alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 2052.231-70 Precontract costs.

As prescribed in 2031.109-70, following clause may be used in all cost type contracts when costs in connection with work under the contract will be incurred by the contractor before the effective date of the contract. Approval for use of this clause must be obtained at one level above the contracting officer.

# Precontract Costs (JAN 1993)

Allowable costs under this contract include costs incurred by the contractor in connection with the work covered by this contract during the period from * and including * to the effective date of this contract that would have been allowable under the terms of this contract if this contract had been in effect during that period. However, the costs may not in aggregate exceed * which is included in the estimated cost of this contract.

*To be incorporated into any resultant contract.

(End of clause)
# FILED
JUN 1 7 2016 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 70207 KEVIN L. CAMP, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MICHELLE LEAVITT, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus' asks this court to order the district court to set bail in an amount not to exceed $300,000.

"A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and therefore, the decision to entertain the petition lies within our discretion. Such a writ is available only to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station." Winkle v. Foster, 127 Nev. 488, 490-91, 269 P.3d 898, 899 (2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). "[It] will not lie to control discretionary action, unless discretion is manifestly abused or is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously." Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (internal citation 'Petitioner also seeks a writ of prohibition. Because petitioner does not contend that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition is not appropriate. See NRS 34.320.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A )4IE11. 

# -Reomitted); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127

Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse and arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion in context of mandamus). The petitioner carries the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition and its accompanying documents, we are not satisfied that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ is warranted. See Nev. Const. art. 1, § 7 (stating that bail may be restricted for defendants charged with murder) see also NRS 178.498 (listing factors for consideration when setting bail); NRS 178.4853 (listing factors for consideration when setting bail). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Hofland & Tomsheck Kuzemka Law Group Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947 A 

### e'
#### Marilyn HAYES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF the SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 06-17233.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 16, 2008.

Filed May 30, 2008.

James H. Miller, Esq., Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*654John C. Cusker, Esq., SSA — Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: B. FLETCHER and RYMER, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY *, District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Marilyn Hayes appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision granting in part and denying in part her application for supplemental security income benefits based on disability under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1382c. Hayes alleged inability to work because of hepatitis C, internal bleeding, no energy or strength, need for shoulder surgery, nose and gum bleeding, and enlarged heart. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Hayes was disabled as of her fiftieth birthday but not before. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The medical opinion of Hayes’ treating physician, Dr. Watson, and Hayes’ testimony indicated that she had severe fatigue, a non-exertional limitation, see Social Security Ruling 83-10 (1983), reasonably associated with hepatitis. The ALJ provided facially cogent reasons for rejecting Dr. Watson’s opinion and her testimony and instead concluding that she had the ability to perform sedentary tasks despite her non-exertional limitation. However, we conclude that those reasons, and the re-suiting residual functional capacity (“RFC”) determination that Hayes could perform sedentary work before her fiftieth birthday, are unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, and thus not entitled to deference. *Lester v. Chater,*81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir.1995). Therefore, we hold that the disability determination, dependent on the RFC determination, was improperly reached.

“We may direct an award of benefits where the record has been fully developed and where further administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose.” *See Smolen v. Chater,*80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir.1996). Here, the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting Hayes’ testimony and the opinion of her treating physician, there are no outstanding issues precluding us from making a disability determination on the merits, the record is fully developed and, considering the evidence showing significant non-exertional limitations that the ALJ improperly discredited, a finding of disability is required. *See id.*Therefore, we find that Hayes was disabled throughout the seventeen-month period prior to her fiftieth birthday, and reverse and remand for determination of benefits.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications NOAA-NMFS-NWFSC TM-5: Seasonal Changes in the Intertidal and Subtidal Macrobenthic Invertebrate Community Structure in Baker Bay, Lower Columbia River Estuary 
Figure 2. A cross section of the study site in Baker Bay, Columbia River estuary, showing station locations and sediment characteristics observed in February 1981. Tidal levels are EHW = Extreme High Water, MHW = Mean High Water, MTL = Mean Tidal Level, MLW = Mean Low Water, MLLW = Mean Lower Low Water, and ELW = Extreme Low Water. 

Use your browser's BACK button to return to the text.

Return to Table of Contents
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2
                      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that the accompanying Form 10-KSB of Spectrum Laboratories, Inc., (the
"Company") for the annual period ended December 25, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); and that the information contained in this Form 10-KSB
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 11, 2005



/s/ Brian A. Watts
---------------------------
Brian A. Watts
Chief Financial Officer
Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.
355

Hylebos Waterway Fish Injury Studies

Individual Data and Quality Assurance Results

CASE NARRATIVE

Reproductive Toxicology in Flatfish

Biliary FACs

Individual bile samples from English sole captured for the Hylebos Waterway Fish Injury Studies

were analyzed by HFLC with fluorescence detection. In addition to benzo(a)pyrene- (BaP) and

naphthalene- (NPH) like compounds, fluorescence responses were also measured for

phenanthrene- (PHN) like compounds. In accordance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan

(SAP), analytical quality control (identified by QCBatch) was assessed with each analysis set.

The QCBatch identifications for the analyses sets are “HylRepro0l” through “HylRepro05”.

Those samples used in the Reproductive Toxicology Interpretive Report are identified by

“ReTox” under the INVEST# in the summary table. In addition, data from all samples listed in

this case narrative are used with FAC data from the Toxicopathic Conditions Study, and the

combined flatfish FAC data is summarized

in the Toxicopathic Conditions Interpretive Report. Therefore, the only revision in this case

narrative is the inclusion of the additional FAC data of bile from male English sole, as well as

additional data from English sole collected from Hylebos and Colvos waterways in months

other than December and January. The inclusion of these additional data complete the overall

flatfish Biliary FACs dataset discussed in the Toxicopathic Conditions Interpretive Report.

.Method Blank

Results of HPLC analysis of the method blank for each of the QCBatches showed fluorescence

responses of BaP, NPH, and PHN met the following criteria: BaP, NPH, or PHN equivalents

in the method blanks were less than 10% of concentrations in any bile sample analyzed in

the same set.

Initial Calibration Standards

An initial calibration standard consisting of known concentrations of BaP, NPH, and PHN

was analyzed in duplicate at the start of each sample set. The relative standard deviation

(RSD) for each individual PAH for the two analyses met the criteria (≤15%) set in the

quality control section (Table 4) of the SAP for each of the QCBatches.

Continuing Calibration Standards

The calibration standard was analyzed periodically throughout the sample sets. The relative

standard deviations for the analyses in all three QCBatches were within the 25% RSD limit

set for each individual PAH (Table 4, SAP).
356

Bile Reference Material

A bile reference material was analyzed near the beginning and end of each sample

set and compared to historical interlaboratory means of this reference material

(see Quality Assurance section in SAP). The measured fluorescence responses of

this bile sample were within the upper and lower control limits of the interlaboratory mean

value for this reference bile (see Quality Assurance Results).

Replicates

Selected bile samples were analyzed in duplicate for every ten fish analyzed. The RSDs

ranged from <1 to 28%, which is within the 50% RSD limit set in the SAP.
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), David Rickey, Chief
Executive Officer of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. |  | The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | The information 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 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any
filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Annual Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: June 10, 2004 |  | /s/    DAVID RICKEY                  
|                     |  | David Rickey, Chief Executive Officer
#### 232.908 Contract clauses.

Use the clause at 252.232-7011, Payments in Support of Emergencies and Contingency Operations, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, in acquisitions that meet the applicability criteria at 232.901(1). Use of this clause is in addition to use of either the approved Payment clause prescribed in FAR 32.908 or the clause at FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

[78 FR 37989, June 25, 2013, as amended at 88 FR 6587, Jan. 31, 2023]
The Department of Education Acquisition Regulation (EDAR) can be viewed in its entirety on https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-34. Class Deviations
A deviation is the issuance or use of a policy, procedure, solicitation provision, contract clause, method, or practice of conducting acquisition actions of any kind at any stage of the acquisition process that is inconsistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or Department of Education Acquisition Regulation (EDAR). Deviations are processed in accordance with FAR 1.400, Deviations from the FAR, or EDAR 3401.4, Deviations. In general, an approved deviation may authorize lesser or greater limitations on the use of any solicitation provision, contract clause, policy, or procedure prescribed by the FAR or EDAR.
-  Acquisition Alert 2024-03, EDAR Class Deviation, Limitation of Government’s Obligation When Fully Funding Variable Quantity Contract Line Items  (PDF, 324KB)                                   -  Attachment A, Determinations & Findings (D&F)      -  Attachment to D&F 
- Acquisition Alert 2024-04, EDAR Class Deviation to Implement FAR 3.104-7(a)(1)  (PDF, 324KB)                                   -  Attachment A, Determinations & Findings (D&F)      -  Attachment to D&F 
  Last Modified: 02/29/2024
#### 203.104-1 Definitions.

As used in this section—

*Federal agency procurement,* defined at FAR 3.104-1, also includes commercial solutions openings.

[88 FR 55938, Aug. 17, 2023]
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 34 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Federal Communications Commission relating to 

‘‘Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 

Other Telecommunications Services’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Fed4 eral Communications Commission relating to ‘‘Protecting 

5 the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Tele6 communications Services’’ (81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (Decem7 ber 2, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Passed the Senate March 23, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 34 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapcommunications Services’’. Customers of Broadband and Other Tele- mission relating to ‘‘Protecting the Privacy of submitted by the Federal Communications Com- ter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
#### James *v.*James.

April 18, 1913.

Temporary alimony. Before Judge Eawlings. Jenkins superior court. July 30, 1912.

*William Woodrum,*for plaintiff in error.

•Lumpkin, J.

Under the evidence there was no abuse of discretion in granting temporary alimony.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions

Decision: 2015 ME 92

Docket: Yor-14-493

Submitted

 On Briefs: July 1, 2015

Decided: July 28, 2015

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, and HJELM, JJ.

ANNE (WORTH) McBRIDE

v.

JEFFREY R. WORTH

PER CURIAM

[¶1] Jeffrey R. Worth appeals from a judgment entered by the District Court 

(Springvale, Mulhern, J.) finding Worth in contempt for failure to pay spousal 

support to his ex-wife, Anne (Worth) McBride. See M.R. Civ. P. 66. The motion 

for contempt that led to this judgment was the fourth post-judgment motion that the 

District Court had to consider due to Worth’s continuing failure to comply with his 

spousal support obligations despite findings that he has the ability to comply.

[¶2] In prosecuting this appeal, Worth failed entirely to file an appendix to 

the briefs, see M.R. App. P. 8(a), (b)(1), and did not supply a transcript of the 

proceedings or any substitute for a transcript as authorized by M.R. App. P. 5. 

Because of these defects in the appeal, we are unable to provide meaningful 
2

appellate review, and we dismiss the appeal. See M.R. App. P. 8(j); Hutchinson v. 

Bruyere, 2015 ME 16, ¶¶ 5-10, 111 A.3d 36.

[¶3] We note additionally that the trial court has provided Worth with 

multiple opportunities to avoid incarceration despite his consistent failure to pay 

spousal support. Worth’s present appeal—combined with the procedural history of 

the case—demonstrates Worth’s willingness to use court process to repeatedly

delay or avoid paying an unambiguous spousal support obligation. The remedy of 

contempt, with the immediate consequence of imprisonment for failure to comply,

see M.R. Civ. P. 66(d)(1), (2)(D), (3)(A), is appropriate in such circumstances.

The entry is:

Appeal dismissed. Mandate to issue forthwith.

On the briefs:

Jeffrey R. Worth, appellant pro se

Anne (Worth) McBride, appellant pro se

Springvale District Court docket number FM-09-58

FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY
#### 225.7020 Prohibition on contracting with the Maduro regime.
#### 225.870-5 Contract administration.

Follow the contract administration procedures at PGI 225.870-5.

[70 FR 73155, Dec. 9, 2005]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-16325) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Plan of ACR Group, Inc.
and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-42701) pertaining to the
registration of 2,411,667 shares of common stock of ACR Group, Inc., of our
report dated May 7, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of ACR Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended February 28, 2002.



                                                  ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Houston, Texas
May 21, 2002
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cagles, Inc. for the period ended October 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, J. Douglas Cagle, Chief Executive Officer of Cagles, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



1. The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and



2. The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: February 21, 2006





By: /s/ J. Douglas Cagle

J. Douglas Cagle

Chief Executive Officer







CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cagles, Inc. for the period ended October 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mark M. Ham IV, Chief Financial Officer of Cagles, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



1. The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and



2. The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: February 21, 2006



By: /s/ Mark M. Ham IV

Mark M. Ham IV

Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Fred De Lucia and Salvator Montella, Appellants.

Appeal by defendants: (a) from judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 28, 1963 after a joint jury trial, convicting the defendant De Lucia of attempted burglary in the third degree and of possession of burglar’s instruments as a felony; and convicting the defendant Montella of the same burglary count and of possession of burglar’s instruments as a misdemeanor, and imposing sentence upon each of them; and (b) from an order of the said court, made February 13, 1964 on reargument, which adhered to the court’s original order of June 13, 1963 and denied defendants’ motion for a new trial on the ground that during the trial some of the jurors, without authorization, had visited the scene of the alleged crimes. Judgment affirmed as to each defendant. No opinion. A separate appeal does not lie from the order of February 13, 1964. However, such order has been reviewed on the appeal from the judgments (see Code Grim. Pro., §§ 517, 485). Beldock, P. J., TJghetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 505PA10

FILED 27 JUNE 2013

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

DAVID FRANKLIN HURT

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. ' 7A-31 of a unanimous 

decision of the Court of Appeals, 208 N.C. App. 1, 702 S.E.2d 82 (2010), finding 

prejudicial error in a judgment entered on 4 April 2008 by Judge Thomas D.

Haigwood in Superior Court, Caldwell County, and remanding for a new sentencing 

trial. Heard in the Supreme Court on 12 February 2013.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Daniel P. O’Brien, Assistant Attorney 

General, for the State-appellant.

Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant 

Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in State v. Ortiz-Zape, ___ N.C. ___, ___, ___ S.E.2d 

___, ___ (2013), the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The case is 

remanded for consideration of the remaining issues on appeal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Chief Justice PARKER and Justice HUDSON dissent for the reasons stated 

in Justice Hudson’s dissenting opinions in State v. Ortiz-Zape, ___ N.C. ___, ___ 
STATE V. HURT

Opinion of the Court

-2-

S.E.2d ___ (2013) (329PA11) and State v. Brewington, ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ 

(2013) (235PA10). 

Justice BEASLEY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

case.
#### 232.001 Definitions.

*Incremental funding* means the partial funding of a contract or an exercised option, with additional funds anticipated to be provided at a later time.

[71 FR 18673, Apr. 12, 2006]