alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 935.10 Designation and delegation of authority. ( a ) The civil administration authority at Wake Island is vested in the Secretary of the Air Force. That authority has been delegated to the General Counsel of the Air Force with authority to redelegate all or any part of his functions, powers, and duties under this part to such officers and employees of the Air Force as he may designate, but excluding redelegation of the power to promulgate, amend, or repeal this part, or any part thereof. Such redelegation must be in writing and must be in accordance with any applicable Secretary of the Air Force Orders. Such redelegation may be further redelegated subject to such restrictions as the delegating authority may impose. A redelegation may also be made to a commissioned officer serving in another United States military service who exercises military command, but such redelegation must explicitly and specifically list the powers redelegated and shall not include the power or authority to issue permits, licenses, or other outgrants unless individually approved by the Air Force official who made the redelegation. The Commander is the agent of the Secretary, his delegate and designee when carrying out any function, power, or duty assigned under this part.
( b ) The authority of the General Counsel to appoint Judges shall not be delegated.
( c ) Judges and officers of the court may not redelegate their powers or authorities except as specifically noted in this part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF BRUNO'S, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MAY 2, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-02-1998
<CASH>                                          22,772
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,944
<ALLOWANCES>                                       517
<INVENTORY>                                    175,696
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               274,094
<PP&E>                                         350,927
<DEPRECIATION>                                 323,922
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 667,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          126,520
<BONDS>                                        400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           255
<OTHER-SE>                                    (496,595)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   667,999
<SALES>                                        501,729
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               501,729
<CGS>                                          389,239
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  389,239
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               123,245
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 598
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11,353)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,353)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,353)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.45)
        

</TABLE>
#### Gerard R. Levesque et al. *v.*D & M Builders, Inc., et al.

*Philip Apter,*for the appellees (plaintiffs).

*Daniel E. Holland, Jr.,*for the appellants (defendants).

Argued January 7

decided January 7, 1975

The plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
#### 1552.223-70 Protection of human subjects.

As prescribed in 1523.303-70, insert the following contract clause when the contract involves human test subjects.

# Protection of Human Subjects March 2015

(a) The contractor shall meet all EPA requirements for studies using human subjects prior to undertaking any work with human subjects in accordance with 40 CFR part 26 and EPA Order 1000.17 A1 Policy and Procedures on Protection of Human Research Subjects in EPA Conducted or Supported Research. Studies involving intentional exposure of human subjects who are children or pregnant or nursing women are prohibited. Requirements regarding observational studies involving children or pregnant women and fetuses are referenced in subparts C and D of 40 CFR part 26.

(b) The contractor's Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval must state that the contractor's study meets the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 26 and EPA Order 1000.17 A1. No work involving human subjects, including recruiting, may be initiated before the EPA has received a copy of the contractor's IRB approval of the project and the EPA has also issued approval. Where human subjects are involved in the research, the contractor must provide evidence of subsequent IRB reviews, including amendments or minor protocol changes, as part of annual reports.

(c) The contractor shall bear full responsibility for the proper and safe performance of all work and services involving the use of human subjects under this contract and shall ensure that work is conducted in a proper manner and as safely as is feasible. The contractor agrees that it has entered into this contract and will discharge its obligations, duties, and undertakings and the work pursuant thereto, whether requiring professional judgment or otherwise, as an independent contractor without imputing liability on the part of the government for the acts of the contractor, its employees, sub-contractors, consultants, heirs, assignees, etc.

(d) If at any time during the performance of this contract, the contracting officer determines that the contractor is not in compliance with any of the requirements and/or standards stated in above, the contracting officer may immediately suspend, in whole or in part, work and further payments under this contract until the contractor corrects the noncompliance. The contracting officer may communicate the notice of suspension by telephone with confirmation in writing. If the contractor fails to complete corrective action within the period of time designated in the contracting officer's written notice of suspension, the contracting officer may terminate this contract in whole or in part.

(End of clause)
**EXHIBIT 3.5**

**BYLAWS**

**OF**

**GENENTECH,      INC.**

*Registered      Office*

*Other      Offices*

*Books*

*Time      and Place of Meetings*

*Annual      Meetings; Election of Directors*
**Delaware      Law**
**Termination      Event**
**Affiliates**

----

*Special      Meetings*

*.      Notice of Meetings and Adjourned Meetings; Waivers of Notice.*

*Quorum*

----

*Voting*

*Action      by Consent*

*Organization*

----

*Order      of Business; Conduct of Meetings*

*Inspectors      of Election*

----

*Advance      Notice Procedures*
*provided*
*however*

----

*General      Powers*

*Composition      of Board of Directors; Terms of Directors*
**Roche**

----

**Independent      Director**

*Roche's      Right to Proportional Representation*
**Governance      Notice**
**Parent’s      Voting Interest**
**Common      Stock**
**Affiliation      Agreement**

----

*Committees*

**total      voting power**

----

*Nomination      of Directors*

*Quorum      and Manner of Acting*

*Time      and Place of Meetings*

*Annual      Meeting*

*Regular      Meetings*

----

*Special      Meetings*

*Action      by Consent*

*Telephonic      Meetings*

*Resignation*

*Vacancies*

*Removal*

----

*Compensation*

*Principal      Officers*

*Election,      Term of Office and Remuneration*

*Subordinate      Officers*

*Removal*

*Resignations*

----

*Powers      and Duties*

*Fixing      the Record Date*

----

*Dividends*

*Year*

*Corporate      Seal*

*Voting      of Stock Owned by the Corporation*

*Amendments*

----
17.401 General. Leader company contracting is an extraordinary acquisition technique that is limited to special circumstances and utilized only when its use is in accordance with agency procedures. A developer or sole producer of a product or system is designated under this acquisition technique to be the leader company, and to furnish assistance and know-how under an approved contract to one or more designated follower companies, so they can become a source of supply. The objectives of this technique are one or more of the following: ( a ) Reduce delivery time.
( b ) Achieve geographic dispersion of suppliers.
( c ) Maximize the use of scarce tooling or special equipment.
( d ) Achieve economies in production.
( e ) Ensure uniformity and reliability in equipment, compatibility or standardization of components, and interchangeability of parts.
( f ) Eliminate problems in the use of proprietary data that cannot be resolved by more satisfactory solutions.
( g ) Facilitate the transition from development to production and to subsequent competitive acquisition of end items or major components.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hubert Lee Rivers, Alias Herbert Lee Rivers, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction upon the first count of the indictment unanimously affirmed; judgment of conviction upon the second count of the indictment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted as to that count. Memorandum: The defendant was charged in the first count of the indictment with selling narcotics to one Tyler in violation of subdivision 1 of section 1751 of the Penal Law and in the second count of the indictment with giving narcotics to one Mitchell, in violation of the same section. He was convicted of both charges, and was sentenced to State prison terms to run concurrently. The proof adequately established the defendant’s guilt under the first count and there were no errors in connection with that conviction warranting a reversal. However, the court should have charged the jury, as to the second count, that there was a question of fact as to whether Mitchell was an accomplice and that, if he were found to have been one, his testimony was required to be corroborated under section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon the evidence, there was a question of fact as to whether the narcotics alleged to have been given to Mitchell by the defendant had been intended as a gift for his own personal use or whether Mitchell had been expected to resell them for the account of the defendant and to receive a commission therefor in narcotics or in money. If the latter was found to be the fact, Mitchell was an accomplice, whose testimony required corroboration *(People*v. *Malizia,*4 N Y 2d 22). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, convicting the defendant of felonious sale of heroin.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MARY T. JANETOS, and ERIK KING, on )

behalf of plaintiffs and a class, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 12-cv-1473

)

vs. ) Judge John Z. Lee

) Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox

FULTON FRIEDMAN & GULLACE, LLP )

and ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

 FILE SECOND AMENDED AND CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Mary T. Janetos, Erik King, and Pamela M. Fujioka (“Plaintiffs”)

respectfully request leave of the Court to file a second amended and consolidated complaint, a

copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

In support of this motion, Plaintiffs state:

1. Plaintiffs’ second amended and consolidated complaint amends the

complaint in two ways. First, it adds two additional plaintiffs, Pamela M. Fujioka and Ignacio

Bernave, with individual (non-class) claims against Defendants. On July 19, 2012, the Court

granted Defendant Fulton, Friedman & Gullace, LLP’s motion to consolidate Ms. Fujioka’s case

with the instant case. (Document 53.) 

2. Secondly, Plaintiffs have added additional allegations in support of an

additional class claim (Count II) against both Defendants, pursuant to § 1692e of the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

1

Case: 1:12-cv-01473 Document #: 59 Filed: 08/06/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:314
3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2): “[A] party may amend its pleading

only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give

leave when justice so requires.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “[W]hile a court

may deny a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, such denials are disfavored.” Bausch

v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546, 562 (7th Cir. 2010).

4. Defendants will not be unduly prejudiced by this amendment to the

complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mary T. Janetos, Erik King, and Pamela M. Fujioka

(“Plaintiffs”) respectfully request leave of the Court to file a second amended and consolidated

complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Francis R. Greene 

Francis R. Greene

Daniel A. Edelman

Cathleen M. Combs

James O. Latturner

Francis R. Greene

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER

& GOODWIN, L.L.C.

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

2

Case: 1:12-cv-01473 Document #: 59 Filed: 08/06/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:315
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Francis R. Greene, hereby certify that on August 6, 2012, I caused to be filed the foregoing

documents via the CM/ECF System, which caused to be sent notification of such filing to the

following parties via electronic mail:

Bradley Sayad

bradley@fultonfriedman.com

Theodore W. Seitz

tseitz@dykema.com

Amy R. Jonker

ajonker@dykema.com

Dawn N. Williams

dwilliams@dykema.com

Robert M. Horwitz

rhorwitz@dykema.com

Alexandria L. Bell

bella@jbltd.com

Jack T. Riley

rileyj@jbltd.com

s/Francis R. Greene

Francis R. Greene

3

Case: 1:12-cv-01473 Document #: 59 Filed: 08/06/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:316
#### 1450.104-2 General.

Proposals for the exercise of residual powers shall be processed using the procedures referred to in FAR 50.104-2.
116 FY 2018 AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

This effort strives to bring a new approach to the 

workplace at the Department, by building greater 

employee performance and productivity through 

innovative space designs and technology enhancements, 

while reducing the agency’s space footprint and 

associated out-year costs. The project will also allow the 

agency to meet the federal space guidelines (150–180 

usable square footage/person vs. the current usable 

square footage of 338).

THE DEPARTMENT CHALLENGES ARE:

 Limited IT tools to support new mobile workforce,

 IT infrastructure is outdated,

 In some cases, telework expansion has outpaced 

space designs, and

 Agency employee recruitment efforts restricted to 

a limited number of states, limiting the size of the 

mobile workforce.

THE DEPARTMENT STRATEGY IS TO:

 Upgrade the IT infrastructure,

 Provide mobile workers with 21st century tools,

 Strengthen the Performance Management Program, 

 Promote cultural acceptance of a mobile workforce,

 Design innovative work spaces,

 Implement an Electronic Records Management 

System, and

 Reduce the space footprint.

The square footage totals are for the office and warehouse 

domestic assets, which are assets located in the 50 states, 

Washington, D.C., and United States territories. The 

square footage total includes owned and leased assets. 

Updated square footage information is posted on the 

performance.gov website.

REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT

Table 5. Reduce the Footprint Baseline Comparison

FY 2015 Baseline FY 2018 Change (FY 2015 Baseline—FY 2018)

Square Footage 1,548,425 1,382,553 (165,872)

2

 The only building change for FY17 and FY18 was the OIG satellite office in Puerto Rico. In August, 2017, it was relocated from Plaza Scotia Bank 

Building to Degetau FB & Ruiz-Nazario Courthouse. Therefore, the total usable of 1,382,553 applies for both FY17 and FY18.
EXHIBIT B 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-2 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:164
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-2 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:165
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-2 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:166
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Kool Air Systems, Inc., Appellant, and Syosset Institutional Builders, Inc., Respondent.

Order, entered on June 17, 1964, denying motion to confirm arbitrator’s award, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion to confirm award granted, with $10 costs. Special Term denied the motion to confirm the award upon the ground that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct in refusing an adjournment. It is not the refusal of any adjournment which constitutes misconduct but where the refusal forecloses the presentation of evidence. Generally, whether to grant or refuse an adjournment is within the discretion of the arbitrator *(Matter of Loyal Automobile Ins. Co. [Dempsey-Tegeler & Co.],*19 A D 2d 596). And it is only if the discretion is abused that misconduct results. Here it appeared that respondent repeatedly sought adjournment of the proceedings. One such adjournment was granted and respondent had the benefit of additional adjournments made necessary by the unavailability of the arbitrator. There was no compelling necessity for the adjournment refused. The best that can be said for it is that respondent’s officers, who were its witnesses, had other business which they preferred to attend to at the time set for the hearing. We find no abuse of discretion in refusing the adjournment. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.
[IFPIO^^TRANSPORWION 

nnr-i/rTo 

!!• UP 

OST-2010-0046 

USDOT Secretary 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

It is hard for me to see the justification having 10% of the county voters 

deciding what the other 90% want. Keep Mountain Time or Vote. 

Rural Resident 

Mercer County
#### 1352.216-73 Distribution of award fee.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1316.406, insert the following clause:

# Distribution of Award Fee (APR 2010)

(a) The total amount of award fee available under this contract is assigned according to the following:

[Insert appropriate information]

(b) Payment of the base fee and award fee shall be made, provided that after payment of 85 percent of the base fee and potential award fee, the Government may withhold further payment of the base fee and award fee until a reserve is set aside in an amount that the Government considers necessary to protect its interest. This reserve shall not exceed 15 percent of the total base fee and potential award fee.

(c) In the event of contract termination for convenience, either in whole or in part, the amount of award fee available shall represent a prorated distribution associated with evaluation period activities or events as determined by the Government.

(d) The Government will promptly make payment of any award fee upon submission by the contractor to the Contracting Officer's authorized representative of a public voucher or invoice in the amount of the total fee earned for the period evaluated. Payment may be made without executing a contract modification.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
#### Natalie Friedman et al., Respondents, v. Beatrice Fortgang et al., Appellants.

Order, entered on March 31, 1964, denying the motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, unanimously affirmed, without costs. In this September, 1961 action for personal injuries incurred in July, 1959, the affidavits of merits submitted by the plaintiffs set forth in especially satisfactory detail evidentiary facts which, if true and proven, establish a strong meritorious ease. In view of these affidavits Special Term’s exercise of discretion in accepting the rather weak excuses for the delay should not be disturbed (see *Sortino*v. *Fisher,*20 A D 2d 25, 32). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Staley, JJ.
### §2144. Humane standards for animals by United States Government facilities

Any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States having laboratory animal facilities shall comply with the standards and other requirements promulgated by the Secretary for a research facility under sections 1 2143(a), (f), (g), and (h) of this title. Any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States exhibiting animals shall comply with the standards promulgated by the Secretary under sections 1 2143(a), (f), (g), and (h) of this title.

(Pub. L. 89–544, §14, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 352; Pub. L. 91–579, §15, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1563; Pub. L. 94–279, §19, Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 423; Pub. L. 99–198, title XVII, §1758, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1650.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1985—Pub. L. 99–198 substituted "sections 2143(a), (f), (g), and (h) of this title" for "section 2143 of this title" in two places.

1976—Pub. L. 94–279 inserted "and other requirements" after "standards" in first sentence.

1970—Pub. L. 91–579 inserted provisions requiring facilities of the United States exhibiting animals to comply with standards promulgated by Secretary under section 2143 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of 1985 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–198 effective one year after Dec. 23, 1985, see section 1759 of Pub. L. 99–198, set out as a note under section 2131 of this title.

#### 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.

#### Compliance With Animal Welfare Act

Pub. L. 117–328, div. A, title VII, §750, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 4505, provided that: "In this fiscal year [fiscal year 2023] and thereafter, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, ARS facilities as described in the 'Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Concerning Laboratory Animal Welfare' (16–6100–0103–MU Revision 16–1) shall be inspected by APHIS for compliance with the Animal Welfare Act [7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.] and its regulations and standards."

1 So in original. Probably should be "section".
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Fred Lyons Letts, Appellant.

Motion held. The papers indicate that the appeal was not

timely taken but the matter has not been clearly presented as there has been no motion by the District Attorney to dismiss the appeal. The motion before us is held until June 8,1960, to give the District Attorney an opportunity to move to dismiss the appeal or to take such other action as he may be advised. (See *People*v. *Stottlemeyer,*9 A D 2d 1022.)
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Benjamin Carr, Jr.

*John B. Williams,*in support of the motion.

Submitted October 22

decided November 1, 1974

The defendant’s “Motion to Suspend Rules and Expedite Appeal” from the Superior Court in New Haven County is denied, the matter now being moot funder the rules of practice as amended.