alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
19.602-1 Referral. ( a ) Upon determining and documenting that an apparent successful small business offeror lacks certain elements of responsibility (including, but not limited to, capability, competency, capacity, credit, integrity, perseverance, tenacity, and limitations on subcontracting but for sureties see 28.101-3(f) and 28.203-1(e)), the contracting officer shall— ( 1 ) Withhold contract award (see 19.602-3); and
( 2 ) Refer the matter to the cognizant SBA Government Contracting Area Office (Area Office) serving the area in which the headquarters of the offeror is located, in accordance with agency procedures, except that referral is not necessary if the small business concern— ( i ) Is determined to be unqualified and ineligible because it does not meet the standard in 9.104-1(g); *provided,* that the determination is approved by the chief of the contracting office; or
( ii ) Is suspended or debarred under Executive Order 11246 or subpart 9.4.
( b ) If a partial set-aside is involved, the contracting officer shall refer to the SBA the entire quantity to which the concern may be entitled, if responsible.
( c ) The referral shall include— ( 1 ) A notice that a small business concern has been determined to be nonresponsible, specifying the elements of responsibility the contracting officer found lacking; and
( 2 ) If applicable, a copy of the following: ( i ) Solicitation.
( ii ) Final offer submitted by the concern whose responsibility is at issue for the procurement.
( iii ) Abstract of bids or the contracting officer's price negotiation memorandum.
( iv ) Preaward survey.
( v ) Technical data package (including drawings, specifications and statement of work).
( vi ) Any other justification and documentation used to arrive at the nonresponsibility determination.
( d ) For any single acquisition, the contracting officer shall make only one referral at a time regarding a determination of nonresponsibility.
( e ) Contract award shall be withheld by the contracting officer for a period of 15 business days (or longer if agreed to by the SBA and the contracting officer) following receipt by the appropriate SBA Area Office of a referral that includes all required documentation.
[48 FR 42240, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 27489, July 31, 1986; 62 FR 44820, Aug. 22, 1997; 70 FR 57461, Sept. 30, 2005; 86 FR 3684, Jan. 14, 2021]
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00192-CV

IN THE MATTER OF H.A. §

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323-109828-19)

December 19, 2019

Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
exv10w3



 







			
	
	 	Exhibit 10.3






December 17, 1999




Egbert Ratering

Chemin du Pain de

Sucre 06800 Cagnes

Sur Mer France




Dear Egbert:




Re: Employment agreement



Sutura Inc is pleased to confinn your appointment as Vice President
European Operations and Managing Director of our Dutch company Sutura B.V.,
Beemdstraat 23.5653 MA Eindhoven. The Netherlands under the following general
terms and conditions:



Position: Vice President Sutura European Operations and Managing
Director Sutura B.Y. Reporting: In this position you will report
directly to the CEO of Sutura Inc.



Job location: Your base will be the Netherlands or Belgium and you will be
working out of our

offices in Eindhoven. It is agreed that you will move from France to The
Netherlands or Belgium within 6 months after November 1st



Scope of position: You will be responsible for overall management of Sutura’ s
business in Europe in line with corporate guidelines and in close cooperation
with our US organization. A£ part of the structure in Europe you will set up
and staff direct sales companies in Germany and Holland and establish sales
coverage through dealers in all other European and Middle Eastern countries.

Starting date: Your official starting date will be January 1st and will be for
an indefinite period.



Remuneration: Your total remuneration will be Dfl210.000 per year to be paid in
accordance with Dutch regulations but with the understanding that you will
benefit from a split payroll according to a ruling of the Dutch Ministry of
Finance dated May 29, 1995



Working hours: It is agreed that you will dedicate at least 3 days per week to
Sutura and that you will be allowed to continue consulting for other medical
device companies as long as these do not compete directly with Sutura’s
business.



Car and travel allowance: You will be entitled to a car allowance of
Dfl 2500 per month.



Health insurance: The company will contribute Df1 3000 per year towards
your personal health insurance program.



Pension plan: The company will contribute Dfl lO.OOO per year to a personal
pension plan that you will subscribe to.



17080 Newhope Street       Fountain Valley, California 92708      714.437.9801     Fax 714.437.9806




 









 





December 17, 1999

Page 2



Expenses: The Company will compensate reasonable travel expenses backed up by receipts as
well a telephone expenses based on invoices.



Taxation: It is hereby confirmed that the remuneration and all other benefits stated in
this offer letter will be split and paid out separately, in a salary and cost allowance
in according with the 35% ruling of the Dutch Ministry of Finance for expatriates dated
May 29, 1995 DB95/I19M



This employment contract supersedes the Consultancy arrangement that has been
in existence between the parties since January lst 1999.



If you are in agreement with the above than please sign the original of this
employment offer and return it to our offices in Fountain Valley.




Sincerely,




/s/ Anthony Nobles




Anthony Nobles

CEO
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.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States.

# ACTION:

Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, Revised notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules will hold a virtual meeting on April 30, 2021. The meeting is open to the public. When a meeting is held virtually, members of the public may join by telephone or video conference to observe but not participate. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:                         *http://www.uscourts.gov/​rules-policies/​records-and-archives-rules-committees/​agenda-books.*                         The announcement for this meeting was previously published in 86 FR 3196.                    

# DATES:

April 30, 2021, 10 a.m.-5 p.m. (Eastern).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,                         *RulesCommittee_Secretary@ao.uscourts.gov.*

Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.

Dated: January 14, 2021.

Rebecca A. Womeldorf,

Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Staff.

[FR Doc. 2021-01385 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
#### Rose Nolan, Respondent, v. North Hills Golf Club, Inc., Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury sustained by plaintiff who slipped and fell on a dance floor, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens 'County, entered March 6, 1963 after trial, upon a jury’s verdict in the plaintiff’s favor. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and complaint dismissed. Plaintiff was an invitee in attendance at a dinner dance held at the defendant club’s building. Plaintiff testified that, as she was leaving the dance floor, her right foot slipped; she felt that her foot had hit something *“*like a bump ” — a raised part *“*like a part of the wood had been warped.” Another witness for plaintiff testified that she (the witness) could feel an elevation by rubbing her foot over it. There *696was other testimony for plaintiff to the effect that the floor was slippery and that *“*a bump ” was seen. Negligence cannot be predicated on slipperiness of the dance floor. Proof of the alleged bump was of such a vague character as to be insufficient to show the existence of any actionable defect. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 1852.216-85 Estimated cost and award fee.

As prescribed in 1816.406-70(e), insert the following clause:

# Estimated Cost and Award Fee (SEP 1993)

The estimated cost of this contract is $______. The maximum available award fee, excluding base fee, if any, is $______. The base fee is $______. Total estimated cost, base fee, and maximum award fee are $______.

(End of clause)

*Alternate I* (SEP 1993). As prescribed in 1816.405-70(e), insert the following sentence at the end of the clause:

The maximum positive performance incentive is $______. The maximum negative performance incentive is (1).

(1) For research development hardware contracts, insert [equal to total earned award fee (including any base fee)]. For production hardware contracts, insert [$*total potential award fee amount, including any base fee)*].

(End of clause)

[62 FR 3486, Jan. 23, 1997, as amended at 62 FR 36733, July 9, 1997]
#### Wrenn *v.*Davis.

Hill, J.

I. Where suit was brought against the indorser of a coupon note on December 13, 1910, and at the trial term of court the plaintiff introduced the note sued on, “which defendant admitted had been paid by the heirs at law of the maker thereof after the filing of the suit,” and the plaintiff’s attorney stated that at the time of payment he expressly reserved all rights to claim against defendant his attorney’s fees and costs of this suit, and the credit on the note was worded, “Received $66.65 in full of this coupon, Nov. 7th, 1911,” which was signed in the name of the plaintiff by her attorney at law, it was error to enter judgment against the plaintiff for costs of suit.

2. The coupon note, a copy of which was introduced in evidence, contained no express stipulation to pay attorney’s fees, but it contained a clause stating that it was for “semi-annual interest on the note hereto attached, of even date herewith, and subject to all the conditions of said note.” The main note referred to as “hereto attached” is not set out *375in the record or bill of exceptions, but the plaintiff alleged in his petition as follows: “That said coupon note represents the semiannual interest upon a certain principal note for the smn of $2,000, indorsed by defendant, which said note contained a clause obligating defendant to pay 10% as attorney’s fees, on principal and interest, waiving notice of protest and protest and non-payment of said note, also presentment -for payment.” So far as the record shows, no answer was filed denying this allegation. When the case was presented to the court it was, therefore, to be treated as prima facie true. Civil Code, § 5539. If such be the real state of the record, judgment should have been rendered for the attorney’s fees also.

January 25, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. November 7, 1911.

*E. L. Douglas,*for plaintiff.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### SAMMONS et al., Respondents, v. ITHACA ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

December 1, 1903.)

Action by Hanorah Sammons, as administratrix, etc., and others, against the Ithaca Street Railway Company.

No opinion. Motion denied.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                             GENERAL RE CORPORATION
 
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                             ------------------------------------
                                                                1995         1994         1993
                                                             ----------   ----------   ----------
<S>                                                          <C>          <C>          <C>
EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK
Net income applicable to common stock (in millions)(a).....  $      814   $      654   $      700
                                                              =========    =========    =========
Average number of common shares outstanding(b).............  82,085,315   82,071,651   84,542,686
                                                              =========    =========    =========
Net income per share.......................................  $     9.92   $     7.97   $     8.28
                                                              =========    =========    =========
</TABLE>
 
---------------
(a) After deduction of preferred stock dividends of $11 million for the years
    ended December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993.
 
(b) Fully diluted earnings per share are not reported because the effect of
    potentially dilutive securities was not significant.
#### Prater *et al. v.*Barge *et al.*

Atkinson, J.

1. When a judgment refusing an interlocutory injunction is brought to the Supreme Court for review, the trial judge is authorized to grant a supersedeas upon such terms as may by him be deemed necessary to preserve the rights of the parties until the judgment of the Supreme Court can be had. Civil Code, § 5502. It is left, however, in the sound legal discretion of the judge to grant or refuse it. *West*v. *Shackelford,*138 *Ga.*163 (74 S. E. 1079).

*(a)*The jud"ge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a supersedeas in this case.

2. There was no error in rejecting the evidence which the court excluded.

*802April 18, 1913.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. November 4, 1912.

*Phil W. Davis*and *J. S. James,*for plaintiffs.

*L. Z. Rosser*and *P. H. Brewster,*for defendants.

3. Under the pleadings and evidence there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to grant the interlocutory injunction as prayed.

*Judgment affirpied.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### 1414.407-4 Mistakes after award.

The CO is authorized to make the administrative determinations outlined in 14.407-4 after receiving concurrence from the SOL.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00163

- CV

E LIZABETH P ERRY
, Appellant

V

.

W ICHITA F ALLS H OUSING A UTHORITY
, Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 78th District Court

of Wichita County ( DC78

- CV2020

- 2665 )

May 12, 2022

Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment. We order that the trial court ’ s judgment is

rever sed

, and we render judgment that Appellee Wichita Falls Housing Authority take

nothing

.

It is further ordered that Appell ee Wichita Falls Housing Authority must pay all

costs of this appeal

.SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

______ ____ ________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
[LEGEND]
THIS SCHEDULE HAS BEEN RESTATED TO REFLECT THE COMPANY'S ADOPTION OF 
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE" 
(FAS 128) AND CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 
10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND THE QUARTERLY FINANCIAL 
DATA FROM THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND 
ARE QUALIFIED IN THEIR ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
AND THE NOTES THERETO.
[/LEGEND]
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         146,039
<SECURITIES>                                 1,030,120
<RECEIVABLES>                                  196,413<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                     92,045
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,000,099
<PP&E>                                         857,450
<DEPRECIATION>                                 308,391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,170,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          216,490
<BONDS>                                        150,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,423
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,777,001
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,170,985
<SALES>                                        443,105
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               738,353
<CGS>                                           77,868
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,868
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               343,008
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                138,598
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,720
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            110,878
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   110,878
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.92<F2><F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.89<F3>
<FN>
<F1>ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ARE PRESENTED NET OF ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS IN 
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET.  THE PROVISION FOR LOSSES ON DOUBTFUL
ACCOUNTS IS NOT REPORTED AS A SEPARATE LINE IN THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME OR STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS.
<F2>REPRESENTS BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE.
<F3>RESTATED TO REFLECT THE COMPANY'S ADOPTION OF FAS 128.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### 19.801 [Reserved]
---



EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATIONS OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Arthur D. Levinson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Genentech, Inc.







| | By:    | /s/ Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D.        
| | ------ | -------------------------------------
| |        |                                      
| | Name:  | Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D.            
| | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer
| | Date:  | February 14, 2003                    





I, Louis J. Lavigne, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Genentech, Inc.







| | By:    | /s/ Louis J. Lavigne, Jr.                             
| | ------ | ------------------------------------------------------
| |        |                                                       
| | Name:  | Louis J. Lavigne, Jr.                                 
| | Title: | Executive Vice President and
  Chief Financial Officer
| | Date:  | February 14, 2003                                     

---
#### Hall & McChesney, Inc., Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 34017.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal by claimant from judgment of Court of Claims for claimant, on the ground of inadequacy, on a claim for appropriation of realty.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### Pierre J. Huss, Respondent, v. Marianne Huss, Appellant.

Order, entered on August 27, 1962, granting plaintiff’s motion for an injunction *870
      *pendente lite*and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion for' an injunction *pendente lite*denied and the cross motion for summary judgment granted, with $10 costs. By this action the plaintiff husband seeks to impress a trust on his wife’s interest in two parcels of real property, one in Westchester County and one in California. He charges that such title as she holds was obtained by reason of fraudulent representations to him. He alleges that she fraudulently represented that she loved him, when in fact she did not and also that an annulment decree obtained by her in connection with a prior marriage was legal and valid when in fact it was not. On the papers submitted the husband has not met the challenge of the wife’s motion for summary judgment. He presents no facts to support his allegations of fraud and nothing in his papers raises a triable issue with respect thereto. In consequence of granting summary judgment to the wife dismissing the complaint, the injunction granted *pendente lite*enjoining her from proceeding with an action commenced by her in California involving the real property situate in that State must fall. This determination, made only with reference to the specific acts of fraud alleged is not, however, intended to be dispositive of any other issues which may be raised in the California action and is without prejudice to any defenses the husband may choose to assert in that action. Nor is our determination intended to act as a bar to any new action the husband may be advised to commence here on grounds other than those advanced in the instant complaint. Concur r— Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Eager and B as tow, JJ.
Case: 1:11-cr-00887 Document #: 135 Filed: 07/08/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:364
Case: 1:11-cr-00887 Document #: 135 Filed: 07/08/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:365
Case: 1:11-cr-00887 Document #: 135 Filed: 07/08/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:366
Case: 1:11-cr-00887 Document #: 135 Filed: 07/08/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:367