alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Addition of section/statement and conforming change: 

§ 668.417: Statement of Mission 

An institution must include in its mission statement, as to GE programs, that the institution’s 

mission includes “preparing students for gainful employment in recognized occupations” or 

word substantially to that effect. 

Change to §668.403(a)(1): 

“Satisifies the applicable application, mission, and certification requirements in §§ 668.415; and 

668.416; and 668.417; and
**EXHIBIT 10.23**

**FIRST      AMENDMENT**

**TO**

**TRANSITION      AGREEMENT**

**WHEREAS,**

**WHEREAS,      **

**WHEREAS,**

**WHEREAS,      **

**NOW,      THEREFORE, **

----

----

|   |   |   | GENENTECH,                INC.   |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------|
|   |   |   |
|   |   |   | By:                              | /s/                STEPHEN JUELSGAARD |
|   |   |   |                             | Stephen                Juelsgaard |
|   |   |   |                             |   |
|   |   |   | Date:                            |   December                28, 2005 |
|   |   |   |                             |   |
|   |   |   |                             |   |
|   |   |   | MYRTLE                POTTER     |
|   |   |   |                             |   |
|   |   |   | /s/                MYRTLE POTTER |
|   |   |   |                             |   |
|   |   |   | Date:                            |   December                29, 2005 |

----
1846.670-2 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart applies to supplies or services acquired by or for NASA when the clause at 1852.246-72, Material Inspection and Receiving Report, is included in the contract.
[80 FR 12944, Mar. 12, 2015]
----

----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**Certification      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

**BNSF      Railway Company**

| (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/  Matthew                K. Rose             |   |                   /s/  Thomas N.                Hund           |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| **Matthew                K. Rose**                                                                                    |   | **Thomas                N. Hund**                                                                                                    |   |
| **Chairman,                President and Chief Executive Officer**                                                    |   | **Executive                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer**                                                              |   |

FORM          10-Q

----
**Gainful Employment Negotiated Rulemaking Committee 2013**

**Federal Negotiator**

**Non-Federal Negotiators**

August 2, 2013
#### 1852.236-72 Bids with unit prices.

As prescribed in 1836.570(b), insert the following provision:

# Bids With Unit Prices (MAR 1989)

(a) All extensions of the unit prices bid will be subject to verification by the Government. If there is variation between the unit price and any extended amounts, the unit price will be considered to be the bid.

(b) If a modification to a bid based on unit prices that provides for a lump-sum adjustment to the total estimated cost is submitted, the application of the lump sum adjustment to each unit price in the bid must be stated. If it is not stated, the lump-sum adjustment shall be applied on a pro rata basis to every unit price in the bid.

(End of provision)

[54 FR 28340, July 5, 1989, as amended at 62 FR 4476, Jan. 30, 1997]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPrediction of wing aeroelastic effects on aircraft lift and pitching moment characteristicsThe distribution of flight loads on an aircraft structure determine the lift and pitching moment characteristics of the aircraft. When the load distribution changes due to the aeroelastic response of the structure, the lift and pitching moment characteristics also change. An estimate of the effect of aeroelasticity on stability and control characteristics is often required for the development of aircraft simulation models of evaluation of flight characteristics. This presentation outlines a procedure for incorporating calculated linear aeroelastic effects into measured nonlinear lift and pitching moment data from wind tunnel tests. Results are presented which were obtained from applying this procedure to data for an aircraft with a very flexible transport type research wing. The procedure described is generally applicable to all types of aircraft.Document ID19870006542Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsEckstrom, Clinton V.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1986Subject CategoryAircraft Stability And ControlReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:89060NASA-TM-89060Accession Number87N15975Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-21-04Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19870006542.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
1819.811-3 Contract clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.219-11, Special 8(a) Contract Conditions, in contracts and purchase orders awarded directly to the 8(a) contractor when the acquisition is accomplished using the procedures of FAR 19.811-1(a) and (b).
( d ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.219-18, Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) Concerns, in competitive solicitations and contracts when the acquisition is accomplished using the procedures of FAR 19.805. ( 1 ) The clause at 1852.219-18 with Alternate I to the FAR clause at 52.219-18 will be used when competition is to be limited to 8(a) concerns within one or more specific SBA districts pursuant to FAR 19.804-2.
( 2 ) The clause at 1852.219-18 with Alternate II to the FAR clause at 52.219-18 will be used when the acquisition is for a product in a class for which the Small Business Administration has waived the nonmanufacturer rule (see FAR 19.102(f)(4) and (5)).
( e ) Follow the prescription at FAR 19.811-3(e).
[80 FR 12938, Mar. 12, 2015]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000             JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-02-1999             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999             JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                         117,864                 117,864
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     76,694                  76,694
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               245,901                 245,901
<PP&E>                                         251,436                 251,436
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,890                 126,890
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 428,723                 428,723
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,916                  71,916
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         2,409                   2,409
<OTHER-SE>                                     342,127                 342,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   428,723                 428,723
<SALES>                                        186,090                 356,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               186,090                 356,753
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,603                 176,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,432                 126,198
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,055                  53,959
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,735                  19,839
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,320                  34,120
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,320                  34,120
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .40                     .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40                     .66


</TABLE>
#### 1480.501 General.

All acquisitions made in accordance with this part, including simplified or commercial item acquisitions, must conform to all applicable requirements of the FAR and DIAR.
###### Editorial Note on Part 842

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

#### § 842.103 Scope of this subpart.

This subpart explains how the United States asserts and settles claims for costs of medical care, against third parties under the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (FMCRA) (10 U.S.C. 1095) and various other laws.

[81 FR 83698, Nov. 22, 2016]
A05A1205.

#### BURCHETTE v. THE STATE.

(619 SE2d 323)

Ellington, Judge.

In August 2001, a Forsyth County jury convicted Michael Burchette of arson, OCGA§ 16-7-60. The trial court denied his request for *874first offender treatment under OCGA § 42-8-60 and sentenced him to 15 years probation. After this Court affirmed his conviction,1 Burchette filed a motion with the trial court to modify his sentence by granting him first offender treatment. The court denied the motion, finding that it could not grant first offender treatment after it had imposed sentence. Burchette appeals and, finding no error, we affirm.

Georgia’s first offender law, OCGA § 42-8-60 (a), states as follows:

> Upon a verdict or plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere, *but before an adjudication of guilt,*in the case of a defendant who has not been previously convicted of a felony, the court may, *without entering a judgment of guilt*and with the consent of the defendant: (1) Defer further proceeding and place the defendant on probation as provided by law; or (2) Sentence the defendant to a term of confinement as provided by law.

(Emphasis supplied.) Under the plain language of this statute, a trial court is only authorized to grant first offender treatment *before*a defendant has been adjudicated guilty and sentenced. *Lewis v. State,*217 Ga. App. 758, 759 (458 SE2d 861) (1995). It follows that, once a trial court imposes a sentence, the defendant loses the opportunity to be treated as a first offender. Id.

Burchette argues, however, that the trial court retained jurisdiction to modify or reduce his sentence in this case pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-1 (f),2 and, therefore, the trial court had the authority to modify his sentence to give him first offender treatment. But OCGA § 17-10-1 (f) only provides an opportunity for a court to modify an existing sentence. Therefore, the statute cannot be used to grant first offender treatment when the first offender act specifically prohibits such modification after sentencing. OCGA § 42-8-60 et seq.; *Lewis v. State,*217 Ga. App. at 759. Burchette’s argument to the contrary is without merit.

Accordingly, we find the trial court properly denied Burchette’s motion to modify his sentence.

*875Decided July 19, 2005

Reconsideration denied August 3, 2005

*Banks, Stubbs, Neville & Cunat, Rafe Banks,*for appellant.

*Penny A. Penn, District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Smith, P. J., and Adams, J., concur.*

1

*Burchette v. State,*260 Ga. App. 739 (580 SE2d 609) (2003); see also *Burchette v. State,*278 Ga. 1, 3 (596 SE2d 162) (2004) (holding that a portion of the trial court’s *Allen*charge to the jury was inaccurate and should no longer be given, but affirming Burchette’s conviction).

2

 Within one year of the date upon which the sentence is imposed, or within 120 days after receipt by the sentencing court of the remittitur upon affirmance of the judgment after direct appeal, whichever is later, the court imposing the sentence has the jurisdiction, power, and authority to correct or reduce the sentence and to suspend or probate all or any part of the sentence imposed.

OCGA§ 17-10-1 (f).
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-11381

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BRIAN KEITH CASPER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 4:06-CR-23

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After this matter was remanded by the Supreme Court, Casper v. United

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 1, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-11381

2

States, 129 S. Ct. 2156 (2009), we made a limited remand for the district court

to conduct an evidentiary hearing from which to decide the question of inevitable

discovery, United States v. Casper, 332 F. App’x 222 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

That court promptly complied, issuing an order finding 

that the evidence seized by Fort Worth Police Officer Terry Porter

on May 11, 2005, from the vehicle driven by the defendant, Brian

Keith Casper, would inevitably have been discovered notwithstanding the illegal search of the vehicle incident to Casper’s arrest [and

that] [l]ikewise, the evidence seized from Casper’s home would inevitably have been discovered.

As Casper concedes in his supplemental letter brief filed after the district

court issued its findings, “the government need only show ‘a reasonable probability’ that the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means. See United

States v. Lamas, 930 F.2d 1099, 1102 (5th Cir. 1991).” The district court, in its

oral explanation that preceded its written order, found that 

it’s inevitable that [the officers] would have conducted an inventory

search and/or brought the [narcotic-detecting] dog in. He was right

there. As the officer said, it wouldn’t have been a big delay, and

brought the dog in. The dog would have inevitably alerted, and then

the search would have proceeded either on that probable cause of

the dog alert or on the right to search for purposes of an inventory.

These findings are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. The

motion to suppress was properly denied.

Aside from suppression, the only other issue that Casper raises on appeal

is the length of his sentence. For the reasons explained in our initial and latervacated decision, United States v. Casper, 536 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2008), there is

no reversible error in the sentence. 

The judgment of conviction and sentence is AFFIRMED.
1602.170-5 Cost or pricing data. ( a ) *Experience-rated carriers.* Cost or pricing data for experience-rated carriers includes: ( 1 ) Information such as claims data;
( 2 ) Actual or negotiated benefits payments made to providers of medical services for the provision of healthcare, such as capitation not adjusted for specific groups, including mental health benefits capitation rates, per diems, and Diagnostic Related Group (DRG) payments;
( 3 ) Cost data;
( 4 ) Utilization data; and
( 5 ) Administrative expenses and retentions, including capitated administrative expenses and retentions.
( b ) *Community rated carriers.* Cost or pricing data for community rated carriers is the specialized rating data used by carriers in computing a rate that is appropriate for the Federal group and similarly sized subscriber groups (SSSGs). Such data include, but are not limited to, capitation rates; prescription drug, hospital, and office visit benefits utilization data; trend data; actuarial data; rating methodologies for other groups; standardized presentation of the carrier's rating method (age, sex, etc.) showing that the factor predicts utilization; tiered rates information; “step-up” factors information; demographics such as family size; special benefit loading capitations; and adjustment factors for capitation. After the 2012 plan year, reconciled rates for community rated carriers, other than those required by state law to use Traditional Community Rating (TCR), will be required to meet an FEHB-specific medical loss ratio threshold published annually in OPM's rate instructions to FEHB carriers.
[62 FR 47574, Sept. 10, 1997, as amended at 70 FR 31378, June 1, 2005; 76 FR 38285, June 29, 2011]
#### 1503.1004 Contract clause.

As required by EPAAR 1503.1003(b), the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1552.203-71, *Display of EPA Office of Inspector General Hotline Poster,* in all contracts valued at $1,000,000 or more, including all contract options.
#### 1552.235-73 Access to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Confidential Business Information (APR 1996).

As prescribed in 1535.007(a), insert the following provision:

# Access to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Confidential Business Information (APR 1996)

In order to perform duties under the contract, the Contractor will need to be authorized for access to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) confidential business information (CBI). The Contractor and all of its employees handling CBI while working under the contract will be required to follow the procedures contained in the security manual entitled “FIFRA Information Security Manual.” These procedures include applying for FIFRA CBI access authorization for each individual working under the contract who will have access to FIFRA CBI, execution of confidentiality agreements, and designation by the Contractor of an individual to serve as a Document Control Officer. The Contractor will be required to abide by those clauses contained in EPAAR 1552.235-70, 1552.235- 71, and 1552.235-77 that are appropriate to the activities set forth in the contract.

Until EPA has approved the Contractor's security plan, the Contractor may not be authorized for FIFRA CBI access away from EPA facilities.

(End of provision)

[61 FR 14265, Apr. 1, 1996]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAJAR SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74820

Agency No. A077-839-343

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Majar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third motion to reopen. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion,

Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition

FILED

JAN 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74820

for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s third motion to

reopen because it considered the evidence submitted and acted within its broad

discretion in determining Singh did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the

relief sought. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (the BIA may deny a

motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief

sought).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### 1427.202-3 Adjustment of royalties.

The CO shall report to the Assistant Solicitor for Acquisitions and Intellectual Property the results of any action taken in compliance with FAR 27.202-3.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Donald C. Wood, the President and Chief Executive 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 June 30, 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/ Donald C. Wood                                                                          
|August 2, 2006 |  | Donald C. Wood, President, Chief Executive Officer and Trustee (Principal Executive Officer)