alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Served: July 21, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 21st day of July, 2011

Essential Air Service at

MUSCLE SHOALS, ALABAMA

FORT DODGE, IOWA

MASON CITY, IOWA

CHISHOLM/HIBBING, MINNESOTA

THIEF RIVER FALLS, MINNESOTA

GREENVILLE, MISSISSIPPI

WATERTOWN, SOUTH DAKOTA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

Docket DOT-OST-2000-7856

Docket DOT-OST-2001-10682

Docket DOT-OST-2001-10684

Docket DOT-OST-2003-15796

Docket DOT-OST-2001-10642

Docket DOT-OST-2008-0209

Docket DOT-OST-2001-10644

NOTICE OF EXTENSION

On July 15, 2011, Mesaba Aviation, Inc., Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., and SkyWest Airlines, all 

operating as Delta Connection, filed 90-day notices of their intent to suspend services at 24 

Essential Air Service (EAS) communities, including the seven listed above. Prior to this 

announcement, the Department solicited proposals for EAS at the above communities, 

whose contracts were due to expire, and established due dates for proposals. As a result of 

the filing of these notices and in order to attract as broad a array of proposals as possible, 

we have decided to issue an Order soliciting a new round of proposals, including a revised 

due date for the above communities. Carriers who were prepared to submit proposals by 

the previously stated due dates should wait until the Department issues the forthcoming

Order requesting proposals.

Dennis DeVany, Chief,

EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the at

http://www.regulations.gov
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9688]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, April 25, 2012; 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered: 

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: April 18, 2012.
Todd A Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9688 Filed 4-18-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
#### 2451.7001 Contract clause.

The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 48 CFR 2452.251-70, Contractor Employee Travel, in cost-reimbursement solicitations and contracts involving contractor travel.
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 345 

Designating August 3, 2018, as ‘‘National Ernie Pyle Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2017 

Mr. YOUNG (for himself and Mr. DONNELLY) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

DECEMBER 20, 2017 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating August 3, 2018, as ‘‘National Ernie Pyle Day’’. 

Whereas Ernest ‘‘Ernie’’ Pyle was born on August 3, 1900, 

in Dana, Indiana; 

Whereas Pyle studied journalism at Indiana University 

Bloomington before becoming a reporter for The Daily 

Herald in La Porte, Indiana; 

Whereas Pyle eventually became a roving correspondent for 

Scripps-Howard newspapers, writing a column carried in 

approximately 200 newspapers; 

Whereas Pyle served as a war correspondent in Britain in 

1940 and covered the Battle of Britain; 

Whereas, following the entry of the United States into World 

War II in December 1941, Pyle covered every major 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 345 ATS 

American campaign in the European theater, including in 

North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and France; 

Whereas war reporting by Pyle during World War II consistently celebrated the sacrifices, courage, and determination of the common soldier (commonly known as a 

‘‘grunt’’) of the United States; 

Whereas Pyle lived and worked among the soldiers of the 

United States and shared in the toils, endeavors, and 

challenges of those soldiers, including facing enemy fire; 

Whereas Pyle received the Pulitzer Prize in 1944 ‘‘for distinguished war correspondence during the year 1943’’; and 

Whereas Pyle, while traveling with soldiers of the United 

States that were fighting on the Japanese island of Ie 

Shima during the Okinawa campaign, was killed by Japanese machine gun fire on April 18, 1945: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates August 3, 2018, as ‘‘National 

3 Ernie Pyle Day’’; 

4 (2) recognizes contributions made by Ernie Pyle 

5 to journalism in the United States; and 

6 (3) celebrates the legacy of Ernie Pyle as one 

7 of the most respected and beloved war correspond8 ents in the history of the United States. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
§ 552.57 Authorization to solicit. ( a ) Solicitation must be authorized by the installation commander. A specific appointment must be made with the individual and must be conducted in family quarters or in other areas designated by the installation commander. Before issuing a permit to solicit, the commander will require and review a statement of past employment. The commander will also determine, if practicable, whether the agent is employed by a reputable firm.
( b ) Certain companies seeking solicitation privileges on military installations may arrange personal demonstrations of their products at social gatherings and advise potential customers on their use. If these added services are provided, even though the merchandise sold by these companies is similar to that stocked by the post exchange, the installation commander may authorize solicitation privileges. Requests for this type of solicitation privilege will be coordinated with the local Army and Air Force Exchange Service representative. See paragraph 3-2, Army Regulation 60-10.
#### 234.005-2 Mission-oriented solicitation.

See 215.101-2-70(b)(2) for the prohibition on the use of the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process for engineering and manufacturing development of a major defense acquisition program for which budgetary authority is requested beginning in fiscal year 2019.

[84 FR 50789, Sept. 26, 2019]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

AUTOMATED FACILITIES )

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No.

)

COMPUTER POWER SOFTWARE )

GROUP, INC. dba TODAY SYSTEMS )

)

Defendant )

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF

PLAINTIFF AUTOMATED FACILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Plaintiff Automated Facilities Management Corporation, pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby discloses its corporate parents.

Automated Facilities Management Corporation is owned by Acacia Research Group 

LLC, which in turn is owned by the publicly traded corporation Acacia Research Corporation.

Date: March 2, 2012 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

/s/ Michael Kanovitz_____________

Jon Loevy

Michael Kanovitz

Vincenzo Field

LOEVY & LOEVY

312 North May Street

Suite 100

Chicago, IL 60607

Ph: (312) 243-5900

Fx: (312) 243-5902

Case: 1:12-cv-01555 Document #: 3 Filed: 03/02/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:6
#### Angelino Faso, Respondent, v James Fallato et al., Defendants, and Peter C. Fleck, Jr, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 409]—

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph R. Glownia, J.), entered July 24, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of defendant Peter C. Fleck, Jr. for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against him.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the amended complaint against defendant Peter C. Fleck, Jr. is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained in two motor vehicle accidents. Peter C. Fleck, Jr. (defendant), who was involved in the second accident, moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against him on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion. Defendant met his initial burden on the motion with respect to each of the four categories of serious injury alleged by plaintiff by submitting, inter alia, the deposition testimony of plaintiff in which she stated that her “complaints after the first accident stayed the same” after the second accident and the affirmation of an orthopedic surgeon who found no injury as the result of the second accident and no aggravation of any preexisting injury as the result of that accident. Defendant thus established that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury that was causally related to the second accident *(see McNamara v Wood,*19 AD3d 921, 922-923 [2005]). In response, plaintiff failed to submit “competent medical evidence based upon objective medical findings and tests to support [the] claim of serious injury and to connect the condition to the [second] accident” and thus failed to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the motion *(Blanchard v Wilcox,*283 AD2d 821, 822 [2001]). Present—Gorski, J.E, Lunn, Fahey, Green and Pine, JJ.
1

Sutton, Tia

From: Whiteman, Chad <Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 12:18 AM

To: Sutton, Tia

Cc: Hengst, Benjamin

Subject: EO 12866 Comments on EPA Aircraft Endangerment Finding NOPR/GHG Standards 

ANPR (2060-AS31)

Attachments: EO 12866 Review of EPA Aircraft EF NPRM and GHG ANPRM 2060-AS31 - 5_7_2015 - 

except section G changes.docx

Tia, 

 Attached are additional comments on the aircraft emissions rule and endangerment finding. We’re still working 

through language Section G and how to have something early next week. In the meantime, would you please respond 

to the attached comments. The new comments can be identified by searching for EO12866 in the comment bubbles. 

Thanks, 

Chad
#### 2103.571 Contract clause.

The clause at 2152.203-70 shall be inserted in FEGLI Program contracts and in subcontracts.
Exhibit 32.4

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Paul R. Flanders, Chief Financial Officer of Carrols Corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|/s/ PAUL R. FLANDERS                                  
|Paul R. Flanders                                      
|Vice President  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|November 5, 2008
2419.811-1 Sole source. ( e ) If the award is to be made under the Partnership Agreement cited in 2419.800, the contracting officer shall prepare the instrument to be awarded to the 8(a) firm in accordance with the normal HUD procedures for non-8(a) contracts, except for the following: ( 1 ) The award form shall cite 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(5) and 15 U.S.C. 637(a) as the authority for use of other than full and open competition.
( 2 ) The contracting officer shall include appropriate contract clauses, as necessary, to reflect that the acquisition is an 8(a) contract awarded under the authority of the Partnership Agreement cited in 2419.800.
( 3 ) The contracting officer shall include SBA's requirement number on the contract unless the acquisition does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.
( 4 ) A single award document shall be used between HUD and the 8(a) contractor. As such, no signature on the part of the SBA is required; a single signature by the HUD contracting officer shall suffice. The 8(a) contractor's signature shall be placed on the award document as the prime contractor. The 8(a) contractor's name and address shall be placed in the “awarded to” or “contractor name” block on the appropriate forms.
[77 FR 73529, Dec. 10, 2012]
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/PublicationsFigure 3. Prevalences of toxicopathic liver lesions in flathead sole at sites sampled in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). FCA = foci of cellular alteration; Prolif = nonneoplastic proliferative lesions; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). The reference site is shown at the far right of the graph and is indicated by enclosed brackets { }. Lesion prevalences significantly higher than those detected at the reference site (p < 0.05) are indicated by an asterisk (*). Figure 4 . Prevalences of toxicopathic kidney lesions in flathead sole at sites sampled in the National Benthic Surveillance Project(1984-88). Prolif = proliferative lesions. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). The reference site is shown at the far right of the graph and is indicated by enclosed brackets { }. Lesion prevalences significantly higher than those detected at the reference site (p < 0.05) are indicated by an asterisk (*).Figure 5. Prevalences of toxicopathic liver lesions in English sole captured at northern (A) and southern (B) sites in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). FCA = foci of cellular alteration; Prolif = nonneoplastic proliferative lesions; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). The reference site is shown at the far right of the graph and is indicated by enclosed brackets { }. Lesion prevalences significantly higher than those detected at the reference site (p < 0.05) are indicated by an asterisk (*).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

)

)

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff )

 ) Case Number:12-cv-04669

v. ) 

) Judge: Harry D. Lienenweber

JOHN DOES 1-4 )

)

Defendants )

 AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION

TO: All Parties via CM/ECF

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 13, 2012 at 9:30am, or as soon

thereafter as I may be heard, I shall appear before the Honorable Harry D. Lienenweber

or any judge sitting in his stead in Courtroom 1941 of the U.S. District Court of the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 219 South Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois and shall present

the following motion: TO STRIKE THE FILINGS BY MORGAN E. PIETZ

___________________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 7, 2012, I provided service to the person or persons listed

above by the following means: ECF

Signature: __/s/ Mary K. Schulz Date: December 7, 2012

Mary K. Schulz, 6183773

Schulz Law, P.C.

1144 E. State Street, Suite A260

Geneva, IL 60134

224.535-9510

Case: 1:12-cv-04669 Document #: 26 Filed: 12/07/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:968
#### In the Matter of John Mastrangelo et al., Respondents, v. State Council of Parks et al., Appellants, and Robert F. Wagner, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR: (a) to review and annul determinations of the State Council of Parks and the State Conservation Commissioner which approved an application of the City of New York for State aid; (b) to prohibit the Comptroller of the State of New York from issuing a warrant for the requested aid; and (c) for other relief, the said State Council, Conservation Commissioner and Comptroller, by permission of the Supreme Court, Queens County, appeal from so much of the order of that court, dated April 15, 1964, as *880denied their motion, pursuant to the CPLR (7804, subd. [f]), to dismiss the petition as insufficient in law. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. The City of New York proposes to condemn petitioners’ land which is industrial and commercial in character. Petitioners seek to prevent the State Comptroller from furnishing financial aid to the city under provisions of the Conservation Law (§§ 875-885; L. 1960, eh. 523) permitting such aid where the condemned land is predominantly open and natural. In their petition, the petitioners allege: (1) that the determination of the city to classify the land as suitable for acquisition under the Conservation Law was unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious; and (2) that the city’s application for State aid was purposely falsified by altering it to show that there are 14 instead of 80 buildings on the property to be acquired. It is contended by the State and by the city (the latter appearing *amicus curiae)*that petitioners have no standing to maintain this *proceeding. In*support of their contention, the State and the city rely primarily on two cases *(St. Clair*v. *Yonkers Raceway,*13 N Y 2d 72; *Alabama Power Co.*v. *Ickes,*302 U. S. 464). These eases are not controlling in the circumstances here. The petitioners, unlike the complainants in the *St. Clair*and similar eases, are directly affected by the actions of which they complain. They are not volunteers who have gratuitously taken it upon themselves to oversee the functions of government. Neither are they complaining, as in the *Alabama Power*ease *(supra),*of the lawful use of money loaned improperly. They contend that the city’s use of the money would be improper; they also allege bad faith. In *Alabama Power,*the Supreme Court expressly stated that a different case would be presented if conspiracy, fraud or malice were involved. Petitioners here allege that the challenged official acts are so infected. On the trial, if petitioners should succeed in proving their allegations, they can prevail *(Kaskel*v. *Impellitteri,*306 N. Y. 73; see, also, *Matter of Brown*v. *McMorran,*42 Misc 2d 211). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur. [42 Misc 2d 650.]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

  List of Contents of Schedules to the Heads & Threads Asset Purchase Agreement


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Number                            Description
------                            -----------
<S>                               <C>
Schedule 1.1(b)                   Fixed Assets to be Purchased
Schedule 1.1(i)                   Prepaid Amounts
Schedule 1.4(a)                   Real Property Leases to be Assumed
Schedule 1.4(b)                   Equipment Leases to be Assumed
Schedule 1.4(f)                   Contracts to be Assumed
Schedule 1.5(a)                   Excluded Assets
Schedule 2.2                      Restriction, Breaches, etc. Resulting from Sale of Assets
Schedule 2.4                      Consents and Approvals; No Violations
Schedule 2.5                      Title
Schedule 2.8                      Accounts Receivable
Schedule 2.11(a)                  Litigation
Schedule 2.11(b)                  Knowledge of Certain Persons
Schedule 2.14                     Insurance
Schedule 2.15                     Environmental Matters
Schedule 2.16                     Warranties
Schedule 2.17                     Employee Matters
Schedule 2.18                     Customers and Suppliers
Schedule 2.19                     Certain Contracts and Commitments
</TABLE>
#### 22.1003-7 Questions concerning applicability of the Service Contract Labor Standards statute.

If the contracting officer questions the applicability of the Service Contract Labor Standards statute to an acquisition, the contracting officer shall request the advice of the agency labor advisor. Unresolved questions shall be submitted in a timely manner to the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, for determination.

[54 FR 19816, May 8, 1989, as amended at 79 FR 24206, Apr. 29, 2014]
# C_2017101EN.01000202.xml

| 31.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8091 — SEB Internationale/WMF Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 101/04)

On 21 November 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8091. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8091. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### (A) The People of the State of New York v. William Rivera. (B) The People of the State of New York v. Joseph Imbruglia. (C) The People of the State of New York v. Robert Croxton. (D) The People of the State of New York v. James King Herring. (E) The People of the State of New York v. James B. Stokes. (F) The People of the State of New York v. Thomas McCormack. *(G)*The People of the State of New York v. Sylvester Mazzella. (H) The People of the State of New York v. Ernest Thompson. (I) The People of the State of New York v. Albert Carring*888ton. (J) The People of the State of New York v. Richard Kyle. (K) The People of the State of New York v. John Bester. (L) The People of the State of New York v. Joseph H. Magette. (M) The People of the State of New York v. Thomas Thompson.

*887Concur —Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ. *888Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.— [In each action] Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted to the extent and on the terms and conditions contained in the order of this court filed herein.