alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1832.1005 Contract clauses. (NASA supplements paragraph (a)) ( a ) If the contract is for launch services, the contracting officer shall delete paragraph (f) of the clause at FAR 52.232-32 in accordance with 1832.1009.
[61 FR 55768, Oct. 29, 1996, as amended at 65 FR 31103, May 16, 2000; 69 FR 35271, June 24, 2004]
EXHIBIT 10(s)(i)

                                                      December 31, 1996
TO: Eric Fischer

FR: Asset Management Principals

RE: Re-allocation of Formula Payment Shares

Please  accept  this  memorandum  as  notification  that  at a  meeting  of  the
principals on December 26, 1996, a  supermajority,  as provided in our "unifying
Agreement" voted to re-allocate shares as follows:

         Principal         Current Share    New Share

         Domenic Colasacco     25%             25%
         Robert Lincoln        15%             15%
         Stephen Moody         10%             12.5%
         Lucia Santini          5%              5%

         Robert Zevin          20%             12.5%

         Unallocated           25%             30%

We acknowledge the above vote.


/s/ Domenic Colasacco        /s/ Robert Lincoln       /s/ Stephen Moody
---------------------        ------------------       -----------------
Domenic Colasacco            Robert Lincoln           Stephen Moody


/s/ Robert Zevin             /s/ Lucia Santini
---------------------        ------------------
Robert Zevin                 Lucia Santini
#### Erwine Laverne et al., Appellants, v. Incorporated Village of Laurel Hollow et al., Respondents. Erwine Laverne et al., Appellants, v. Edward J. Meehan, Individually and as Police Sergeant of the Incorporated Village of Laurel Hollow, Respondent.

In two actions to recover damages for conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their trade secrets and property rights, and for other relief, the three plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 1, 1964, which: (a) denied unconditionally the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as to the two plaintiffs Estelle Laverne and Laverne, Inc.; (b) denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as to the plaintiff Erwine Laverne on condition that he shall purge himself of his disobedience of the prior court order, entered May 7, 1964, by appearing for pretrial examination on a specified date and answering questions; and (e) directed that in the event he fails to appear for such examination or persists in claiming the privilege against self incrimination, his complaint, upon notice to the court and upon filing proof of such default or conduct, shall be dismissed on the ground of his willful disobedience of said prior order and of the order appealed from. On appeal by plaintiff Erwine Laverne: Order, insofar as it affects said plaintiff, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements *827
      *(Levine*v. *Bornstein,*7 A D 2d 995, affd. 6 N Y 2d 892; *Hazlett*v. *Bullis,*12 A D 2d 784). The said plaintiff Envine Laverne may purge himself of his said disobedience by appearing for the pretrial examination and properly answering all relevant questions on a date to be fixed in a 10-day written notice served by defendants on his attorneys, or on any other date mutually stipulated in writing. Appeal by plaintiffs Estelle Laverne and Laverne, Inc. .dismissed, without costs. As to these two plaintiffs the order appealed from denied unconditionally the defendants’ motion; hence, such plaintiffs are not parties aggrieved and have no right of appeal (ef. CPLR 5511). (For prior related appeals, see *Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow*v. *Laverne Originals,*283 App. Div. 785, affd. 307 N. Y. 784; *People*v. *Laverne,*14 N Y 2d 304.) Beldock, P. J., Iileinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
U
.S

. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 

### DEC 

## 232015
Mr. Douglas M
. Lane Director, Commercial Airplanes The Boeing Company PO Box 3707 Seattle, Washington 98124-2207 Dear Mr. Lane: Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue , S.W

. Renton , Washington 98057-3356

We have received your petition letter dated November 18, 2015 , requesting exemption from § 25.981(a)(3) , Amendment 25-125, ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations. This exemption, ifgranted, would provide certain relieffrom the requirements offuel tank structural lightning protection for the Boeing 777-9 model airplane. This request was posted to the Department ofTransportation's Federal Docket Management System (at Regulations
.gov) on December 16,2015, and has been assigned Docket No. FAA-2015-8006. We are in the process ofreviewing your request, and will contact you if we need additional information. A summary of your petition will be published in the Federal Register for public comment, in accordance with the requirements of§ 11.85. You will be advised ofthe agency's decision on your petition as soon as possible. Ifyou have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please contact Mike Dostert at (425) 227-2132 , or by e-mail at Mike.Dostert@FAA.gov
. Sincerely,



# J~~-~ Deana M. Stedman Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service
#### PAULLING *vs.*MARSHALL AND WIFE.

[APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT OF NON-SUIT, TAKEN IN CONSEQUENCE OF RULING OF COURT ON PLEADINGS. ]

*Nonsuit, appeal from judgment of; when will not he set aside.*— Where tho defendant demurs to the plaintiffs complaint, and it is sustained by the court, and the plaintiff excepts to the decision of the court, and thereupon suffers a non-suit, such a non-suit must be regarded as a voluntary, and not a necessary non-suit, and such a non-suit will not be set aside, on an appeal under section 2759, Revised Code. That section only applies to cases where it is necessary to make the decision of the court a part of the record, by bill of exceptions. By such a non-suit the plaintiff is out of court, and must begin again.

Appeal from Circuit Court of Perry.

Tried before Hon. Milton J. Sarpcld.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

W. B. Modawell, for appellant.

Brooks & Bragg, *contra.*

PECK, C. J.

The appellees, in the court below, demurred to appellant’s complaint, -which being sustained, appellant excepted to the decision of the court, and thereupon took a non-suit, and appeals to this court, under section 2759, Revised Code, to have the decision of the court below revised and the non-suit set aside.

We had occasion to construe said section at the present term, in the case of *Darden v. James.*In that case we held, that the right to appeal to this court to have a non-suit set aside, is given by said section, and as the right depended wholly upon said section, it was to be confined and limited to cases clearly within its purview and meaning; that said section did not apply to decisions of the court made on demurrers to the pleadings, but only to such decisions as are necessarily made a part of the record by a *271bill of exceptions; and, as a bill of exceptions is never necessary to enable the plaintiff to revise the decision of the court, sustaining a demurrer to Ms complaint, such a decision did not authorize him, under said section, to suffer a non-suit, and appeal to this court to have the same set aside.

We remain satisfied with the construction of said section then given. Without doing violence to the plain meaning of said section, no case can be embraced by it where the decision to be revised necessarily forms a- part of the record, .without a bill of exceptions, and in such a case it can never be said to be necessary for the plaintiff to suffer a non-suit; and if he takes a non-suit, when it is not necessary for him to do so, it must be regarded as a voluntary, and not a necessary, non-suit, and he is thereby out of court, and must begin again. ■

Let the appeal be dismissed.
AO 440 (Rev. 05/00) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORIHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE

Amie Simpson,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bank ofAmerica, N.A., successor by merger to BAC

Home Loans Servicing, LP; Seterus, Inc.; and John Doe,

Defendants.

TO: (Name and address of Defendant)

CASE NUMBER:

ASSIGNED JUDGE:

DESIGNATED

MAGISTRATE JUDGE:

12-cv-llOl

Judge Matthew F. Kennelly

Magistrate Judge Susan Cox

Bank ofAmerica, N.A., successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

135 S. LaSalle Street

Chicago, IL 60603

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAlNTIFF'S ATTORNEY (n'm' and address)

Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC

120 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60603

21

an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within days after service ofthis

summons upon you, exclusive ofthe day ofservice. Ifyou fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the

relief demanded in the complaint. You must also file your answer with the Clerk ofthis Court within a reasonable period oftime

after service.Thom

NOTE: When the print diaiogue

box appears, be sure to uncheck

the Annotations option.

THOMAS G. BRUTON, CLERK

----+!-lOMAS G. BRUTON, CLERK

(By) D1T // "J/(;)

J('":f~

(By) DEPUTY CLERK

DATE

February 16,2012

DATE

Case: 1:12-cv-01101 Document #: 9 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:70
AO 440 (Rev 05/00) Summons in a Civil Action

RETURN OF SERVICE

Service of the Summons and complaint was made by m~1) DATE ;)/16/1;}..

NAME OF SERVER (PRINT)A 1rJir' ;b TITLE

Y~a'1 .&6 rlre.-II!,,~I

Check one bal; below to indicate appropriate '!iethodofservice

~Sel'vcd personally upon the defendant. Place where served: t56' S. L.,.)4 !If, sf.

Ci~&,.-:;:L 606l>3

D Left copies thereof at the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person ofsuitable age and

discretion then residing therein.

Name of person with whom the summons and complaint were left:

D Returned unexecuted:

D Other (spcciJY):

STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES

RAVEL ISERVICES

rO

TAL

DECLARATION OF SERVER

I declare under penalty ofpeIjury under the laws ofthe United States of America that the foregoing information

contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true and correct.

Executed on ?-IIi};-;&,

Date· , , .

SignatureGj(;Ver ~N

t::J. () S. 1,M II? 5-1. 51t.1~06 cj,;fA~'~1 12 60603

Address ofServer

(I) As to who may serve a summons see Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of CIVIl Procedure.

Case: 1:12-cv-01101 Document #: 9 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:71
#### 1852.232-81 Contract funding.

As prescribed in 1832.705-270(b), insert the following clause:

# Contract Funding (JUN 1990)

(a) For purposes of payment of cost, exclusive of fee, in accordance with the Limitation of Funds clause, the total amount allotted by the Government to this contract is $____________. This allotment is for [Insert applicable item number(s), task(s), or work description] __________ and covers the following estimated period of performance: __________.

(b) An additional amount of $____________ is obligated under this contract for payment of fee.

(End of clause)

[54 FR 28340, July 5, 1989, as amended at 55 FR 27090, June 29, 1990; 57 FR 40856, Sept. 8, 1992]
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2837

___________________________

Wade Charles Heiden

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Unknown Deputy Clerk; Hamilton County Clerks Office; Hamilton County, Iowa

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge

____________

 Submitted: October 22, 2013

Filed: October 23, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Heiden, a federal inmate, appeals from an order of the District Court

1

dismissing his pro se complaint prior to service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the

1

Northern District of Iowa.
Heiden alleged that a state-court deputy clerk improperly signed a document on

behalf of a state-court judge, and that, as a consequence, Heiden received an invalid

conviction and sentence in federal court. Upon careful de novo review, see Moore

v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (noting de novo review of

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissals), we agree with the District Court that Heiden failed to

state a claim upon which relief could be granted, see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007) (noting that a plaintiff’s obligation to provide grounds for

relief requires more than labels and conclusions; a complaint fails to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead sufficient facts to state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
# FOIA Log September 2021
#### 203.901 Definitions.

*Abuse of authority,* as used in this subpart, means an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority that is inconsistent with the mission of DoD or the successful performance of a DoD contract.
1333.103 Protests to the agency. ( a ) Insert provision 1352.233-70, *Agency Protests,* in all DOC solicitations, except these issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
( b ) All agency protest decisions shall be reviewed by Procurement Counsel before submission to the protester.
#### Marion A. Dowling, Respondent, v. F. W. Woolworth Co., Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as the result of her fall on a piece of hamburger meat on the floor of defendant’s store where it maintained and operated a stand-up lunch counter, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 26, 1961 upon the decision of the court, after a nonjury trial, in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and complaint dismissed. In our opinion, there was a *673complete absence of proof that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the presence of the foreign substance on the floor upon which plaintiff slipped, or that defendant or its employees created the dangerous condition. Without such proof plaintiff may not recover and the complaint must be dismissed (cf. *Dudley*v. *Abraham,*122 App. Div. 480; *Eldridge*v. *Mike’s Meat Market,*261 App. Div. 903; *Donohoe*v. *Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.,*277 App. Div. 739, 741). We have considered all the facts. In view of our opinion that there is no evidence in the record to support a finding of notice, we reverse as a matter of law for total failure of proof the trial court’s finding that defendant had constructive notice. Accordingly, we also make the contrary finding, namely: that defendant did not have constructive notice or knowledge of the dangerous condition. We affirm, however, all the other findings of fact made by the trial court in its decision or opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 1604.970 Taxpayer Identification Number.

Insert the clause at section 1652.204-73 in all FEHBP contracts.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel RADx clinical trials.                    

*Date:*                         February 26, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Video Meeting)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Maurizio Grimaldi, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9374,                         *grimaldim2@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 12, 2021. 

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst,Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-00987 Filed 1-19-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
U.S. Department of Labor

Wage and Hour Division

Fact Sheet #62V: At which point must an H-1B employer secure a ne

Application (LCA) when the location of work changes?

Is the location where the work is done a “place of employment”(Fact Sheet 

62J)? No. Home 

based LCA applies.

Yes. Is there an LCA for this location and occupation?

Yes. This LCA applies.

No. Doethe shortterm placemeoption apply (FSheet 59K)?
Exhibit 12.1



THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY AND
SUBSIDIARIES

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

(In Millions, Except Ratio Amounts)

(Unaudited)



|Nine Months Ended September 30,                                                             |  | 2003 |       | 2002
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ----- | ----
|Earnings:                                                                                   |  |      |       |     
|Income before income taxes and cumulative effect of accounting change                       |  | $    | 1,117 |     
|Add:                                                                                        |  |      |       |     
|Interest and fixed charges excluding capitalized interest                                   |  |      | 111   |     
|Portion of rent under long-term operating leases representative of an interest factor       |  |      | 136   |     
|Distributed income of investees accounted for under the equity method                       |  |      | 2     |     
|Amortization of capitalized interest                                                        |  |      | 6     |     
|Less: Undistributed equity in earnings of investments accounted for under the equity method |  |      | 11    |     
|                                                                                            |  |      |       |     
|Total earnings available for fixed charges                                                  |  | $    | 1,361 |     
|                                                                                            |  |      |       |     
|Fixed charges:                                                                              |  |      |       |     
|Interest and fixed charges                                                                  |  | $    | 117   |     
|Portion of rent under long-term operating leases representative of an interest factor       |  |      | 136   |     
|                                                                                            |  |      |       |     
|Total fixed charges                                                                         |  | $    | 253   |     
|                                                                                            |  |      |       |     
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                          |  |      | 5.38x |     
|                                                                                            |  |      |       |     



E-2
#### METZLER, Appellant, v. MASTERSON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20, 1903.)

Action by Rosie Metzler against William H. Masterson.

No opinion. Order of the County Court of Nassau county modified, so as to impose costs upon the defendant as a condition of setting aside the verdict, and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.
1403.1004 Contract clause. ( a ) In all awards expected to exceed $3,000,000, including options, for which performance is expected to exceed 120 days, except purchases conducted in accordance with FAR Part 12 and contracts to be performed entirely outside the United States, replace “$5,000,000” with “$3,000,000” in paragraph (d) of FAR 52.203-14.
( b ) Insert the following into paragraph (b)(3) of the same clause: “Downloadable hotline posters as well as instructions for obtaining a hard copy poster are available at *http://www.doioig.gov/hotline .*”
#### 1336.602-2 Evaluation boards.

Permanent and *ad hoc* architect-engineer evaluation boards may include preselection boards. When necessary, members of permanent, *ad hoc,* and preselection boards may be appointed from private practitioners of architecture, engineering, or related professions. Private practitioners may be appointed as deemed necessary by the BPO or higher agency official. The permanent and ad hoc evaluation boards should be comprised of at least a majority of government personnel.