alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 252.204-7006 Billing Instructions—Cost Vouchers.

As prescribed in 204.7109(b), use the following clause:

# Billing Instructions—Cost Vouchers (MAY 2023)

When submitting a request for payment using a cost voucher, the Contractor shall—

(a) Identify the contract line item(s) on the payment request that reasonably reflect contract work performance; and

(b) Separately identify a payment amount for each contract line item included in the payment request.

(End of clause)

[70 FR 58983, Oct. 11, 2005, as amended at 85 FR 19692, Apr. 8, 2020; 88 FR 33833, May 25, 2023]
For more information about OPEPD, please contact us at annmargaret.owens@ed.gov.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1001

Geological Interpretation of the Sea Floor Offshore of Edgartown, Massachusetts

Title | List of Figures | Conversion Factors | Abstract | Introduction | Setting | Methods | Bathymetry | Sidescan Sonar | Seismic Profiles | Sediments | Bottom Photography | Data Catalog | Summary | Acknowledgments | References Cited | Contacts

Figure 13. The locations of the tracklines (green lines) along       which the 16 Chirp high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles were       collected during the August 2008 cruise 08034 of the research vessel       Rafael. Also shown are the locations of line segments shown in figures 27 and 28 (red segments). Because lines 1 and 2 were test lines       along which the survey did not produce useful data, they are not shown on       this map. 

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1001/html/fig13.htmlPage Contact Information: GS Pubs Web ContactPage Last Modified: Thursday, 22-Apr-2010 15:27:22 EDT
#### 244.201 Consent and advance notification requirements.

[78 FR 69272, Nov. 18, 2013]
#### § 935.20 Applicable law.

Civil acts and deeds taking place on Wake Island shall be determined and adjudicated as provided in this part; and otherwise, as provided in the Act of June 15, 1950 (64 Stat. 217) (48 U.S.C. 644a), according to the laws of the United States relating to such an act or deed taking place on the high seas on board a merchant vessel or other vessel belonging to the United States.
# C_2016453EN.01000101.xml

| 3.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 453/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 453/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8264 — Michelin/Limagrain/Exotic Systems)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 453/01)

On 28 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 32016M8264. 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 32016M8264. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 23, 2020

No. 04-20-00507-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.R.S., A CHILD,

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13540

Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court signed an order terminating appellant’s parental rights on July 17, 2020. 

Because “termination of the parent-child relationship [was] at issue” in this case, this appeal is 

governed by the rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4(a); see

also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(a-1). In an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal must be 

filed within 20 days after the judgment is signed, and that deadline is not extended by the filing 

of a motion for new trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b); In re G.S., No. 04-17-00237-CV, 2017 WL 

2457052, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 7, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). As a result, 

appellant’s notice of appeal was due by August 6, 2020, and a motion for extension of time to 

file the notice of appeal was due by August 21, 2020. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3; In re G.S., 2017 

WL 2457052, at *1.

Appellant filed her notice of appeal on October 14, 2020. “[O]nce the period for granting 

a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the 

appellate court’s jurisdiction.” See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) 

(construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Because the notice of appeal was untimely filed, we 

ORDER appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction 

by December 3, 2020. See id. If appellant fails to respond to this order by the date ordered, this 

appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. All other appellate 

deadlines are suspended until further order of this court.

_________________________________

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

court on this 23rd day of November, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### 225.7902-1 Definitions.

“Approved community,” “defense articles,” “Defense Trade Cooperation (DTC) Treaty”, “export,” “Implementing Arrangement,” “qualifying defense articles,” “transfer,” and “U.S. DoD Treaty-eligible requirements” are defined in contract clause DFARS *252.225-7047*, Exports by Approved Community Members in Performance of the Contract.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 18 (Friday, January 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 7553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01957]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9055-1]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed January 14, 2021 10 a.m. EST Through January 25, 2021 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20210011, Draft, TVA, AL, North Alabama Utility-Scale Solar 
Facility, Comment Period Ends: 03/15/2021, Contact: Elizabeth Smith 
865-632-3053.

Amended Notice

EIS No. 20210007, Draft, USFS, DC, WITHDRAWN--36 CFR 228, Subpart A, 
Locatable Minerals, Contact: Michael Fracasso 303-241-3330.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 01/22/2021; Officially Withdrawn 
per request of the submitting agency.

EIS No. 20210008, Final, BLM, CA, WITHDRAWN--Crimson Solar Project 
Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Land Use Amendment to 
the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, Contact: Miriam 
Liberatore 541-618-2200.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 01/22/2021; Officially Withdrawn 
per request of the submitting agency.

    Dated: January 25, 2021.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2021-01957 Filed 1-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### In the Matter of Benjamin Cymrot, Petitioner, v. J. Clarence Davies, Jr., as Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Determination unanimously confirmed and the petition dismissed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
##### 



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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Maxtor Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 25, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dr. C.S. Park, Chairman and 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 (Section 906), that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/  C.S. ParkDr. C.S. ParkChairman and Chief Executive
Officer Date: May 12, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version 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.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of George Klein, Deceased.

Motion to vacate order dismissing appeal denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 23, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132856 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132856 

 COA: 274138 

Genesee CC: 05-016395-FC 

KATHY O’NEILL PHANEUF,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 5, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentence of the Genesee Circuit Court, and we 

REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing. The initial sentence of 18 years to 

life was invalid, MCL 769.9(2), and the trial court erroneously resentenced defendant 

when she was not present. People v Mallory, 421 Mich 229, 247 (1984). See also MCL 

768.3; MCR 6.425(E). 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

d0516 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 23, 2007 

 Clerk
#### 2433.000 Scope of part.

This part identifies the responsible agents and sets forth procedural requirements for handling protests.

[51 FR 40333, Nov. 6, 1986]
#### In the Matter of Santiago Ramirez, Respondent, v Robert Dennison, as Chairman of the New York Board of Parole, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 120]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered on or about July 7, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied respondent’s motion to change venue to either Orange or Albany County, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted insofar as to transfer the proceeding to Albany County.

In this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, petitioner challenges the denial of his parole application. Accordingly, pursuant to CPLR 506 (b), venue should have been placed in the judicial district where the complained-of parole determination was rendered, or where respondent’s principal office is located *(see Matter of Howard v New York State Bd. of Parole,*5 AD3d 271 [2004]). Inasmuch as the challenged determination was affirmed on administrative appeal in Albany County, where respondent has his principal office, Albany County, and not the Bronx, is a proper venue for the proceeding, and we grant respondent’s motion to the extent of transferring the proceeding to Albany County. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.
237.7801 Definition. As used in this subpart— *Contract working dog* means a dog that— ( 1 ) Performs a service for DoD pursuant to a contract; and
( 2 ) Is trained and kenneled by an entity that provides such a dog pursuant to such a contract.
#### In the Matter of John M. Butler, Petitioner, v Onondaga County Legislature, Respondent.

[833 NYS2d 829]—

Proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department) to annul a determination of respondent.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 seeking to annul respondent’s determination to condemn a .4-acre parcel of petitioner’s property along the Onondaga Creek shoreline. Petitioner contends, inter alia, that the proposed taking is not the least invasive alternative and involves more of petitioner’s land than is necessary for the intended public use. “Our scope of review pursuant to EDPL 207 (C) is limited to whether the proceeding was in conformity with constitutional requirements, whether the proposed acquisition is within the statutory jurisdiction or authority of the condemnor, whether the condemnor’s determination and findings were made in accordance with the procedures set forth in EDPL article 2 and ECL article 8, and whether a proposed use, benefit or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition” *(Matter of Pfohl v Village of Sylvan Beach,*26 AD3d 820, 820 [2006]; *see Matter of City of New York [Grand Lafayette Props. LLC],*6 NY3d 540, 546 [2006]; *Matter of Waldo’s, Inc. v Village of Johnson City,*74 NY2d 718, 720 [1989]; *Matter of Broadway Schenectady Entertainment v County of Schenectady,*288 AD2d 672, 672-673 [2001]). The burden is on the party challenging the condemnation to establish that the determination “was without foundation and baseless” *(Matter of Rafferty v Town of Colonie, 300*AD2d 719, 721 [2002]; *see Broadway Schenectady Entertainment,*288 AD2d at 673). Thus, “[i]f an adequate basis for a determination is shown and the objector cannot show that *1272the determination was without foundation, the [condemnor’s] determination should be confirmed” *(Waldo’s, Inc.,*74 NY2d at 720 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Matter of Stankevich v Town of Southold,*29 AD3d 810, 811 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 717 [2006]; *Matter of Kaufmann’s Carousel v City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency,*301 AD2d 292, 299 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 508 [2003]).

We conclude that petitioner has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that the determination is without foundation and baseless. We further conclude that petitioner has failed to establish that the taking is excessive. “[I]t is generally accepted that the condemnor has broad discretion in deciding what land is necessary to fulfill [the public] purpose” *(Rafferty,*300 AD2d at 723; *see Matter of Doyle v Schuylerville Cent. School Dist.,*35 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2006]; *Matter of Gyrodyne Co. of Am,., Inc. v State Univ. of N.Y. at Stony Brook,*17 AD3d 675, 676 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 716 [2005]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, respondent neither abused nor improvidently exercised its discretion. Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Green and Pine, JJ.
#### 23.301 Definition.

*Hazardous material* is defined in the latest version of Federal Standard No. 313. Federal Standards are sold to the public and Federal agencies through: General Services Administration, Specifications Unit (3FBP-W), 7th & D Sts., SW., Washington, DC 20407.

[56 FR 55374, Oct. 25, 1991, as amended at 89 FR 61338, July 30, 2024]
Order entered November 18, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00073-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF IRA E. TOBOLOWSKY, DECEASED

On Appeal from the 95th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-17620

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 14, 2019 unopposed motion for extension of 

time to file its reply brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s reply brief be filed 

no later than December 9, 2019.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CSD TOUHY, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 5109

)

JEWEL FOOD STORES, INC.; )

LEOPARDO COMPANIES, INC.; )

BULLDOG EARTH MOVERS, INC.; )

and SCIORTINO GROUP, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________________ )

)

SCIORTINO GROUP, INC., )

)

Third-Party Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

RELIANCE LANE INVESTORS, LLC, )

)

Third-Party Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Counsel for defendant-third-party-plaintiff Sciortino Group, Inc. ("Sciortino") have just 

delivered to this Court's chambers what they characterize as a "courtesy copy" of a certificate of 

counsel's having served answers to discovery requests from Jewel Food Stores, Inc. Regrettably 

that delivery is not a "courtesy" in the true sense, for it violates this District Court's sensible rule 

LR 26.3 that prohibits the filing of discovery materials unless the judge assigned to the case 

requests them (in the days before electronic filing those materials provided nothing but needless 

clutter in the court file, and although the advent of electronic filing eliminates physical clutter 
there is no more reason for the judge assigned to the case to be receiving papers or notifications 

that have no substantive relevance at all).

Moreover, it is simply wasteful for the law firm's staff, clerical or otherwise, to have to 

process such materials or to bring them to the attention of this Court (which itself spends the 

time required to look at, and to consider to the extent called for by that initial look, every 

document filed in every case on its calendar). This Court's secretary has called this matter to the 

attention of Sciortino's staff, only to be met with the response that "We always do it this way, 

and we do it for every judge." That is really a non-answer, and it is regrettable that this Court 

has had to waste its time further in issuing this memorandum order to call for the cessation of the 

meaningless practice described here.

__________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: February 5, 2015

- 2 -
#### Susan Gottlieb et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Other Passengers on the M. S. Kazakhstan, Similarly Situated, Appellants, v March Shipping Passenger Services, a Division of March Shipping Corporation, et al., Respondents.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 26, 1977, denying plaintiffs’ motion for an order determining that the action be maintained as a class action, is unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, and without prejudice to a renewal by plaintiffs of said motion on the presentation of further factual evidence. The present papers are insufficient to show that the case is appropriate for class action relief. To begin with there is no adequate *880refutation of the Special Term’s view that plaintiffs’ complaints may not be shared by a whole class of other passengers. Indeed, the present papers "would suggest a certain paucity of litigants in the class plaintiff seeks to represent. 'If a class of interested litigants is not already in existence the court should not go out of its way to create one without good reason’ *(Berley v Dreyfus & Co.,*43 FED 397, 398-399)” *(Strauss v Long Is. Sports,*60 AD2d 501, 511). Whether a sufficient number of other passengers share plaintiffs’ complaints is at this point "purely speculative.” *(Gould v American Health & Life Ins. Co.,*59 AD2d 681, 682.) The cruise complained of sailed from and returned to New Orleans, Louisiana, and the passengers on the ship apparently came from many parts of the United States. Thus there is a perplexing and unsettled problem as to the extent to which the judgment of a New York State court in a pseudo class action of this type would bind nonresident passenger members of the class. Accordingly, any renewal of this motion should give further factual information, obtained by deposition or otherwise, as to the merits, and as to whether other passengers share the same complaints, and as to geographical distribution of the residence of the other passengers on the cruise, with at least some evidence as to how many of them are residents of New York. Concur — Birns, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan and Silverman, JJ.
# EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as
 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

We, the undersigned, certify that, to the best of our
 knowledge, this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, of CAPITAL
 REALTY INVESTORS-II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and containing the financial statements, fully complies with
 the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information
 contained in this annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
 and results of operations of the small business issuer.

|               |  | CAPITAL REALTY INVESTORS-II LIMITED     PARTNERSHIP                                                                                                
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               |  | (Small Business Issuer)                                                                                                                            
|               |  | by:  C.R.I., Inc.                                                                                                                                  
|               |  | Managing General Partner                                                                                                                           
|March 24, 2005 |  | by:  /s/ William B. Dockser                                                                                                                        
|DATE           |  | William B. Dockser,                  Director, Chairman of the Board,                  and Treasurer                  (Principal Executive Officer)
|March 24, 2005 |  | by:  /s/ Michael J. Tuszka                                                                                                                         
|DATE           |  | Michael J. Tuszka,                  Vice President                  and Chief Accounting Officer                  (Principal Financial Officer)    

This
 certification accompanies this annual report and is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose, and shall
 not be deemed filed by the small business issuer for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934, as amended.