alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
22.810 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses. ( a ) When a contract is contemplated that will include the clause at 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity, the contracting officer shall insert— ( 1 ) The clause at 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities, in the solicitation and contract; and
( 2 ) The provision at 52.222-22, Previous Contracts and Compliance Reports, in the solicitation.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.222-23, Notice of Requirement for Affirmative Action to Ensure Equal Employment Opportunity for Construction, in solicitations for construction when a contract is contemplated that will include the clause at 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity, and the amount of the contract is expected to be in excess of $10,000.
( c ) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.222-24, Preaward On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance Evaluation, in solicitations other than those for construction when a contract is contemplated that will include the clause at 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity, and the amount of the contract is expected be $10 million or more.
( d ) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.222-25, Affirmative Action Compliance, in solicitations, other than those for construction, when a contract is contemplated that will include the clause at 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity.
( e ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity, in solicitations and contracts (see 22.802) unless the contract is exempt from all of the requirements of E.O. 11246 (see 22.807(a)). If the contract is exempt from one or more, but not all, of the requirements of E.O. 11246, the contracting officer shall use the clause with its *Alternate I.*
( f ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.222-27, Affirmative Action Compliance Requirements for Construction, in solicitations and contracts for construction that will include the clause at 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity, when the amount of the contract is expected to be in excess of $10,000.
( g ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.222-29, Notification of Visa Denial, in contracts that will include the clause at 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity, if the contractor is required to perform in or on behalf of a foreign country.
[48 FR 42258, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 23606, June 4, 1985; 52 FR 19803, May 27, 1987; 63 FR 34060, June 22, 1998; 63 FR 70285, Dec. 18, 1998]
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 8 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2017 

Mr. UDALL (for himself, Mr. BENNET, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. 

TESTER, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. BROWN, 

Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CARPER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. COONS, Ms. CORTEZ

MASTO, Mr. FRANKEN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. HEINRICH, 

Ms. HIRONO, Mr. KING, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. MARKEY, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. MURPHY, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. NELSON, Mr. 

PETERS, Mr. REED, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, 

Ms. WARREN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. CARDIN) 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 contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 8 IS 

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

2 States: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. To advance democratic self-government 

5 and political equality, and to protect the integrity of gov6 ernment and the electoral process, Congress and the 

7 States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the rais8 ing and spending of money by candidates and others to 

9 influence elections. 

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. Congress and the States shall have 

11 power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate 

12 legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons 

13 and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, 

14 including by prohibiting such entities from spending 

15 money to influence elections. 

16 ‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be con17 strued to grant Congress or the States the power to 

18 abridge the freedom of the press.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 60 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the reappointment of Barbara M. Barrett as 

a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents 

5 of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than 

6 Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the expira7 tion of the term of Barbara M. Barrett of Arizona on Jan8 uary 10, 2019, is filled by the reappointment of the incum9 bent. The reappointment is for a term of 6 years, begin10 ning on the later of January 11, 2019, or the date of the 

11 enactment of this joint resolution. 

Passed the Senate May 17, 2018. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 60 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the reappointment of Barbara M. 

gents of the Smithsonian Institution. Barrett as a citizen regent of the Board of Re-
#### Abe Gerchick, Appellant, v. Bernard Moore et al., Respondents.

Renewed motion by appellant, pursuant to leave granted, to vacate an order of this court dated December 5, 1960, dismissing the appeal, and to extend time to perfect the appeal. Motion granted; order dated December 5, 1960, vacated; appellant’s time to perfect appeal extended to the March Term, beginning February 27, 1961; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before February 10, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 12.1





THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY and SUBSIDIARIES


COMPUTATION of RATIO of EARNINGS to FIXED CHARGES


(In Millions, Except Ratio Amounts)


(Unaudited)





Three Months Ended March 31,2002

2001Earnings:Pre-tax income

$
349

$
344Add:Interest and fixed charges,excluding capitalized interest


41


45Portion of rent under long-termoperating leases representativeof an interest factor


46


43Distributed income of investeesaccounted for under the equity method


1


2Amortization of capitalized interest


2


2Less: Undistributed equity in earningsof investments accounted forunder the equity method


3


7Total earnings available for fixed charges

$
436

$
429Fixed charges:Interest and fixed charges

$
46

$
48Portion of rent under long-term operating leases representative of an interest factor


46


43Total fixed charges

$
92

$
91Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


4.74x


4.71x





E-2
236.601 Policy. ( 1 ) Written notification to the congressional defense committees is required if the total estimated contract price for architect-engineer services or construction design, in connection with military construction, military family housing, or restoration or replacement of damaged or destroyed facilities, exceeds $1.5 million. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 480, unclassified notifications must be provided by electronic medium. ( i ) For military construction or military family housing (10 U.S.C. 2807(b)), the notification— ( A ) Must include the scope of the project and the estimated contract price; and
( B ) ( 1 ) If provided by electronic medium, must be provided at least 14 days before the initial obligation of funds; or
( 2 ) If provided by other than electronic medium, must be received by the congressional defense committees at least 21 days before the initial obligation of funds.
( ii ) For restoration or replacement of damaged or destroyed facilities (10 U.S.C. 2854(b)), the notification— ( A ) Must include the justification for the project, the estimated contract price, and the source of the funds for the project; and
( B ) ( 1 ) If provided by electronic medium, must be provided at least 7 days before the initial obligation of funds; or
( 2 ) If provided by other than electronic medium, must be received by the congressional defense committees at least 21 days before the initial obligation of funds.
( 2 ) During the applicable notice period, synopsis of the proposed contract action and administrative actions leading to the award may be started.
[71 FR 58541, Oct. 4, 2006, as amended at 80 FR 36905, June 26, 2015]
##### 



2006 Annual Incentive Plan
 OBJECTIVES:
 
    
    Drive Maxtor profitability,
    
    Align participants performance objectives with successful
achievement of corporate financial goals and initiatives,
    
    Provide reward opportunities consistent and competitive with the
data storage/computer peripheral industry, and
    
    Set direction in the event the Seagate merger is terminated.
 ELIGIBILITY:
 INCENTIVE TARGET:
 CORPORATE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE:
 pg 1




---



##### 



PERFORMANCE RATING: overall
 Performance
    
    Incentive Modifier RangeOutstanding
    
    
    110%- 120
    %Exceeds
    
    
    100%- 110
    %Meets
    
    
    85% -  100
    %
  INCENTIVE CALCULATION:
 Base Salary
    
    $
    60,000Target Incentive Percentage
    
    
    10
    %Incentive Opportunity
    
    $
    6,000
 Hypothetical Corporate Financial Results
    
    
    80
    %
    
    
    110
    %Target Incentive Opportunity
    
    $
    6,000
    
    
    $
    6,000Corp Results Modified Incentive
    
    $
    4,800
    
    
    $
    6,600Individual Performance Modifier
    
    Meets at 90
    %
    
    Exceeds at 100%Hypothetical
Payout
    
    $
    4,320
    
    
    $
    6,600
 DISCRETIONARY ADJUSTMENTS AND ADMINISTRATION:
 INCENTIVE PAY OUT:
 TERMINATION OF THE PLAN:
 Pg 2
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 13 (Friday, January 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01373]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Improvements Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer 
Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be conducted. The 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and 
suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue 
Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, February 9, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 
or (510) 907-5274.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer 
Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be held Tuesday, 
February 9, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to 
make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due 
to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to 
participate must be made with Matthew O'Sullivan. For more information 
please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, 
or write TAP Office, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or 
contact us at the website: http://www.improveirs.org. The agenda will 
include various IRS issues.

    Dated: January 15, 2021.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2021-01373 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
SERVED: October 6, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS DE.PARTHEHT Of 

WASHINGTON, DC TRANSPORTATION . 

Zilb OCT I I P 2: 25 

I. 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DOCKET OPERATIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1321 

Fisher Scientific Company, LLC 

Case No. 201180700457 

Respondent 

ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS 

On October 4, 2016, the undersigned judge held a prehearing conference where the parties 

presented oral arguments regarding the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for 

Insufficiency and for Complainant's Violation of Rule 208. During the prehearing conference, 

the undersigned judge reserved ruling on Respondent's previously filed motions. 

That same day, Respondent's Counsel filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal of Right based 

upon a failure of the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the proceedings in accordance with 

14 C.P.R. §13.215. 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.219(c), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: the proceedings in this case 

are stayed until the FAA decisionmaker issues a decision on the interlocutory appeal. 1 

Attachment: Service List 

DOUGLAS M. RAW ALD 

Administrative Law Judge 

1 In the Notice of Interlocutory Appeal of Right, the Respondent requested a copy of the transcript from the October 

4, 2016 prehearing conference be provided no later than October 10, 2016. Pursuant to the contract with the court 

reporting company, a copy of the transcript will be provided to all parties within 15 days of the hearing. If 

necessary, the Respondent should contact For The Record, Inc. at 301-870-8025 to attempt to obtain an expedited 

copy, or request additional time from the FAA decisionmaker to submit the appellate brief. 
Docket No. FAA-2015-1321 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0002 

Jerry W. Cox, Respondent's Counsel 

Counsel for Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. 

and Fisher Scientific Co., LLC 

2050 Jamieson Ave., Suite 1212 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

TEL: 703-757-5866 

ONE COPY 

Email: j cox@potomacstrategyassociates.com 

Andrea Michelle Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Senior Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P .0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (£11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

2 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 11085 Summary Calendar

United States of America, Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus Jesus Carreon

- Grimaldo, Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:19

- CR

- 658

- 1

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * Jesus Carreon

- Grimaldo appeals the 110

- month sentence imposed as a result of his conviction for illegal reentry after having been removed

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) , (b)(1)

. His sole argument on appeal is that we have

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

### FILED May 27, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-11085 Document: 00516336132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2022No. 21

- 11085

2 jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of his motion for a downward departure or variance made pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2 L1.2, comment. (n.7)

. Carreon

- Grimaldo concedes that the argument is foreclosed by United States v. Lucas , 516 F.3d 316, 350

- 51 (5th Cir. 2008), and United States v. Alan iz , 726 F.3d 586, 627 (5th Cir. 2013), but he wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has moved, without opposition, for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time in which to file a brief on the merits

. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the district court erroneously believed that it did not have the authority to depart. See United States v. Fillmore , 889 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2018). Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion for a downward departure. See id . Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The motion for summary affirmance is DENIED

. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is, likewise, DENIED

. Case: 21-11085 Document: 00516336132 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2022
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 62893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26231]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7639]

Department of State Performance Review Board Members

    In accordance with section 4314(c)(4) of 5 United States Code, the 
Department of State has appointed the following individuals to the 
Department of State Performance Review Board for Senior Executive 
Service members:

James L. Millette, Chairperson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of 
Resource Management, Department of State;
Kelly Clements, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, 
Refugees and Migration, Department of State;
Richard C. Visek, Deputy Legal Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, 
Department of State;
Marcia S. Bernicat, Ambassador, Department of State.

    Dated: September 27, 2011.
Nancy J. Powell,
Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human 
Resources, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-26231 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-15-P
```
Skip to content. | Skip to navigation
Personal toolsSections- Home 
- About Us 
- Newsroom    - Images 
  - Video 
- Library    - IPR Center     Reports 
  - Fact Sheets 
  - IPR     Center Symposiums 
  - Public     Service Announcements 
  - Digital     and Online IP Theft 
- Contact Us 
- Report IP Crimes 
Search Site    only in current section Advanced Search... You are here: Home › Library › IPR Center Reports › IPR Center Report Volume 1 Number 1 - Info
IPR Center Report Volume 1 Number 1 
IPR Center Report Volume 1 Number 1 

To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 9.0.124 or greater is installed.

 iprcenter1-1.pdf — PDF document, 367 kB (376773 bytes) 
- Twitter 
- Facebook 
- Share 
- 
- 
 Filed under: IPR Center ReportU.S. Department of Homeland Security | USA.gov | Freedom of Information | Privacy & Usage Policy | Site Map | Contact Us
Case: 1:12-cv-02208 Document #: 20 Filed: 08/08/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:85
#### In the Matter of Louis Rudd (Formerly Known as Louis Rudkowitz), Petitioner. Brooklyn Bar Association, Respondent.

Application by petitioner -to vacate order of disbarment, entered March 7, 1927, and to reinstate petitioner as an attorney and counselor at law, referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness for the Second Judicial District: (a) for investigation and hearing as to whether the petitioner presently possesses the requisite character and fitness for an attorney at law; and (ib) for a report setting forth the committee’s findings and recommendations. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Darrell Clingman, Respondent, v. Charles Cushman et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

The employer and carrier appeal from an award for disability compensation. Appellants challenge the finding of employer-employee relationship, and also the jurisdiction of the New York Workmen’s Compensation Board. Cushman, the alleged employer, was a public trainer of race horses, training many horses for several owners. There is evidence from which the board could find, as it did, that Cushman’s place of business was in New York. Claimant, a resident of New York, is a jockey and exercise boy by occupation. It is without dispute that claimant was in Cushman’s employ as an exercise boy, riding various horses being trained by Cushman in New York, at a salary of $300 per month from February until the latter part of May, 1955, as well as to ride Cushman trained horses in races both during and after this period. There is evidence that Cushman, as trainer, had complete charge of the horses which he was hired to train, including the selection and hiring of the jockey to ride any particular horse in a race. There was a general understanding between claimant and Cushman that claimant would ride Cushman trained horses in New York, and he had done so quite frequently. Cushman was training a horse named “ Goose Bay ” for a Mrs. Patterson of Pittsburgh, Pa. Claimant had ridden this horse in races in New York five or six times previous to the accident. A day or two before June 21, 1955, Cushman called claimant in New York and requested him to ride “Goose Bay” in a particular race in the State of Delaware on June 21, 1955. It was in that race that claimant was injured. It was understood between claimant and Cushman that claimant would return after that particular assignment to New York to ride horses trained by Cushman in the near future. 'There is evidence that Cushman had the right to hire and fire a jockey, and he gave all of the instructions and directions to claimant, although ultimately, but not initially, claimant’s compensation was paid by the owner. Cushman carried a New York compensation insurance policy which listed his place of business as Queens Village, Long Island, New York. It would seem that a clear factual situation was presented for determination by the board, and that there is ade-

*672quate evidence to support the board’s finding that claimant was an employee of Cushman and "that New York was the place of employment despite the fact that the accident happened outside of the State on a temporary assignment. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**I, Thomas W. Stoltz, Executive Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer of The Cato Corporation,certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that onthe date of this Certification:1. the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended August 4, 2007 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: September 12, 2007       /s/ Thomas W. Stoltz     Thomas W. Stoltz
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Torres, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 421]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered on or about May 18, 2005, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, McGuire and Malone, JJ.