alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
15.002 Types of negotiated acquisition. ( a ) *Sole source acquisitions.* When contracting in a sole source environment, the request for proposals (RFP) should be tailored to remove unnecessary information and requirements; e.g., evaluation criteria and voluminous proposal preparation instructions.
( b ) *Competitive acquisitions.* When contracting in a competitive environment, the procedures of this part are intended to minimize the complexity of the solicitation, the evaluation, and the source selection decision, while maintaining a process designed to foster an impartial and comprehensive evaluation of offerors' proposals, leading to selection of the proposal representing the best value to the Government (see 2.101).
EXHIBIT NO. 32





CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Form 10-K of Colony Bankcorp, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Al D. Ross, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Terry L. Hester, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our knowledge and belief that:





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





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








/s/ Al D. RossAl D. RossPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 15, 2011








/s/ Terry L. HesterTerry L. HesterChief Financial and Accounting OfficerMarch 15, 2011





This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marion Teel, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. While we find in this record certain errors, we are satisfied that they are of such a nature that they may be disregarded under section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the defendant. Concur — -Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications

Table 3. Hatchery production, estimates of natural production, percent of hatchery salmon tagged and percent tag recoveries of fall chinook in four river systems in Puget Sound during 1989. 

a Estimates of natural production were calculated from adult escapement data provided by the Washington State Department of Fisheries. 

b Calculated as the percent of juveniles which were tagged and released from the hatchery prior to estuarine sampling. 

Table of Contents
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 48 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 48

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                      relating to parental rights.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2017

    Mr. Graham (for himself, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Risch, Mr. 
  Grassley, and Mr. Rubio) introduced the following joint resolution; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                      relating to parental rights.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, 
education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.
    ``Section 2. The parental right to direct education includes the 
right to choose, as an alternative to public education, private, 
religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices 
within public schools for one's child.
    ``Section 3. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe 
these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as 
applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
    ``Section 4. The parental rights guaranteed by this article shall 
not be denied or abridged on account of disability.
    ``Section 5. This article shall not be construed to apply to a 
parental action or decision that would end life.
    ``Section 6. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of 
international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply 
to the rights guaranteed by this article.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Frank McManus, Respondent, v. Joan S. Edmunds et al., Appellants.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated November 3, 1959, granting plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict of *“*No Cause of Action ” against both defendants, and granting a new trial. Order reversed, with costs, motion denied, verdict reinstated and complaint dismissed on the merits, without costs. Because of certain traffic conditions ahead of him, plaintiff had stopped the motor vehicle which he was driving on a city street. Defendant Edmunds stopped her motor vehicle a few feet behind plaintiff’s. They both were on a downward incline. After a few minutes, and although said defendant’s foot was on the brake pedal, her vehicle rolled forward and struck the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle. The evidence was that said defendant repeatedly depressed the foot pedal in order to brake her car, but that such attempts failed because the brake fluid, without her knowledge, had leaked out through a cylinder. She did not *741attempt to apply the emergency brake. She had bought her vehicle a week previously from defendant Greer, a used-car dealer doing business as Amenia Motors. The further evidence was: (1) that, prior to the sale, Greer’s employee had checked the car for visible brake fluid leaks, had made specific applications of the brakes, and had road-tested the ear; and (2) that the car had been driven frequently from the time of the sale up to the time of the accident without sign of any brake defect. The trial court charged the jury that, in the inspection which Greer was required to make, he was required to exercise reasonable care and that it was for the jury to determine whether he should have inspected the cylinder, which would have entailed removal of the wheel adjoining it. No exception was taken to these instructions. In our opinion, the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. It does not appear that the jury could not have reached the conclusion they did on a fair interpretation of the evidence; and the Trial Justice stated no reason for his conclusion that the verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence. Moreover, by failing to move for a directed verdict plaintiff in effect conceded that there were factual questions to be determined by the jury *(Holpp*V. *Carafa,*8 A D 2d 617). Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1545

___________________________

Katherine Jacobs

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Johnson Storage & Moving Co. Holdings, LLC

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

 ____________

 Submitted: November 6, 2020 

Filed: November 12, 2020 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Katherine Jacobs appeals after the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary

judgment in this action under, inter alia, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the

1The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.
Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’

arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Banks v. John Deere & Co.,

829 F.3d 661, 665 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See

8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
225.7009-2 Restriction. ( a ) Do not acquire ball and roller bearings unless— ( 1 ) The bearings are manufactured in the United States or Canada; and
( 2 ) For each ball or roller bearing, the cost of the bearing components manufactured in the United States or Canada exceeds 50 percent of the total cost of the bearing components of that ball or roller bearing.
( b ) The restriction at 225.7003-2 may also apply to bearings that are made from specialty metals, such as high carbon chrome steel (bearing steel).
[75 FR 76300, Dec. 8, 2010, as amended at 76 FR 32843, June 6, 2011; ]
#### In the Matter of Raymond P. Wenz, Sr., Individually and as Guardian ad Litem of Raymond P. Wenz, Jr., an Infant, Respondent, v. Board of Education, Union Free School District No. 5, Appellant, and Gerald Jewell, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to section 50-e of the General Municipal Law for leave to serve a late notice of claim for personal injury, the Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 5 appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 15, 1959, as granted the application in favor of the infant claimant. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. On August 28, 1958, the infant claimant, aged 15 years and 10 months, was injured on the board’s premises and removed to the hospital. His father spoke to the school nurse about the accident on the following day. Neither father nor son were aware of the requirements of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. On February 13, 1959, the father consulted an attorney who brought the instant application on February 16, 1959. Under the circumstances, the order here was properly made *(Biancoviso*v. *City of New York,*285 App. Div. 320; *Matter of Kelsch*v. *New York City Tr. Auth.,*12 A D 2d 642). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins. JJ., concur.
- va-georgemasonuniv-1-complaint
- 11-24-2106
M. P. No. 74-291.

#### Town of Lincoln *v.*Arthur Cournoyer.

*Louis E. Azar,*Town Solicitor, *Harry W. Asquith,*Special Master, for petitioner. *Domenic A. Mosca, Jr.,*for respondent.

Motion of respondent, Arthur Cournoyer, for a stay of the enforcement of the order entered in the Superior Court on October 25, 1974 is denied.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Statements re computation of per share earnings                         Exhibit 11 
(In Thousands Except for Per Share Data)

                                                        Year ended December 31
                                                  ---------------------------------
                                                     1996        1995        1994
                                                  ---------   ---------   ---------
<S>                                               <C>         <C>         <C>
PRIMARY NET INCOME PER SHARE
Weighted average common stock outstanding.......     9,398       9,355       9,330

Common equivalent shares for stock options using
    the treasury stock method...................       101          89         113
                                                  ---------   ---------   ---------
Weighted average shares outstanding.............     9,499       9,444       9,443
                                                  =========   =========   =========
Net income......................................   $15,029      $8,066     $12,612
                                                  =========   =========   =========
Primary net income per share....................     $1.58       $0.85       $1.34
                                                  =========   =========   =========

FULLY DILUTED NET INCOME PER SHARE
Weighted average common stock outstanding.......     9,398       9,355       9,330

Common equivalent shares for stock options using
    the treasury stock method...................       167         132         113
                                                  ---------   ---------   ---------
Weighted average shares outstanding.............     9,565       9,487       9,443
                                                  =========   =========   =========
Net income......................................   $15,029      $8,066     $12,612
                                                  =========   =========   =========
Fully diluted net income per share..............     $1.57       $0.85       $1.34
                                                  =========   =========   =========

</TABLE>

All share and per share information has been adjusted for the 3% stock
dividend declared in November 1996.
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 43 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That the Architect of the Capitol is author3 ized and directed to transfer the catafalque which is situ4 ated in the Exhibition Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center 

5 to the rotunda of the Capitol so that such catafalque may 

6 be used in connection with services to be conducted there 

7 for the Honorable John Sidney McCain, III, late a Senator 

8 from the State of Arizona and formerly a Representative 

9 from that State. 

Passed the Senate August 27, 2018. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 43 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the use of the catafalque situated in 

from the State of Arizona. orable John Sidney McCain, III, late a Senator ducted in the rotunda of the Capitol for the Honin connection with memorial services to be conthe Exhibition Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center
---- MARY-c_-lANDRIElJ LOUISIANA 

# CJanitrd**~tatrs ~mcrtc** 

The HonorableDaniel B, Poneman Acting Secretary ofEnergy U.S. Department ofEnergy 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585
DearMr. Acting Secretary: WASHINGTDN, DC 20510-1804

May 10, 2013



### In December, 2012, the largest Pay- TV providers and device manufacturers announced a path breaking Set-Top Box Energy Conservation Agreement. By a five-year written commitment, Comcast, DIRECTV, DISHNetwork, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Verizon, Charter, AT&T, Cablevision, Bright House Networks and CenturyLink, and manufacturers Cisco, Motorola, EchoStar TechDologies and ARRIS have agreed to effectively and rapidly change the entire set-topbox energy footprint inthe United States. More than 90 million American households and 90% ofPay-TV consumers are covered andjustthe first phase ofthese commitments will result in annual residential electricity savings to consumers of$1.5 billion or more as these commitments are fully realized, the equivalent of taking about 2 million cars offthe road. Additionally, some ofthe immediate energy savings will be realized by downloading new software that alters the day to day operations of set-top boxes that are already inthe home, increasing their energy efficiency at no additional charge (but substantial energy savings) to consumers, The Voluntary Agreement and its potential benefits is threatened by the rulemaking your Agency has initiated a testprocedure for measuring energy usage ofset-top boxes employed by video distributors. This is the first step in a process to adoptenergy usage limits, There seemsto be no dispute that any conservation requirements adopted in such a proceeding could not take effectuntil 2018 orlater. Giventhat the Voluntary Agreement would save consumers billions of dollars in the years before any regulatory approaches can take effect, I urge DOEto pause these proceedings and give the Voluntary Agreement a chance to work. The Department and consumers have much to gain

- in immediate cost savings and in increased innovation and competition

- and nothing to lose from pausing these proceedings and giving the Voluntary Agreement a chanceto work.

This is the kind ofindustry initiative we wishto encourage and support, Senators on both sides ofthe aisle have praised the cable, satellite and telephone-based television providers for proactively developing a consensus energy-efficiency voluntary agreement that will save their customers money, deliver immediate energy savings, and still protect innovation and competition. The adoption ofvoluntary agreements is an internationally-recognized approach, with voluntary agreements inEurope and Australia. The Department shouldpromote and protect , .voluntary market solutions like these that are already saving consumers money and delivering energy savmgs. I hope DOE will seriously look at this industry-driven resolution to one ofour nation's energyefficiencychallenges and agree to putahold onits rulemaking.

Withwarmestregards, I am,



### MLL:c1a Sincerely,

MaryL. Landrieu United States Senator
217.7404-3 Definitization schedule. ( a ) UCAs shall contain definitization schedules that provide for definitization by the earlier of— ( 1 ) The date that is 180 days after the contractor submits a qualifying proposal. This date may not be extended beyond an additional 90 days without a written determination by the head of the contracting activity without power of redelegation, the commander of the combatant command concerned, or the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment that it is in the best interests of the military department or the defense agency, the combatant command, or the Department of Defense, respectively, to continue the action; or
( 2 ) The date on which the amount of funds obligated under the contract action is equal to more than 50 percent of the not-to-exceed price.
( b ) ( 1 ) Submission of a qualifying proposal in accordance with the definitization schedule is a material element of the contract. If the contractor does not submit a qualifying proposal in accordance with the contract definitization schedule, notwithstanding FAR 52.216-26, Payments of Allowable Costs Before Definitization, the contracting officer may withhold an amount necessary to protect the interests of the Government, not to exceed 5 percent of all subsequent financing requests, or take other appropriate actions (e.g., documenting the noncompliance in the contractor's past performance evaluation or terminating the contract for default).
( 2 ) Contracting officers shall document in the contract file the justification for withholding or not withholding payments if the qualifying proposal was not submitted in accordance with the contract definitization schedule.
[56 FR 36345, July 31, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 29498, June 5, 1995; 63 FR 67803, Dec. 9, 1998; 84 FR 39206, Aug. 9, 2019; 88 FR 33837, May 25, 2023]
219.806 Pricing the 8(a) contract. For requirements processed under the PA cited in 219.800— ( 1 ) The contracting officer shall obtain certified cost or pricing data from the 8(a) contractor, if required by FAR subpart 15.4; and
( 2 ) SBA concurrence in the negotiated price is not required. However, except for purchase orders not exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, the contracting officer shall notify the SBA prior to withdrawing a requirement from the 8(a) Program due to failure to agree on price or other terms and conditions.
[63 FR 33588, June 19, 1998, as amended at 67 FR 11437, Mar. 14, 2002; 67 FR 49256, July 30, 2002; 77 FR 76940, Dec. 31, 2012]
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 85 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the amendments 

made by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which disqualify 

expenses for over-the-counter drugs under health savings accounts and 

health flexible spending arrangements. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2017 

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Ms. HEITKAMP) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the amendments made by the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act which disqualify expenses for overthe-counter drugs under health savings accounts and 

health flexible spending arrangements. 

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 ‘‘Restoring Access to 

5 Medication Act of 2017’’. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 85 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DISQUALIFICATION OF EXPENSES FOR 

2 OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUGS UNDER CERTAIN 

3 ACCOUNTS AND ARRANGEMENTS. 

4 (a) HSAS.—Section 223(d)(2)(A) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the last sen6 tence. 

7 (b) ARCHER MSAS.—Section 220(d)(2)(A) of the In8 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the 

9 last sentence. 

10 (c) HEALTH FLEXIBLE SPENDING ARRANGEMENTS

11 AND HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENTS.—Sec12 tion 106 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

13 by striking subsection (f). 

14 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to expenses incurred after Decem16 ber 31, 2016. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary finncial information extracted from Hawks
Industries, Inc. third quarter 1995 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000015678
<NAME> HAWKS INDUSTRIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         294,000
<SECURITIES>                                   795,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  677,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     54,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,967,000
<PP&E>                                       4,154,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,231,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,276,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          730,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       268,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,763,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,276,000
<SALES>                                      2,432,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,508,000
<CGS>                                        2,364,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,424,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 84,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             84,000
<DISCONTINUED>                               (319,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (235,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>