alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
13.301 Governmentwide commercial purchase card. ( a ) Except as provided in 32.1108(b)(2), the Governmentwide commercial purchase card is authorized for use in making and/or paying for purchases of supplies, services, or construction. The Governmentwide commercial purchase card may be used by contracting officers and other individuals designated in accordance with 1.603-3. The card may be used only for purchases that are otherwise authorized by law or regulation.
( b ) Agencies using the Governmentwide commercial purchase card shall establish procedures for use and control of the card that comply with the Treasury Financial Manual for Guidance of Departments and Agencies (TFM 4-4500) and that are consistent with the terms and conditions of the current GSA credit card contract. Agency procedures should not limit the use of the Governmentwide commercial purchase card to micro-purchases. Agency procedures should encourage use of the card in greater dollar amounts by contracting officers to place orders and to pay for purchases against contracts established under part 8 procedures, when authorized; and to place orders and/or make payment under other contractual instruments, when agreed to by the contractor. See 32.1110(d) for instructions for use of the appropriate clause when payment under a written contract will be made through use of the card.
( c ) The Governmentwide commercial purchase card may be used to— ( 1 ) Make micro-purchases;
( 2 ) Place a task or delivery order (if authorized in the basic contract, basic ordering agreement, or blanket purchase agreement); or
( 3 ) Make payments, when the contractor agrees to accept payment by the card (but see 32.1108(b)(2)).
[62 FR 64917, Dec. 9, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 10539, Mar. 4, 1999; 67 FR 6120, Feb. 8, 2002; 74 FR 65604, Dec. 10, 2009]
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 28, 2011

h1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

143272

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143272 COA: 299095 Wayne CC: 02-002648 SHERMAN WAGNER, a/k/a BOBBY WAGNER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 12, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### MOORE *v.*MOORE & COCHRAN.

A verdict and judgment obtained by fraud practiced on the defendant may be set aside at the term of the court at which the verdict and judgment were entered, where the movant makes it appear that he was prevented by the fraud of the prevailing party from making his defense, that he was not'in laches, has a meritorious defense, and announces ready for an instant trial.

(o) The testimony objected to tended to support the allegations of the motion.

(5) The court did not abuse his discretion in vacating the verdict and judgment, and allowing the defendant to plead to the merits.

March 11, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge J. B. Park. Morgan superior court. April 30, 1912.

*M. G. Few,*for plaintiff.

*S. H. Sibley*and *Williford & Lambert,*for defendant.

Evans, P. J.

This is a proceeding to vacate a verdict and judgment alleged to bave been obtained by fraud practiced on tbe defendant. The application to set aside the verdict and judgment was made at the term of the court at which they were entered; and the movant alleged that the verdict and judgment were obtained by the fraud of the plaintiff, that the movant was not in laches and had a meritorious defense, and he announced ready for an instant trial. The proceeding conformed to that approved in *Ford*v. *Clarke,*129 *Ga.*293 (58 S. E. 818). The verdict and judgment in question were rendered in.favor of the plaintiff, who was the son of a co-defendant sued as a partner with the movant. Objection was made to certain testimony tending to show that the father of the plain*598tiff, in the latter’s presence, and with his implied consent, promised the defendant that the action would be withdrawn and would not be further pressed, and for that' reason the movant did not file his defense; that neither the defendant nor the partnership of which he was a member was indebted to the plaintiff in any amount; that the books of the partnership, kept by the plaintiff, showed no indebtedness to the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff -was indebted to the partnership. Testimony of this character was admissible, and the objection thereto, on the ground of irrelevancy, was properly overruled. There was no error in setting aside the verdict and judgment and reinstating the case, and in allowing the defendant to plead, on the showing made to the court.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beck, J., absent. The other Justices concur.*
Fiscal Year 2004 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - HAWAII

Maximum Required

Expenditures For 

Choice-Related Maximum Per-Child

Transportation Expenditure For

FY 2004 Title I And Supplemental Supplemental

LEA ID District Allocation* Educational Services** Educational Services***

1500001 Hawaii County 8,068,888 1,613,778 1,630.08

1500003 Honolulu County 29,744,545 5,948,909 1,762.64

1500005 Kalawao County 0 0 0.00

1500007 Kauai County 1,980,246 396,049 1,400.46

1500009 Maui County 3,500,403 700,081 1,282.20

1599999 PART D SUBPART 2 0 0 0.00

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the Department's calculations. States also are permitted to reserve up to 1 percent of allocations for administration and generally must

 reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2004 (up from 2 percent in previous years) for school improvement activities. These adjustments will reduce the

 actual amounts available under all three columns of the table.

** An LEA must use up to an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation (the “20-percent reservation”) received from the State 

 to cover choice-related transportation costs for students who exercise a choice option and to pay for supplemental educational services for

 students whose parents request such services. The 20-percent reservation may include Title I, Part A funds or funding from other Federal,

 State, local, and private sources. The amount shown in this column is the Department’s estimate of the amount that affected LEAs - those

 with schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring - may have to spend to meet this requirement. Actual 

 expenditures will depend on such factors as the number of students exercising a choice option or receiving supplemental educational services and

 the costs of satisfying these requests. An LEA has discretion to determine the allocation of these funds between choice-related transportation

 and supplemental educational services, except that it must spend at least one-quarter of the 20-percent reservation - or an amount equal to

 5 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation - on each activity if there is demand for both from students and their parents.

*** An LEA that must arrange for supplemental educational services is required to pay, for each child receiving services, the lesser of the actual cost

 of the services or an amount equal to the LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation received from the State divided by the number of poor students in the

 LEA, as determined by estimates produced by the US Bureau of the Census. Thus the amount shown in this column reflects the statutory “cap”

 on per-child expenditures for supplemental educational services.
1309.202 Policy. ( a ) The designee authorized to establish qualification requirements is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
( b ) The designee authorized to waive the requirements of FAR 9.202 (a)(1)(ii) through (4) for up to 2 years with respect to the item subject to the qualification requirement is set forth in CAM 1301.70. This waiver authority does not apply to the qualification requirements contained in a qualified product list, qualified manufacturer list, or qualification bidders list.
( c ) The designee authorized to approve proceeding with a procurement, rather than delay the award in order to provide a potential offeror an opportunity to demonstrate its ability to meet the standards specified in the qualifications, is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

HEARTLAND WOOD PRODUCTS, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

TACONY CORPORATION, )

) No. 12 C 1515

Defendant/Third-Party )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JOHN SMITH, individually, )

)

Third-Party Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Third Party Defendant John Smith (“Smith”) has filed his

Answer to the Third Party Complaint brought against him by

defendant Tacony Corporation (“Tacony”). This memorandum order

is issued sua sponte because of some problematic aspects of that

responsive pleading.

To begin with, Answer ¶1 denies that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000. But the Complaint against Tacony

that gives rise to its claim over against Smith asserts in its

Count I that over $312,000 is at issue. Under the circumstances,

Smith must supplement his Answer with something substantive--not

just limited to the present conclusory denial.

That is equally true as to Smith’s denial that this judicial

district is a proper situs for venue purposes (Answer ¶5). 

Smith’s Answer ¶4 admits that he resides in this district and was

Case: 1:12-cv-01515 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:84
president of a now-dissolved corporation that assertedly engaged

in the conduct on which the Third Party Complaint is based.

Finally, Answer ¶¶7 and 11 do not conform to the standard

clearly set out in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(5) for a disclaimer--see

App’x ¶1 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D.

276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Those paragraphs also need

correction.

Accordingly Smith’s counsel is sent back to the drawing

board to file an amendment to his Answer in the respects

identified in this memorandum order. That amendment must be

filed on or before July 20, 2012, failing which the corresponding

allegations of the Third Party Complaint will be deemed to have

been admitted.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 10, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-01515 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:85
EXHIBIT 21


Subsidiaries of UST Corp.(*)

        USTrust
        United States Trust Company
        JSA Financial Corporation
        UST Leasing Corporation (**)
        UST Securities Corp. (**)
        Mosaic Corp.
        UST Capital Corp. (***)
        USTrust Securities Corp. (****)

(*)     Each  of  the  above  subsidiaries  of  UST  Corp.  is  a  Massachusetts
        Corporation  or  trust  company  and  each of the  above  entities  does
        business  only under its  corporate  name with the exception of USTrust,
        which does business  under the name  "USTrust  Bank" as well as the name
        "USTrust."  The  foregoing  list does not  include the names of inactive
        subsidiaries  or the names of  subsidiaries  of banking  entities  which
        subsidiaries have been organized to hold foreclosed  property,  or other
        assets  held in  satisfaction  of  debts  previously  contracted  by the
        applicable banking entity.

(**)    Wholly-owned by USTrust

(***)   Wholly-owned by United States Trust Company

(****)  Organized  as a  wholly-owned  subsidiary  of UST  Securities  Corp.  on
        February 24, 1997.


As of January 3, 1997, the following additional companies became subsidiaries of
the Company:

The Co-operative Bank of Concord
The Braintree Savings Bank
Walden Financial Corp.
Builders Collaborative, Inc.
Braintree Savings Corporation
Walden Securities Corporation, Inc.
Bra-Prop Corporation
Braintree Securities Corp.
#### 1312.302 Tailoring of provisions and clauses for the acquisition of commercial items.

The authority for approving a request for waiver to tailor a clause, or otherwise include any additional terms or conditions in a solicitation or contract in a manner that is inconsistent with customary commercial practice, is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
#### 1852.246-73 Human space flight item.

As prescribed in 1846.370, insert the following clause:

# Human Space Flight Item (MAR 1997)

The Contractor shall include the following statement in all subcontracts and purchase orders placed by it in support of this contract, without exception as to amount or subcontract level:

“FOR USE IN HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT; MATERIALS, MANUFACTURING, AND WORKMANSHIP OF HIGHEST QUALITY STANDARDS ARE ESSENTIAL TO ASTRONAUT SAFETY.

IF YOU ARE ABLE TO SUPPLY THE DESIRED ITEM WITH A HIGHER QUALITY THAN THAT OF THE ITEMS SPECIFIED OR PROPOSED, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO BRING THIS FACT TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE PURCHASER.”

(End of clause)

[62 FR 14035, Mar. 25, 1997, as amended at 81 FR 24501, Apr. 26, 2016]
#### 16.202-1 Description.

A firm-fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor's cost experience in performing the contract. This contract type places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss. It provides maximum incentive for the contractor to control costs and perform effectively and imposes a minimum administrative burden upon the contracting parties. The contracting officer may use a firm-fixed-price contract in conjunction with an award-fee incentive (see 16.404) and performance or delivery incentives (see 16.402-2 and 16.402-3) when the award fee or incentive is based solely on factors other than cost. The contract type remains firm-fixed-price when used with these incentives.

[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 68 FR 13201, Mar. 18, 2003]
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.2 INDEPENDENT RESERVOIR ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS CONSENT We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-41035, No. 333-101084 and No. 333-101085 on Form S-8, of Prima Energy
Corporation of our reports dated February 23, 2004, February 24, 2004, February
25, 2004, and February 27, 2004 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Prima Energy Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2003. NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:
    /s/  Fredrick D. SewellFredrick D. SewellChairman and Chief Executive Officer Dallas, Texas
March 11, 2004
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                                                 

                              DUPLEX PRODUCTS INC.
                 EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                  (Unaudited)

                                                    
<TABLE>                                             
<CAPTION>                                           
                                                         First quarter ended
                                                      January 27,   January 28,
(In thousands, except per share data)                       1996          1995
                                                       ----------   ----------  
   
<S>                                                        <C>          <C>
Weighted average number of common shares                          
   outstanding used in computing earnings per share        7,485        7,538
                                                                  
Primary and fully diluted earnings per share               $0.09        $0.09
</TABLE>
#### 15.407 Special cost or pricing areas.
#### WILLIAMS v. HOLSCLAW

No. 28PA98

Case below: 128 N.C.App. 205

Petition by unnamed defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 March 1998.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

564 

CAF 11-00659 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF JAZIEL M. 

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

GENESEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

NICOLE R., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM, PLLC, ROCHESTER (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

CHARLES N. ZAMBITO, COUNTY ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (PAULA A. CAMPBELL OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

JACQUELINE M. GRASSO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BATAVIA, FOR JAZIEL M. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R.

Adams, J.), entered March 1, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family

Court Act article 10. The order adjudged that respondent had

neglected the subject child and placed respondent under the

supervision of petitioner. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Matter of Romeo M. (___ AD3d ___ [Apr. 20,

2012]). 

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
p. 1 

Bio AccuTech Inc. 

19 Wilson Way North 

West Windsor, NJ 08550 

Tel : 609-716-9821 Fax : 609-716-9822 

February 2, 2011 

Document Control Officer (DCO) (7405 M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C . 20460-001 

1E1 IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIII IIII IIII 

a 

33 3 1'J~ 1 

I" r.~F 1 

~ i- t ! t_ 1 

{ I FEB 15 

AT'1 N: '1'SCA section 4 

Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-00531 

Re: Application for Exemption, Section 4 Test Rule, Benzophenone CAS No. #119-61-9 

Testing of Certain High Volume Chemicals, Federal Register, January 7, 2011 (Volume 

76, Number 5) 40 CFR part 9 and 799 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Bio AccuTech Inc submits this application for exemption from the requirements for testing 

Benzophenone CAS No. #119-61-9 under TSCA Section 4 Test Rule, Testing of Certain High 

Volume Chemicals, as noted above. 

As part of our exemption application we are providing the following information: 

(A) The identity of the test rule, the chemical identity, and the CAS No. of the test 

substance on which the application is based. 

Testing of Certain High Volume Chemicals, Federal Register, January 7, 2011 (Volume 

76, Number 5) 40 CFR part 9 and 799 Benzophenone CAS No. #119-61-9. 

(B) `we are rcqueAiilg an exemption frotn ail iesiiiig requirernernt5 lor Benzoplletioiie under 

40 CFR 790 .87 the test data is unnecessarily burdensome for our small 

import business located in New Jersey . Further, we believe that this material is already 

being sponsored for testing (per above) by another party. Our company was informed 

that a testing consortium will be formed and we will be joining the testing consortium, 

which will be conducting testing on this materiai . Therefore, we also write to request to 

join in the efforts of the testing consortium. 

(C) Name, address, and telephone number of applicant. 

Fiio AccuTech Inc. 

19 Wilson Way North 

West Windsor, NJ 08550 

(D) Name, address, and telephone number of appropriate individual to contact for further 

information. 

Michael Yan 

General Manager CONTAINS N0 CBI Bio AccuTech Inc . 

6r'r'T- 200'7-053/ 
19 Wilson Way North 

West Windsor, NJ 08550 

(609) 716-9821 

As per 40 CFR 790.99, Bio AccuTech Inc . provides our Statement of financial responsibility per 

our application for exemption: 

I (Bio AccuTech Inc.) understand that if this application is granted before the reimbursement 

period described in section 4(c)(3)(B) of TSCA expires, Bio AccuTech Inc. must pay fair and 

equitable reimbursement to the person or persons who incurred or shared in the costs of 

complying with the requirement to submit data and upon whose data the granting of my 

application was based. 

Thank you very much for your time. If you have any further questions or require additional 

information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (609) 716-9821 or by email at 

michaelyan@bioaccutech .com.
1 

Memorandum

To: U.S. Department of Education 

From: Amanda Martinez and Carolyn Fast 

Date: February 14, 2022 

Re: Issue Paper 4: Financial Responsibility - Proposed Language 

The above-listed negotiators submit this proposed language for your review: 

SUBPART L - FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

* * * 

§ 668.171 General. 

(d) Discretionary triggering events. The Secretary may determine that an institution is not able to 

meet its financial or administrative obligations under paragraph (b)(3)(iiivi) of this section if any 

of the following events is likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the 

institution - 

* * * 

(45) Low annual completion High annual dropout rates. As calculated by the Secretary, the 

institution has high annual dropout ratesannual completion rates among all students, among 

students receiving Pell grants, or among students in any major race or ethnic group, that fall 

within the lowest 10% of reported completion rates for such group;

Comment: We suggest that in addition to including either dropout rates or completion rates as a 

discretionary trigger, the Department should include rates for at-risk groups such as Pell grant 

recipients. A recent report found that low completion rates, as well as low completion rates for 

Pell recipients, are predictive of elements of poor financial health for institutions. See Lessons 

from a Risk-Based Oversight Model Designed to Protect Students and Taxpayers, at p. 22.

(5) Interim reporting. For an institution required to provide additional financial reporting to the 

Department due to a failure to meet the financial responsibility standards in Subpart L, or due to 

a change in ownership, or in response to a request from the Department for additional financial 

reporting, there are negative cash flows, failure of other liquidation ratios, cash flows that 

significantly miss the projections submitted to the Department, withdrawal rates that increase 

significantly, or other indicators of a material change in the financial condition of the institution;

Comment: The added language is intended to make it clear that the Department may request 

additional financial reporting before a school has been deemed to have failed to meet financial 

responsibility standards. This is important to ensure that the Department can take action before 

it is too late to implement measures to protect students and taxpayers.
----

|  | 1. | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2013 (“accompanied report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | The information contained in the accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |
|--|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August 5, 2013 | By:    | /s/ Joseph B. Armes                                  |
|----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   | Joseph B. ArmesPresident and Chief Executive Officer |

----