alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1604.7201 FEHB Program Large Provider Agreements. The following provisions apply to all experience-rated carriers participating in the FEHB Program: ( a ) *Notification and information requirements.* ( 1 ) All experience-rated carriers must provide notice to the contracting officer of their intent to enter into or to make a significant modification to a Large Provider Agreement. Significant modification means a 20% increase or more in the amount of the Large Provider Agreement: ( i ) Not less than 60 days before entering into any Large Provider Agreement; and
( ii ) Not less than 60 days before exercising renewals or other options, or making a significant modification.
( 2 ) The carrier's notification to the contracting officer must be in writing and must, at a minimum: ( i ) Describe the supplies and/or services the proposed provider agreement will require;
( ii ) Identify the proposed basis for reimbursement;
( iii ) Identify the proposed provider agreement, explain why the carrier selected the proposed provider, and, where applicable, what contracting method it used, including the kind of competition obtained;
( iv ) Describe the methodology the carrier used to compute the provider's profit; and,
( v ) Describe the provider risk provisions.
( 3 ) The contracting officer may request from the carrier any additional information on a proposed provider agreement and its terms and conditions prior to a Large Provider award and during the performance of the agreement.
( 4 ) Within 30 days of receiving the carrier's notification, the contracting officer will either give the carrier written comments or written notice that there will be no comments. If the contracting officer comments, the carrier must respond in writing within 10 calendar days and explain how it intends to address any concerns.
( 5 ) When computing the carrier's annual service charge, the contracting officer will consider how well the carrier complies with the provisions of this section, including the advance notification requirements, as an aspect of the carrier's performance factor.
( 6 ) The contracting officer's review of any Large Provider agreement, option, renewal, or modification will not constitute a determination of the acceptability of terms or conditions of any provider agreement or the allowability of any costs under the carrier's contract, nor will it relieve the carrier of any responsibility for performing the contract.
( b ) *Records and inspection.* The carrier must insert in all Large Provider Agreements the requirement that the provider will retain and make available to the Government all records relating to the agreement as follows: ( 1 ) Records that support the annual statement of operations—Retain for 6 years after the agreement term ends.
( 2 ) Enrollee records, if applicable—Retain for 6 years after the agreement term ends.
( c ) Large Provider Agreements based on cost analysis are subject to the provisions of FAR 52.215-2, “Audit and Records-Negotiation.”
( d ) Large Provider Agreements based on price analysis are subject to the provisions of 48 CFR 1646.301 and 1652.246-70.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR  THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,895,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,596,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,395,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,035,700
<PP&E>                                       8,952,600
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,139,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,849,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,333,200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,400,000
<COMMON>                                     8,293,400
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,045,600)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,849,600
<SALES>                                      8,346,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,346,500
<CGS>                                        7,085,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,085,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,193,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             117,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (50,300)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (50,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (50,300)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frances Wasyluk, Respondent, against Webb & Knapp, Inc. et al., Appellants and Equitable Office Bldg. Corp. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Order of January 4, 1960 modified and the application of the appellant granted. The time to perfect appeal, file note of issue, and file and serve record and brief is extended to August 15, 1960 and the ease placed on the September Term of this court for argument. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
#### OISHEI v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 26, 1906.)

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by Achille J. Oishei against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company and Domenico Gallo. From a judgment for plaintiff entered on a decision after trial. Defendants appeal.

Modified.

Argued before O’BRIEN, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, CLARKE, INGRAHAM, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.

Bayard H. Ames, for appellant Metropolitan St. Ry. Co.

Lyman A. Spalding, for appellant Domenico Gallo.

Nelson L. ICeach, for respondent.

McLAUGHLIN, J.

A minor son of the defendant Gallo sustained personal injuries by reason of the negligence of the defendant railway company, and Gallo thereafter brought an action against it to recover *451damages for the loss of his services. Prior to the commencement of the action he entered into a written agreement with his attorney, which provided, among other things, as follows:

> “I do hereby agree, stipulate, and contract with my said attorney to pay him one-half of any settlement or recovery in said action, and he is, in addition thereto, to receive all costs and interests recovered, or to which he may he entitled. And I further agree with my said attorney not to make any settlement, unless he is present and receives his share in accordance with this agreement.”

That action was settled without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff’s attorney for $100, and a general release given. After the settlement the attorney (this plaintiff) brought this action against the railway company and Gallo to enforce a lien, which he asserted he had upon the proceeds of the settlement. The action was tried without a jury, and in the decision.filed judgment was entered adjudging and decreeing that the plaintiff had a lien upon one-half of the consideration for the settlement, viz., $50, and in addition thereto the costs in the negligence action to the time of the settlement, viz., $95.50, making in all $145.50. Each defendant appeals from this judgment.

For the reasons stated in Oishei v. these same defendants (decided herewith) 97 N. Y. Supp. 447, the judgment is erroneous, in so far as it determined that the plaintiff had a lien on $95.50, the costs in the negligence action'to the time'of settlement, and must be modified by deducting therefrom said sum.

The judgment appealed from, therefore, is modified by deducting therefrom the sum of $95.50, and, as thus modified, the same is affirmed, without costs to either party. All concur.
#### 1252.239-82 Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users).

As prescribed in 1239.7204(g), insert the following clause:

# Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) (NOV 2022)

The Contractor shall support a secure, multi-factor method of remote authentication and authorization to identified Contractor Administrators that will allow Contractor designated personnel the ability to perform management duties on the system as required by the contract.

(End of clause)
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Kamal Shehata, Respon*822dent, and Government Employees Insurance Company, Appellant.

In a proceeding, *inter alia,*to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, petitioner, the Government Employees Insurance Company, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 24, 1978, which denied the application, with leave to renew. Judgment reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and application to permanently stay arbitration granted. On December 14, 1974 the claimant was injured in an automobile accident. Subsequent thereto she retained attorneys who obtained medical and police reports but, for some unexplained reason, never made inquiry to determine whether the other vehicle involved in the accident was insured. In July, 1977 the claimant retained her present attorneys who, on September 6, 1977, were informed that there was no insurance coverage for the other car that was involved in the accident. On September 12, 1977, 33 months after the accident, a notice of claim was served on the petitioner insurer. The claimant did not set forth any reason why the notice of claim was not filed, as required by section 608 of the Insurance Law, within 90 days after the accident or as soon thereafter as practical. We conclude that such notice of claim was, as a matter of law, served untimely (see *Matter of Acevedo v MVAIC,*56 AD2d 817 [a delay of seven and one-half months]; *Matter of Pasternack v MVAIC,*48 AD2d 837 [a delay of seven and one-half months]; *Matter of Becton v MVAIC,*35 AD2d 660, affd 29 NY2d 942 [a delay of nine months]). Mollen, P. J., Latham, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.
#### Andrea Mendez, Respondent, v Queens Plumbing Supply, Inc., et al., Defendants, and MP Limo Services Corp., Inc., et al., Appellants.

[833 NYS2d 71]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered September 25, 2006, which, upon reargument of a prior order denying plaintiff partial summary judgment on “liability negligence,” vacated that order and granted the relief requested, directing plaintiff to proceed on the issues of serious injury and damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted reargument upon a showing that it had “overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision” *Roland v City of New York,*212 AD2d 674, 674 [1995]; see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]). The court had previously misapprehended the facts when it precluded the operator of each vehicle from testifying about negligent operation by the other. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony revealed her lack of knowledge of the comparative negligence on the part of the operators. Appellants, the owner and operator of the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger, failed to meet their burden of demonstrating issues of fact as to fault through submission of evidence in admissible form, as opposed to mere speculation or conclusory allegations.

*261We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
#### 14.102 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas Morris, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered June 5, 1962 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of criminally buying and receiving stolen property as a misdemeanor (Penal Law, § 1308), and sentencing him, pursuant to article 7-A of the Correction Law, to serve an indefinite term in the New York City Penitentiary. Judgment affirmed (see *People*v. *Watson,*19 A D 2d 631). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                          $       130
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        11,974
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                          10,621
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     23,927
<PP&E>                               76,843
<DEPRECIATION>                       45,570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       63,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                12,408
<BONDS>                                 600
<COMMON>                              1,087
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                           35,472
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         63,975
<SALES>                              75,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     75,001
<CGS>                                64,484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        68,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      365
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       5,792
<INCOME-TAX>                          1,968
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   3,824
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                          3,824
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          3.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                          3.52
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leslie Eure, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Court denying a motion to vacate a 1952 judgment of conviction, without a hearing.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.
### §7623. Repealed. Pub. L. 110–234, title VII, §7303, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1242, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VII, §7303, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2003

Section, Pub. L. 105–185, title IV, §403, June 23, 1998, 112 Stat. 567; Pub. L. 107–171, title VII, §§7129, 7207(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 435, 440, related to precision agriculture.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 repealed this section. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.
#### Great Neck Water Authority, Respondent, v. Citizens Water Supply Company of Newtown, Appellant.

Motion by defendant-appellant for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. The following questions are certified: (1) Was defendant’s motion for summary judgment properly denied as a matter of law? (2) Was the order of the County Court appealable to the Appellate Division insofar as such order struck out for insufficiency the first, second and third affirmative defenses in the defendant’s answer? (3) Was the order of this court, dated May 21, 1962, properly made? Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### §7007. Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs

#### (a) Establishment

There is established in the Department the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs.

#### (b) Appointment

The Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

#### (c) Functions

#### (1) Principal functions

The Secretary shall delegate to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs those functions and duties under the jurisdiction of the Department that are related to trade and foreign agricultural affairs.

#### (2) Additional functions

The Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs shall perform such other functions and duties as may be—

(A) required by law; or

(B) prescribed by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §287, as added Pub. L. 115–334, title XII, §12413(2), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4980.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,397,968
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  149,681
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      52,734,562
<DEPRECIATION>                            (33,063,795)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,746,379
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     36,064,590
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,746,379
<SALES>                                     15,012,339
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,569,006
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,565,605
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,550,141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,453,260
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,453,260
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.B




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 on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2008, of El Paso Natural Gas Company (the “Company”) as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, John R. Sult, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Controller, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
(ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 
  /s/ John R. SultJohn
      R. SultSenior
      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller(Principal
      Accounting and Financial Officer)El
      Paso Natural Gas CompanyMay
      9, 2008
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
El Paso Natural Gas Company and will be retained by El Paso Natural Gas
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |  |
|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| 1 | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2020, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2020 (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |

|                                |         |                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|--------------------------------|---------|---------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|
|                           |    |                                  |
| Date:  August 4, 2020 | By: | /s/ Bowen S. Diehl            |
|                           |    | Bowen S. Diehl                        |
|                           |    | President and Chief Executive Officer |
#### Kathleen M. Cox, an Infant, by John H. Cox, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. Frederick Muth, Appellant.

— Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. (Appeal from order of Genesee Special Term, denying defendant’s motion for change of place of trial from Genesee County to Wyoming County.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, MeCluskey and Henry, JJ.