alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
208.7002 Assignment authority. ( a ) Under the DoD Coordinated Acquisition Program, contracting responsibility for certain commodities is assigned to a single department, agency, or the General Services Administration (GSA). Commodity assignments are made— ( 1 ) To the departments and agencies, by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Logistics);
( 2 ) To GSA, through agreement with GSA, by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Logistics);
( 3 ) Outside the contiguous United States, by the Unified Commanders; and
( 4 ) For acquisitions to be made in the contiguous United States for commodities not assigned under paragraphs (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, by agreement of agency heads (10 U.S.C. 3065). ( i ) Agreement may be on either a one-time or a continuing basis. The submission of a military interdepartmental purchase request (MIPR) by a requiring activity and its acceptance by the contracting activity of another department, even though based on an oral communication, constitutes a one-time agreement.
( ii ) Consider repetitive delegated acquisition responsibilities for coordinated acquisition assignment. If not considered suitable for coordinated acquisition assignment, formalize continuing agreements and distribute them to all activities concerned.
( b ) Under the Integrated Materiel Management Program, assignments are made by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Logistics)— ( 1 ) To the departments and agencies; and
( 2 ) To GSA, through agreement with GSA.
[56 FR 36306, July 31, 1991, as amended at 64 FR 51075, Sept. 21, 1999; 70 FR 35544, June 21, 2005; 87 FR 76990, Dec. 16, 2022; 88 FR 73236, Oct. 25, 2023]
VI 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 561 

For the relief of Alicia Aranda De Buendia. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2017 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Alicia Aranda De Buendia. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ALICIA 

4 ARANDA DE BUENDIA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Alicia Aranda De Buendia shall be 

8 eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjust9 ment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 

10 permanent residence upon filing an application for 

11 issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 561 IS

1 Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of status to lawful 

2 permanent resident. 

3 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Alicia Aranda De 

4 Buendia enters the United States before the filing dead5 line specified in subsection (c), Alicia Aranda De Buendia 

6 shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully 

7 in the United States and shall be eligible for adjustment 

8 of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Na9 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enact10 ment of this Act. 

11 (c) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Sub12 sections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application for 

13 the issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for 

14 adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees not 

15 later than two years after the date of the enactment of 

16 this Act. 

17 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

18 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res19 idence to Alicia Aranda De Buendia, the Secretary of 

20 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one, 

21 during the current or next following fiscal year— 

22 (1) the total number of immigrant visas that 

23 are made available to natives of the country of birth 

24 of Alicia Aranda De Buendia under section 203(a) 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 561 IS

1 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

2 1153(a)); or 

3 (2) if applicable, the total number of immigrant 

4 visas that are made available to natives of the coun5 try of birth of Alicia Aranda De Buendia under sec6 tion 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)). 

7 (e) PAYGO.—The budgetary effects of this Act, for 

8 the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You9 Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the 

10 latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 

11 Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the 

12 Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate 

13 Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been 

14 submitted prior to the vote on passage. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 159 (Friday, August 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 50040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19943]

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

 COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List, Proposed Additions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed Additions to the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add services to the Procurement 
List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who 
are blind or have other severe disabilities.

DATES: Comments Must Be Received On or Before: 9/16/2013.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-
4149.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT:  Barry S. 
Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email 
CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide 
interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed 
actions.

Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of 
the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to 
provide the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing 
persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
    The following services are proposed for addition to the Procurement 
List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

Services

Service Type/Location: Hospital Housekeeping Service, Bayne-Jones Army 
Community Hospital and Multiple Medical Treatment Facilities, 1585 3rd 
Street, Fort Polk, LA.
NPA: Enterprise Professional Services, Inc., Austin, TX.
Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, W40M USA MEDCOM HCAA, FORT SAM 
HOUSTON, TX.
Service Type/Location: Laundry Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, FMC 
Carswell, J Street, Building 3000, Fort Worth, TX.
NPA: Goodwill Industrial Services of Fort Worth, Inc., Fort Worth, TX.
Contracting Activity: FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM, CARSWELL, FMC, FORT WORTH, 
TX.

Barry S. Lineback,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-19943 Filed 8-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
```
#### 22.1003-2 Geographical coverage of the Service Contract Labor Standards statute.

The Service Contract Labor Standards statute applies to service contracts performed in the United States (see 22.1001). The Service Contract Labor Standards statute does not apply to contracts performed outside the United States.

[79 FR 24205, Apr. 29, 2014]
163

APPENDIX B

LIST OF INDIVIDUAL ORGANIC ANALYTES MEASURED

IN CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF

FISH LIVER TISSUE AND STOMACH CONTENTS

FOR

HYLEBOS WATERWAY FISH INJURY STUDIES
164
165

Liver analyses (GC/MS detailed analyses):

Juvenile Salmon Injury and Toxicopathic Injury Studies (Sections 1 and 2)

sum of PCBs: PCB congeners 18, 28, 44, 52, 66, 101, 105, 118, 128, 138, 153, 170, 180, 187,

195, 206, 209

sum of DDTs: p,p’-DDE, p,p’-DDT, p,p’-DDD

Liver analyses (HPLC/PDA analyses):

Reproductive Injury Study (Section 3)

Dioxin-like PCB congeners: PCBs 77, 105, 118, 126, 156, 157, 169, 170, 180, 189

Other selected PCB congeners: PCBs 101, 128, 138, 156

sum of PCBs: PCBs 105, 118, 156, 157, 169, 170, 180, 101, 128, 138, 156; PCBs 77, 126, and

189 are not included in the sum because they were below detection limits in all or nearly

all samples

sum of DDTs: p,p’DDE, p,p’-DDT, p,p’-DDD

non-DDT chlorinated pesticides: hexachlorobenzene (HCB)

TCDD toxic equivalents: calculated on the basis of concentrations of dioxin-like PCB congeners

(PCBs 77, 105, 118, 126, 156, 169, 180, 189)

Stomach contents analyses (GC/MS detailed analyses):

Juvenile Salmon Injury, Toxicopathic Injury, and Reproductive Injury Studies (all Sections)

LAHs [sum of low molecular weight AHs]

Naphthalene

Acenaphthylene

Fluorene

Anthracene

Acenaphthene

Phenanthrene

2-Methylnaphthalene
166

Stomach contents analyses (cont’d)

HAHs [sum of high molecular weight AHs]

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

Chrysene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Dibenz(ah)anthracene

Benz(a)anthracene

Benzo(b+k)fluoranthenes

Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Benzo(ghi)perylene

sum of PCBs: PCB congeners 18, 28, 44, 52, 66, 101, 105, 118, 128, 138, 153, 170, 180, 187,

195, 206, 209

sum of DDTs: p,p’-DDE, p,p’-DDT, p,p’-DDD
#### T. Richard Dunnigan, Appellant, v. Syracuse Memorial Hospital, Inc., Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Although not so designated in the notice of motion, defendant now states that this motion to dismiss the complaint is made under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice. It is contended that the amended complaint as limited by the bill of particulars does not state a cause of action. The action is against the defendant hospital based on alleged negligence in failure to properly sterilize instruments resulting in the infection of plaintiff. The bill of particulars alleges that the “ location of the occurrence was either at the CrouseIrving Hospital where plaintiff had been operated on [November] 15, 1957, or at the Syracuse Memorial Hospital where he was operated on November 25, 1957.” Special Term dismissed the complaint because of “an indefinite and uncertain type of statement and allegation which reaches the very essence of the claim”. This is accompanied by a statement that a similar motion had been granted in favor of Crouse-Irving Memorial Hospital in another action. We must assume that the plaintiff honestly gave all of the information that he had at the time of the bill of particulars. No one could, or should, be asked to give more. It may be that the precise time of the onset of the infection cannot be established at trial, but the opportunity to do so should not be denied upon a motion on the .pleadings. Had both hospitals been joined in one action there is no doubt that such alternative allegations would withstand a motion by either defendant. (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 212, 258; *Potter*v. *Clark,*19 A D 2d 585.) This liberality of pleading and practice has been carried over into the Civil Practice Law and Rules (1002, subd. [b]; 3014). (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term granting motion to dismiss the complaint.) Present■ — ■ Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, MeClusky and Noonan, JJ.
#### Arthur Shactman et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the name of Lake Success Shopping Center, Respondents, v. Masters-Lake Success, Inc., et al., Appellants.

In an action to enjoin defendants from violating a restrictive covenant of a lease entered into between plaintiffs and defendant Masters-Lake Success, Inc., the performance of which was guaranteed by defendant Masters, Inc., and for damages, defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 17, 1961, as denied their motion to strike out as sham and unnecessary certain enumerated paragraphs of the amended complaint, pursuant to rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to defendants to answer the amended complaint within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Christ, J., concurs only because of the decision by the majority of the court on the prior appeal *(Shachtman*v. *Masters-Lake Success,*14 A D 2d 584).
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'



         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-30298) and the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (Nos. 333-58450 and 333-72580) of our report dated February 23, 2000
relating to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows of PhotoMedex, Inc. (formerly Laser Photonics, Inc.) and
subsidiaries, for the year ended December 31, 1999, which report appears in the
December 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K of PhotoMedex, Inc.



/s/ HEIN + ASSOCIATES LLP


HEIN + ASSOCIATES LLP
Certified Public Accountants

Orange, California
April 1, 2002
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Louise Alvarado, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from so much of a judgment of the County Court, Kings County, rendered October 27, 1959, convicting her, on her plea of guilty, of attempted grand larceny in the second, degree, as sentenced her to serve a term of one year in the New York City penitentiary. Defendant was charged with obtaining money and public assistance from the city’s Welfare Department by fraudulently representing that she had no other income when in fact she was employed and did have other income. The appeal is limited to the claimed excessiveness of the sentence. Judgment modified on the facts by reducing defendant’s sentence to the time already served. As so modified, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed; defendant is discharged and her bail exonerated. In our opinion, under all the circumstances the sentence of one year is excessive. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### 225.373 Contract administration in support of contingency operations.

For additional guidance on contract administration considerations when supporting contingency operations, see PGI 225.373.

[80 FR 36902, June 26, 2015]
(December 26, 1978)

#### In the Matter of Eugene W. O’Gorman, for Reinstatement as an Attorney and Counselor at Law.

Application by petitioner for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor at law. The application was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness for the Third Judicial District, which has recommended approval. Application granted and petitioner reinstated, effective December 26, 1978. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ROBERT H. GRAY,

Petitioner

v.

SECRETARY OF VETERAN S AFFAIRS, Respondent

______________________

2016

- 1782

______________________

Petition for review pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 502.

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

BLUE WATER NAVY VIET NAM VETERANS ASSOCIATION,

Petitioner

v.

SECRETARY OF VETERAN S AFFAIRS, Respondent

______________________

2016

- 1793

______________________

Petition for review pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 502.GRAY v. SECRETARY OF VETERA NS AFFAIRS 2

______________________

Before P ROST

, Chief Judge

, D YK and O’M ALLEY

, Circuit Judges

.

P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

In the above

- captioned cases, the Supreme Court of the

United States granted certiorari, vacated the judgments of

this court

, and remanded with instruction to dismiss the

cases as moot.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The mandates issued on March 28, 2018 arehereby recalled, the judgments rendered on November 16, 2017 are vacated, and the appeals

are reinstated.

(2) The appeals are dismissed as moot. The mandates shall reissue forthwith.

F OR THE C OURT

August 7 , 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
215.506-70 Opportunity for follow-up questions. When providing a required postaward debriefing to successful and unsuccessful offerors, contracting officers shall— ( a ) Provide an opportunity to submit additional written questions related to the required debriefing not later than 2 business days after receiving the postaward debriefing;
( b ) Respond in writing to timely submitted additional questions within 5 business days after receipt of the questions; and
( c ) Not consider the postaward debriefing to be concluded until the later of— ( 1 ) The date that the postaward debriefing is delivered, orally or in writing; or
( 2 ) If additional written questions related to the debriefing are timely received, the date the agency delivers its written response.
[87 FR 15810, Mar. 18, 2022]
216.406 Contract clauses. ( e ) Use the clause at 252.216-7004, Award Fee Reduction or Denial for Jeopardizing the Health or Safety of Government Personnel, in all solicitations and contracts containing award-fee provisions.
[76 FR 8305, Feb. 14, 2011, as amended at 83 FR 49181, Sept. 28, 2018]
#### Emma C. LIVELY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILD OATS MARKETS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 06-56726.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 2, 2008.*

Filed June 6, 2008.

Leonard M. Tavera, Esq., Towle Denison Smith & Tavera LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Richard M. Koep, Esq., Crandall Wade *&*Lowe, Calabasas, CA, for Defendant Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON,** Senior District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Wild Oats Markets, Inc. (‘Wild Oats”). There is no evidence in the record suggesting that Wild Oats had either actual or constructive knowledge of the spilled water that caused Emma Lively to slip and fall. *See Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,*111 Cal.App.4th 472, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 813, 816 (2003) (“In the absence of actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, the owner is not liable.”). There is also no evidence that Wild Oats became aware of the spilled water within a sufficient time to remove it. *See Perez v. Ow,*200 Cal.App.2d 559, 19 Cal.Rptr. 372, 373 (1962); *Girvetz v. Boys’ Market,*91 Cal.App.2d 827, 206 P.2d 6, 7 (1949). It is undisputed that Wild Oats manager Kenneth Admire inspected the area where the accident occurred only five minutes beforehand and found no spilled water. It is also undisputed that another Wild Oats manager, Tom Gilbert, performed inspection sweeps every half hour on the day of the accident and found no hazards. The fact that Gilbert failed to write in the log the exact minute that he conducted each sweep is not evidence that he failed to conduct the sweeps in light of his uncontested testimony.

Lively argues that Wild Oats can be liable regardless of how long the water was on the floor because the water-filled buckets posed an unreasonable danger, and that a jury must decide whether the slip-resistant rubber mat is an adequate remedy. This argument is foreclosed by *Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores,*3 Cal.Rptr,3d at 818. (“[A] store owner’s choice of a particular ‘mode of operation’ does not eliminate a slip-and-fall plaintiffs burden of proving the owner had knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused the accident.”).

Lively also contends that the surveillance tapes may create an issue of fact. *746However, Lively waived this argument by failing to raise it before the district court in her response to Wild Oats’s summary judgment motion. *See Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist.,*237 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that “the district court may limit its review to the documents submitted for purposes of summary judgment”).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 3369 DATE 5/9/2013

CASE

TITLE

Sandra Fincher, et al vs. Zimmer, Inc., et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Pursuant to stipulation, claims of Plaintiffs Sandra Fincher and Perry L. Fincher are dismissed voluntarily

with prejudice, without costs, sanctions, or attorney’s fees. 

Docketing to mail notices.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

ETV

12C3369 Sandra Fincher, et al vs. Zimmer, Inc., et al Page 1 of 1
#### Sidney Schocket, Appellant, v Stanley C. Samuel, Defendant, and Holson Company, Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*on a contract, plaintiff purports to appeal from: (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 28, 1977, which granted the motion of defendant Holson Company to dismiss the complaint as against it; (2) a judgment of the same court, entered March 7, 1977, which dismissed the complaint as against Holson Company; (3) an order of the same court, dated March 17, 1977, which denied his motion to reargue; and (4) a decision of the same court, dated May 6, 1977, which denied his second motion to reargue. (Holson Company previously moved this court to dismiss these appeals. The motion was denied by an order dated August 3, 1977, with leave to renew upon the argument or submission of the appeal. Holson Company has renewed its motion.) Appeals dismissed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. What is designated in plaintiff’s notice of appeal as an "order” of January 28, 1977 is actually the decision granting Holson Company’s motion to dismiss; an order was entered thereon on February 18, 1977. Copies of the February 18 order and the judgment of March 7, with notice of entry, were served upon the attorney for plaintiff on or about March 1, 1977 and March 28, 1977, respectively. The third item sought to be appealed from is denominated in the notice of appeal as a "decision” of March 17, 1977. In fact, this paper is an order denying reargument. Plaintiff’s notice of appeal was served and filed on or about May 18, 1977. Though in a proper case we could deem the notice of appeal amended so as to cure the noted defects (see CPLR 5520, subd [c]), (1) the appeals from these papers are untimely, copies thereof with notice of entry having been served upon counsel for plaintiff on or about March 1,1977, March 28, 1977, and April 4, 1977, respectively, and (2) no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. The fourth and final item sought to be appealed from is denominated in the notice of appeal as an "order” of May 6, 1977. In fact, this paper was a decision, from which no appeal lies (see CPLR 5512). Although an order on this decision was entered May 19, 1977 and, in a proper case we could deem the notice of appeal amended so as to reflect a viable appeal in this respect (see CPLR 5520, subd [c]), the order denied a motion for reargument and such an order is not appealable. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Gulotta and Hawkins, JJ., concur.