alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 776.77 Related investigations and actions. Acts or omissions by covered attorneys may constitute professional misconduct, criminal misconduct, poor performance of duty, or a combination of all three. Care must be taken to characterize appropriately the nature of a covered attorney's conduct to determine who may and properly should take official action. ( a ) Questions of legal ethics and professional misconduct by covered attorneys are within the exclusive province of the JAG. Ethical or professional misconduct will not be attributed to any covered attorney in any official record without a final JAG determination, made in accordance with this part that such misconduct has occurred.
( b ) Criminal misconduct is properly addressed by the covered USG attorney's commander through the disciplinary process provided under the UCMJ and implementing regulations, or through referral to appropriate civil authority.
( c ) Poor performance of duty is properly addressed by the covered USG attorney's reporting senior through a variety of administrative actions, including documentation in fitness reports or employee appraisals.
( d ) Prior JAG approval is not required to investigate allegations of criminal conduct or poor performance of duty involving covered attorneys. When, however, investigations into criminal conduct or poor performance reveal conduct that constitutes a violation of this part or of the Code of Judicial Conduct in the case of judges, such conduct shall be reported to the Rules Counsel immediately.
( e ) Generally, professional responsibility complaints will be processed in accordance with this part upon receipt. Rules Counsel may, however, on a case-by-case basis, delay such processing to await the outcome of pending related criminal, administrative, or investigative proceedings.
( f ) Nothing in this part prevents a military judge or other appropriate official from removing a covered attorney from acting in a particular court-martial or prevents the JAG, the SJA to CMC, or the appropriate official from reassigning a covered attorney to different duties prior to, during, or subsequent to proceedings conducted under the provision of this part.
S. Con. Res. 28 Agreed to November 2, 2017

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill S. 782, the Secretary 

of the Senate shall make the following corrections: 

(1) In section 2, strike ‘‘42 U.S.C. 17601 et seq.’’ and insert 

‘‘34 U.S.C. 21101 et seq.’’. 

(2) In section 2, strike ‘‘42 U.S.C. 17617(a)(10)’’ and insert 

‘‘34 U.S.C. 21117(a)(10)’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DARRON ROUSE #2010-1201145, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 2706

)

COOK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Darron Rouse (“Rouse”) has submitted a self-prepared 42

U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”) Complaint against the Cook County 1

Department of Corrections (“Department”), Sheriff Tom Dart and

several personnel employed at the Department (commonly called

“County Jail”). Because Rouse has paid neither the $350 filing

fee nor complied with the alternative requirement imposed on

persons in custody by 28 U.S.C. §1915 (“Section 1915”), this

action cannot go forward until he satisfies one of those two

requirements.

If a defendant cannot afford to pay the filing fee in

advance, Section 1915 permits him or her to seek in forma

pauperis status. When such a person is a prisoner, Section

1915(a)(2) requires the submission of both an affidavit described

 This memorandum order uses “self-prepared” in the sense 1

that Rouse has employed the form Complaint supplied by the

Clerk’s Office for use by pro se persons in custody, filling in

the requested information in typewritten form.
in Section 1915(a)(1) and a certified copy of the prisoner’s 2

trust fund account statement for the six-month period preceding

the filing of the Complaint (in this instance that would cover

the period from October 10, 2011 through April 10, 2012). That

latter submission is essential to enable this Court to make the

calculation required by Section 1915(b)(1).

Unless and until Rouse complies with one of the two

alternatives described here, his case cannot proceed. And unless

he does so on or before May 7, 2012, this Court will be

constrained to dismiss both the Complaint and this action without

prejudice.3

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 19, 2012

 That form is available through the Clerk’s Office and, 2

this Court believes, also at correctional institutions throughout

the state.

 In the meantime, this Court does not address any 3

questions as to possible flaws in the Complaint, such as the

inclusion of Department--which is not a suable legal entity--as a

defendant.

2
225.7019-4 Solicitation provision and contract clause. Unless a waiver has been granted in accordance with 225.7019-3— ( a ) Use the provision at 252.225-7053, Representation Regarding Prohibition on Use of Certain Energy Sourced from Inside the Russian Federation, in solicitations, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services and solicitations at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, that are for the acquisition of furnished energy for a covered military installation; and
( b ) Use the clause at 252.225-7054, Prohibition on Use of Certain Energy Sourced from Inside the Russian Federation, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services and solicitations and contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, that are for the acquisition of furnished energy for a covered military installation.
[86 FR 48338, Aug. 30, 2021, as amended at 88 FR 6584, Jan. 31, 2023]
#### John P. Harley, as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. The United States Life Insurance Company, Respondent.

(Argued June 25, 1883 ;

decided October 2, 1883.)

*Joshua M. Van Cott*for appellant.

*O. P. Buell*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur, except Andrews, J., absent, and Daneorth, J., not voting.

Judgment affirmed.
#### 228.102 Performance and payment bonds and alternative payment protections for construction contracts.
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 11, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00181

- CR

Michael A. RIVAS

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Fr om the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 04

- 10954

- CR The Honorable Camile G. Dubose, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s brief is due June 30, 2014. On June 10, 2014, appellant filed a motion for extension of time asking for a 90

- day extension of time to file his brief, i.e., to September 30,

2014. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

. We grant appellant an extension of time to August 29, 2014 , sixty days from the original due date. Appellant is not precluded from filing an additional motion for extension of time to file the brief if one is necessary.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 11th day of June, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
222.7301 Prohibition on use of nonimmigrant aliens. ( a ) Any alien who is issued a visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under Section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)) is prohibited from performing work under a contract for base operations support on Guam.
( b ) Lawfully admitted citizens of the freely associated states of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau are not subject to the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section.
[64 FR 52672, Sept. 30, 1999, as amended at 72 FR 20764, Apr. 26, 2007]
Exhibit 32.1

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

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Terabeam, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned Robert E. Fitzgerald, Chief Executive Officer, and Patrick L.
Milton, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of the Company certifies, to the
best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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) 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/ Robert E. Fitzgerald                  /s/ Patrick L. Milton
-----------------------------------       --------------------------------------
Robert E. Fitzgerald                      Patrick L. Milton
Chief Executive Officer                   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Date:  March 30, 2006                     Date:  March 30, 2006
##### 



Page 22

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, John P. Derham Cato, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of The
Cato Corporation, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, U.S.C. Section 1350, that on the date of this Certification:



|1. |  | the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended May 1, 2004 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.                     

|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: June 7, 2004 |  |                        
|                   |  |                        
|                   |  | /s/ John P. Derham Cato
|                   |  |                        
|                   |  | John P. Derham Cato    
|                   |  | Chairman, President and
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                     JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                             306,965
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                    2,037,254
<ALLOWANCES>                       191,882
<INVENTORY>                      1,819,808
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 5,217,446
<PP&E>                           1,349,264
<DEPRECIATION>                     914,936
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   9,737,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            4,370,697     
<BONDS>                                  0
<COMMON>                            95,242
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                        100,000
<OTHER-SE>                       4,057,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     9,737,528
<SALES>                         16,371,584
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                16,371,584
<CGS>                           13,473,798
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   16,545,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    25,746
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 189,863
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (362,114)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (362,114)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                      (362,114)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### 250.101 General.
#### Lori A. Franckowiak, Respondent, v East Greenbush Central School District, Appellant.

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered March 13, 1978 in Rensselaer County, which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike from defendant’s answer the affirmative defense of a prior judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied defendant’s cross motion for leave to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of a prior action pending for the same relief. On October 30, 1973 plaintiff, then 15 years of age, was injured in an accident at Columbia High School. A notice of claim was duly served on the defendant and an action was timely commenced on plaintiff’s behalf by her mother. However, on January 30, 1976, an order was entered granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the action due to the failure of the complaint to allege compliance with the notice of claim provisions of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. A notice of appeal from this order was served and filed on February 2, 1976. The plaintiff attained her majority on October 5, 1976 and this action was commenced in her own name on October 5, 1977. The complaint in this action alleged compliance with section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. Defendant’s answer alleged as an affirmative defense the dismissal of the prior action. Following plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defense, defendant cross-moved for leave to add the affirmative defense that another action for the same relief was still pending. Special Term granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendant’s cross motion, and defendant appeals therefrom. The order entered January 30, 1976 which dismissed the complaint in the action by plaintiff’s mother did not state that it was a dismissal on the merits. Since a dismissal not expressly declared to be on the merits does not *1036bar a subsequent action for the same cause (CPLR 5013; *Data-Guide, Inc. v American R. D. M. Corp.,*18 AD2d 995), Special Term correctly granted the motion to strike the affirmative defense that the prior judgment of dismissal was a bar to this action. Special Term was also correct in denying defendant’s cross motion. Although a notice of appeal was filed almost immediately after the order dismissing the mother’s complaint was entered on January 30, 1976, no steps were ever taken to perfect the appeal. The rules of practice for this court state that an appeal shall be deemed to have been abandoned where the appellant fails to serve and file a record and brief within one year from the date of the order appealed from (22 NYCRR 800.12). Accordingly, since well over one year had elapsed since the order dismissing the mother’s complaint was entered on January 30, 1976 without the appeal therefrom being perfected, it must be deemed to have been abandoned. Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### 2452.219-71 Notification of competition limited to eligible 8(a) concerns—Alternate III to FAR 52.219-18.

As prescribed in 2419.811-3(d)(3), insert the following clause:

# Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) Concerns—Alternate III to FAR 5219-18 (DEC 2012)

The following paragraph (c) replaces paragraph (c) of the clause at FAR 52.219-18, Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) Concerns:

(c) Any award resulting from this solicitation will be made directly by the HUD Contracting Officer to the successful 8(a) offeror selected through the evaluation criteria set forth in this solicitation.

[77 FR 73533, Dec. 10, 2012]
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 55 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That in recognition of the long and distin3 guished service rendered to the Nation and to the world, 

4 by the late George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st Presi5 dent of the United States, his remains be permitted to 

6 lie in state in the rotunda of the Capitol from December 

7 3, 2018 until December 5, 2018, and the Architect of the 

8 Capitol, under the direction of the President pro tempore 

9 of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Represent10 atives, shall take all necessary steps for the accomplish11 ment of that purpose. 

Passed the Senate December 3, 2018. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 55 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol 

the United States. George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st President of for the lying in state of the remains of the late
<PAGE>

                            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 Quarterly Report of AeroTelesis, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for
the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 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 operation of the Company.

 By /s/ Joseph Gutierrez
Joseph Gutierrez, President, CFO


Dated: August 15, 2005
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2013

- 0024 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2000

- NE

- 12

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

co st (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Remove & replace Privilege Injector 1 .0 $ 85.00 $ 

### 11 30.00 $ 1,215.00 

### 131 $ 159,165.00 

### Remove & replace Fuel Manifold 2.0 $ 170.00 $13,105 $ 13,275.00 

### 38 $ 504,450.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 663,615 

### Costs cov ered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that wa s assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedur es:**  Is the AD significant?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for
either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:
**Intrastate Aviation in Alask a:**  This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?
YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
#### 2436.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.
# C_2016454EN.01000301.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/3

---

List for determining the composition of the Chambers for cases allocated to a Chamber composed of three Judges

(2016/C 454/06)

At its Meeting on 4 October 2016, the Court drew up the list for determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:

Sixth Chamber

Mr Bonichot

Mr Arabadjiev

Mr Fernlund

Mr Rodin

Seventh Chamber

Mr Rosas

Ms Toader

Mr Jarašiūnas

Eighth Chamber

Mr Malenovský

Mr Safjan

Mr Šváby

Ninth Chamber

Mr Vajda

Ms Jürimäe

Mr Lycourgos

Tenth Chamber

Mr Borg Barthet

Mr Levits

Mr Biltgen

---
237.7702 Policy. ( a ) A nonprofit organization shall not be precluded from competing for a contract for religious-related services to be performed on a U.S. military installation.
( b ) See 219.270 when an acquisition for religious-related services to be performed on a U.S. military installation is set aside for any of the small business concerns identified in FAR 19.000(a)(3).
#### Erwin Dickman, Individually and as an Officer, Director and Stockholder of Urbantex Fabrics, Inc., Respondent, v Burton N. Lichten et al., Appellants.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 19, 1978, unanimously affirmed without prejudice to any motions for summary judgment after joinder of issue. (See *Rovello v Orofino Realty Co.,*40 NY2d 633.) Respondent shall recover of appellants $75 costs and *858disbursements of this appeal. No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Sandler, Lane and Silverman, JJ.
#### Fowler *v.*Georgia Railroad and Banking Company *et al.*

February 12, 1913.

Action for damages. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. March 23, 1911.

*Burton Smith,*for plaintiff in error. *McDaniel & Blach,*contra.

Fish, O. J.

Fowler brought suit against the Georgia Railroad and Banking

Company *et*al., in which the grant of a nonsuit was affirmed by this court. *Fowler*v. *Georgia R. &c. Co.,*133 *Ga.*664 (66 S. E. 900). Subsequently, upon .compliance with the statute in such cases provided, he brought the present suit against the same defendants upon the same cause of action. Upon the trial a nonsuit was granted in the case 'at bar. After a careful comparison of the evidence introduced on the trial of the two cases, we are clearly of the opinion that in all material respects the evidence was substantially the same on both trials. In view of the former decision (133 *Ga.*664), the additional evidence submitted on the trial now under review did not authorize a recovery. Accordingly the judgment of nonsuit is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beclo, J., absent. The other Justices concur.*
1201.602-3 Ratification of unauthorized commitments. ( b ) *Policy.* DOT policy requires that all procurement decisions shall be made only by Government officials having authority to carry out such acquisitions. Procurement decisions made by other than authorized personnel are contrary to Departmental policy and may be considered matters of serious misconduct on the part of the employee making an unauthorized commitment. Disciplinary action against an employee who makes an unauthorized commitment may be considered.