alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
22.608 Procedures. ( a ) *Award.* When a contract subject to the statute is awarded, the contracting officer, in accordance with regulations or instructions issued by the Secretary of Labor and individual agency procedures, shall furnish to the contractor DOL publication WH-1313, Notice to Employees Working on Government Contracts.
( b ) *Breach of stipulation.* In the event of a violation of a stipulation required under the statute, the contracting officer shall, in accordance with agency procedures, notify the appropriate regional office of the DOL, Wage and Hour Division (see 29 CFR part 1, Appendix B), and furnish any information available.
[61 FR 67411, Dec. 20, 1996, as amended at 71 FR 36932, June 28, 2006; 79 FR 24205, Apr. 29, 2014]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 18, 2019

NO. 03-19-00298-CV

Tutankhamun Holt, Appellant

v.

Michael J. Rogers, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES TRIANA, AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on March 25, 2019. Having 

reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the 

Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to 

pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 26 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 26

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
 for the unveiling of the American Prisoners of War/Missing in Action 
                       (POW/MIA) Chair of Honor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 16, 2017

  Ms. Warren (for herself, Mr. Rubio, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Tillis, Mr. 
 Rounds, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Shaheen, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. 
 Markey, Mr. Brown, Mr. Menendez, and Ms. Cortez Masto) submitted the 
  following concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
 for the unveiling of the American Prisoners of War/Missing in Action 
                       (POW/MIA) Chair of Honor.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR UNVEILING OF AMERICAN PRISONERS 
              OF WAR/MISSING IN ACTION (POW/MIA) CHAIR OF HONOR.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used for an event on November 8, 2017, to unveil 
the American Prisoners of War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA) Chair of 
Honor.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
ceremony described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.
                                 <all>
```
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

norman clemens <potsdidstop@hotmail.com> 

Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:54 PM 

EAS (OST) 

Seaport 

::,I __ 

·~ i' <-..:: 

Regarding new contract for airlines to Kalaupapa, ect I am willing to consider SeaPort due to past history as 

well as best rates. 

Norman clemens-author of :"Pots Did Stop" 

1
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1
                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10K of Information Resources,
Inc. (the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Joseph
P. Durrett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

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

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

       /s/ JOSEPH P. DURRETT
--------------------------------------
          Joseph P. Durrett
       Chief Executive Officer

March 27, 2003

     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of sec.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### 1642.1201 Definitions.

The definitions at (FAR) 48 CFR 42.1201 shall have the same meaning for this subpart.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Spinazze , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-4680.]

D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . S PINAZZE
. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Spinazze , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-4680.] (No. 2019-1075

— Submitted September 29, 2020

— Decided October 1, 2020.)
O N A PPLICATION FOR R EINSTATEMENT

.

____________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Anthony Perin Spin azze, Attorney Registration No. 0071893, last known bus iness address in Sylvan ia, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consid er its order of March 17, 2020, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspende d respondent from the practice of law for a period of six months, finds that resp ondent has substantially complied with that order and w ith the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24). {¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reins tated to the practice of law i n the state of Ohio. {¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certif ied copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and tha t publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2). {¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Spinazze , 159 Ohio St.3d 187, 2020-Ohio-957, 149 N.E.3d 503.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

________________________
#### 2131.205-6 Compensation for personal services.

FAR 31.205-6 is supplemented as follows: Overtime on a FEGLI Program contract normally would meet the conditions specified in FAR 22.103. Advance approval of the contracting officer is not required for overtime, extra-pay shifts, and multi-shifts.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         162,011
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 258,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          162,011
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,920
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   258,931
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,581,124
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,534,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,023
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.60
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

EMERY J. YOST, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 1074

)

CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On June 22, 2012 this Court granted orally the motion of the Chicago Park District

("District") to dismiss this employment discrimination action brought against it by Emery Yost

("Yost"), with each of Yost's several claims hinging on his having been the purported victim of

discrimination on the basis of his race (white) and his national origin (in the United States). As

the District's motion to dismiss demonstrated, Yost's entire Complaint foundered because the

person who received the promotion that Yost had sought was also white and a United States

citizen.

This Court has gone back to Yost's Complaint to look at Yost's situation vis-a-vis the

other named defendant, the City of Chicago ("City") itself. It turns out that despite Yost's

targeting of two defendants, the Complaint speaks only of "Defendant" in the singular, with no

allegations at all referring to conduct by the City rather than the District -- and of course the

District is an entirely separate and (suable) entity -- see 70 ILCS 1505/0.01 to 1505/26.11. 
Accordingly this Court also dismisses the City as a defendant. And that being the case,

the Complaint and this action are dismissed in their entirety.

_________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 26, 2012.

- 2 -
#### Marvin A. Block et al., Appellants, v Lena Landegger, as Executrix of Karl F. Landegger, Deceased, et al., Respondents, et al., Defen*708dants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 23, 1977, dismissing certain causes of action in the consolidated amended complaint alleged against defendants-respondents, is affirmed, with $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal to respondents. (Previous appeal reported at 44 AD2d 671.) The complaint, now expanded to 62 pages from its original 46 pages, suffers from the same infirmities which caused us to dismiss the first complaint. *Lanzi v Brooks*(43 NY2d 778), decided in the interim, suggests a more lenient rule with respect to complaints attacked for failure to comply with the provision of CPLR 3016 (subd [b]) that in an action for fraud, "the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail.” But as the Court of Appeals pointed out in *Lanzi*(p 780) the misconduct complained of must still "be set forth in sufficient detail to clearly inform a defendant with respect to the incidents complained of’. The present complaint still fails to inform the defendant with respect to the incidents complained of. We think this requirement is particularly important in relation to stockholders’ derivative actions in view of the well-known expense and complexities of such actions. (See *Greenbaum v American Metal*Climax, 27 AD2d 225.) Concur-Silverman, Lane and Markewich, JJ.

Kupferman, J. P., dissents in a memorandum, as follows:

I dissent and would reverse and would deny the motion dismissing the various causes of action. I was a member of the court which dismissed the original complaint with leave to replead (44 AD2d 671). Not only have the plaintiffs made more definitive the complaint herein, but in the interim the Court of Appeals in its memorandum decision in *Lanzi v Brooks*(43 NY2d 778, 780), has made an explicit statement with respect to the requirement of pleading under CPLR 3016 (subd [b]).
Exhibit
32(a)








CERTIFICATION
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO




18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,




AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Progress Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending
March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, William D. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)           the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 result of operations of the Company.











/s/ William D.
Johnson


William
D. Johnson


Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer


May 9,
2008








This
certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2600

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

August 17, 2020

Honorable Leah Voorhies 

State Superintendent, Part B 

250 East 500 South, P.O. Box 144200 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 

leah.voorhies@schools.utah.gov 

Dear State Superintendent Voorhies: 

This letter grants final approval under Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act for 

grant awards H027A180059 and H173A180092. 

The Department received your July 29, 2020 request on behalf of the Utah State Office of

Education for a waiver extending the period of availability for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grant award funds. 

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant award funds will be available for obligation 

through September 30, 2021 and may be liquidated through December 30, 2021. 

Please contact your Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) State Lead, Tony Williams, at 

TonyG.Williams@ed.gov if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

Mark Schultz 

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration. 

Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties 

of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

cc: State Director
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-51179

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL ANGEL MONTER-CARRILLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-402-1

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Miguel Angel

Monter-Carrillo raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Joquan Jomaine-Anthony V., an Infant. Forestdale, Inc., et al., Respondents; Jose V., Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 320]-

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Richardson, J.), dated February 15, 2006, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated April 27, 2005, made after a hearing, finding that he had permanently neglected the subject child and, after a dispositional hearing, *869terminated his parental rights and transferred custody of the subject child to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and the petitioner Forestdale, Inc., for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

As a threshold matter, the petitioner, Forestdale, Inc., established that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship between the appellant and the subject child by, inter alia, scheduling weekly visitation and by providing referrals to parenting skills classes and anger management counseling *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [f]; *Matter of Jamie M.,*63 NY2d 388 [1984]). Further, the agency established by clear and convincing evidence that, despite its diligent efforts, the appellant permanently neglected the subject child by failing to plan for his future *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; *Matter of Star Leslie*W., 63 NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984]). Although the appellant attended anger management counseling and completed a parenting skills course, the evidence demonstrated that he failed to gain insight into the issues which led to the removal of the subject child from his home. Despite the agency’s efforts to assist the respondent father to improve his deficient parenting skills and to remediate his propensity for domestic violence, the father’s aggressive and threatening behavior continued unabated *(see Matter of Nathaniel T.,*67 NY2d 838, 841-842 [1986]; *see also Matter of Jennifer R.,*29 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2006]; *Matter of Ajuwon H.,*18 AD3d 752 [2005]).

The finding that it was in the subject child’s best interests to be adopted by his foster mother is supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 631; *Matter of Star Leslie*W., *supra*at 147-148). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
Publications

### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The status review for the Umpqua River sea-run cutthroat trout was conducted by a team from the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. The biological review team relied on an ESA record developed pursuant to this review and comprised of comments and research reports submitted by the public and by state and federal agencies. Special acknowledgment should be extended to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the U.S. Forest Service, who supplied the review team with a large number of required publications.

The review team also acknowledges the assistance of personnel from ODFW's Roseberg District Office, from the US Forest Service's Umpqua National Forest Office, from the Bureau of Land Management's Roseburg Office, and from the Washington Department of Fisheries and Wildlife's Olympia, Bellingham, and Port Townsend offices in securing documents and scientific information. Garth Griffin of the NMFS Northwest Region in Portland provided invaluable assistance in facilitating information exchange. A special appreciation is due to Patrick C. Trotter for assistance in data collection.

Members of the biological review team were Peggy Busby, David Damkaer, Robert Emmett, Stephen Grabowski, Orlay Johnson, Conrad Mahnken, Gene Matthews, Michael Schiewe, Thomas Wainwright, William Waknitz, Robin Waples, Laurie Weitkamp, John Williams, and Gary Winans.

Table of Contents
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Alpha Technologies Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A-1 for the period ending October 26, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), Lawrence
Butler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James J. Polakiewicz, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

Date: May 14, 2004                    By: /s/ Lawrence Butler
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          Lawrence Butler
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive
                                          Officer)

Date: May 14, 2004                    By: /s/ James J. Polakiewicz
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          James J. Polakiewicz
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          (Principal Financial and
                                          Accounting Officer)

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-K/A-1 or as a separate disclosure document.

     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 or its staff upon request.