alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
212.207 Contract type. ( b ) In accordance with section 805 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Pub. L. 110-181), use of time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts for the acquisition of commercial services is authorized only for the following: ( i ) Services acquired for support of a commercial product, as described in paragraph (1) of the definition of *commercial service* at FAR 2.101 (41 U.S.C. 103a).
( ii ) Emergency repair services.
( iii ) Any other commercial services only to the extent that the head of the agency concerned approves a written determination by the contracting officer that— ( A ) The services to be acquired are commercial services as defined in paragraph (2) of the definition of *commercial service* at FAR 2.101 (41 U.S.C. 103a);
( B ) If the services to be acquired are subject to FAR 15.403-1(c)(3)(ii), the offeror of the services has submitted sufficient information in accordance with that subsection;
( C ) Such services are commonly sold to the general public through use of time-and-materials or labor-hour contracts; and
( D ) The use of a time-and-materials or labor-hour contract type is in the best interest of the Government.
[74 FR 34264, July 15, 2009, as amended at 74 FR 35826, July 21, 2009; 76 FR 21812, Apr. 19, 2011; 76 FR 58136, Sept. 20, 2011; 87 FR 15817, Mar. 18, 2022; 88 FR 6582, Jan. 31, 2023; 89 FR 66285, Aug. 15, 2024]
#### 15.502 Applicability.

This subpart applies to competitive proposals, as described in 6.102(b), and a combination of competitive procedures, as described in 6.102(c). The procedures in 15.504, 15.506, 15.507, 15.508, and 15.509, with reasonable modification, should be followed for sole source acquisitions and acquisitions described in 6.102(d)(1) and (2).
Certification of Eligibility for Federal Assistance in Certain Programs

I understand that 34 C.F.R. 75.60, 75.61, and 75.62 require that I make specific certifications of eligibility to the U.S. Department of 

Education (ED) as a condition of applying for Federal funds in certain programs and that these requirements are in addition to any other 

eligibility requirements that ED imposes under program regulations. Under 34 C.F.R. 75.60 – 75.62:

I. I certify that:

A. I do not owe a debt, or I am current in repaying a debt, or I am not in default (as that term is used at 34 C.F.R. Part 668) on 

a debt:

1. To the Federal Government under a nonprocurement transaction (e.g., a previous loan, scholarship, grant, or 

cooperative agreement); or

2. For a fellowship, scholarship, stipend, discretionary grant, or loan in any program of ED that is 

subject to 34 C.F.R. 75.60, 75.61, and 75.62.

OR

B. I have made arrangements satisfactory to ED to repay a debt as described in A.1. or A.2. (above) on which I had not been 

current in repaying or on which I was in default (as that term is used in 34 CFR Part 668).

II. I certify also that I have not been declared by a judge, as a condition of sentencing under section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse 

Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 862), ineligible to receive Federal assistance for the period of this requestedfunding.

I understand that providing a false certification to any of the statements above makes me liable for repayment to ED for funds received on 

the basis of this certification, for civil penalties, and for criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

(Signature) (Date)

(Typed or Printed Name)

Name or number of ED program under which this certification is being made:

ED 80-0016 (Revised 04/2020)
1737 King Street  Suite 390  Alexandria,VA 22314  tel 571.970.3400  fx 571.970.3271 Comments from Richard Krock
Technical Director The Vinyl Institute To the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Re: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants For Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and Copolymers Production

June 7 & 9, 2011

Thank you for this opportunity to address EPA’s proposed Maximum Achievable Control Technology regulations for PVC production facilities. I am Rich Krock, technical director for the Vinyl Institute, which is a U.S. based trade association comprised of leading p roducers of PVC resins, and some associated additive suppliers and downstream product manufacturers. The VI has been in existence since 1982. One of our key missions is to advocate for the responsible manufacture of PVC resins.

The VI thanks the EPA fo r the opportunity to provide some broad

- based comments on this important rulemaking activity. The Vinyl Institute agrees that the PVC MACT rule is overdue and industry supports an update of the regulatory requirements. We look forward to working cooperat ively with Agency staff on the development of a final rule that meets Agency requirements and allows for continued growth of our industry.

The proposed rule is step

- change from the current regulatory regime, and member companies have started a comprehensiv e review of the requirements and background documents. The VI is in the process of reviewing proposal

- related information in anticipation of formulating and submitting meaningful and detailed comments on the proposal.1737 King Street  Suite 390  Alexandria,VA 22314  tel 571.970.3400  fx 571.970.3271 Based on our preliminary review of th e docket materials and the proposal, there are a few points we wish to highlight. The Vinyl Institute believes that the Agency’s selection of emission points and evaluation of HAPs moves in the right direction, and we look forward to working with the Agen cy on these provisions. The VI recommends that more consideration be given to the variability of emissions from the wide

- array of products that the industry
manufactures

– over one hundred different resins, and seasonal production volumes. Also, EPA should consider the need for flexibility in achieving

lower limits. The VI would appreciate the opportunity to assist Agency staff in fully understanding this topic, as it is key to the development of a technically sound rule.

As previously mentioned, the VI will submit substantial comments to the Agency regarding the proposal.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today

– we look forward to working with EPA on this activity.
#### Rita Howell et al., Respondents, v. Bee Lines, Inc., et al., Appellants.

In an action by the plaintiff wife, who was a passenger in a bus (owned by the corporate defendant and operated by the individual defendant), to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged sudden stop of the bus in order to avoid collision with a truck emerging from a side street, and by her husband to recover damages for loss of his wife’s services and for medical expenses, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 17,1961 upon the oral decision of the court in favor of the plaintiffs, after a nonjury trial. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to defendants to abide the event. The decision as rendered by the court is an inadequate basis for the judgment. The decision contains no facts, but only the barest conclusions. In a nonjury case, if the defendant is to be cast in damages the decision should state the essential or basic facts on which his liability is founded (Civ. Prac. Act, § 440). While the form is immaterial, a substantial factual basis for the liability must be set forth. In any event, upon the proof in this record we believe the amounts awarded to the respective plaintiffs to be excessive. In the interests of justice a new trial should be had. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
1

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Administrative Index for

NPRM action EPA-R09-OAR-2010-1078

Revision to the South Coast Portion of the California Implementation Plan, 

CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking System

Docket Index 

Category/ Item Number

I. SIP Submittal Documents

 SIP submittal letter from CARB dated September 10, 2010 I-A

 Revision to the SIP Preamble I-B

 CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking System I-C

 Air Quality Demonstration: SIP Revision for CPV Sentinel Energy Project I-D

II. Federal Register Notices

 61 FR 64291 II-A

III. Other Relevant Documents

 Submittal Completeness Letter dated October 27, 2010 III-A

 Technical Support Document for NPRM EPA-R09-OAR-2010-1078 III-B

IV. EPA Rulemaking Documents

 Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Pre-publication Version IV-A

Notes:

1. All documents are available on internet at Regulations.gov under Docket # EPA-R09-OAR-2010-

1078.

2. Copies of the listed documents are located at EPA Region 9 offices.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KAI XU,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-73487

Agency No. A089-971-330

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 25, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Kai Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

NOV 1 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-73487

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards 

governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, 

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny in part 

and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on inconsistencies as to Xu’s employment in China and his reason for not 

requiring medical treatment. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination 

supported under the totality of circumstances). Xu’s explanations to the agency do

not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Xu’s contention that the agency did not consider evidence is not supported by the 

record. In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Xu’s asylum and 

withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 

(9th Cir. 2003).

Xu’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the 

agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the 

conclusion that it is more likely than not Xu would be tortured if returned to China. 

See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
3 14-73487

We do not reach Xu’s due process contentions regarding the IJ because he 

did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 

2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Paul Dozier, Respondent, v. Republic Steel Corporation, Appellant, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Claimant has tuberculosis and the board has attributed this, as an occupational disease, to the employment. He was not exposed to tuberculosis in the work and may have contracted the disease from his wife; but he was exposed in the employment to free silica for more than 60 days between 1946 and 1954 and upon surgical examination of lung tissue taken in connection with treatment of tuberculosis evidence of silicate inhalation was found from which a diagnosis of silicosis was made. There is medical opinion that the silicosis was *“*a contributing factor in the disability ” and that *“*the presence of silicosis unfavorably affects the course of tuberculosis or renders the individual more susceptible to contracting tuberculosis.” The medical proof thus sustains the decision. Atward unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.
Exhibit
      32(d)







**CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**




**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Carolina Power & Light
      Company (the “Company”) for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Peter M. Scott III, Executive Vice President and 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:




(1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.











/s/
      Peter M. Scott III


Peter
      M.
      Scott III


Executive
      Vice President and


Chief
      Financial Officer


November
      3, 2006








This
      certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
      for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 93 

To allow women greater access to safe and effective contraception. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2017 

Mrs. ERNST (for herself, Mr. GARDNER, and Mr. HELLER) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To allow women greater access to safe and effective 

contraception. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Allowing Greater Ac5 cess to Safe and Effective Contraception Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPLICATIONS FOR NON-PRESCRIPTION CONTRA7 CEPTIVE DRUGS. 

8 (a) PRIORITY REVIEW OF APPLICATION.—The Sec9 retary of Health and Human Services (referred to in this 

10 section as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall give priority review to 

11 any supplemental application submitted under section 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 93 IS

1 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 

2 U.S.C. 355(b)) for a contraceptive drug, provided that— 

3 (1) the supplemental application is with respect 

4 to a drug intended for routine use; and 

5 (2) if the supplemental application is approved, 

6 with respect to individuals aged 18 and older, such 

7 drug would not be subject to section 503(b)(1) of 

8 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 

9 U.S.C. 353(b)(1)). 

10 (b) FEE WAIVER.—The Secretary shall waive the fee 

11 under section 736(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

12 Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379h(a)(1)) with respect to a 

13 supplemental application that receives priority review 

14 under subsection (a). 

15 (c) OVER-THE-COUNTER AVAILABILITY.—Notwith16 standing any other provision of law, with respect to indi17 viduals under age 18, a contraceptive drug that is eligible 

18 for priority review under subsection (a) shall be subject 

19 to section 503(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos20 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 353(b)(1)). 

21 SEC. 3. EMPOWERING WOMEN TO MAKE THEIR OWN 

22 HEALTH DECISIONS. 

23 (a) NO LIMITATIONS BASED ON WHETHER A DRUG

24 IS PRESCRIBED.—Section 9003 of the Patient Protection 

25 and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), and the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 93 IS

1 amendments made by such section, are repealed, and the 

2 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such 

3 section, and amendments, had never been enacted. 

4 (b) NO LIMITATIONS ON HEALTH FSAS.—Sections 

5 9005 and 10902 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

6 Care Act (Public Law 111–148) and section 1403 of the 

7 Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 

8 (Public Law 111–152), and the amendments made by 

9 such sections, are repealed, and the Internal Revenue 

10 Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such sections, and 

11 amendments, had never been enacted. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-59-2020]

On September 21, 2020, OFS Fitel, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 26, in Carrollton, Georgia.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (85 FR 61719-619720, September 30, 2020). On January 19, 2021, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that further review of part of the proposed activity is warranted. The FTZ Board authorized the production activity described in the notification on a limited basis, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.14, and further subject to restrictions requiring that foreign-status optical fiber and optical bundles be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) and that foreign-status standard waterblock and non-waterblock aramid yarn be admitted to the zone in domestic/duty paid status (19 CFR 146.43).                

Dated: January 19, 2021.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-01534 Filed 1-22-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
**Exhibit      32.0**

**Written      Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial      Officer**

**Pursuant      to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

| (1)   | The                accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the                quarter                ended December 1, 2007, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents,                in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Delbert Crew, Appellant.

[831 NYS2d 722]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), rendered March 16, 2006, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
#### Armando E. Teto, Respondent, v. Fleet Chevrolet Corp. et al., Appellants.

Order, entered on June 18, 1964, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution granted, with $10 costs. This action to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution was commenced in March, 1961, and issue was joined in May, 1961. An examination before trial scheduled to be held in June, 1961, was adjourned without date. There were no further proceedings in the action until the filing of a note of issue in January, 1964. Special Term, when the motion was first submitted, correctly held that, upon the affidavits and papers before the court, *“*The serving and filing of a note of issue after a period of almost three years, where the plaintiff has done practically nothing to prosecute the action, cannot relieve or excuse his delay in doing so (see *Sortino*v. *Fisher*[20 A D 2d 25, 30-31]) * * * the contention of counsel that he has been misled by defendants’ counsel is not sufficient to cause this motion to be denied.” It was an abuse of discretion, however, for Special Term to thereafter allow reargument on the basis of the 1964 amendment to CPLR 3216 (L. 1964, ch. 974) and, on reconsideration, to deny the motion to dismiss. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bastow, JJ.