alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1837.170 Pension portability. ( a ) It is NASA's policy not to require pension portability in service contracts. However, pension portability requirements may be included in solicitations, contracts, or contract modifications for additional work under the following conditions: ( 1 ) ( i ) There is a continuing need for the same or similar services for a minimum of five years (inclusive of options), and, if the contractor changes, a high percentage of the predecessor contractor's employees are expected to remain with the program; or
( ii ) The employees under a predecessor contract were covered by a portable pension plan, a follow-on contract or a contract consolidating existing services is awarded, and the total contract period covered by the plan covers a minimum of five years (including both the predecessor and successor contracts); and
( 2 ) The procurement officer determines in writing, with full supporting rationale, that such a requirement is in the Government's best interest. The procurement officer shall maintain a record of all such determinations.
( b ) When pension portability is required, the plan shall comply with the requirements of the clause at 1852.237-71, Pension Portability, (see 1837.110-70(b)), and the contract shall also include a clear description of the plan, including service, pay, liabilities, vesting, termination, and benefits from prior contracts.
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT FEB RUARY 28, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15246 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 6 1 0 - CR- T- 2 4 - TBM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A L E J A N D R O G O N G O R A O R T I Z , a .k .a . C a n o , a .k .a . C h a n o , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 28, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an dB A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

D a n ie l J . F e rn a n d e z , r e ta in e dc o u n s e l f o rA le ja n d r o G o n g o r aO rtiz in th is di r e c tc r i m i na l appe a l , ha s m ove d t o w i thdr a w f r om f urthe rr e pr e s e nt a t i on of the ap p e llan t a n df

ile dab r ie f

p u r s u a n t to A n d e r s v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S .C t. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L .E d .2 d4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . O u rin d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls th atco u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel at i v e m eri to f th e ap p eal i s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o a r g u ab le is s u e s o f m e r it, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and O rt i z’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MAJ ARS I NG H, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74820 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 839- 343 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J anuary17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , T A L L M A N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M aj arS i ng h, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f I nd i a, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is th ir dm o tio n to r e o p e n . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f oran abus e of

di s c r e t i on, T ou f i gh iv. Mukasey , 538 F . 3d 988, 992 ( 9th C i r . 2008) , and w e de nythe pe t i t i on 

# FI LED JAN 24 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74820 2 f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g S in g h ’s th ir dm o tio n to re op en because i tconsi dere d the evi dence s ub m i tt ed and act ed w i thi n i t s broad di s c r e t i on i n de t e rm i ni ng S i ngh di d notde m ons tr a t e pr i m af a c i e e l i gi bi l i tyf

orthe r e lie f s o u g h t. Se e I

N S v . A budu , 4 8 5 U . S . 9 4 , 1 0 4 -0 5 (1 9 8 8 ) (th e B IA m ay d en y a m ot i on t o reopen for fai l ure t o est abl i sh a pri m a f ac i e c as e f

or the un derl yi ng re l i ef soug ht ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
### §5535. Extra pay for details prohibited

(a) An officer may not receive pay in addition to the pay for his regular office for performing the duties of a vacant office as authorized by sections 3345–3347 of this title.

(b) An employee may not receive—

(1) additional pay or allowances for performing the duties of another employee; or

(2) pay in addition to the regular pay received for employment held before his appointment or designation as acting for or instead of an occupant of another position or employment.

This subsection does not prevent a regular and permanent appointment by promotion from a lower to a higher grade of employment.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 484.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (a) | 5 U.S.C. 9. | R.S. §182. |
| (b) | 5 U.S.C. 69 (1st 34 words). | R.S. §1764 (1st 34 words). |
| | 5 U.S.C. 72. | Aug. 1, 1914, ch. 223, §12, 38 Stat. 680. |

Statutes at Large

Subsection (a) was part of title IV of the Revised Statutes. The Act of July 26, 1947, ch. 343, §201(d), as added Aug. 10, 1949, ch. 412, §4, 63 Stat. 579 (former 5 U.S.C. 171–1), which provides "Except to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this Act [National Security Act of 1947], the provisions of title IV of the Revised Statutes as now or hereafter amended shall be applicable to the Department of Defense" is omitted from this title but is not repealed.

In subsection (a), the words "regular office" are coextensive with and substituted for "proper office".

In subsection (b), former sections 69 (1st 34 words) and 72 are combined and restated for clarity and conciseness. The word "employee" is coextensive with and substituted for "officer or clerk", "officer or clerk in the same or any other department", and "person employed in the service of the United States". The words "under any general or lump-sum appropriation" are omitted as unnecessary.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
----

----

| (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 the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      Matthew K. Rose          |   | /s/     Thomas N. Hund           |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Matthew K. Rose                                                                                              |   | Thomas N. Hund                                                                                         |
| Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer                                                              |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                                   |

----

----
January 23, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE ESTATE OF BARBARA CHAPMAN, DECEASED

NO. 14-13-00041-CV 

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed October 8, 2012 in favor of 

applicant Catherine C. Valby, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have 

inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the 

court below REVERSED and we REMAND the case for further proceedings not 

inconsistent with this opinion.

We order appellee, Catherine C. Valby, to pay all costs incurred in this 

appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### 13.304 [Reserved]
Fiscal Year 2010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - HAWAII

Maximum Required

Expenditures For 

Choice-Related Maximum Per-Child

Transportation Expenditure For

FY 2010 Title I And Supplemental Supplemental

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

1500001 Hawaii County 8,431,380 1,686,276 2,244.18

1500003 Honolulu County 28,634,185 5,726,837 2,539.17

1500005 Kalawao County 0 0 0.00

1500007 Kauai County 1,904,042 380,808 1,973.10

1500009 Maui County 3,629,215 725,843 1,812.79

1599999 PART D SUBPART 2 0 0 0.00

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

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

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2010 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available under all three columns of the table.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 on per-child expenditures for supplemental educational services.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT 

November 29, 2018 

Jesse Hahne! 

Executive Director 

National Center for Youth Law 

405 14th Street, 15th Floor 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Dear Mr. Hahne!: 

This letter responds to your October 4, 2018, letter appealing the U.S. Department of 

Education's (Department) Office for Civil Rights' (OCR) denial of your Request for 

Correction pursuant to the Information Quality Act (IQA). 

Your Request for Correction and subsequent Appeal both request correction of 

statements made in the Department's Dear Colleague Letter dated September 22, 

2017 (2017 DCL), rescinding a 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and 2014 Questions and 

Answers document in which the Department provided guidance to institutions on 

the investigation, adjudication and resolution of allegations of student-on-student 

sexual misconduct. The Department stated in the 2017 DCL that it would be 

addressing questions of sexual misconduct in a subsequent rulemaking process. 

On November 29, 2018, the Department published its Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, RIN 1870-AA14, under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 

(Title IX), 83 FR 61462, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-11-

29 /pdf/2018-25314.pdf 

(NPRM). The NPRM, among other things, would specify how recipient schools and 

institutions covered by Title IX must respond to incidents of sexual harassment 

consistent with Title IX's prohibition against sex discrimination. The proposed 

regulations are intended to promote the purpose of Title IX by requiring schools and 

institutions to address sexual harassment, assist and protect victims of sexual 

harassment and ensure that due process protections are in place for individuals 

accused of sexual harassment. Thus, the NPRM seeks to address the concerns the 

Department identified in its 2017 DCL, including the concerns you note in your 

Appeal. 

In its "Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and 

Integration of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies, issued on February 

22, 2002, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (0MB) stated that agencies "are 

400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202-21 IO 

Our miss10n ,s to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the ,\'at10n 
required to undertake only the degree of correction that they conclude is 

appropriate for the nature and timeliness of the information involved." Consistent 

with OMB's guidance and with the issuance of the NPRM, the Department believes 

that the matters raised in your Appeal would be more meaningfully addressed as 

part of the current rulemaking process. We would appreciate your comments on 

the proposed regulations, including the issues that you have raised in your Appeal. 

Thank you for your interest in these important matters and we look forward to your 

input on the NPRM. 

(~~ Jessica Ramakis 

Acting Chief Privacy Officer 

Office of Management 

cc: Kathleen S. Tighe, Inspector General 

Kenneth L. Marcus, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

Denise Carter, Acting Assistant Secretary for Management
Appeal No. 74-302.

#### George E. Carter, Jr. *v.*City of Pawtucket *et al.*

*Bucci & O’Neill,*
      *938
      *James L. O’Neill,*for plaintiff. *Gerald J. Pouliot,*Asst. City Solicitor, for defendants.

*937The motion of defendant City of Pawtucket to reinstate its appeal is granted, and the matter is assigned specially for hearing to the May 1975 calendar.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00292

- CR

Ronnie White Jr. v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 24th District Court of De Witt County , Texas Trial Cause No. 17

- 11

- 12,792

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cau se on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 18, 2019
### §435. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 93–135, title V, §502, Oct. 24, 1973, 87 Stat. 489, which made inapplicable provisions of law prohibiting or restricting employment of aliens to employment under the appropriations for the Foreign Agricultural Service, was from the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1974, Pub. L. 93–135. Section was not repeated in the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1975, and accordingly, section was omitted from the Code. For provisions covering employment of aliens generally, see Citizenship Requirement for Employees Compensated From Appropriated Funds note under section 3101 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriations acts:

Pub. L. 92–399, title V, §502, Aug. 22, 1972, 86 Stat. 611.

Pub. L. 92–73, title V, §502, Aug. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 201.

Pub. L. 91–566, title V, §502, Dec. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 1496.

Pub. L. 91–127, title V, §502, Nov. 26, 1969, 83 Stat. 260.

Pub. L. 90–463, title V, §502, Aug. 8, 1968, 82 Stat. 653.

Pub. L. 90–113, title V, §502, Oct. 24, 1967, 81 Stat. 334.

Pub. L. 89–556, title V, §502, Sept. 7, 1966, 80 Stat. 703.

Pub. L. 89–316, title V, §502, Nov. 2, 1965, 79 Stat. 1179.

Pub. L. 88–573, title V, §502, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 876.

Pub. L. 88–250, title VI, §602, Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 833.

Pub. L. 87–879, title VI, §602, Oct. 24, 1962, 76 Stat. 1215.

Pub. L. 87–112, title V, §502, July 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 240.

Pub. L. 86–532, title IV, §402, June 29, 1960, 74 Stat. 244.

Pub. L. 86–80, title IV, §402, July 8, 1959, 73 Stat. 179.

Pub. L. 85–459, title IV, §402, June 13, 1958, 72 Stat. 199.

Pub. L. 85–118, title V, §502, Aug. 2, 1957, 71 Stat. 340.

June 4, 1956, ch. 355, title V, §502, 70 Stat. 240.

May 23, 1955, ch. 43, title V, §502, 69 Stat. 63.

June 29, 1954, ch. 409, title V, §502, 68 Stat. 318.

July 28, 1953, ch. 251, title IV §402, 67 Stat. 224.

July 5, 1952, ch. 574, title IV, §402, 66 Stat. 355.

Aug. 31, 1951, ch. 374, title IV, §402, 65 Stat. 245.

Sept. 6, 1950, ch. 896, ch. VI, title IV, §402, 64 Stat. 679.

June 2, 1949, ch. 280, title III, §302, 63 Stat. 348.

June 19, 1948, ch. 543, title I, §4, 62 Stat. 530.

July 30, 1947, ch. 356, title I, §4, 61 Stat. 548.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 5251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01045]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--CHEDE-8

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 7, 2021, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), CHEDE-8 (``CHEDE-8'') has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Mahle Engine 
Components USA, Inc., Farmington Hills, MI, has been added as a party 
to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and CHEDE-8 intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On December 4, 2019, CHEDE-8 filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on December 30, 2019 (84 FR 71977).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 1, 
2020. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on December 22, 2020 (85 FR 83613).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-01045 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### 1319.811 Preparing the contracts.
#### 1232.7004 Waivers.

If a vendor is unable to utilize DOT's DELPHI electronic invoicing system, DOT may consider waivers on a case-by-case basis. Vendors should contact their COR for procedures, or access the DELPHI website at *http://www.dot.gov/cfo/delphi-einvoicing-system.html.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank Nicholas Ehlers, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Queens County, rendered June 15,1960 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, unarmed, and sentencing him to a term of 7% years to 15 years, to run consecutively to a two and one-half to five-year sentence previously imposed on defendant by the County Court, Kings County. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
## Climate Change and C02 Emissions Policy Richard Kennedy, Phd, Senior CIA Economic Analyst, 1972-2003 6009 River Dr., Lorton, VA 22079--703-339-7530--dick41@gmail.com My name is Richard Kennedy; I also spoke here at

### the 2012 hearing. As an

**(~conomic** analyst at CIA I worked occasionally on environmental issues, although otherAgency people did thatfull time. I recall thatby the early 1990swe accepted climate change as a serious problem. l1 am here to supportyou in taking action and l have one handout--a chartthat shows both northern latitudes temperature and polar sea ice data since 1980. Taken together, they are clearevidence thatclimate change is real, and accelerating. I was personally convinced by "The Economics ofGlobal Warming'', written in 1992 by a good. economist named William Cline,who evaluated the evidence, concluded that case for global warmingwas very strong, and that the logical response is to begin to take remedial action. He published a second bookin 2011, " Carbon Abatement Costs and Climate Change Finance",which concludes thatthe costof abatementfor the industrial countries is manageable. 

### C02 emissions are, in economicjargon, an "externality"--thatis, they impose costs on society that are not included in the prices ofproducts 

### so even conservative economistswould agree that the free marketdoes not work. The best remedy is a tax that reflects those costs, i.e., 

### a carbon taJL Thatdearly is not in EPA's power, but it suggests thatyou should n;iy on markets and individual initiative as far as possible in formulating policy, because people have extraordinary ability to find so!utions when they have a financial incentive. I saw this first-hand becanse I had a very small part in CIA's analysis ofthe 1973 oil price hike, when the price ofcrudewentfrom $3 a barrel to $12. In hindsight, we badly underestimated how much both supply and demand would change in response to the price increase. The US obviously can't solve climate change by itself, butfor the last century we have not hesitated to lead the world in dealing with big problems, and problems 

### can'tget much biggerthan this. So d.o whatyou can. The science is on your side and my grandkidswiH thankyou.
#### 16.305 Cost-plus-award-fee contracts.

A cost-plus-award-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for a fee consisting of (a) a base amount (which may be zero) fixed at inception of the contract and (b) an award amount, based upon a judgmental evaluation by the Government, sufficient to provide motivation for excellence in contract performance. Cost-plus-award-fee contracts are covered in subpart 16.4, Incentive Contracts. See 16.401(e) for a more complete description and discussion of the application of these contracts. See 16.301-3 and 16.401(e)(5) for limitations.

[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 62 FR 12695, Mar. 17, 1997; 74 FR 52858, Oct. 14, 2009]