alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
17.208 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses. ( a ) Insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 52.217-3, Evaluation Exclusive of Options, in solicitations when the solicitation includes an option clause and does not include one of the provisions prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) below.
( b ) Insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 52.217-4, Evaluation of Options Exercised at Time of Contract Award, in solicitations when the solicitation includes an option clause, the contracting officer has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the option will be exercised, and the option may be exercised at the time of contract award.
( c ) Insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options, in solicitations when— ( 1 ) The solicitation contains an option clause;
( 2 ) An option is not to be exercised at the time of contract award;
( 3 ) A firm-fixed-price contract, a fixed-price contract with economic price adjustment, or other type of contract approved under agency procedures is contemplated; and
( 4 ) The contracting officer has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the option will be exercised. For sealed bids, the determination shall be in writing.
( d ) Insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.217-6, Option for Increased Quantity, in solicitations and contracts, other than those for services, when the inclusion of an option is appropriate (see 17.200 and 17.202) and the option quantity is expressed as a percentage of the basic contract quantity or as an additional quantity of a specific line item.
( e ) Insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.217-7, Option for Increased Quantity—Separately Priced Line Item, in solicitations and contracts, other than those for services, when the inclusion of an option is appropriate (see 17.200 and 17.202) and the option quantity is identified as a separately priced line item having the same nomenclature as a corresponding line item.
( f ) Insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.217-8, Options to Extend Services, in solicitations and contracts for services when the inclusion of an option is appropriate. (See 17.200, 17.202, and 37.111.)
( g ) Insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, in solicitations and contracts when the inclusion of an option is appropriate (see 17.200 and 17.202) and it is necessary to include in the contract any or all of the following: ( 1 ) A requirement that the Government must give the contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend the contract.
( 2 ) A statement that an extension of the contract includes an extension of the option.
( 3 ) A specified limitation on the total duration of the contract.
[48 FR 42231, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 53 FR 17858, May 18, 1988; 54 FR 5055, Jan. 31, 1989; 54 FR 29281, July 11, 1989; 55 FR 38516, Sept. 18, 1990; 60 FR 42656, Aug. 16, 1995; 64 FR 51843, Sept. 24, 1999; 82 FR 4714, Jan. 13, 2017]
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

The undersigned, Larry E. Finger, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Federal Realty Investment
Trust (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the
Report). The undersigned hereby certifies that:

(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/    LARRY E.
FINGER                                                                              
|May 3, 2006 |  | Larry E. Finger, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting
Officer)
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                          PART I
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                      BRUSH WELLMAN INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               THIRD QUARTER ENDED                NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                          ------------------------------    ------------------------------
                                          SEPTEMBER 26,    SEPTEMBER 27,    SEPTEMBER 26,    SEPTEMBER 27,
                                              1997             1996             1997             1996
                                          -------------    -------------    -------------    -------------
<S>                                       <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
Primary diluted:
  Average shares outstanding............     16,363,620       15,879,424       16,315,324       15,901,463
  Dilutive stock options based on the
     treasury stock method using average
     market price.......................        406,577          196,286          263,300          183,607
                                            -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
       TOTALS...........................     16,770,197       16,075,710       16,578,624       16,085,070
                                            ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
  Net Income............................   $  3,989,000    $   4,565,000     $ 17,968,000     $ 17,864,000
  Per share amount......................   $       0.24    $        0.28     $       1.08     $       1.11
                                            ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
Fully diluted:
  Average shares outstanding............     16,363,620       15,879,424       16,315,324       15,901,463
  Dilutive stock options based on the
     treasury stock method using average
     market price.......................        476,832          196,778          494,981          201,007
                                            -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
       TOTALS...........................     16,840,452       16,076,202       16,810,305       16,102,470
                                            ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
  Net Income............................   $  3,989,000    $   4,565,000     $ 17,968,000     $ 17,864,000
  Per share amount......................   $       0.24    $        0.28     $       1.07     $       1.11
                                            ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
</TABLE>
 
                                       14
Hi Stan, 

 

Looking forward to meeting you soon. I have a quick question regarding the 2-page review plan for “Antimony and Antimony 

Compounds”. The review plan indicates only a review of antimony trioxide with its accompanying CAS#: “OPPT workplan risk 

assessment for antimony trioxide (CASRN1309-64-4)”. The risk assessment is NOT only going to be limited to antimony trioxide, 

correct? It will include the other antimony compounds? 

 

Thanks! 

 

-Jennifer 

 

Jennifer McPartland, PhD

Scientist

Environmental Defense Fund

1875 Connecticut Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20009

Telephone: (202) 387-3500 

Fax: (202) 234-6049

www.edf.org

 

 

 

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. 

Quick Question Regarding Antimony Review Plan 

Jennifer McPartland 

to: 

Stan Barone 

08/23/2012 02:02 PM 

Hide Details 

From: Jennifer McPartland <jmcpartland@edf.org> 

To: Stan Barone/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\sbarone\Local Settings\Temp\notes87944B\~web6023.h... 10/11/2012
Case: 1:12-cv-01256 Document #: 2-5 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:23
Case: 1:12-cv-01256 Document #: 2-5 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:24
Case: 1:12-cv-01256 Document #: 2-5 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:25
Draft for discussion purposes 11.18.13

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street, NW, 8th Floor Conference Center

Washington, D.C.

Gainful Employment Negotiated Rulemaking

Committee Meeting 2

November 18‐20, 2013, 9:00am – 5:00pm

AGENDA

1. Opening remarks by Jeff Appel, Deputy Under  Secretary, U.S. Department of Education

2. Review of September 9‐11, 2013 Rulemaking Committee Meeting summary

3. Session 2 procedures

4. Review of session 2 agenda

5. Background for session 2

6. Review of Committee work group proposals

7. Existing program certification

8. New program approval

9. Reporting requirements

10. Accountability measures, restrictions, and consequences

11. Corrections, challenges, and appeals

12. Disclosure requirements

13. Regulatory conforming changes

14. Call for consensus

15. Next steps

16. Conclusion
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                    ------------




                            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 Fairmount Chemical Co., Inc.
("Fairmount") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William C. Kaltnecker, Controller/Treasurer of Fairmount, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(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 Fairmount.





/s/ William C. Kaltnecker
-------------------------
William C. Kaltnecker
Controller/Treasurer
August 21, 2002
#### Frank Stellema, Respondent, v Vantage Press, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 2, 1978, unanimously affirmed on the opinion of Helman, J., at Special Term. Respondent shall recover of defendants-appellants $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur-Kupferman,J. P., Fein, Lane and Sandier, JJ.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134212 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134212 COA: 274820 Oakland CC: 2003-191015-FC RHONDA SUE HARDIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 21, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0917 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2007

Clerk
#### In the Matter of Jose Cortes, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 830]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was expelled from a class after making inappropriate comments to the teacher. The following day, petitioner came to the class during a break and confronted the teacher in a threatening manner. The teacher directed him to leave, but he refused until he heard a correction officer coming down the hallway. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with *1108making threats, refusing a direct order, being out of place, interfering with an employee and harassment. He was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of its author and petitioner’s admission that he came to the classroom without permission, constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see *Matter of Black v Goord,*270 AD2d 846, 846 [2000]; *Matter of Anderson v Goord,*262 AD2d 896, 896 [1999]). There is nothing in the record to support petitioner’s assertion that the Hearing Officer was biased or to indicate that the determination flowed from any alleged bias *(see Matter of Perkins v Goord,*290 AD2d 700, 701 [2002]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have either not been preserved for our review or are lacking in merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### 1803.104-1 Definitions.

*Agency ethics official* means for Headquarters, the General Counsel and the Associate General Counsel for General Law, and for each center, the Chief Counsel.

[62 FR 36704, July 9, 1997. Redesignated at 67 FR 30603, May 7, 2002]
#### 1552.211-70 Reports of work.

As prescribed in 1511.011-70, insert one of the contract clauses in this subsection when the contract requires the delivery of reports, including plans, evaluations, studies, analyses and manuals. The basic clause should be used when reports are specified in a contract attachment. Alternate I is to be used to specify reports in the contract schedule.

# Reports of Work (OCT 2000)

The Contractor shall prepare and deliver reports, including plans, evaluations, studies, analyses and manuals in accordance with Attachment ________________. Each report shall cite the contract number, identify the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as the sponsoring agency, and identify the name of the Contractor preparing the report.

The OMB clearance number for progress reports delivered under this contract is 2030-0005.

(End of clause)

*Alternate I* (OCT 2000). The Contractor shall prepare and deliver the below listed reports, including plans, evaluations, studies, analyses and manuals to the designated addressees. Each report shall cite the contract number, identify the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as the sponsoring agency, and identify the name of the Contractor preparing the report.

The OMB clearance number for progress reports delivered under this contract is 2030-0005. Required reports are:

| Reports description | No. copies | Addressees |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |

(End of clause)

[49 FR 8867, Mar. 8, 1984. Redesignated at 61 FR 57339, Nov. 6, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 33573, June 20, 1997; 63 FR 10549, Mar. 4, 1998; 63 FR 46899, Sept. 3, 1998; 65 FR 58924, Oct. 3, 2000; 66 FR 28674, May 24, 2001; 78 FR 46290, July 31, 2013]
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 481 Filed: 02/19/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:27428
Case: 1:12-cv-01508 Document #: 481 Filed: 02/19/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:27429
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.  ALSO, THE EPS-PRIMARY REPRESENTS 
THE EPS-BASIC CALCULATED PURSUANT TO FAS 128.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         244,469
<SECURITIES>                                 1,042,041
<RECEIVABLES>                                  203,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,535
<INVENTORY>                                    116,026
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,193,918
<PP&E>                                       1,059,395
<DEPRECIATION>                                 376,091
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,507,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          289,557
<BONDS>                                        150,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,484
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,028,741
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,507,612
<SALES>                                        584,889
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,016,748
<CGS>                                          102,536
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               470,923
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                13,976   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,642 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                169,795
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,751
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            129,044
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   129,044
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
        

</TABLE>
1348.102 Policies. ( a ) Contracting activities shall send contractor-submitted Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECPs) to the appropriate technical personnel for review.
( b ) Technical personnel shall conduct a comprehensive review of VECPs for technical feasibility, usefulness, and adequacy of the contractor's estimate of cost savings; make a written report; and recommend acceptance or rejection to the contracting officer.
( c ) The designee authorized to grant exemptions from value engineering provisions in appropriate supply, service, architect-engineer and construction contracts is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
Filing Status Description Borrowers % % of Married

Single 958,973 61.24% -

Married Filing Jointly 334,684 21.37% 91.56%

Married Filing Separately 30,851 1.97% 8.44%

Head of Household 241,511 15.42% -

Total 1,566,019 100.00%

"%" Column Represents the frequency of each filing status of all applicants who provided tax information.

"% of Married" Column Represents the frequency of the married filing statuses of married applicants who provided tax information.

These data do not 

differentiate between 

borrowers who are married 

and whose spouse has 

eligible federal student 

loans veruses those who are 

married and whose spouse 

does not have eligible 

federal student loans 

because ED does not have 

information about the 

borrower's spouse unless 

the borrower is married and 

files jointly.

Filing Status of IDR Applicants who Provided Tax Information
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 29, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-1126 Lower Tribunal No. F17-4779

________________ 

### Javier Alberto Ortiz-Modestti ,

Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa Tinkler Mendez, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John Minch, Respondent, v. Eber Bros. & Co., Inc., et al., Respondents, and Alsco Distributors, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by the employer Alsco Distributors, Inc., and its carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board charging them with the entire award. The claimant sustained an injury to his back while working for the respondent employer in 1944. This resulted in a spinal fusion being performed by Dr. Sullivan and in 1949 that compensation ease was closed with a lump sum settlement. In 1956 while working for the appellant employer the claimant slipped and fell on his buttocks. Further surgery was performed in 1957 by Dr. Sullivan during which he removed certain scar tissue and some bony overgrowth which had resulted from the earlier spinal fusion. After this second accident the claimant was totally disabled. The only physician to testify was Dr. Sullivan who stated that both accidents played a part in the resulting disability and that both operations, the one in 1945 and the one in 1957, resulted from the first accident. He found no new condition after the second accident which he could attribute to that accident. The Referee attributed the disability to both accidents and charged half the award to each carrier. On review the board modified by finding disability subsequent to the second accident due solely to the second accident, that there was no change in condition under subdivision 5-b of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law and charged the entire award to the appellant carrier who covered the second accident. Under subdivision 5-b of section 15 when a claim is closed with a lump sum payment it can only be reopened if *828
      *“*there has been a change in condition or in the degree of disability of claimant not found in the medical evidence and, therefore, not contemplated at the time of the adjustment ”. There is no evidence in this record to sustain the board’s finding that all the disability after the second accident was attributable thereto. The evidence indicates rather that the resulting total disability was due to both accidents and that the second injury was an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The respondent cites *Matter of Shafaransky*v. *Cosmos Footwear Corp.*(277 App. Div. 803) where claimant sustained two injuries to his back and this court upheld the hoard’s refusal to reopen the first compensation case which was closed with a lump sum settlement. In that ease there was medical proof showing the injuries to be distinct and independent and such proof is lacking here. The only evidence here indicates that the change in condition was attributable to both accidents. The ease should be remitted to the board at which time it can consider the question of the liability of the Special Fund and take any further medical evidence which might be produced. Decision unanimously reversed and case remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board, with costs to appellants. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3022517-MAY-201107:55 AM