alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Type Description Quantity Unit Price Amount

Professional

Services

[CHOLESTEROL] Cholesterol Patent Litigation: Brandeis Univ.

v. East Side Ovens, Inc., 1:2012cv01508: Gregory Sidak

(01/01/2013 - 01/31/2013)

24.00 $750.00 $18,000.00

Professional

Services

[CHOLESTEROL] Cholesterol Patent Litigation: Brandeis Univ.

v. East Side Ovens, Inc., 1:2012cv01508: Alina Liao

(01/01/2013 - 01/31/2013)

27.00 $435.00 $11,745.00

Professional

Services

[CHOLESTEROL] Cholesterol Patent Litigation: Brandeis Univ.

v. East Side Ovens, Inc., 1:2012cv01508: Jeremy Skog

(01/01/2013 - 01/31/2013)

10.75 $495.00 $5,321.25

Professional

Services

[CHOLESTEROL] Cholesterol Patent Litigation: Brandeis Univ.

v. East Side Ovens, Inc., 1:2012cv01508: Andy Vassallo

(01/01/2013 - 01/31/2013)

9.50 $495.00 $4,702.50

Professional

Services

[CHOLESTEROL] Cholesterol Patent Litigation: Brandeis Univ.

v. East Side Ovens, Inc., 1:2012cv01508: Nathan Snow

(01/01/2013 - 01/31/2013)

6.50 $455.00 $2,957.50

Professional

Services

[CHOLESTEROL] Cholesterol Patent Litigation: Brandeis Univ.

v. East Side Ovens, Inc., 1:2012cv01508: Allison Crowley

(01/01/2013 - 01/31/2013)

9.00 $275.00 $2,475.00

Product Complimentary discount 1.00 -$35,729.73 -$35,729.73

Amount Due $9,471.52

Notes

From Criterion Economics

4512 Edmunds Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20007

Tel: (202) 518-5121, (202) 333-2699

U.S. Tax ID: 52-2190786

Invoice For Criterion

Economics

Hon. Richard A. Posner

Circuit Judge

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, IL 60604

Invoice ID CHOLESTEROL-Jan-2013

Issue Date 01/29/2013

Due Date 01/29/2013 (upon receipt)

Subject Court-appointed neutral expert testimony and

analysis on patent infringement damages,

Brandeis Univ. v. East Side Ovens

Page 1 of 2
PAYABLE IN U.S. DOLLARS.

Wire Transfers:

Swift code: PNCCUS33

Routing code: 031000053

Account no. 5303199726

Bank: PNC, 1913 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

Page 2 of 2
Case: 1:12-cv-00823 Document #: 58-1 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:347
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 12 (Thursday, January 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01254]



[[Page 6321]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0673; FRL-10019-78-OW]


Applying the Supreme Court's County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife 
Fund Decision in the Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System Permit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of guidance.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 
issuing a memorandum to provide guidance to the regulated community and 
permitting authorities on applying the recent decision of the United 
States Supreme Court in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S. 
Ct. 1462 (2020), in the Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program for point source 
discharges that travel through groundwater before reaching a water of 
the United States. Consistent with EPA Guidance; Administrative 
Procedures for Issuance and Public Petitions, published in the Federal 
Register on October 19, 2020, EPA solicited public comments on the 
draft guidance for thirty days, beginning on December 10, 2020. EPA has 
developed a responsiveness summary to address major concerns and 
comments, and it is available in the docket for this action. This 
guidance does not have the force and effect of law and it does not bind 
the public in any way. By issuing this guidance, the Agency intends 
only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements 
under the law or Agency policies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Wilson, Office of Wastewater 
Management, Water Permits Division (MC4203M), Environmental Protection 
Agency. 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
number: (202) 564-6087; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c3b4aaafb0acadeda9b083a6b3a2eda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f88f91948b9796d6928bb89d8899d69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>.

A. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    You may access this document electronically at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/releases-point-source-groundwater or at https://www.federalregister.gov. EPA established an official public docket 
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0673 which is accessible 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov that will also contain 
copies of this Federal Register notice. The public docket does not 
include CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. The telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

    Dated: January 13, 2021.
Anna Wildeman,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2021-01254 Filed 1-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
17.501 General. ( a ) Interagency acquisitions are commonly conducted through indefinite-delivery contracts, such as task- and delivery-order contracts. The indefinite-delivery contracts used most frequently to support interagency acquisitions are Federal Supply Schedules (FSS), Governmentwide acquisition contracts (GWACs), and multi-agency contracts (MACs).
( b ) An agency shall not use an interagency acquisition to circumvent conditions and limitations imposed on the use of funds.
( c ) An interagency acquisition is not exempt from the requirements of subpart 7.3, Contractor Versus Government Performance.
( d ) An agency shall not use an interagency acquisition to make acquisitions conflicting with any other agency's authority or responsibility (for example, that of the Administrator of General Services under title 40, United States Code, “Public Buildings, Property and Works” and 41 U.S.C. division C of subtitle I, Procurement).
[75 FR 77735, Dec. 13, 2010, as amended at 79 FR 24202, Apr. 29, 2014]
#### Laura Accessories, Inc., Appellant, v Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.

— Order and judgment (two papers) of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered in the office of the clerk on May 11, 1978 and June 25, 1978 respectively which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $75 costs and disbursements payable to appellant by respondent, the motion denied, judgment vacated and complaint reinstated. Following recovery of a judgment by plaintiff against Marino Express, Inc., by default for $93,279.12 and the return of an execution unsatisfied and the service of a copy of the judgment upon defendant herein, the insurance carrier of Marino Express, Inc., plaintiff instituted suit for that amount against defendant herein under section 167 of the Insurance Law, to recover damages for the loss of its merchandise shipped by Marino Express, Inc. Special Term rested its ruling "solely on the ground that there is no present judgment against the individual who is *639the named insured.” There is present in the lawsuit an issue relating to defendant’s intention to insure. There is evidence which supports the conclusion that the parties to the insurance contract intended to have that policy afford coverage to Marino Express, Inc., the plaintiff’s judgment debtor; that Mr. Marino freely interchanged the names Marino Express and Marino Express, Inc., when referring to his business and that there was only one entity, operating under a legal corporate name with an everyday trade name of Marino’s Express. Defendant offered no proof that there were separately conducted businesses. The name of the insured as stated in the policy is not the sole factor to be considered in determining who was the intended insured *(Matter of Lipshitz v Hotel Charles,*226 App Div 839, affd 252 NY 518; *Matter of Black v Swetnick,*281 App Div 997). Because plaintiff should have an opportunity to obtain discovery and examine defendant’s witnesses to ascertain the intended risk (CPLR 3212, subd [f]) the grant of summary judgment was, in any event, premature. Concur — Birns, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Fein and Markewich, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6722

JAN F. BECKER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HUDSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00156-FPS-JSK)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 11, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jan F. Becker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jan F. Becker seeks to appeal the district court’s order

transferring his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition to the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the

district in which Becker was convicted and is incarcerated. This

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Becker seeks to

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
M. P. No. 75-71.

#### Robert Resnick *v.*Robert D’Amico.

*Letts, Quinn & Licht, Alan S. Flink, Joseph DeAngelis,*for plaintiff-respondent. *Pucci & Goldin, Samuel A. Olevson,*for defendant-petitioner.

Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32

Certification Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) the
undersigned General Partners of TASA Products Limited, a Washington limited
partnership (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of such General
Partner's knowledge and belief, that:

1.  The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the
"Form 10-K) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/MICHEL E. MAES                       /s/JAMES R. STEFFEY
Michel E. Maes                          James R. Steffey
Co-General Partner                      Co-General Partner
Date: 3-22-06                           Date: 3-22-06
1601.104-2 Arrangement of regulation. ( a ) *General.* The FEHBAR conforms with the arrangement and numbering system prescribed by FAR 1.104. However, when a FAR part or subpart is adequate for use without further OPM implementation or supplementation, there will be no corresponding FEHBAR part, subpart, etc. The FEHBAR is to be used in conjunction with the FAR and the order for use is: ( 1 ) FAR;
( 2 ) FEHBAR.
( b ) *Citation.* ( 1 ) In formal documents, such as legal briefs, citation of chapter 16 material that has been published in the Federal Register will be to title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
( 2 ) In informal documents, any section of chapter 16 may be identified as “FEHBAR” followed by the section number.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6870

ANTHONY SHANE MARTIN,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. ERIN GAFFNEY; LISA YOUNG; RAY WALKER; LENOKA GAVIN; HODIYAH LEWIS; JILL CARDARON,
Defendants

- Appellees,
and WELLPATH/CORRECT CARE,
Defendant

.

No. 23

- 6875

ANTHONY SHANE MARTIN,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. CORRECT CARE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS; ERIN GAFFNEY, Facility Administrator; BRIAN DAVIS, Security Administrator; JARED ANDERSON, Administrator; DOCTOR DUBIE, Facility Psychologist; GINA BRISSON, Vice President,
Defendants

- Appellees. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6875 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 Appeal s from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 4:22

- cv - 02042

- HMH ; 4:22

- cv 02043

- HMH )

Submitted : June 25, 2024 Decided: June 27, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Anthony Shane Martin , A ppellant Pro Se. Daniel Quintin Atkinson , Mark Victor Gende , SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA , Columbia, S outh Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6875 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Anthony Martin appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Martin ’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint s . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Martin v. Gaffney , No. 4:22

- cv - 02042

- HMH (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2023); Martin v. Correct Care Recovery Solutions , No.
4:22

- cv - 02024

- HMH (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2023) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6875 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
#### Rijek Realty, Inc., Respondent, v. Clarence Crist et al., as Assessors of the Town of Montgomery, Appellants.

In a special proceeding, pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law, for the review of an assessment on petitioner’s real property in the Town of Montgomery, the Town Assessors appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated January 31, 1962, which denied their motion, made pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the petition. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; motion granted; and petition dismissed. No question is raised by the parties as to the applicability of rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice to this statutory proceeding (cf. *Stevenson*v. *News Syndicate Co.,*302 N. Y. 81, 87; see, also, *Matter of Siemer*v. *Village Bd., Orchard Park,*286 App. Div. 135, 136). The petition prays, in substance, that the assessment should be reduced on the grounds of inequality and overvaluation. The admissions contained in petitioner’s bill of particulars may be considered on this motion *(Stevenson*v. *News Syndicate Co.,*302 N. Y. 81, 88, *supra, Richardson*v. *Gregory,*219 App. Div. 211, 212, affd. 245 N. Y. 540; *Mack, Miller Candle*
      *965
      *Co.*v. *Macmillan Co.,*239 App. Div. 738, 739-740, affd. 266 N. Y. 489; *Cohen*v. *Erdle,*282 App. Div. 569; 570; *Shapiro*v. *Town of Thompson,*6 A D 2d 608; 611). Such admissions conclusively demonstrate that petitioner will be unable to establish either overvaluation or inequality (cf. *Matter of Wolfe*v. *Assessors of Town of Hanover,*308 N. Y. 416). Since it appears that petitioner cannot succeed under the pleadings, the Town Assessors’ motion should be granted (cf. *Richardson*v. *Gregory, supra).*Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
1845.604 Restrictions on purchase or retention of contractor inventory. ( 1 ) No contractor may sell contractor inventory to persons known by it to be NASA or DOD personnel who have been engaged in administering or terminating NASA contracts.
( 2 ) ( i ) The contractor's or subcontractor's authority to approve the sale, purchase, or retention of Government property on a contract which is excess to needs after Government reutilization screening at less than cost by a subcontractor, and the subcontractor's authority to sell, purchase, or retain such property at less than cost with the approval of the contractor or next higher-tier subcontractor does not include authority to approve— ( A ) A sale by a subcontractor to the contractor, the next higher-tier subcontractor, or their affiliates; or
( B ) A sale, purchase, or retention by a subcontractor affiliated with the contractor or next higher-tier subcontractor.
( ii ) Each excluded sale, purchase, or retention requires the written approval of the plant clearance officer.
## *A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n*

# Madeleine May Kunin

## U.S. DEPUTY SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Madeleine Kunin's (pronounced*Q-nin*) record as Deputy Secretary of  Education represents a continuation of her work in the issues that first drew  her to public service two decades ago. 
      Kunin's policy-making experience as a state legislator, Lieutenant Governor and  the first woman Governor of her home state of Vermont enabled her to be a leader in the Clinton Administration on a broad array of policy and reform initiatives. 
      Working closely with President Clinton and Education Secretary Richard W. Riley, she has played an integral role in getting the President's education reform  agenda enacted into law -- a series of legislative acts that includes the Goals  2000: Educate America Act, the School to Work Opportunities Act, and the Safe  and Drug-Free Schools Act.  She established the Department's Office of  Educational Technology, and was instrumental in the development of the  Administration's direct loan program -- an innovative form of lending that has  simplified the student loan process and is saving taxpayers billions of dollars.  She chairs the Committee on Education and Training for the National Science and  Technology Council. 
      As the Department's chief operating officer, Kunin sits on the President's  Management Council and oversees the Department's involvement in the "reinventing government" effort to streamline management and operations.  She led the  development of the Department's first-ever strategic plan, which has resulted in the elimination or simplifying of half of the Department's regulations and  greater decision making authority for front-line employees.  Kunin's work in  this area drew praise from The Washington Post for developing*"new ways of  doing business*." 
      Beyond the Department, Kunin is a leader in the Administration's work on the  environment and issues affecting women.  She serves on the President's Council  on Sustainable Development, the board of the National Environmental Education  and Training Foundation, and the President's Interagency Council on Women.  She  was part of the U.S. delegation to the Fourth World Conference on Women in  Beijing. 
      Kunin's efforts in education, the environment, and women's issues played a large role in her rise through the political ranks in Vermont.  She is the only woman  to have served three terms as governor of a state.  During her tenure in office, teacher salaries in Vermont rose from a rank of 49th to 26th, access to  kindergarten was guaranteed, and early childhood programs were expanded.  After  leaving office, she founded the non-profit Institute for Sustainable  Communities, an international organization that is active in environmental  education and management. 
      Born in Zurich, Switzerland, Kunin immigrated to the United States in 1940.  Her political memoir, Living a Political Life, was published in 1994 by Knopf. -###-
### §1287. Alien crewmen brought into the United States with intent to evade immigration laws; penalties

Any person, including the owner, agent, consignee, master, or commanding officer of any vessel or aircraft arriving in the United States from any place outside thereof, who shall knowingly sign on the vessel's articles, or bring to the United States as one of the crew of such vessel or aircraft, any alien, with intent to permit or assist such alien to enter or land in the United States in violation of law, or who shall falsely and knowingly represent to a consular officer at the time of application for visa, or to the immigration officer at the port of arrival in the United States, that such alien is a bona fide member of the crew employed in any capacity regularly required for normal operation and services aboard such vessel or aircraft, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each such violation, for which sum such vessel or aircraft shall be liable and may be seized and proceeded against by way of libel in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the offense.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 6, §257, 66 Stat. 223; Pub. L. 101–649, title V, §543(a)(7), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5058.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–649 substituted "$10,000" for "$5,000".

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

#### Effective Date of 1990 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–649 applicable to actions taken after Nov. 29, 1990, see section 543(c) of Pub. L. 101–649, set out as a note under section 1221 of this title.

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.