alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
19.806 Pricing the 8(a) contract. ( a ) The contracting officer shall price the 8(a) contract in accordance with subpart 15.4. If required by subpart 15.4, the SBA shall obtain certified cost or pricing data from the 8(a) contractor. If the SBA requests audit assistance to determine the proposed price to be fair and reasonable in a sole source acquisition, the contracting activity shall furnish it to the extent it is available.
( b ) An 8(a) contract, sole source or competitive, may not be awarded if the price of the contract results in a cost to the contracting agency which exceeds a fair market price.
( c ) If requested by the SBA, the contracting officer shall make available the data used to estimate the fair market price within 10 working days.
( d ) The negotiated contract price and the estimated fair market price are subject to the concurrence of the SBA. In the event of a disagreement between the contracting officer and the SBA, the SBA may appeal in accordance with 19.810.
[54 FR 46005, Oct. 31, 1989, as amended at 62 FR 51270, Sept. 30, 1997; 64 FR 32745, 32748, June 17, 1999; 75 FR 53149, Aug. 30, 2010]
### §1184a. Philippine Traders as nonimmigrants

Upon a basis of reciprocity secured by agreement entered into by the President of the United States and the President of the Philippines, a national of the Philippines, and the spouse and children of any such national if accompanying or following to join him, may, if otherwise eligible for a visa and if otherwise admissible into the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.] (66 Stat. 163), be considered to be classifiable as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(E) of said Act if entering solely for the purposes specified in subsection (i) or (ii) of said section.

(June 18, 1954, ch. 323, 68 Stat. 264.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Immigration and Nationality Act, referred to in text, is act June 27, 1952, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1101 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as a part of the Immigration and Nationality Act which comprises this chapter.
Exhibit 31.2
 
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 September 3, 2010
    /s/ J. Per BrodinJ. Per BrodinChief Financial Officer 36
1816.307 Contract clauses. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (g)). ( a ) (1) In paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(B) of the Allowable Cost and Payment clause at FAR 52.216-7, the period of years may be increased to correspond with any statutory period of limitation applicable to claims of third parties against the contractor; provided, that a corresponding increase is made in the period for retention of records required in paragraph (f) of the clause at FAR 52.215-2, Audit and Records—Negotiation.
[62 FR 3478, Jan. 23, 1997, as amended at 69 FR 21764, Apr. 22, 2004; 81 FR 50366, Aug. 1, 2016]
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Loan Principal

Min Earnings to Pass at 12/30 DTE minimum earnings to pass total debt/earnings > 1

Minimum earnings necessary to pass DE, various metrics

10 year amortization; .0445 int. rate
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

FIFTH DISTRICT 

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 

FRANCIS FIGUEROA, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D15-2465

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Opinion filed April 7, 2017 

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County,

Keith A. Carsten, Judge.

William R. Ponall, of Ponall Law, Maitland, 

for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

We affirm Appellant's convictions without prejudice to his right to file a motion 

pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

AFFIRMED. 

PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., and BOATRIGHT, J., Associate Judge, concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 2023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00228]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #16706 and #16707; LOUISIANA Disaster Number LA-
00105]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the 
State of Louisiana

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4570-DR), dated 10/16/
2020.
    Incident: Hurricane Delta.
    Incident Period: 10/06/2020 through 10/10/2020.

DATES: Issued on 12/23/2020.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/15/2020.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/16/2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of Louisiana, dated 10/16/2020, is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

Primary Parishes (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Allen, 
Iberia.
Contiguous Parishes (Economic Injury Loans Only): None
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Cynthia Pitts,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2021-00228 Filed 1-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 7 

To amend title 51, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration to enter into leases of 

non-excess property of the Administration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 27, 2018 

Mr. WICKER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 51, United States Code, to extend the authority of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to enter into leases of non-excess property of the 

Administration. 

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 ‘‘NASA Enhanced Use 

5 Leasing Extension Act of 2018’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 7 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO LEASES 

2 OF NON-EXCESS PROPERTY OF THE NA3 TIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINIS4 TRATION. 

5 Section 20145(g) of title 51, United States Code, is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2018’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘December 31, 2019’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00728-CV

Lynn Allen Nobles, Appellant

v.

Security State Bank and Trust, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LLANO COUNTY, 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 12,192-A, HONORABLE GUILFORD L. JONES III, JUDGE PRESIDING

The parties have filed a joint motion informing this Court that they have agreed to dismiss 

the appeal and requesting that this Court enter an order dismissing the appeal. The joint motion to dismiss 

the appeal is granted. 

 

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed On Joint Motion

Filed: May 2, 2002

Do Not Publish
2001.601 General. ( a ) Contracting authority vests in the Chairman. The Chairman has delegated this authority to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO). The EDO has delegated this authority to the Deputy Executive Director for Management Services (DEDM). The DEDM has delegated this authority to the Director, Office of Administration (ADM). The Director, ADM, has delegated the authority to the Director, Division of Contracts and Property Management (DCPM), who, in turn, makes contracting officer appointments within Headquarters and Regional Offices. All of these delegations are formal written delegations containing dollar limitations and conditions.
( b ) The Director, Division of Contracts Division of Contracts and Property Management, establishes contracting policy throughout the agency; monitors the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the agency's contracting office; establishes controls to assure compliance with laws, regulations, and procedures; and delegates contracting officer authority.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). K S/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T OL GA E S T E L A B AR R E R A Z AP E T A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 72084 A ge nc yN o. A 071- 576- 711 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. O l ga E st el a B arre raZ apet a, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f G uat em al a, pet i t i on s pro se for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng her m o tio n to r e c o n s id e ran dr e o p e n . O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . 

# FI LED JAN 13 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSK S/ Res ea r ch 07- 72084 2 W e r evi ew for abu se of di sc re t i on the deni alof a m ot i on t o reopen o r r ec on si der, Ca n o -Me r i da v . I

NS , 311 F . 3d 960, 964 ( 9th C i r . 2002) , and w e de nyi n partand d i s m i s s i n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B IA d i dn o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n i n d en yi n g B arrera Z ap et a’ s m o t i o n as a m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . T h e m o tio n f a ile dto s p e c if

yan e rr o ro f

f a c t o rlaw w ith r e s p e c t to th e B I A ’s p r io rd e te rm in a tio n th a t h e rF e b ru ary1 , 2 0 0 6 , m o tio n to r e o p e n w a s u n tim e ly . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . T he B I A a l s o di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng a s unt i m e l ythe m ot i on a s am ot i on t o r e ope n w he r e i tw a s f i l e d 3 y e ar s a f

t e rthe B I A ’ s or de rdi s m i s s i ng th e u n d e r ly in g ap p e a l. See 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2). W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de c i s i on nott o i nvoke i t s s ua s p o n te au th o r ityto r e o p e n p r o c e e d in g s u n d e r8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( a ) . See Ekim i an v. I NS , 30 3 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 59 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). I n l i ghtof

ourdi s pos i t i on, w e do notr e a c h B arr e r aZ ape t a ’ s r e m a i ni ng co n t en t i o n s. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
#### 1827.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes NASA policies, procedures, and contract clauses pertaining to patents, data, and copyrights. The provisions of FAR Part 27 apply to NASA acquisitions unless specifically excepted in this part.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TONY MARTIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 228

)

SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This action had originally been assigned to the calendar of

this Court’s colleague Honorable John Grady, but because Judge

Grady is no longer being assigned prisoner condition cases that

come within this District Court’s “555” category, the case has

been reassigned to this Court’s calendar. Now defense counsel

has filed defendants’ Answer to Martin’s Complaint, coupled with

an affirmative defense (“AD”). Issuance of this memorandum order

is occasioned by two aspects of that responsive pleading.

To begin with, defense counsel has joined a substantial club

(though frankly a single member of that club would be one too

many) comprising lawyers who cannot seem to conform to the plain

language of Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b)(5). Instead of

tracking the clear roadmap prescribed by that Rule for parties to

get the benefit of a deemed denial (see App’x ¶5 to State Farm

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill.

2001)), Answer ¶¶2, 9 through 12, 14, 16 and 17 follow a

different (and impermissible) path that requires rerouting.

Case: 1:12-cv-00228 Document #: 15 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:33
But before defense counsel is sent back to the drawing board

to file an Amended Answer, Martin’s counsel should address the

claimed nonexhaustion of administrative remedies referred to in

defendants’ AD, which if sound would require the dismissal of

this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a). Although the AD

suggests that a hearing be conducted on that score pursuant to

Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008), such a

proceeding may not be necessary (at least in the first instance). 

Instead this Court orders Martin’s counsel to file a submission

on or before March 16, 2012 that provides the relevant

information as to Martin’s compliance with the statutory

requirement (or perhaps an acknowledgment that he has not done

so), after which this Court will determine what action is

appropriate.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 5, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00228 Document #: 15 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:34
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IXCHEL PHARMA, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

BIOGEN, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-15258

D.C. No. 

2:17-cv-00715-WBS-EFB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 15, 2019

Submission Withdrawn July 16, 2019

Resubmitted September 16, 2020

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, IKUTA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Ixchel Pharma, LLC, appeals the district court’s dismissal of its claims

against Biogen, Inc. for (1) tortious interference with contractual relations, (2)

intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and

FILED

SEP 17 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
(3) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We affirm.

Given the California Supreme Court’s answer to our certified questions, the

district court correctly held that for Ixchel to state a claim against Biogen for

tortious interference with contractual relations, it was required to allege that

Biogen engaged in an independently wrongful act. Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen,

Inc., No. S256927, 2020 WL 4432623, at *5, 9 (Cal. August 3, 2020). 

Ixchel argued that section 2.13 of Biogen’s contract with Forward violated

section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code and thus constituted

an independently wrongful act. The district court did not err in rejecting this

argument. The district court correctly analyzed section 2.13 of the contract under a

rule of reason to determine its validity, and concluded that section 2.13 was not an

unreasonable restraint of competition and therefore did not violate section 16600. 

See Ixchel Pharma, 2020 WL 4432623, at *18. Ixchel did not argue on appeal that

the district court erred in reaching this conclusion.

1

 We previously rejected Biogen’s argument that we lack jurisdiction under

Article III of the U.S. Constitution to consider Ixchel’s claim. See Ixchel Pharma,

LLC v. Biogen, Inc., 930 F.3d 1031, 1035 n.5 (9th Cir. 2019), certified question

answered, 9 Cal. 5th 1130 (2020). 

2
Given the district court’s holding that section 2.13 did not violate section

16600, Ixchel did not plead an independently wrongful act. Thus, the district court

did not err in holding that Ixchel failed to state a claim for tortious interference

with contractual relations, intentional and negligent interference with prospective

economic advantage, or a violation of the UCL.

AFFIRMED.

3
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

THE GENERAL COUNSEL

MEMORANDUM

TO: Bucky Methfessel

FROM: The General Counsel

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority

I. DELEGATION

In accordance with the Charter of the U.S. Department of Education Data Integrity 

Board, approved on September 13, 2006, I hereby delegate to you my appointment 

to the Data Integrity Board and the authority incumbent in that appointment.

II. RESERVATIONS

None.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal 

Delegation Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this 

authority.

_________/s/___________ 

 Kent D. Talbert

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume 11/24/2008

Certified Date: 11/28/2008

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EG/EG/115
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NINA E. OLSON,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3023

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0752-14-0100-I-1.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ROBERT S. HORWITZ, Law Offices of A. Lavar Taylor, 

Santa Ana, CA, argued for petitioner.

MICHAEL ANTON CARNEY, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, 

argued for respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G.

POLISUK. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 06/04/2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
#### 1852.236-75 Partnering for construction contracts.

As prescribed in 1836.7004, insert the following clause:

# Partnering for Construction Contracts (AUG 1998)

(a) The terms “partnering” and “partnership” used herein shall mean a relationship of open communication and close cooperation that involves both Government and Contractor personnel working together for the purpose of establishing a mutually beneficial, proactive, cooperative environment within which to achieve contract objectives and resolve issues and implementing actions as required.

(b) Partnering will be a voluntary commitment mutually agreed upon by at least NASA and the prime contractor, and preferably the subcontractors and the A&E design contractor, if applicable. Sustained commitment to the process is essential to assure success of the relationship.

(c) NASA intends to facilitate contract management by encouraging the foundation of a cohesive partnership with the Contractor, its subcontractors, the A&E design contractor, and NASA's contract management staff. This partnership will be structured to draw on the strengths of each organization to identify and achieve mutual objectives. The objectives are intended to complete the contract requirements within budget, on schedule, and in accordance with the plans and specifications.

(d) To implement the partnership, it is anticipated that within 30 days of the Notice to Proceed the prime Contractor's key personnel, its subcontractors, the A&E design contractor, and NASA personnel will attend a partnership development and team building workshop. Follow-up team building workshops will be held periodically throughout the duration of the contract as agreed to by the Government and the Contractor.

(e) Any cost with effectuating the partnership will be agreed to in advance by both parties and will be shared with no change in the contract price. The contractor's share of the costs are not recoverable under any other Government award.

(End of clause)

[63 FR 44171, Aug. 18, 1998]
#### 204.7103-2 Numbering procedures.

Follow the procedures at PGI 204.7103-2 for numbering contract line items.

[70 FR 58983, Oct. 11, 2005]
#### 213.106-2-70 Solicitation provision.

Use the provision at 252.204-7024, Notice on the Use of the Supplier Performance Risk System, as prescribed in 204.7604.

[88 FR 17339, Mar. 22, 2023]
204.7303 Procedures. ( a ) Follow the procedures relating to safeguarding covered defense information at PGI 204.7303.
( b ) The contracting officer shall verify that the summary level score of a current NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment (*i.e.,* not more than 3 years old, unless a lesser time is specified in the solicitation) (see 252.204-7019) for each covered contractor information system that is relevant to an offer, contract, task order, or delivery order are posted in Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) (*https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/*), prior to— ( 1 ) Awarding a contract, task order, or delivery order to an offeror or contractor that is required to implement NIST SP 800-171 in accordance with the clause at 252.204-7012; or
( 2 ) Exercising an option period or extending the period of performance on a contract, task order, or delivery order with a contractor that is that is required to implement the NIST SP 800-171 in accordance with the clause at 252.204-7012.
[85 FR 61519, Sept. 29, 2020]