alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
237.171-4 Contract clause. Use the clause at 252.237-7019, Training for Contractor Personnel Interacting with Detainees, in in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, that are for the acquisition of services if— ( a ) The clause at 252.225-7040, Contractor Personnel Supporting U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States, is included in the solicitation or contract; or
( b ) The services will be performed at a facility holding detainees, and contractor personnel in the course of their duties may be expected to interact with the detainees.
[70 FR 52033, Sept. 1, 2005, as amended at 78 FR 37989, June 25, 2013; 79 FR 30471, May 28, 2014; 88 FR 6587, Jan. 31, 2023]
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 A0 27 5 . J OSEPH DI N GLER v . HEATHER MOORE.

J o s ep h Di n gl er fi l ed t h i s d i rect ap p eal fro m a fam il y v i o l en ce p ro t ect i v e o rd er

en t ered ag ai ns t h i m . W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s di ct i o n

. In S ch mi d t v. S ch mi d t , 2 7 0 Ga. 4 6 1 , 4 61 -4 6 2 (1 ) (5 1 0 SE2 d 8 1 0 ) (1 9 9 9 ), t h e Su p rem e Co ur t d e t erm i n ed t h at act i o n s ari s i n g un d er t h e Fam i l y Vi o len ce Act , OCGA § 1 9 -1 3-1 et s eq

. , co n s t i t u t e d om es t i c rel at i on s cas es wi t h i n t h e m ean i n g o f OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (2 ). A cco rd i n g l y , ap p eal s i n f a m i l y v i o len ce act i o ns m u s t b e

m a de b y ap p li cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal

. See S ch mi d t , su p ra. Becau s e Di n g l er fai l ed to fo l l ow t he p ro p er ap p el l at e p ro ced u re, t h i s ap p eal i s DISM ISSED fo r l ack

o f ju ri s d ict i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. October 05, 2017

10/05/2017
25.202 Exceptions. ( a ) When one of the following exceptions applies, the contracting officer may allow the contractor to acquire foreign construction materials without regard to the restrictions of the Buy American statute: ( 1 ) *Impracticable or inconsistent with public interest.* The head of the agency may determine that application of the restrictions of the Buy American statute to a particular construction material would be impracticable or would be inconsistent with the public interest. The public interest exception applies when an agency has an agreement with a foreign government that provides a blanket exception to the Buy American statute.
( 2 ) *Nonavailability.* The head of the contracting activity may determine that a particular construction material is not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities of a satisfactory quality. The determinations of nonavailability of the articles listed at 25.104(a) and the procedures at 25.103(b)(1) also apply if any of those articles are acquired as construction materials. A determination is not required before January 1, 2030, if there is an offer for a foreign construction material that exceeds 55 percent domestic content (see 25.204(b)(1)(ii) and 25.204(b)(2)(ii)).
( 3 ) *Unreasonable cost.* The contracting officer concludes that the cost of domestic construction material is unreasonable in accordance with 25.204.
( 4 ) *Information technology that is a commercial product.* The restriction on purchasing foreign construction material does not apply to the acquisition of information technology that is a commercial product, when using Fiscal Year 2004 or subsequent fiscal year funds (section 535(a) of Division F, Title V, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, and similar sections in subsequent appropriations acts).
( b ) *Determination and findings.* When a determination is made for any of the reasons stated in this section that certain foreign construction materials may be used, the contracting officer must list the excepted materials in the contract. The agency must make the findings justifying the exception available for public inspection.
( c ) *Acquisitions under trade agreements.* For construction contracts with an estimated acquisition value of $6,708,000 or more, see subpart 25.4.
[64 FR 72419, Dec. 27, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 36026, June 6, 2000; 67 FR 56123, Aug. 30, 2002; 69 FR 1053, Jan. 7, 2004; 70 FR 11743, Mar. 9, 2005; 71 FR 865, Jan. 5, 2006; 73 FR 10963, Feb. 28, 2008; 75 FR 38690, July 2, 2010; 75 FR 60267, Sept. 29, 2010; 77 FR 12934, Mar. 2, 2012; 78 FR 80380, Dec. 31, 2013; 79 FR 24209, Apr. 29, 2014; 80 FR 81895, Dec. 31, 2015; 83 FR 3398, Jan. 24, 2018; 85 FR 2618, Jan. 15, 2020; 86 FR 61028, Nov. 4, 2021; 86 FR 74530, Dec. 30, 2021; 87 FR 12792, Mar. 7, 2022; 89 FR 13963, Feb. 23, 2024]
#### 2452.232-74 Not to exceed limitation.

As prescribed in 2432.705(b), insert the following clause in all solicitations and contracts where the total estimated funds needed for the performance of the contract are not yet obligated.

# Not To Exceed Limitation (MAR 2016)

(a) The total estimated funds needed for the performance of this contract are not yet obligated. The total obligation of funds available at this time for performance of work or deliveries is [insert amount]. The Government shall not order, nor shall the contractor be authorized or required to accept orders for, or perform work on such orders (or perform any other work on this contract) or make deliveries that exceed the stated funding limit.

(b) When funding is available, the Government may unilaterally increase the amount obligated through contract funding modification(s) until the full contract value has been obligated. If a contract funding modification is not in place by the time the performance of the work or deliveries have reached the stated funding limit, the contractor must stop performing services and deliveries and may not start again until the contractor is notified through a contract funding modification that funds are available to continue services and deliveries.

(End of clause)

[81 FR 13754, Mar. 15, 2016]
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 626 Filed: 04/05/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:14059
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 626 Filed: 04/05/17 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:14060
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 626 Filed: 04/05/17 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:14061
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 626 Filed: 04/05/17 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:14062
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 626 Filed: 04/05/17 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:14063
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 626 Filed: 04/05/17 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:14064
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 626 Filed: 04/05/17 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:14065
Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 626 Filed: 04/05/17 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:14066
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Esther Cohen

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−05069

Honorable Milton I. Shadur

United Collection Bureau, Inc.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, August 2, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Milton I. Shadur:Civil case terminated. This

action is hereby dismissed with prejudice.Mailed notice(srn, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-05069 Document #: 14 Filed: 08/02/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:35
25.703-1 Definitions. As used in this section— *Person* — ( 1 ) Means— ( i ) A natural person;
( ii ) A corporation, business association, partnership, society, trust, financial institution, insurer, underwriter, guarantor, and any other business organization, any other nongovernmental entity, organization, or group, and any governmental entity operating as a business enterprise; and
( iii ) Any successor to any entity described in paragraph (1)(ii) of this definition; and
( 2 ) Does not include a government or governmental entity that is not operating as a business enterprise.
*Sensitive technology* — ( 1 ) Means hardware, software, telecommunications equipment, or any other technology that is to be used specifically— ( i ) To restrict the free flow of unbiased information in Iran; or
( ii ) To disrupt, monitor, or otherwise restrict speech of the people of Iran; and
( 2 ) Does not include information or informational materials the export of which the President does not have the authority to regulate or prohibit pursuant to section 203(b)(3) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(3)).
[75 FR 60256, Sept. 29, 2010, as amended at 76 FR 68030, Nov. 2, 2011; 77 FR 23368, Apr. 18, 2012]
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE COMPANY )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 12 C 4693

v. ) Judge Matthew F. Kennelly

)

IRA KAUFMAN, et al. )

)

Defendant, )

________________________________________________)

MORGAN STANLEY & CO., )

)

Third Party Respondent. )

TURNOVER ORDER – MORGAN STANLEY & CO.

This matter coming to be heard on Fifth Third Mortgage Company’s (“Fifth Third”) 

Motion for Turnover Order as to funds currently being held pursuant to the Third-Party Citation 

to Discover Assets (the “Third-Party Citation”) issued to Morgan Stanley & Co. (“Morgan 

Stanley”) regarding the assets of judgment debtor Ira Kaufman, due notice having been given and 

the Court being fully advised in the premises;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Fifth Third’s Motion for Turnover Order is granted in part and deferred in part as 

to the total funds of $150,949.01 currently being held in the Morgan Stanley account of judgment 

debtor Ira Kaufman; 

2. The Third-Party Citation respondent, Morgan Stanley, is ordered to immediately 

turn over funds of Ira Kaufman in the amount of $75,474.50 that it is currently holding pursuant 

to the served Third-Party Citation; 

Case: 1:12-cv-04693 Document #: 539 Filed: 01/23/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:10160
2

3. Said funds in the amount of $75,474.50 shall be turned over to Fifth Third through 

its attorneys, Askounis & Darcy, PC, and Askounis & Darcy, PC, shall hold the funds in escrow 

until further order of the Court; 

4. Morgan Stanley may remit the funds by sending a check made payable to 

“Askounis & Darcy, PC Client Trust Account” to: Askounis & Darcy, PC, 444 North Michigan 

Avenue, Suite 3270, Chicago, Illinois 60611, or, alternatively, may contact Askounis & Darcy, PC 

to obtain the firm’s wire instructions; 

5. A judgment in the sum of $75,474.50 is hereby entered against Morgan Stanley and 

in favor of Ira Kaufman f/u/o Fifth Third; and

6. The remaining funds in the Morgan Stanley account, which is an amount not less 

than $75,474.51, shall remain frozen and subject to Fifth Third’s citation lien until further order 

of the Court. 

Entered: Jan. 23, 2020 ___________________________________

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

Case: 1:12-cv-04693 Document #: 539 Filed: 01/23/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:10161
#### In the Matter of Barbara S. Carr, on Behalf of Carole Segal and Another, Appellant, v. Jack Segal, Respondent.

In a proceeding for support under article 4 of the Family Court Act, by a mother on behalf of her two infant daughters against the divorced father, in which by a prior temporary support order the father had been directed to pay $60 per week for their support, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, County of Kings, made March 30, 1964 after a hearing, which, among other things, approved a modification of said prior order and directed him to pay the reduced amount of $25 per week for their support. Order of March 30, 1964 modified on the facts by increasing the amount of support to $50 per week. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. Under all the circumstances, it is our opinion that the father should have been required to pay the sum of $50 per week, and that the reduction to $25 per week was too drastic. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-52-2020]

                    The FTZ Board (the Board) is currently reviewing an application for production authority within FTZ 38 on behalf of Teijin Carbon Fibers, Inc. (TCF) in Greenwood, South Carolina, submitted by the South Carolina State Ports Authority. On December 17, 2020, the Board published a notice inviting public comment on TCF's submission dated November 10, 2020 (see 85 FR 81875, December 17, 2020). In that notice, the Board allowed for submission of comments until January 19, 2021, and for submission of rebuttal comments until February 1, 2021. In response to a request from TCF, the Board is now extending the current period for submission of rebuttal comments until February 16, 2021. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:                     *ftz@trade.gov.*

                    For further information, contact Diane Finver at                     *Diane.Finver@trade.gov*                     or (202) 482-1367.                

Dated: January 27, 2021.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-02086 Filed 1-29-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABEL P. REYES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

PATRICIA ROUCH, Nurse Practitioner at 

Corcoran State Prison; OLIVIA 

BORBOLLA, Registered Nurse at Corcoran 

State Prison; EDGAR CLARK, Medical 

Doctor at Corcoran State Prison; G. 

RODRIGUEZ, Registered Nurse at Corcoran 

State Prison, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-15232 

D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01158-DAD-HBK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Abel P. Reyes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-15232 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical 

needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district 

court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 

1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Reyes’s action because Reyes failed to 

allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to 

Reyes’s pain, elevated blood pressure, and withdrawal symptoms. See Hebbe v. 

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are 

construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a 

plausible claim for relief); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 

2004) (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and 

disregard a risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice, negligence or 

difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to 

deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a 

prisoner alleging deliberate indifference based on delay in treatment must show 

that the delay caused significant harm).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
3 22-15232 

Reyes’s request for an order revoking defendants’ medical licenses and 

certifications, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of the Construction of the Will of Thomas Healy, Deceased. Arthur K. Healy et al., Appellants; Thomas S. Healy et al., Respondents.

Decree entered August 5, 1964, construing the will, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the petition dismissed on the ground it was an unnecessary exercise of discretion, without costs. The general rule is to refuse to exercise discretion in aid of a construction unless there is a present need therefor. *(Matter of Lederer,*4 A D 2d 623, 625.) A Surrogate is not required to consider and determine every question which may be raised by any of the parties as to the construction or validity of a will. *(Matter of Mount,*185 N. Y. 162.) Where the construction sought is hypothetical and assumes the nonexercise of a valid testamentary general power of appointment, the need for the construction sought should be clear. *(Moore*v. *Emery,*137 Me. 259; *Matter of Sterrett,*300 Pa. 116.) The parties did not fine) it necessary to adduce testimony in aid of the construction sought. Hence, there is not present the possibility of the nonavailability of material testimony as in *Matter of Lederer (supra).*The petition for construction alleges, that if the doñees of the general testamentary powers of appointment exercise the powers, their estates will be subject to Federal and New York estate taxes. It is asserted the exercise of the powers will be obviated if the will is - construed to give by implication the remainders to the issue of the donees in .’the event of nonexercise of the powers. Reduced to simple terms, the construction requested is in the nature of tax advice to the donees.- “ That is the prpvince of counsel.” *(Moore*v. *Emery, supra,*p. 788.) Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Charles W. Fischer, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nexen Inc., a
Canadian Corporation (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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
     the date hereof (the "Report") 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

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



Date:    July 19, 2004                     /s/ Charles W. Fischer
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Charles W. Fischer
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nexen Inc. and shall be retained by Nexen Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
C. A. No. 73-331.

#### State *v.*Edwin P. Joseph, Jr.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *William G. Brody,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff. *John P. Toscano, Jr.,*for defendant.

Motion for attorney’s fee and costs, pursuant to G. L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §9-24-32, is granted. John P. Toscano, Jr., is awarded the sum of $750.
1737 King Street  Suite 390  Alexandria,VA 22314  tel 571.970.3400  fx 571.970.3271

Comments from Richard Krock

Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute

To the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Re: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

For Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and Copolymers Production

June 7 & 9, 2011

Thank you for this opportunity to address EPA’s proposed Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology regulations for PVC production facilities. I 

am Rich Krock, technical director for the Vinyl Institute, which is a U.S. 

based trade association comprised of leading producers of PVC resins, and 

some associated additive suppliers and downstream product 

manufacturers. The VI has been in existence since 1982. One of our key 

missions is to advocate for the responsible manufacture of PVC resins.

The VI thanks the EPA for the opportunity to provide some broad-based 

comments on this important rulemaking activity. The Vinyl Institute agrees 

that the PVC MACT rule is overdue and industry supports an update of the 

regulatory requirements. We look forward to working cooperatively with 

Agency staff on the development of a final rule that meets Agency 

requirements and allows for continued growth of our industry.

The proposed rule is step-change from the current regulatory regime, and 

member companies have started a comprehensive review of the 

requirements and background documents. The VI is in the process of 

reviewing proposal-related information in anticipation of formulating and 

submitting meaningful and detailed comments on the proposal.
1737 King Street  Suite 390  Alexandria,VA 22314  tel 571.970.3400  fx 571.970.3271

Based on our preliminary review of the docket materials and the proposal, 

there are a few points we wish to highlight. The Vinyl Institute believes that 

the Agency’s selection of emission points and evaluation of HAPs moves in 

the right direction, and we look forward to working with the Agency on 

these provisions. The VI recommends that more consideration be given to 

the variability of emissions from the wide-array of products that the industry 

manufactures – over one hundred different resins, and seasonal production 

volumes. Also, EPA should consider the need for flexibility in achieving 

lower limits. The VI would appreciate the opportunity to assist Agency staff 

in fully understanding this topic, as it is key to the development of a 

technically sound rule.

As previously mentioned, the VI will submit substantial comments to the 

Agency regarding the proposal. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today – we look forward to working 

with EPA on this activity.