alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
19.1506 Women-Owned Small Business Program sole-source awards. ( a ) A contracting officer shall consider a contract award to an EDWOSB concern on a sole-source basis (see 6.302-5(b)(7)) before considering small business set-asides (see 19.203 and subpart 19.5) provided none of the exclusions at 19.1504 apply and— ( 1 ) The acquisition is assigned a NAICS code in which SBA has determined that WOSB concerns are underrepresented in Federal procurement;
( 2 ) The contracting officer does not have a reasonable expectation that offers would be received from two or more EDWOSB concerns; and
( 3 ) The conditions in paragraph (c) of this section exist.
( b ) A contracting officer shall consider a contract award to a WOSB concern (including EDWOSB concerns) eligible under the WOSB Program on a sole-source basis (see 6.302-5(b)(7)) before considering small business set-asides (see 19.203 and subpart 19.5) provided none of the exclusions at 19.1504 apply and— ( 1 ) The acquisition is assigned a NAICS code in which SBA has determined that WOSB concerns are substantially underrepresented in Federal procurement;
( 2 ) The contracting officer does not have a reasonable expectation that offers would be received from two or more WOSB concerns (including EDWOSB concerns); and
( 3 ) The conditions in paragraph (c) of this section exist.
( c ) ( 1 ) The anticipated award price of the contract, including options, will not exceed— ( i ) $7 million for a requirement within the NAICS codes for manufacturing; or
( ii ) $4.5 million for a requirement within any other NAICS codes.
( 2 ) The EDWOSB concern or WOSB concern has been determined to be a responsible contractor with respect to performance.
( 3 ) The award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.
( d ) A contracting officer shall only award a sole-source contract to a concern that has been certified pursuant to 13 CFR 127.300 as an EDWOSB or WOSB eligible under the WOSB program. Contracting officers shall not request a status determination from SBA on pending applications for certification for EDWOSB or WOSB sole-source awards.
( e ) The SBA has the right to appeal the contracting officer's decision not to make a sole-source award to either an EDWOSB concern or WOSB concern eligible under the WOSB program.
[81 FR 83103, Nov. 18, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 62489, Oct. 2, 2020; 87 FR 58242, Sept. 23, 2022]
CRPTED Sts TES COURT URAPPEALS FoR TE SEVENTH chet = © 015)

Office of the Clerk
Phone: (312) 435-5850
www.ca7-uscourts.gov

Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse
Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Mlinois 60604

FINAL JUDGMENT
February 22, 2013 CERTIFIED COPY

FILED Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

013
MAR 192 ee,
asyoatag 6 BRUTON RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Sourin Coe Se

TRICT COURT

CLERK, U.S. Dis
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

ANTHONY OLIVE,
Plaintiff - Appellant

No.: 12-1944 v.

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees

Originating Case Information:

District Court No: 3:12-cv-50065
Northern District of Illinois, Western Division
District Judge Philip G. Reinhard

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED in accordance with the decision of this
court entered on this date.

form name: c7_FinalJudgment(form ID: 132)
Appeal No. 74-109.

#### Rhode Island State Police *v.*Stephen M. Wilkinson.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Judith Romney Wegner,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff. *William F. Reilly,*Public Defender, *Joseph DeCaporale,*Asst. Public Defender, for defendant.

Motion of State to affirm order and judgment of the Family Court pursuant to Rule 16(g) is denied. The parties are directed to discuss in oral argument, in addition to the other questions presented, the question of the applicability of R. I. Const, art. I, sec. 10, to this case. See *In re McCloud,*110 R. I. 431, 432 n. 2, 293 A.2d 512, 513 n. 2 (1972).
Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District

l2’ Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mr. Greene:

Thank you for your timely submission of the 2009 Annual Monitoring Network Plan for

the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. We have reviewed the

submitted document and have found that it meets the minimum requirements set forth under 40CFR Part 58.10. While this letter serves as official approval ofthe annual network plan, it does

not constitute approval ofthe system modifications that are proposed in the plan for the future.

We will continue to work with your district to review system changes as they proceed.

If you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosed comments, please feel free

to contact me at (415) 972-3261 or Meredith Kurpius at (415) 947-4534.

Acting Manager

cc: John Ching, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD

Meredith Kurpius

Analysis Office

Printed on Recycled Paper
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 730 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 730

  To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain 
                        hydroelectric projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 27, 2017

   Mr. Kaine introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain 
                        hydroelectric projects.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR CERTAIN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred 
to in this section as the ``Commission'') projects numbered 12737 and 
12740, the Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the 
applicable project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with the 
good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of that 
section and the procedures of the Commission under that section, extend 
the time period during which the licensee is required to commence the 
construction of the applicable project for up to 3 consecutive 2-year 
periods from the date of the expiration of the extension originally 
issued by the Commission.
    (b) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the period required for 
commencement of construction of a project described in subsection (a) 
has expired prior to the date of enactment of this Act--
            (1) the Commission may reinstate the license for the 
        applicable project effective as of the date of the expiration 
        of the license; and
            (2) the first extension authorized under subsection (a) 
        shall take effect on that expiration.
                                 <all>
```
#### Robert Robinson, Respondent, v. William G. MacDonald et al., Defendants, and David H. Goldstein, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury sustained by reason of negligence and medical malpractice, the defendant Goldstein appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 12, 1964, which denied his motion to amend his answer so as to plead as a defense that subdivision 6 of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law provides plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. Order reversed, without costs, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion and motion granted. The time of the defendant Goldstein to serve his amended answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon, with leave to the plaintiff to apply, if so advised, for such adjournment of the trial as will enable him diligently to conduct any necessary pretrial investigation and examination. It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant Goldstein was an employee, as physician, of the *New York, Times.*The *Times*is also the employer of the plaintiff who was injured in the course of such employment. The action was commenced on April 11, 1958. It is averred by Goldstein’s attorney that the proposed amendment had been discussed with plaintiff’s attorney as early as 1960 and that notice of intention to move to amend was served on said attorney on October 26, 1962. There is a corroborating affidavit as to such service. A member of a firm serving as trial counsel for the plaintiff contents himself with averring that he had no prior notice until he was ready to proceed to trial in February, 1964. Plaintiff at all times has known of the employment status of the defendant Goldstein. Under all the circumstances, we find no prejudice to the plaintiff in the proposed amendment and it should be allowed. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
### §1482. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–432, §1, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046

Section, act June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 3, §350, 66 Stat. 269, provided that an individual with dual nationality who voluntarily claims the benefits of the foreign state nationality loses his United States nationality by having continuous residence in the foreign state for 3 years after having attained 22 years of age unless prior to the 3 year period he takes an oath of allegiance to the United States, or his residence in the foreign state was for a reason specified in section 1485(1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), or (8) of this title or section 1486(1) or (2) of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 95–432, §1, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046, provided that repeal of this section is effective Oct. 10, 1978.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet, statement of income, statement of retained earnings and
statement of cash flows contained in Form 10-Q of Canal Electric Company for
the three months ended March 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000016906
<NAME> CANAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          269,898
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          3,085
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              19,671
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            26,856
<OTHER-ASSETS>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     319,510
<COMMON>                            38,080
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            8,321
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 56,700
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     103,101
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                83,917
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                   9,775
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>          350
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>         11,085
<LEASES-CURRENT>                       573
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     110,709
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      319,510
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>           48,247
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 2,064
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          40,586
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          42,650
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>              5,597
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                     129
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>       5,726
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             2,156
<NET-INCOME>                         3,570
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>        3,570
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                 0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            1,978
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>              11,828
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        


</TABLE>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-36004) of Public Storage,  Inc.,  formerly Storage
Equities,  Inc.,  pertaining  to the 1990 Stock  Option Plan,  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No.  33-55541)  pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan,
the Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.  333-13463)  pertaining to the 1996
Stock Option and Incentive  Plan,  the  Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.
333-75327)  pertaining  to the  1994  Share  Incentive  Plan,  the  Registration
Statement  on  Form  S-3  (No.  333-81041)  and in the  related  prospectus  and
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-86899) and in the related prospectus
of our report dated February 14, 2000 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Public  Storage,  Inc.  included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for 1999 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.




                                                  ERNST & YOUNG L L P



March 29, 2000

Los Angeles, California

                                   Exhibit 23
1427.304-1 General. ( a ) ( 1 ) *Exceptions.* The Associate Solicitor for the General Law Division shall issue a decision on the appeal of a small business concern or nonprofit organization of the use of exceptions under FAR 27.303(e)(1).
( 2 ) If the Associate Solicitor for the General Law Division determines that the appeal notice raises a genuine dispute over the material facts, a fact-finding hearing shall be conducted by OHA. The hearing shall be conducted at a location convenient to the parties concerned as determined by the Director, OHA, and on a date and time stated. The contractor may be represented by counsel or any duly authorized representative. Witnesses may be called by either party. The proceedings shall be conducted expeditiously and in such a manner that each party will have a full opportunity to present all information considered pertinent to the determination. A transcribed record of the proceedings shall be made and shall be made available at cost to the contractor upon request, unless the requirement for the transcribed record is waived by mutual agreement of the contractor and OHA.
( 3 ) OHA shall prepare written findings of fact and transmit them to the Associate Solicitor for the General Law Division.
( 4 ) OHA may hear oral arguments after fact-finding provided that the contractor, its counsel or other duly authorized representative, is present in order to have the opportunity to make arguments and rebuttal. The Associate Solicitor for the General Law Division shall issue a decision.
( b ) *Greater rights determinations.* Determinations on requests for greater rights in subject inventions by contractors shall be made by the HCA after consultation with the Assistant Solicitor for Acquisitions and Intellectual Property. Appeals of such determinations shall be made to the CBCA.
( c ) *Exercise of march-in-rights.* After notification to the contractor of information warranting the exercise of march-in rights, the CO shall prepare a written notice to the contractor after consultation with the Assistant Solicitor for Acquisitions and Intellectual Property. The notice shall be prepared and signed by the Associate Solicitor for the General Law Division. Within the time constraints, if the Associate Solicitor for the General Law Division determines any information submitted by the contractor (assignee or exclusive licensee) after notice of march-in is received raises a genuine dispute over material facts, a fact-finding hearing shall be conducted by OHA. The Associate Solicitor for the General Law Division shall issue a final determination, after consideration of any further written or oral arguments from the parties. An unfavorable determination to a contractor (assignee or exclusive licensee) shall be subject to appeal.
( d ) *Licenses and assignments under contracts with nonprofit organizations.* COs may approve contractor requests for assignment of rights or exclusive licenses after obtaining the advice of the Assistant Solicitor for Acquisitions and Intellectual Property. Solicitations containing FAR clause 52.227-11 shall state that contractors should forward such requests to the CO.
(June 23, 1964)

#### In the Matter of Virgilio Rivera, Respondent, v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant.

Order, entered on June 19, 1963, granting claimant-respondent’s motion to direct the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation to accept a notice of claim pursuant to section 608 of the Insurance Law unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion is denied. Concededly, claimant is a “ qualified person ”. As such, claimant’s rights are derived solely from the statute and are, therefore, subject to whatever conditions precedent the statute prescribes (see *Matter of Brown [MVAIC],*24 Misc 2d 550). The statute applicable herein, subdivision (a) of section 608 of the Insurance Law, prescribes that the required notice of claim must be filed with the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation within 90 days of the accrual of the claim. Claimant’s affidavit indicates that a minimum of 10 months elapsed before any notice of claim was filed with appellant. Noncomplianee with the 90-day condition precedent is not excused by either difficulty in determining the existence of insurance coverage *(Matter of Jefferson*v. *MVAIC,*34 Misc 2d 48) or administrative delay in informing- claimant of the fact of noninsurance *(Matter of Johnson*v. *MVAIC,*218 N. Y. S. 2d 289). In any event, the court was without power in the instant case to grant relief due to claimant’s failure to move the court within 120 days (Insurance Law, § 608; *Matter of Glaudel*v. *MVAIC,*17 A D 2d 828). Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

**Certification of****Chairman of the Board****and****President**

**Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**

I, Gary L. Martin, Chairman of the Board and President of Capital Southwest Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:

| 1. |   |   | the Form 10-Q, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2010 ("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: |  February 4, 2010 |  By: | /s/ Gary L. Martin                                        |    |
|-------|------------------------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------------|
|       |                   |      | Gary L. Martin, Chairman of the Board and President  |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ALWANNA KNIGHT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 11

) USCA No. 12-1132

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM1

Among the bizarre steps taken by pro se plaintiff Alwanna

Knight (“Knight”) in this action, the most recent is her filing

of an appeal even though this Court had not issued any

dispositive order in the case. On January 5, 2012 this Court

issued a memorandum order that explained why Knight was not

entitled to in forma pauperis treatment, not in financial terms

but because of her failure to assert a nonfrivolous claim in the

legal sense. Then on January 17 Knight filed a notice of appeal

that added this Court to the coterie of judges and others who are

assertedly conspiring against her, and on January 25 she tendered

to the Court of Appeals her motion seeking leave to appeal in

forma pauperis, whereupon that court ordered the motion to be

transferred to this District Court for ruling. On February 1

this Court responded by issuing another memorandum order II”)

 This memorandum repeats, often verbatim, some of the 1

things stated in the two earlier orders to which it refers. That

has been done simply to make clear the background that gives rise

to this memorandum.

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:129
that denied Knight’s in forma pauperis motion and concluded by

“reminding her (as the Court of Appeals’ order did) that to place

the same motion before that court she must refile her motion

there (see Fed. R. App. P. 24).”

All of this has placed this action in limbo because it would

appear that Knight’s attempted appeal has ousted this Court of

jurisdiction. And whatever result may obtain in the Court of

Appeals in connection with any retendering of her in forma

pauperis effort there, the merits of Knight’s substantive claims

(or more accurately, what appears to be their lack of merit) will

not have been resolved at that point. Accordingly this Court

respectfully requests that it be notified forthwith as and when

the Court of Appeals takes action on Knight’s appeal.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 5, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00011 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:130
#### 1815.609 Limited use of data.