alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 68.2 Applicability.

This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the DoD, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to collectively in this part as the “DoD Components”).
2015.606 Agency procedures. ( a ) The Division of Contracts and Property Management is the point of contact for the receipt, acknowledgment, and handling of unsolicited proposals.
( b ) An original and two copies of the unsolicited proposal as well as requests for additional information regarding their preparation, must be submitted to: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Contracts and Property Management, Mail Stop T-7-I-2, Washington, DC 20555.
( c ) The Division of Contracts and Property Management shall enter each unsolicited proposal into the unsolicited proposal tracking system.
1515.404-472 Other methods. ( a ) Contracting officers may use methods other than those prescribed in 1515.404-470 for establishing profit or fee objectives under the following types of contracts and circumstances: ( 1 ) Architect-engineering contracts;
( 2 ) Personal service contracts;
( 3 ) Management contracts, e.g., for maintenance or operation of Government facilities;
( 4 ) Termination settlements;
( 5 ) Services under labor-hour and time and material contracts which provide for payment on an hourly, daily, or monthly basis, and where the contractor's contribution constitutes the furnishing of personnel.
( 6 ) Construction contracts; and
( 7 ) Cost-plus-award-fee contracts.
( b ) Generally, it is expected that such methods will: ( 1 ) Provide the contracting officer with a technique that will ensure consideration of the relative value of the appropriate profit factors described under “Profit Factors,” in FAR 15.404-4(d) and
( 2 ) Serve as a basis for documentation of the profit or fee objective.
### §7318. Termination of Commission

The Commission shall terminate on submission of the final report required by section 7314 of this title.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §188, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 941.)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0407

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KEITH WILLIAM WALKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 31, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 23 2021

04/23/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0407
#### Kratter Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Samuel Grad et al., Defendants. Samuel Grad, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Home Title Guaranty Company, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Order, entered on December 4, 1962, granting third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint for legal insufficiency, unanimously affirmed, without costs, but without prejudice to any action the third-party plaintiff may be advised to institute against the third-party defendant. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Bergan and Bastow, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Prank H. Kellerman, Appellant.

Application pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for removal of indictment denied. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
| 1.   | the Form 10-Q, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2011 (“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 7, 2011 | By:  /s/ Gary L. Martin              |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                   | Gary L. Martin, Chairman of the Board and President |
Exceptional Programs

Proposal

The Department seeks to recognize and reward gainful employme

programs with exceptional outcomes.

Questions

• What is exceptional performance? How can it be measured?• Should a mechanism to recognize or reward exceptional progra

added to the gainful employment regulation or should this occuinformally outside of the rule?

• How can exceptional performance be recognized or rewarded? 

DRAFT for discussion purposes 9.11.13
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant  To 18 U.S.C. 1350,  As Adopted Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Cyanotech Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended
March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Deanna L. Spooner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

Date: June 24, 2009

/s/ Deanna L. Spooner Deanna L. Spooner Vice PresidentFinance & Administration and CFO
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


---



QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of Alden J. Briggs, Respondent, v. Benedictus E. Lauman, Individually and as Justice of the Peace of the Town of Ashland, Appellant.

A Justice of the Peace appeals from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term which directed him to determine within a time fixed motions made by defendant addressed to the sufficiency of three separate informations charging him with violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and in the event of their denial to proceed with the trial of the issues. Upon arraignment defendant moved to dismiss the informations on which he was being prosecuted upon the ground that they were jurisdictionally defective. Decision was reserved and the proceedings adjourned. Since his term of office was about to expire the Justice by order dated December 31, 1963 directed the continuance of the criminal matters before another Justice of the same town. (Justice Ct. Act, § 477.) The parties have limited the scope of the appeal to the question whether an article 78 proceeding, as provided in subdivision 2 of section 7801 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, was properly used to compel the Magistrate to act. The judicial officer may, of course, determine the motions as his judgment dictates. The manner of their disposition is not reviewable in a proceeding such as this. *(Matter of Bloeth*v. *Marks,*20 A D 2d 372.) But duty bound he is to decide them. This becomes manifest when it is realized that an inordinate deferment of the judicial obligation would frustrate the right to a speedy trial guaranteed to an accused in a criminal case. (U. S. Const., 6th Arndt.; Civil Rights Law, § 12; Code Grim. Pro., § 8, subd. 1.) To compel the performance of a purely ministerial act is a reachable objective in a criminal matter under the mandamus provisions of article 78. *(Matter of Silver*v. *Gassman,*6 A D 2d 694, mot. for lv. to app. den. 5 N V 2d 706; *People ex rel. Prosser*v. *Martin,*306 N. Y. 710.) The time limitations imposed by Special Term do not impress us as unreasonable in the circumstances. Order affirmed, without costs. Settle order. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.
### §6105. Referenda

#### (a) Initial referendum

#### (1) In general

Within the 60-day period immediately preceding the effective date of an order issued under section 6103(b) of this title, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum among mushroom producers and importers to ascertain whether the order shall go into effect.

#### (2) Approval of order

The order shall become effective, as provided in section 6103(b) of this title, if the Secretary determines that the order has been approved by a majority of the producers and importers voting in the referendum, which majority, on average, annually produces and imports into the United States more than 50 percent of the mushrooms annually produced and imported by all those voting in the referendum.

#### (b) Succeeding referenda

#### (1) Determination concerning order

#### (A) In general

Effective 5 years after the date on which an order becomes effective under section 6103(b) of this title, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum among mushroom producers and importers to ascertain whether they favor continuation, termination, or suspension of the order.

#### (B) Request for referendum

Effective beginning 3 years after the date on which an order becomes effective under section 6103(b) of this title, the Secretary, on request of a representative group comprising 30 percent or more of the number of mushroom producers and importers, may conduct a referendum to ascertain whether producers and importers favor termination or suspension of the order.

#### (2) Suspension or termination

If, as a result of any referendum conducted under paragraph (1), the Secretary determines that suspension or termination of an order is favored by a majority of the producers and importers voting in the referendum, which majority, on average, annually produces and imports into the United States more than 50 percent of the mushrooms annually produced and imported by all those voting in the referendum, the Secretary shall—

(A) within 6 months after making such determination, suspend or terminate, as appropriate, collection of assessments under the order; and

(B) suspend or terminate, as appropriate, activities under the order in an orderly manner as soon as practicable.

#### (c) Manner

Referenda conducted pursuant to this section shall be conducted in such a manner as is determined by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XIX, §1926, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3861.)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOHN MCCLINTIC,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 371 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of January, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 11, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 11, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24A1247. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAVANNAH v. SHAWNA STOKES GADSON.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion be hereby GRANTED, and jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
#### 1252.239-93 Information and Communication Technology Accessibility.

As prescribed in 1239.203-70(b), insert the following clause:

# Information and Communication Technology Accessibility (NOV 2022)

(a) All Information and Communication Technology (ICT) supplies, information, documentation and services support developed, acquired, maintained or delivered under this contract or order must comply with the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards and Guidelines (*see* 36 CFR parts 1193 and 1194). Information about Section 508 is available at *https://www.section508.gov/.*

(b) The Section 508 accessibility standards applicable to this contract or order are identified in the Specification, Statement of Work, or Performance Work Statement. If it is determined by the Government that ICT supplies and services provided by the Contractor do not conform to the described accessibility standards in the contract, remediation of the supplies or services to the level of conformance specified in the contract will be the responsibility of the Contractor at its own expense.

(c) The Section 508 accessibility standards applicable to this contract are: ___ [*Contracting Officer inserts the applicable Section 508 accessibility standards*].

(d) In the event of a modification(s) to this contract or order, which adds new ICT supplies or services or revises the type of, or specifications for, supplies or services, the Contracting Officer may require that the Contractor submit a completed Section 508 Checklist and any other additional information necessary to assist the Government in determining that the ICT supplies or services conform to Section 508 accessibility standards. If the Government determines that ICT supplies and services provided by the Contractor do not conform to the described accessibility standards in the contract, remediation of the supplies or services to the level of conformance specified in the contract will be the responsibility of the Contractor at its own expense.

(e) If this is an indefinite-delivery type contract, a Blanket Purchase Agreement or a Basic Ordering Agreement, the task/delivery order requests that include ICT supplies or services will define the specifications and accessibility standards for the order. In those cases, the Contractor may be required to provide a completed Section 508 Checklist and any other additional information necessary to assist the Government in determining that the ICT supplies or services conform to Section 508 accessibility standards. If it is determined by the Government that ICT supplies and services provided by the Contractor do not conform to the described accessibility standards in the provided documentation, remediation of the supplies or services to the level of conformance specified in the contract will be the responsibility of the Contractor at its own expense.

(End of clause)
#### 204.7601 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Item risk* means the probability that a product, based on intended use, will introduce performance risk resulting in safety issues, mission degradation, or monetary loss.

*Price risk* means the measure of whether a proposed price for a product or service is consistent with historical prices paid for that item or service.

*Supplier risk* means the probability that an award may subject the procurement to the risk of unsuccessful performance or to supply chain risk (see 239.7301).
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-700 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-102-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
sourceTypeIDroadTypeIDroadTypeVMTFraction 11 1 11 2 0.193379314 11 3 0.190392761 11 4 0.152410311 11 50.463817613 21 1 21 2 0.178510475 21 3 0.152066048 21 4 0.434094396 21 50.235329081 31 1 31 2 0.182615108 31 3 0.195661673 31 4 0.386245781 31 50.235477438 32 1 32 2 0.182615108 32 3 0.195661673 32 4 0.386245781 32 50.235477438 41 1 41 2 0.270308988 41 3 0.164712158 41 4 0.345388044 41 5 0.21959081 42 1 42 2 0.270308988 42 3 0.164712158 42 4 0.345388044 42 5 0.21959081 43 1 43 2 0.270308988 43 3 0.164712158 43 4 0.345388044 43 5 0.21959081 51 1 51 2 0.150566537 51 3 0.183230466 51 4 0.291513049 51 50.374689949 52 1 52 2 0.150566537 52 3 0.183230466 52 4 0.291513049 52 50.374689949 53 1 53 2 0.150566537 53 3 0.183230466 53 4 0.291513049 53 50.374689949 54 154 2 0.150566537 54 3 0.183230466 54 4 0.291513049 54 50.374689949 61 1 61 2 0.4131396 61 3 0.115349617 61 4 0.321457001 61 50.150053781 62 1 62 2 0.4131396 62 3 0.115349617 62 4 0.321457001 62 50.150053781
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JENNIFER JACKIW,

Petitioner

v.

SOFT PRETZEL FRANCHISE (WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD),

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 286 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Did the Commonwealth Court err in applying Section 306(a) of the Workers’ 

Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 511, rather than Section 306(c), 77 P.S. § 

513, to determine the benefit rate for the specific loss of a body part, based 

upon its decision in Walton v. Cooper Hosiery Co., 409 A.2d 518 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1980)?
#### Heidi Reiter, Appellant, v Bruce Reiter, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 240]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated June 28, 2004, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.), dated September 30, 2005, which denied her motion, inter alia, in effect, to modify certain provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated November 19, 2003, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“A separation agreement is a contract; as such it cannot be annulled by motion” *(Darragh v Darragh,*163 AD2d 648, 649 [1990]). Thus, a challenge to a stipulation of settlement, which is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce, must be made by plenary action, and not by motion *(see Spataro v Spataro,*268 AD2d 467, 468 [2000]; *cf. Candela v Kiel,*33 AD3d 833 [2006]). Here, the plaintiff sought to modify the stipulation of settlement by motion rather than by plenary action. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied her request for relief.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Krausman, Covello and Garni, JJ., concur.
|Exhibit 12(b)                                    
|-------------------------------------------------
|                                                 
|PPL ENERGY SUPPLY, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES          
|                                                 
|COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
|                                                 
|(Millions of Dollars)                            
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|Fixed charges, as defined:                       
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|Earnings, as defined:                            
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|Add (Deduct):                                    
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|Ratio of earnings to
      fixed charges (b) (c) 
|                                                 
|Deficiency                                       
|                                                 
|                                                 
|(a)                                              
|(b)                                              
|(c)
#### 203.570 Prohibition on persons convicted of fraud or other defense-contract-related felonies.

[88 FR 6580, Jan. 31, 2023]
# Euroopan unionin C 330A/7. l

| | ISSN 1977-1053 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 330A |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 58. vuosikerta7. lokakuuta 2015 |

ISSN 1977-1053

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 330A

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

58. vuosikerta7. lokakuuta 2015

---

| Ilmoitusnumero | Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Ilmoitukset |
| | HALLINNOLLISET MENETTELYT |
| | Euroopan unionin henkilöstövalintatoimisto (EPSO) |
| 2015/C 330A/01 | Peruutusilmoitus | 1 |

Ilmoitusnumero

Sisältö

Sivu

V   Ilmoitukset

HALLINNOLLISET MENETTELYT

Euroopan unionin henkilöstövalintatoimisto (EPSO)

2015/C 330A/01

Peruutusilmoitus

1

---

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

V Ilmoitukset

HALLINNOLLISET MENETTELYT

Euroopan unionin henkilöstövalintatoimisto (EPSO)

| 7.10.2015 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | CA 330/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2015

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

CA 330/1

---

PERUUTUSILMOITUS

(2015/C 330 A/01)

Euroopan unionin virallisessa lehdessä
   (1) julkaistu ilmoitus avoimesta kilpailusta ”EPSO/AD/321/15 – Hallintovirkamiehet (AD 5/AD 7) tarkastuksen alalla” on peruutettu.

---

(1)  EUVL C 316 A, 24.9.2015, s. 1.

---
(December 12, 1978)

#### B & B Parking, Inc., Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on January 19, 1978, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Schwartz, J., at Special Term. Respondent shall recover of appellant $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur-Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Fein, Sandier and Sullivan, JJ.
#### 15.406 Documentation.