alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1532.003 Simplified acquisition procedures financing. ( a ) *Scope.* This subpart provides for authorization of advance and interim payments on commercial item orders not exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold. Advance payments are payments that are made prior to performance. Interim payments are payments that are made during the order period according to a payment schedule.
( b ) *Procedures for micropurchases.* Contracting officers may authorize advance and interim payments on orders for commercial items only at or below the micropurchase threshold.
( c ) *Procedures for purchases exceeding micropurchase threshold.* Contracting officers must secure approval at one level above the contracting officer, on a case-by-case basis, for advance and interim payments on orders for commercial items exceeding the micropurchase threshold and not exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold. The contracting officer shall submit a recommendation for approval of financing terms, along with the supporting rationale for the action, to one level above the contracting officer. Remote simplified acquisition contracting officers (SACO) without one level above contracting officers at their locations shall forward recommendations through their OAM Advisors to secure one level above approval.
( d ) *Supporting rationale.* Regardless of dollar value, the contracting officer shall document the file with supporting rationale demonstrating that the purchase meets the conditions of FAR 32.202-1(b)(1), (3) and (4).
( e ) *Administration.* Regardless of dollar value, the contracting officer is responsible for ensuring that supplies or services have been delivered. The contracting officer shall document the file with evidence of receipt of supplies or services throughout the order period as appropriate to the acquisition.
( f ) *Clause.* The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1552.232-74, Payments—Simplified Acquisition Procedures Financing, in solicitations and orders that will provide simplified acquisition procedures financing.
[71 FR 32283, June 5, 2006]
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction125 South Webster StreetP.O. Box 7841Madison, WI 53707-7841Phone: (608) 266-3390Toll-Free: (800) 441-4563Website: http://dpi.wi.gov/

### State Higher Education Agency

Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board4822 Madison Yards WaySeventh FloorMadison, WI 53705Phone: (608) 267-2206Fax: (608) 267-2808Website: http://www.heab.state.wi.us/

### Special Education Agency

Special Education TeamWisconsin Department of Public Instruction125 South Webster StreetP.O. Box 7841Madison, WI 53707-7841Phone: (608) 266-1781Website: http://dpi.wi.gov/sped

### State Adult Education Agency

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Adult Education125 South Webster StreetMadison, WI 53703Phone: (800) 768-8886Website: https://dpi.wi.gov/ged

Back to state map
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 51 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative 

to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 21, 2017 

Mr. CASSIDY 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 relative to limiting the number of terms that 

a Member of Congress may serve. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 by the Congress: 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 51 IS 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has served 9 consecutive 

3 terms as a Representative shall be eligible for election to 

4 the House of Representatives for a tenth consecutive term. 

5 For purposes of this section, the election of a person to 

6 fill a vacancy in the House of Representatives shall be in7 cluded as 1 term in determining the number of terms that 

8 such person has served as a Representative if the person 

9 fills the vacancy for more than 1 year. Nothing in this 

10 section shall prevent a person described in the first sen11 tence from being eligible for election to the House of Rep12 resentatives for a subsequent term if there is a period of 

13 not less than 1 year between such consecutive terms and 

14 the subsequent term. 

15 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has served 3 consecutive 

16 terms as a Senator shall be eligible for election or appoint17 ment to the Senate for a fourth consecutive term. For pur18 poses of this section, the election or appointment of a per19 son to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be included as 

20 1 term in determining the number of terms that such per21 son has served as a Senator if the person fills the vacancy 

22 for more than 3 years. Nothing in this section shall pre23 vent a person described in the first sentence from being 

24 eligible for election or appointment to the Senate for a 

25 subsequent term if there is a period of not less than 1 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SJ 51 IS 

1 year between such consecutive terms and the subsequent 

2 term. 

3 ‘‘SECTION 3. No term of service beginning before the 

4 date of the ratification of this article shall be taken into 

5 account in determining eligibility for election or appoint6 ment under this article.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 985 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from revising the approved oil 

and gas leasing program for fiscal years 2017 through 2022. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 27, 2017 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. BOOKER, 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. HASSAN, Mrs. 

MURRAY, Mr. FRANKEN, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Ms. WARREN, Mr. CARDIN, 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. NELSON, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. REED, Mr. MERKLEY, 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. HARRIS, and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from revising the 

approved oil and gas leasing program for fiscal years 

2017 through 2022. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON REVISING APPROVED 2017– 

4 2022 OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM. 

5 The Secretary of the Interior shall not revise the ap6 proved oil and gas leasing program for the period of fiscal 

7 years 2017 through 2022 prepared under section 18 of 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 985 IS

1 the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344) 

2 and described in the document entitled ‘‘2017–2022 Outer 

3 Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final 

4 Program’’ and dated November 2016. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•A.', n » * m t/ . J 

ms 

February 24, 2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood ' 

Secretary 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 

20590 

Subject: Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

As a dedicated travel partner of American Airlines, I am writing in support of American's application to provide 

new service from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport to 

Tokyo International Airport at Haneda. 

I recognize and applaud you and the Obama administration for your success last December in reaching a 

landmark Open Skies agreement with Japan, which opens up Haneda to service by U.S. airlines. 

I encourage your selection of American Airlines to provide nonstop service from New York and Los Angeles to 

Haneda in order to provide an essential connection between three of the world's financial and commerce 

centers. 

Recent events, including the successful preservation of Japan Airlines' oneworld Alliance membership, have 

underscored American's strong commitment to the trans-Pacific market. American is likewise committed to 

New York and Los Angles - both vital focal points of business, trade, entertainment, technology and education 

- providing unsurpassed air service since the mid-1900s 

Both the New York and Los Angeles metro areas will gain significant economic benefits from these proposed 

new flights, as will American's customers and employees. However, we need your help to make the 

JFK/Haneda connection a reality. 

Therefore, I strongly urge you to say yes to American Airlines and its request for slots to fly from Kennedy to 

Haneda! 

Sincerely, 

H.I.S. International Tours (NY), Inc.
#### 237.7600 Scope.

This subpart prescribes procedures for the acquisition of essential contractor services which support mission-essential functions.
File Name: Northeast model external scope test Option B.lim

Author: Robert Johnston, Clark University Created: January 18, 2012 Purpose: LIMDEP program for external scope test of Option B of the Northeast stated preference survey.

RESET $ READ ; File ="D:\Rob Johnston\LIMDEP Data\NE_model_data_110411b.xls" ; Format = XLS ; Names $ CALC ; Ran(12345) $ CREATE ; If(option=0) Neither=1; (Else) Neither=0 $ CREATE ; cost = cost$ REJECT; choice = -999 $ REJECT; option<2 $ REJECT; fish_sav<95 $ DSTAT ; Rhs = choice, neither, com_fish, fish_pop, fish_sav, aquatic, cost

$

RESET $ READ ; File ="D:\Rob Johnston\LIMDEP Data\NE_model_data_110411b.xls" ; Format = XLS ; Names $ CALC ; Ran(12345) $ CREATE ; If(option=0) Neither=1; (Else) Neither=0 $ CREATE ; cost = cost$ REJECT; choice = -999 $ REJECT; option<2 $ REJECT; fish_sav=95 $ REJECT; fish_sav=5 $ DSTAT ; Rhs = choice, neither, com_fish, fish_pop, fish_sav, aquatic, cost

$

RESET $ READ ; File ="D:\Rob Johnston\LIMDEP Data\NE_model_data_110411b.xls" ; Format = XLS ; Names $ CALC ; Ran(12345) $ CREATE ; If(option=0) Neither=1; (Else) Neither=0 $ CREATE ; cost = cost$ REJECT; choice = -999 $ REJECT; option<2 $ REJECT; fish_sav>5 $ DSTAT ; Rhs = choice, neither, com_fish, fish_pop, fish_sav, aquatic, cost

$

Page 1
Exhibit 99.1


                Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer of Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the quarter ended November 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






/s/  Fred R. Adams, Jr.
----------------------------------------------
Fred R. Adams, Jr.
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

Date :    January 13, 2003

                                       17
#### 2019.705-4 Reviewing the subcontracting plan.

The contracting officer may accept the terms of an overall or “master” company subcontracting plan incorporated by reference into a specific subcontracting plan submitted by the apparent successful offeror/bid for a specific contract, only upon ensuring that the required information, goals, and assurances are included in accordance with FAR 19.704.
222.604-2 Regulatory exemptions. ( b ) Submit all applications for such exemptions through contracting channels to the labor advisor.
[56 FR 36358, July 31, 1991, as amended at 65 FR 14398, Mar. 16, 2000]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6067

HERBERT ALONZO ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANIEL KOELE, LPN; DELLA ACKERMAN, LPN; RIVERS RICE, Corporal, all in their individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. and BETTE GARRAND, RN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-558-5-17JI) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Herbert Alonzo Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. James Miller Davis,Jr., DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Sandra Jane Senn, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date Appellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 3 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on September 10, 1998; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on December 28, 1998. Appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal * or to obtain either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’sappeal. We therefore grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss, deny Appellant’s motion to dismiss motion to dismiss, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal4 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LINDA TODD, )

individually and on behalf of a class, )

) 12 C 2557

Plaintiff, )

) Judge Kendall

v. )

)

PRESIDIO INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a )

A|X ARMANI EXCHANGE )

)

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

NOW COMES Plaintiff Linda Todd, by and through counsel, Warner Law Firm, LLC, 

by Curtis C. Warner, and pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntarily dismisses her’s 

and the putative class’ claims without prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Curtis C. Warner

 Curtis C. Warner 

Curtis C. Warner cwarner@warnerlawllc.com

Warner Law Firm, LLC

155 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 9005

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 238-9820 (TEL)

Case: 1:12-cv-02557 Document #: 44 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:292
#### Anna Burchianti et al., Respondents, v. City of Long Beach, Appellant.

In an action by the female plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her when she fell while alighting from defendant’s bus in a bus terminal maintained by defendant, and by her husband to recover *637damages for medical expenses and loss of services, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 12, 1960, in favor of plaintiffs, after a jury trial, upon' a verdict of $40,000 for the female plaintiff and $20,000 for her husband. Judgment, insofar as it is in favor of the female plaintiff, affirmed, without costs. Judgment, insofar as it is in favor of the plaintiff husband, Abramo Burchianti, reversed on the facts, and as to said plaintiff the action is severed and a new trial granted, with costs to defendant to abide the event, unless, within 20 days after the entry of the order hereon, the plaintiff husband shall stipulate to reduce the verdict in his favor from $20,000 to $10,000, in which event the judgment, as so reduced, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff husband is grossly excessive. Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur; Ughetta, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial as to both plaintiffs, on the ground that the verdict as to both is against the weight of the evidence.
#### Postal Telegraph-Cable *Company v.*Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company *et al.*

March 11, 1913.

Injunction. Before Judge Hammond. Richmond superior court. December 3, 1912.

*O. E'. Dunbar,*for plaintiff in error.

*Joseph B. & Bryan Gumming,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

Under the rulings in *Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company*v. *Postal Telegraph-Cable Company,*120 *Ga.*268 (48 S. E. 15, 1 Ann. Cas. 734), and *Western and Atlantic Railroad Company*v. *Western Union Telegraph Company,*138 *Ga.*120 (75 S. E. 471), and under the evidence introduced, there was no abuse of discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction. 1

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beck, J., absent. The other Justices concur.*
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications NOAA-NWFSC Tech Memo 12: Exposure to oil from the Exxon Valdez Figure 7. Fish and shellfish sampling stations in Kodiak and Chiniak. Figure 8. Fish and shellfish sampling stations in the vicinity of Old Harbor. Figure 9. Fish and shellfish sampling stations in the vicinity of Akhiok. Figure 10. Fish and shellfish sampling stations in the vicinity of Karluk. Figure 11. Fish and shellfish sampling stations in the vicinity of Larsen Bay. Figure 12. Fish and shellfish sampling stations in the vicinity of Port Lions. Figure 13. Fish and shellfish sampling stations in the vicinity of Ouzinkie.
#### 216.203 Fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment.
**EXHIBIT99.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the “Report”) by Cascade Natural GasCorporation (the “Company”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Cascade Natural Gas Corporation and will be retained byCascade Natural Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or staff upon request.

 

 
|   | /s/ W. Brian Matsuyama                                            |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | W. Brian Matsuyama                                                |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer                             |
|   |                                                              |
|   | /s/ J. D. Wessling                                                |   |
|   | J.D. Wessling                                                     |
|   | Senior Vice President – Finance and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### George Budner, Appellant, v. Thomas Giunta, as President of Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers of America, Local Union No. 892, et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial granted, without costs. The complaint was dismissed while plaintiff’s counsel was still in the course of his direct examination of plaintiff. The action was brought to set aside the determination of the Trial Board of District Council *781No. 9 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers of America fining plaintiff $200 and suspending him from his Union. Plaintiff claimed that the action of the Trial Board was illegal and that a stipulation in a prior action precluded the preferment of the same charges against plaintiff. Evidently the basis for the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint was the statement by defendant’s counsel that all plaintiff had to do was to pay the $200 fine and he would be reinstated in the union. The statement by defendant’s counsel was not enough to warrant a dismissal of the complaint where plaintiff was attacking the validity of the Trial Board’s determination. Particularly is this so when it appears that the Trial Board has suspended plaintiff from the union for a three-year period in addition to fining' him. Orderly procedure required that plaintiff be permitted to complete his case. While it may have seemed that plaintiff’s ultimate success in the action was improbable, the dismissal of the complaint before plaintiff had concluded his ease was unduly precipitate. (See *Matter of Driller*v. *Power,*14 A D 2d 596; *Yates*v. *Stevenson,*246 App. Div. 839; *Levy*v. *Goldman,*252 App. Div. 781.) The suggestion by defendant’s counsel regarding the payment of $200 may have presented a practical, and highly desirable, solution of the controversy, but it did not, as a matter of law, demonstrate at that stage of the proceedings that plaintiff could not prevail in the action. A new trial is therefore directed to enable plaintiff to present his entire case. Since a new trial is necessary, it may be advisable for plaintiff to move to amend his pleading to include his claim that the Trial Board was not legally constituted. Concur — Babin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23

                       CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE OF
                              INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
   
Lasertechnics, Inc.:
    

The audits referred to in our report dated February 20, 1998, included the
related financial statement schedule as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, included in
the Form 10-KSB. The financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this
financial statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the consolidated financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.

   
We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements Nos.
33-42214 and 33-98160 on Form S-8 and No. 333-10665 on Form S-3 of
Lasertechnics, Inc. of our reports dated February 20, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Lasertechnics, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and related schedule, which reports
appear in the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form 10-KSB, as amended.
    



                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Dallas, Texas
April 22, 1998
#### 2152.232-72 Approval for assignment of claims.

As prescribed in 2132.806, insert the following clause:

# Approval For Assignment of Claims (OCT 1993)

(a) The Contractor shall not make any assignment of FEGLI Program funds under the Assignment of Claims Act without the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer.

(b) Unless a different period is specified in the Contracting Officer's written approval, an assignment of FEGLI Program funds shall be in force only for a period of 1 year from the date of the Contracting Officer's approval. However, assignments may be renewed upon their expiration.

(End of clause)