,342 $ 27,552 $ 2,682 

Appropriations (Discretionary and Mandatory) 190,593 7,355 27,370 

Borrowing Authority (Discretionary and Mandatory) (Note 17) - 472,192 - 

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections (Discretionary and Mandatory) 437 69,940 (1) 

Total Budgetary Resources $ 210,372 $ 577,039 $ 30,051 

STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES

New Obligations and Upward Adjustments (Total) $ 196,156 $ 522,896 $ 27,750 

Unobligated Balance, End of Year:

Apportioned, Unexpired Accounts 11,193 - 885 

Unapportioned, Unexpired Accounts 526 54,143 - 

Unexpired Unobligated Balance, End of Year $ 11,719 $ 54,143 $ 885 

Expired Unobligated Balance, End of Year 2,497 - 1,416 

Unobligated Balance, End of Year (Total) $ 14,216 $ 54,143 $ 2,301 

Total Budgetary Resources $ 210,372 $ 577,039 $ 30,051 

OUTLAYS, NET, AND DISBURSEMENTS, NET 

Outlays, Net (Discretionary and Mandatory) $ 188,368 $ 25,786 

Distributed Offsetting Receipts (-) (Note 17) (347,189) - 

Agency Outlays, Net (Discretionary and Mandatory) (Notes 17 & 18) $ (158,821) $ 25,786 

Disbursements, Net (Total) (Mandatory) $ 296,603 
FY 2023 AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT 155 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Other Information (Unaudited)

Office of Special Education 

and Rehabilitative Services

Education 

Stabilization Fund Other Combined

Total

Budgetary Budgetary Budgetary

Non-Budgetary 

Credit Reform 

Financing 

Accounts

Budgetary

Non-Budgetary 

Credit Reform 

Financing Accounts

$ 618 $ 422 $ 1,480 $ 224 $ 24,544 $ 27,776 $ 52,320 

19,623 (389) 10,137 - 247,334 7,355 254,689 

- - - 467 - 472,659 472,659 

- - 59 82 495 70,022 70,517 

$ 20,241 $ 33 $ 11,676 $ 773 $ 272,373 $ 577,812 $ 850,185 

$ 19,588 $ 4 $ 9,969 $ 490 $ 253,467 $ 523,386 $ 776,853 

298 - 1,083 - 13,459 - 13,459 

- - - 283 526 54,426 54,952 

$ 298 $ - $ 1,083 $ 283 $ 13,985 $ 54,426 $ 68,411 

355 29 624 - 4,921 - 4,921 

$ 653 $ 29 $ 1,707 $ 283 $ 18,906 $ 54,426 $ 73,332 

$ 20,241 $ 33 $ 11,676 $ 773 $ 272,373 $ 577,812 $ 850,185 

$ 19,228 $ 64,530 $ 8,592 $ 306,504 $ 306,504 

- - (424) (347,613) (347,613)

$ 19,228 $ 64,530 $ 8,168 $ (41,109) $ (41,109)

$ 65 $ 296,668 $ 296,668
#### Geraldine Stirling, Appellant, v. Louis Di Pirro, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs of this appeal to either party; and order of Erie County Children’s Court affirmed. Memorandum: Children’s Court adjudged the respondent to be the father of the appellant’s children. Upon appeal from the order of that court Special Term reversed and dismissed the petition. There was ample evidence to support the determination of Children’s Court and the reversal thereof by Special Term was erroneous. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term reversing an order of Erie Children’s Court holding that respondent was guilty of nonsupport and referring the matter for financial investigation.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
1337.110-70 Personnel security processing requirements. ( a ) CAM 1337.70 establishes procedures for personnel security processing for contractors performing services on or within a Department of Commerce facility or through an information technology (IT) system, as required by the Department of Commerce *Security Manual* and Department of Commerce *Security Program Policy and Minimum Implementation Standards.*
( b ) Insert clause 1352.237-70, *Security Processing Requirements—High or Moderate Risk Contracts,* in all service contracts designated as High or Moderate risk that will be performed on a DOC facility or when the contractor will access a DOC IT system.
( c ) Insert clause 1352.237-71, *Security Processing Requirements—Low Risk Contracts,* in all service contracts designated as Low Risk that will be performed on or within a Department of Commerce facility or when the contractor will access a DOC IT system.
( d ) Insert clause 1352.237-72, *Security Processing Requirements—National Security Contracts,* in all service contracts designated as National Security Contracts that will be performed on or within a Department of Commerce facility or when the contractor will access a DOC IT system.
( e ) Insert clause 1352.237-73, *Foreign National Visitor and Guest Access to Departmental Resources,* in all DOC solicitations and contracts for services where foreign national access to any DOC facility or DOC IT system is required. The language of the clause may only be modified by adding more restrictive agency or operating unit counsel-specific guidance.
1203.301 General. ( b ) The same procedures contained in 1203.203 shall be followed for suspected antitrust violations, except reports of suspected antitrust violations shall be coordinated with DOT legal counsel for referral to the Department of Justice, if deemed appropriate.
Exhibit 31.1
**Certification**
**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes — Oxley Act of 2002**
I, Geoffrey P. Jurick, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Emerson RadioCorp.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
 

 

   financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 5, 2004     /s/ Geoffrey P. Jurick   Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer andPresident
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has beenprovided to Emerson Radio Corp. and will be retained by Emerson Radio Corp. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
- 200YR01
- 200YR02
- 200YR03
- 200YR04
- 200YR05
- 200YR06
- 200YR07
- 200YR08
- 200YR09
- 200YR10
- 200YR11
- 200YR12
- 200YR13
- 200YR14
- 200YR15
- 200YR16
- 200YR17
- 200YR18
- 200YR19
- 200YR20
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6597

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICKY EUGENE EVERHART, a/k/a Red,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00034-RLV-1; 5:11-cv-00119-

RLV)

Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Eugene Everhart, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, 

Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Eugene Everhart seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2013) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion 

to alter or amend that judgment. The orders are not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Everhart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
MARY A. LARAIA 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

TESTIMONY 

HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE FUEL ECONOMY AND 

GLOBAL WARMING EMISSIONS STANDARDS 

August 6, 2015 

My name is Mary Laraia and I am from Chicago, Illinois. Thank you very much for 

providing this opportunity to testify on the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy and 

Global Warming Emissions Standards. I am a private citizen who spent the greater 

part of her career as a bank compliance officer and bank director and I appreciate 

the importance of creating and maintaining high-quality, effective and enforceable 

regulations. I also watched the effects of climate change as the Deputy 

Superintendent of the Cook County Forest Preserves, one of the oldest and largest 

urban land reserves in the country. 

I am here today because I love vehicles of all kinds. I grew up in a happy truckfocused household. My father's first business was a filling station owned with his 

brothers, and he soon after ran his own aftermarket vehicle supply business out of 

our garage at home. He serviced, loaded, unloaded and drove vans and trucks every 

day of his working life. I was married to a man who worked on a racing car team. I 

have driven high performance vehicles my entire driving life, a~d only five months 

ago traded my last one in- albeit reluctantly- for a hybrid. My friends and I haul 

materials, supplies, people and animals around in large trucks and trailers for our 

various vocations and avocations. I hope we will always have these opportunities 

in our futures. 

But I know we need to improve how all these vehicles operate. I am deeply 

concerned about long-term energy independence. I fear for this nation's security. 

sometimes despair about the health problems of our children and our elderly. On a 

more personal level, I have been an asthma sufferer for over forty years. And it is 

quite possible that my father's untimely death- when I was only 29- was due to his 

long and close exposure to petroleum products. Every one of these issues will be 

addressed upon implementation of these regulations. 
I believe the proposed regulations are helpful and reasonable. I know from 

experience that these improvements will actually save both oil and money in the 

long term. We are in the middle of the transportation industry here in Chicago, and I 

have watched -through my own lifetime -as our air and water have become 

cleaner through regulations like the ones being reviewed today. We are not 

finished with this work, and I hope you will approve, and even strengthen, the 

regulations proposed today. The technology already exists for significant 

powertrain and transmission improvements. Analysis from the Union of Concerned 

Scientists shows that with available improvements we can cost-effectively reduce 

new truck fuel consumption 40 percent by 2025, compa red to 2010. I urge you to 

strength en the proposed regulations. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10369 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ARNULFO RODRIGUEZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-140-1 Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Arnulfo Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rodriguez has not filed a response. Our independent reviewofthe record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 16, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk