alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 NOREEN N. DOWS and 

3 GREGORY V. DOWS,

4 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

5 v. NO. 29,245

6 JAMES and FAYE TAYLOR,

7 Individually, and as Trustees of

8 the Taylor Living Trust, SERVIGAS 

9 IKARD NEWSOM, and DARNOLD

10 PLUMBING, LLC, 

11 Defendants-Appellees.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY

13 James Waylon Counts, District Judge

14 Noreen N. Dows

15 Gregory F. Dows

16 Cloudcroft, NM

17 Pro Se Appellants

18 Robert M. Doughty II, PC

19 Robert M. Doughty II

20 Alamogordo, NM

21 for Appellees James and Faye Taylor

22 MEMORANDUM OPINION

23 VIGIL, Judge.

24 Plaintiffs Gregory and Noreen Dows appeal from orders of the district court
2

1 entering judgment in favor of Defendants James and Faye Taylor following a jury

2 trial. [RP 1956-62] Our notice proposed to affirm in part and dismiss in part for lack

3 of jurisdiction. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a response to the calendar notice

4 accepting the proposed summary disposition. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

5 Plaintiffs appeal from a district court order striking an order for partial summary

6 judgment entered in their favor at a pre-trial conference. [RP 2103] Plaintiffs also

7 appeal the district court’s handling of the pre-trial conference and the final order

8 directing a verdict in favor of Defendants. [RP 2103] In our first calendar notice, we

9 proposed to affirm the order of the district court striking its order granting partial

10 summary judgment and dismiss the remainder of the appeal due to the untimely filing

11 of the notice of appeal. Because both parties to this appeal agree with the proposed

12 disposition, we rely on our analysis contained in the calendar notice to affirm in part

13 and dismiss in part.

14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 

16 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
3

1 WE CONCUR:

2 

3 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

4 

5 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
:
#### 11.102 Standardization program.

Agencies shall select existing requirements documents or develop new requirements documents that meet the needs of the agency in accordance with the guidance contained in the Federal Standardization Manual, FSPM-0001; for DoD components, DoD Manual 4120.24, Defense Standardization Program (DSP) Procedures; and for IT standards and guidance, the Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS). The Federal Standardization Manual may be obtained from the General Services Administration (see address in 11.201(d)(1)). DoD Manual 4120.24 may be obtained from DoD (*https://www.esd.whs.mil/Directives/Issuances/dodm* or see 11.201(d)(2) or (3). FIPS PUBS may be obtained from the Government Publishing Office (GPO), or the Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service (NTIS) (see address in 11.201(d)(4)).

[70 FR 57452, Sept. 30, 2005, as amended at 71 FR 228, Jan. 3, 2006; 84 FR 19846, May 6, 2019; 88 FR 53755, Aug. 8, 2023]
§ 855.17 Fees for landing, parking, and storage. ( a ) Landing, parking, and storage fees (Tables 3 and 4 to this part) are determined by aircraft maximum gross takeoff weight (MGTOW). All fees are normally due and collectible at the time of use of the Air Force airfield. DD Form 1131, Cash Collection Voucher, is used to deposit the fees with the base accounting and finance officer. In some instances, it may be necessary to bill the user for charges incurred.
( b ) Landing fees are not charged when the aircraft is operating in support of official Government business or for any purpose, the cost of which is subject to reimbursement by the US Government. Parking and Storage Fees (Table 4 to this part) are charged if an aircraft must remain beyond the period necessary to conduct official Government business and for all non-official Government business operations.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOHN MCCLINTIC,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 371 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
### §420. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 420 was editorially reclassified as section 2217a of this title.
#### 1527.409 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause in 1552.227-76 in all Superfund solicitations and contracts in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold and, as appropriate, in simplified acquisitions for Superfund work. The clause may be used in other contracts if considered necessary by the Contracting Officer. Contracts for other than Superfund work shall include Alternate I in this clause in lieu of paragraph (d).

[79 FR 76241, Dec. 22, 2014]
#### RCA Service Company, Inc., Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent.

Order, entered on October 21, 1963, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion therefor, and judgment entered thereon, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of denying the cross motion, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to abide the event. Plaintiff was required to move from the Lincoln Square Title I Site. On March 19, 1958 defendant advised plaintiff moving expenses to the extent of $2,500 were allowable. Plaintiff on March 31, 1958 submitted its estimate of moving expenses exceeding said sum. On June 26, 1958 plaintiff was advised that claims for moving expenses must be filed within a reasonable time. Plaintiff completed its removal on June 27, 1959 and paid the bill therefor in the sum of $3,433.39 on August 4, 1959. On April 4, 1960 plaintiff submitted to defendant the moving bill and proof of payment. On April 5, 1960, in response, defendant forwarded to plaintiff a form of claim, which was completed and returned to defendant on April 6, 1960. On April 13, 1960 defendant disallowed the claim by force of the resolution of the Board of Estimate adopted June 25, 1959 and published in *761the *City Record*on November 6, 1959 requiring the filing of said claims within six months of the moving or the said resolution, whichever is later. On the argument of the appeal defendant did not rely on the resolution of the Board of Estimate. Instead, defendant maintained the plaintiff as a matter of law failed to file its claim within a reasonable time. Defendant did not affirmatively plead the defense of unreasonable delay in the filing of the claim but relied solely on the aforesaid resolution. In the absence of a pleading alleging such defense, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment thereon. (Cf. *Maxrice Realty Corp.*v. *B/G Sandwich Shops,*239 App. Div. 472.) Defendant’s opposing affidavit observes and we agree: “The term ‘reasonable time’ is in itself an ambiguous term and could mean any length of time depending on the facts.” We conclude there is present an issue of fact in respect of reasonable time. *(German-American Bank of Rochester*v. *Atwater,*165 N. Y. 36; *Klemann*v. *Collins,*223 App. Div. 161.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### 1.102-4 Acquisition team.

The purpose of defining the Federal Acquisition Team (Team) in the Guiding Principles is to ensure that participants in the System are identified—beginning with the customer and ending with the contractor of the product or service. By identifying the team members in this manner, teamwork, unity of purpose, and open communication among the members of the Team in sharing the vision and achieving the goal of the System are encouraged. Individual team members will participate in the acquisition process at the appropriate time.

[60 FR 34734, July 3, 1995. Redesignated at 88 FR 53751, Aug. 8, 2023]
1237.110-70 Contract clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1252.237-70, Qualifications of Contractor Employees, in all solicitations and contracts for services where contractor employees will have access to Government facilities and sensitive information, including proprietary data and/or resources.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1252.237-73, Key Personnel, in solicitations and contracts for services when the selection for award is substantially based on the offeror's possession of special capabilities regarding personnel.
### §7452. Authorization of appropriations

#### (a) In general

There are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums as are necessary to carry out this subchapter.

#### (b) Administrative expenses

Funds appropriated under subsection (a) shall not be available for payment of the expenses or expenditures of the Board in administering a provision of an order issued under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title V, §543, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1063.)
#### § 935.4 Effective date.

This part was originally applicable at 0000 June 25, 1972. Amendments to this part apply April 10, 2002.
Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 18 Filed: 04/25/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:43

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 18 Filed: 04/25/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:44

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 18 Filed: 04/25/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:45

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 18 Filed: 04/25/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:46

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 18 Filed: 04/25/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:47

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 18 Filed: 04/25/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:48

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 18 Filed: 04/25/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:49
Optional Point-of-Service Online Customer Satisfaction Survey for Accenture Use with School Services’ and Applicant Services’ Customers: January 2013

1
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 16, 2014

NO. 03

- 14

- 00001

- CV

Milton Lindsey, Appellant

v.

Kathryn Ramsey, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GO ODWI N, AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on October 3, 2013. Having

reviewed the record , it appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the

C ourt dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to

this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### In the Matter of Elinor Honer, Respondent, v. Frederick Honer, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for a stay of the order appealed from, pending appeal, and to dispense with printing, denied. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Raymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 8, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 22, 2005



/s/ Raymond F. LancyRaymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3241

_____________________________ M.G.,

Appellant,

v.

F LORIDA D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN AND F AMILIES , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Jonathan Sjostrom , Judge

. February 12, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
W ETHERELL , O STERHAUS , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Valarie Linnen, Jacksonville
, for Appellant.

Sara J. Rumph, Appellate Legal Counsel, Children's Legal Services, Tallahassee, for Appellee Florida Department of Children and Families.

Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Joanna Summers Brunell, Appellate Counsel, Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Program
, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

AdministratorsLEAD & MANAGE MY SCHOOL
| Editor's Picks                                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                     |
|                                                                                     | |							 1 |							2 |							3 |							4 |							5 | |  |
|                                                                                     |
| 1 - 10 of 241 Shown			Articles per page  				10 | 				25  | 				50 |
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice:11326]

Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(a)(ii)(B) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, and Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, I hereby determine that the persons known as Abdul Malik al-Houthi, also known as Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, also known as Abdel-Malek al-Houthi, also known as Abdel-Malik al-Houthi, also known as Abdulmalik Bin Bader Al-Deen al-Houth, also known as Abdul Malik Badruddin Ameerudin Hussain al-Houthi; Abd al-Khaliq Badr al-Din al-Houthi, also known as Abdul Khaliq Badreddin al-Houthi, also known as Abd al-Khaliq al-Houthi, also known as Abd-al-Khaliq al-Huthi, also known as Abd-al-Khaliq Badr-al-Din al-Huthi, also known as `Abd al-Khaliq Badr al-Din al-Huthi, also known as Abu-Yunus; and Abdullah Yahya al Hakim, also known as Abu Ali al Hakim, also known as Abu-Ali al-Hakim, also known as Abdallah al-Hakim, also known as Abu Ali Alhakim, also known as Abdallah al-Mu'ayyad, are leaders of Ansarallah, a group whose property and interests in property are concurrently blocked pursuant to a determination by the Secretary of State pursuant to Executive Order 13224.

Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: January 12, 2021.

Michael R. Pompeo,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-01002 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
#### 1319.502-3 Partial set-asides.

A partial set-aside shall not be made if there is a reasonable expectation that only two capable concerns (one large and one small) will respond with offers unless the set-aside is authorized by the designee set forth in CAM 1301.70.
1216.406-70 DOT contract clauses. ( a ) As authorized by FAR 16.406(e), the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1252.216-71, Determination of Award Fee, in all cost-plus-award-fee solicitations and contracts.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1252.216-72, Award Fee Plan, in all cost-plus-award-fee solicitations and contracts.
( c ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1252.216-73, Distribution of Award Fee, in all cost-plus-award-fee solicitations and contracts.
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                    ------------


                              FAB INDUSTRIES, INC.


                            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 Fab Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David A. Miller,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (3)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (4)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/  David A. Miller
-----------------------
David A. Miller
Chief Financial Officer
October 15, 2002
#### In the Matter of William T.M., Respondent, v Lisa A.P., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Lisa A.P., Appellant, v William T.M., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[834 NYS2d 782]-

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Julie Anne Gordon, R.), entered April 19, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the application of petitioner-respondent and awarded him counsel fees in the amount of $95,627 and costs in the amount of $2,360.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed in the exercise of discretion without costs, the application of petitioner-respondent is denied, the award of counsel fees and costs is vacated and the order and judgment and the judgment entered January 13, 2006 are vacated.

Memorandum: Respondent-petitioner (respondent) appeals from an order of the Referee granting the application of petitioner-respondent (petitioner) for counsel fees in the amount of $95,627 and costs in the amount of $2,360 in connection with this custody litigation that was the subject of a prior appeal *(Matter of McTighe v Pearl,*8 AD3d 951 [2004], *lv dismissed*4 NY3d 739 [2004]). It is well established that an award of counsel fees is intended “to redress the economic disparity between the monied spouse and the non-monied spouse” *(O’Shea v O’Shea,*93 NY2d 187, 190 [1999]), and a court or referee therefore should “review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which *1173may include the relative merit of the parties’ positions” *(DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70*NY2d 879, 881 [1987]). Here, the record establishes that respondent has not been employed since June 2000 and that, although she has a Master’s degree in social work, she has never earned an annual salary in excess of $20,000. Nevertheless, the Referee determined that respondent is the “monied spouse” and that petitioner is the “non-monied spouse” (O’Shea, 93 NY2d at 190), based solely on the fact that the income of respondent’s husband is approximately $100,000 per year and the income of petitioner is $50,000 per year. The Referee thus granted petitioner’s application for counsel fees and costs, based on her determination that such an award was warranted both in view of the financial circumstances of the parties and in view of the “unjustified, overly litigious, obstructionist, and dilatory tactics employed by [respondent] during the litigation of this matter.” We note, however, that the record in this appeal and the record in the prior appeal establish the highly contentious nature of the litigation on the parts of both parties *(cf. McBride-Head v Head,*23 AD3d 1010 [2005]; *Matter of Papasoff v Cockrell,*12 AD3d 259, 260 [2004]). We therefore conclude that the award of counsel fees and costs to petitioner is not supported by “the equities of the case and the financial circumstances of the parties” and thus was an improvident exercise of discretion *(Popelaski v Popelaski,*22 AD3d 735, 738 [2005]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Centra, Fahey and Green, JJ.