alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1516.505 Contract clauses. ( a ) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause in 1552.216-72, *Ordering—By Designated Ordering Officers,* or a clause substantially similar to the subject clause, in indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type solicitations and contracts. The Contracting Officer shall insert Alternate I when formal input from the Contractor will not be obtained prior to order issuance.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert clause substantially the same as 1552.216-73, *Fixed Rates for Services—Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contract,* in solicitations and contracts to specify fixed rates for services. Contracting officers may use Alternate I for procurements that will have order performance periods longer than one year. Alternate I has a different paragraph (c) from the Basic form. Contracting officers must use the Basic form as prescribed for procurements that will have orders with performance periods of one year or less. Contracting officers may use both the Basic form and Alternate I for procurements that will have mixed-length orders, where some are for one year or less, and others are for longer than one year. In such cases contracting officers must include procurement language that the Basic form applies to orders less than one year, and Alternate I applies to orders longer than one year.
[49 FR 8852, Mar. 8, 1984, as amended at 79 FR 37960, July 3, 2014; 86 FR 55713, Oct. 7, 2021]
Case: 1:12-cv-01973 Document #: 18 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:668
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 810 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 810

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 2017

     Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To facilitate construction of a bridge on certain property in Christian 
               County, Missouri, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RIVERSIDE BRIDGE PROJECT.

    (a) In General.--The Riverside Bridge Project is authorized to be 
carried out notwithstanding--
            (1) any agreement entered unto under, or restriction 
        pursuant to, section 404(b)(2) of the Robert T. Stafford 
        Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
        5170c(b)(2)); or
            (2) any easement or other Federal restriction pursuant to 
        that Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) that requires the covered 
        property to be maintained for open space, recreation, or 
        wetland management.
    (b) Conditions.--As a condition of the authorization under 
subsection (a)--
            (1) Christian County, Missouri, or an assignee shall--
                    (A) carry out the Riverside Bridge Project in a 
                manner that ensures that no flood damage attributable 
                to the Project occurs; and
                    (B) be liable for any such flood damage that does 
                occur; and
            (2) the Federal Government shall not be liable for future 
        flood damage that is caused by the Project.
    (c) Disaster Assistance Prohibited.--No future disaster assistance 
from any Federal source may be provided with respect to the covered 
property or any improvements thereon.
    (d) Definitions.--In this Act, the following definitions apply:
            (1) Covered property.--The term ``covered property'' means 
        the property--
                    (A) in Christian County, Missouri;
                    (B) conveyed to such County by the Riverside Inn, 
                Inc.; and
                    (C) that is approximately 1.5 acres and 482 lineal 
                feet adjacent to the westerly line of Riverside Road to 
                the center of Finley Creek.
            (2) Riverside bridge project.--The term ``Riverside Bridge 
        Project'' means the project to construct, maintain, and operate 
        a bridge on and over the covered property.

            Passed the Senate August 3, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
201.109 Statutory acquisition-related dollar thresholds-adjustment for inflation. ( a ) (i) 41 U.S.C. 1908(d) requires the adjustment for inflation of all statutory acquisition-related dollar thresholds in the DFARS be applied to contracts and subcontracts without regard to the date of award of the contract or subcontract, except thresholds based on the Wage Rate Requirements statute, the Service Contract Labor Standards statute, or established by the United States Trade Representative pursuant to the Trade Agreement Act, which are not escalated by the statute. ( ii ) Section 814(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81) requires that the threshold established in 10 U.S.C. 2253(a)(2) for the acquisition of right-hand drive passenger sedans be included in the list of dollar thresholds that are subject to adjustment for inflation in accordance with the requirements of 41 U.S.C. 1908, and is adjusted pursuant to such provisions, as appropriate.
( d ) A matrix showing the most recent escalation adjustments of statutory acquisition-related dollar thresholds is available at PGI 201.109.
[71 FR 75892, Dec. 19, 2006, as amended at 77 FR 19128, Mar. 30, 2012; 84 FR 25187, May 31, 2019]
#### 1501.403 Individual deviations.

Requests for individual deviations from the FAR and the EPAAR shall be submitted to the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) for approval. Requests submitted shall cite the specific part of the FAR or EPAAR from which it is desired to deviate, shall set forth the nature of the deviation(s), and shall give the reasons for the action requested.

[65 FR 37291, June 14, 2000]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1

Eastern Division

Rene Delgado

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−02596

Honorable John J. Tharp Jr.

Union Pacific Railroad Company

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, January 31, 2014:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Parties have reached

settlement. Trial set for 2/3/14 is terminated. Mailed notice(air, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-02596 Document #: 68 Filed: 01/31/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:418
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CHESTER M. BROWN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 2822

)

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Chester Brown (“Brown”) has filed a Complaint of Employment

Discrimination against his ex-employer Sherwin-Williams Company

(“Sherwin-Williams”), utilizing the form of Complaint provided by

the Clerk’s Office for use by pro se plaintiffs, with the form

having been completed through hand-printing and an appropriate

marking of boxes included in the form. This sua sponte

memorandum order is issued because Brown’s filled-in information

has most likely pleaded him out of court, although no actual sua

sponte dismissal order is appropriate.

Complaint ¶9(b) confirms that Brown received his right-tosue letter from EEOC on January 17, 2012, and he filed this

lawsuit on April 17. But the right-to-sue letter states--indeed,

emphasizes--that suit must be filed within 90 days (not within

three months) after its receipt by the prospective plaintiff, and

April 17 is the 91st day after January 17. And the caselaw

consistently holds (just as with other bright-line statutory

limitations provisions) that a single day is enough to make the
action untimely.

It is true that the time prescription is not jurisdictional,

so that it could be waived by defendant Sherwin-Williams,

although such waivers are rare. Accordingly this Court will not

dismiss this action at this time--it will instead transmit copies

of the Complaint and this memorandum order to Sherwin-Williams at

the address Brown has listed in the Complaint and will await its

response. For that purpose a status hearing is set for 9 a.m. 1

May 25, 2012, at which time Brown and a Sherwin-Williams lawyer

are expected to be present.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 4, 2012

 In the meantime, any ruling on Brown’s accompanying In 1

Forma Pauperis Application and Motion for Appointment of Counsel

will be deferred (though the latter is inadequate in any event

because of its failure to specify what efforts he has made to

retain counsel on his own).

2
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1
 AXCESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
AUDIT COMMITTEE CHARTER
 Organization
  Statement of Policy
  Responsibilities and Processes
   
    
    The committee shall have a clear understanding with management and the independent
auditors that the independent auditors are ultimately accountable to the board and the
audit committee, as representatives of the Companys shareholders. The committee shall
have the ultimate authority and responsibility to evaluate and, where appropriate,
recommend the replacement of the independent auditors. The committee shall discuss with
the auditors their independence from management and the Company and the matters included
in the written disclosures required by the Independence Standards Board. Annually, the
committee shall review and recommend to the board the selection of the Companys
independent auditors, subject to shareholders approval.
    
    The committee shall discuss with the internal auditors and the independent auditors
the overall scope and plans for their respective audits including the adequacy of
staffing and compensation. Also, the committee shall discuss with management, the
internal auditors, and the independent auditors the adequacy and effectiveness of the
accounting and financial controls, including the Companys system to monitor and manage
business risk, and legal and ethical compliance programs. Further, the committee shall
meet separately with the internal auditors and the independent auditors, with and
without management present, to discuss the results of their examinations.
    
    The committee shall review the interim financial statements with management and the
independent auditors prior to the filing of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.
Also, the committee shall discuss the results of the quarterly review and any other
matters required to be communicated to the committee by the independent auditors under
generally accepted auditing standards. The chair of the committee may represent the
entire committee for the purposes of this review.
    
    The committee shall review with management and the independent auditors the financial
statements to be included in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K (or the annual
report to shareholders if distributed prior to the filing of Form 10-K), including their
judgment about the quality, not just acceptability, of accounting principles, the
reasonableness of significant judgments, and the clarity of the disclosures in the
financial statements. Also, the committee shall discuss the results of the annual audit
and any other matters required to be communicated to the committee by the independent
auditors under generally accepted auditing standards.
#### 1327.305 Administration of patent rights clauses.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roland Pitts, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Queens County, rendered May 10, 1957, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to serve a term of 7% to 15 years, and an additional term of 5 to 10 years for being armed. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
# Summary of Part 654 - Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program

**Overview**

The Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program is a federally funded and regulated program administered by the States.  It is designed to recognize exceptionally able high school seniors who show promise of continued excellence in postsecondary education. Through this program, the Department awards funds to state education agencies, which in turn make scholarship awards to eligible applicants. Students receive scholarships for college expenses.

Beginning with the 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act, which provided funding for the 2012 fiscal year, Congress has not provided funding for this program and there is no indication that funding will be restored in the future.  The Department proposes to rescind and reserve the regulations for this program in 34 CFR Part 654. 

## Summary of Proposed Changes 

### Part 654-ROBERT C. BYRD HONORS SCHOLARHSHIP PROGRAM

· Delete all regulations (Part §564.1-654.60) pertaining to the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program and reserve Part 654.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10476 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Montray Lorenzo Cato,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CR

- 194

- 1

Before **Stewart, Duncan,**  and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Montray Lorenzo Cato directly appeals from a judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 90 days of imprisonment and 30 months of supervised release

. H e challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which mandates revocation of supe rvised release and a

* Pursuant to **5th Cir c**  **uit R**  **ule** 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 18, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10476 Document: 00516550960 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2022No. 22

- 10476

2 term of imprisonment for any offender who violates certain conditions of supervised release, including prohibitions on possessing and using a controlled substance

. Relying on United States v. Haymond , 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), Cato contends that § 3583(g) is unconstitutional because it requires revocation of a term of supervised release and imposition of a term of imprisonment without affording the defendant the constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial. He concedes that his challenge is foreclosed by United States v.
Garner , 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020), and he raises the issue to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief.

In Garner , we rejected the argument that Cato has advanced and held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond

. See Garner , 969 F.3d
at 551

– 5 3 . Thus, Cato’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed. Accordingly, the Government’ s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , its alternative motion for extension of time is **DENIED** , and the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED.** See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Case: 22-10476 Document: 00516550960 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2022
U.S. Department of Education

Negotiated Rulemaking

1990 K Street, NW, 8th Floor Conference Center

Washington, D.C.

Team I – Teacher Preparation Issues

January 18-19, 2012; 9:00 am – 5:00 pm

January 20, 2012; 9:00 am – 12:00 pm

AGENDA*

Welcome

Introductions

Overview of the Negotiated Rulemaking Process

Review and Adopt Protocols

Petitions for Membership

Overview of the Teacher Preparation Issues

Review Agenda of Issues for Negotiation

Workshop-Style Review of Issues

1. Recommendations regarding current institution of higher education, teacher 

preparation program, and State reporting requirements on teacher education program 

quality

2. Recommendations for supplemental State reporting on teacher education program 

quality that would either replace or augment current reporting requirements

3. Criteria used by States to assess the performance of teacher preparation programs

4. Standards for State identification of low-performing or at-risk teacher preparation 

programs

5. Termination of eligibility of teacher preparation programs to enroll students receiving 

Title IV student assistance in cases where the State has withdrawn its approval or 

terminated its financial support based on the program’s poor performance

6. Definition of “high quality teacher preparation program”

 

*

Time will be made available for public comment during the meeting.
2

7. Service and repayment obligations for the TEACH Grant Program: Teaching service 

performed for an Educational Service Agency

8. Teaching in a high-need field to fulfill the TEACH Grant Agreement to Serve

9. Eligibility for a new TEACH Grant after receiving a discharge of the TEACH Grant 

agreement to serve based on total and permanent disability

10. Discharge of the TEACH Grant agreement to serve based on the total and permanent 

disability of a TEACH Grant recipient

Logistics

 Confirm schedule for future meeting

 Identify additional information needs

Next Steps

 Draft Regulatory Text

 Agenda for Meeting 2: February 27-29, 2012

 Meeting Summary

 Other
#### Electronic Flooring Systems, Inc., Respondent, v. National Lead Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Order, insofar as appealed from, entered on February 26,1963, unanimously modified on the law 'by striking the 13th cause of action; and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The 13th cause of action alleges a conspiracy to injure the plaintiff in its business by publishing the alleged libel which is the subject of the preceding causes of action. Assuming that the publication alleged to be libelous is so in fact, a conspiracy to publish adds nothing to the actual publication. If, however, the publication is found to be not otherwise actionable, the conspiracy could, with the addition of other facts, be the basis of an action for prima facie tort. The allegations of the cause of action do not contain the necessary elements. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Bergan and Bastow, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the applicable SEC Form and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,603
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,837
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,251
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,594
<PP&E>                                          17,842
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,181
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,448
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,267
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,078
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,448
<SALES>                                         20,623
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,623
<CGS>                                            9,713
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,713
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,481
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (145)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,474
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,840
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,634
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,634
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Shares and Earnings Per Share for the 1997 periods (prior year) have been
adjusted in the financial statements to reflect a two-for-one stock split
effected in the form of a dividend which was effective as of September 22,
1997.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 4 (b)


    
      

      

    

    

      


      CERTIFICATE
        OF RESOLUTION 

      


      


      I,
        Jeffrey M. Jones, do hereby certify that (1) I am the Secretary of Fonix
        Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the ACompany@);
        (2)
        the following is a true and correct copy of a Resolution that was duly adopted
        by the Board of Directors of the Company at a meeting duly called and held
        on
        April 7, 2006; (3) the Resolution has been duly entered in the corporate
        records
        and minutes of the Company in conformity with its articles and bylaws; and
        (4)
        the Resolution has not been amended, modified, or rescinded in any manner
        and
        remains in full force and effect.

      


      RESOLVED,
        that the Company issue up to 20,000,000 shares of its Class A common stock
        to
        consultants (the “Consultants”) of the Company who have provided and agree to
        provide bona
        fide
        consulting services to the Company, which services shall not be in connection
        with capital-raising transactions or market-making activities.

      


      FURTHER
        RESOLVED, that the executive officers of the Company are hereby authorized
        and
        directed to take such action as they may deem necessary and appropriate in
        order
        to register for resale on Form S-8 up to 20,000,000 shares of the
        Company=s
        Class A
        common stock to be issued to the Consultants.

      


      FURTHER
        RESOLVED, that the executive officers of the Company hereby adopt a form
        of any
        resolution required by federal or state authorities to be filed in connection
        with any registration statement, application or other document mentioned
        in the
        foregoing resolution if (i) in the opinion of the executive officers, the
        adoption of such resolution is necessary or advisable and (ii) the secretary
        of
        the Company evidence that such adoption by attaching to a certificate copies
        of
        such resolutions which will thereupon be deemed to have been adopted by the
        Board of Directors of the Company with the same force and effect as if initially
        attached to its certificate.

      


      Dated
        this 12th
        day of
        April, 2006.

      


      


      
        	 	
                _/s/
                  Jeffrey M.
                  Jones                        
                  

              
	 	
                JEFFREY
                  M. JONES

              
	 	
                Secretary