alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

Hawaii Department of Education1390 Miller StreetHonolulu, HI 96813Phone: (808) 784-6200Website: http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/Pages/home.aspx

### State Higher Education Agency

Hawaii Post-Secondary Education Authorization ProgramDepartment of Commerce & Consumer Affairs335 Merchant Street, Rm. 310Honolulu, HI 96813(808) 586-7327Website: https://cca.hawaii.gov/hpeap/

### Special Education Agency

Special Education OfficeHawai'I State Department of Education1390 Miller StreetHonolulu, HI 96813Phone: (808) 305-9810Website: http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/SpecializedPrograms/SpecialEducation/Pages/home.aspx

### State Adult Education Agency

Adult & Community Education OfficeHawai'I State Department of Education1390 Miller StreetHonolulu, HI 96813Phone: (808) 594-0540Website: http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/AdultEducation/Pages/Home.aspx

Back to state map
#### Margaret Mircik, as Administratrix of the Estate of Anthony S. Mircik, Deceased, Respondent, v. Van Nest Contractors Equipment Corporation, Appellant.

Judgment entered May 2, 1960, in the sum of $25,998.50 entered on a verdict for $46,227.75, which was conditionally reduced by the trial court to $22,500, and, as so reduced, assented to by the plaintiff, reversed, on the law, the facts having been considered, and the complaint dismissed, with costs to defendant-appellant. The action originally commenced against both the owner and operator of the truck abated against the latter by reason of his death during the pendency of the action. There is no evidence to support the finding implicit in the verdict that the deceased’s contact with the truck was due to negligence in the operation of the truck. The “X” mark referred to in the dissenting memorandum does not evidence the fact that immediately prior to the occurrence plaintiff’s decedent was on the roadway. The brother of the deceased who placed the “ X ” mark on the diagram testified the deceased was standing to the left of the barricade which would place him on a line *473between the southerly side of the barricade and the northerly end of the mall. On the argument of this appeal counsel for plaintiff stated this claim was not made on plaintiff’s summation as is evident from the transcript thereof in the record on appeal. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Yalente and McNally, JJ.; Rabin and Eager, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum by Rabin, J.: I dissent and vote to affirm. I believe that in this death action there was sufficient proven to support the jury’s verdict. There was a conflict as to the location of the boy just before he was struck. The driver in his deposition testified that he saw him standing within the barricade. However, one of the witnesses for the plaintiff testified that the boy was standing to the left of the barricade. But it could be reasonably argued that such testimony does not make clear whether the boy was within the barricade or on the roadway outside of it. However, the witness marked with an “X” on one of the exhibits the place where he last saw the boy before the accident. This mark would put the boy outside the barricade on the roadway. In the circumstances the jury had the right to disregard that portion of the testimony of the driver in his deposition as would place the boy within the barricade and to make a finding that the boy was on the roadway outside the barricade just before the accident. Such a finding, coupled with the testimony of the driver that he did see the boy just before the accident, was' sufficient to meet the burden imposed upon a plaintiff in a death action where, as here, there are no witnesses who actually saw how the accident occurred *(Noseworthy*v. *City of New York,*298 N. Y. 76, 80). “ The management and control of the thing which has produced the injury [was] exclusively vested in the defendant ” and in the circumstances it became the defendant’s burden to explain the occurrence *(Noseworthy*v. *City of New York, supra).*This the defendant failed to do.
<PAGE>   1



EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


Earnings per common share were computed as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
                                                      -------------------------
                                                      DEC.31,1996   DEC.31,1995
<S>                                                   <C>           <C>
Net income (loss) applicable to common
   shares:                                               $359,160     ($153,452)
                                                      ===========   ===========


Weighted average number of common shares and of
   common share equivalents:

Weighted average common shares                          5,508,057     5,321,575

Dilution from stock options
   outstanding                                            441,617          --

Incremental dilution, exercised options                    38,251          --
                                                      -----------   -----------

Common share equivalents pursuant
   to APB 15                                              479,868          --
                                                      -----------   -----------

Total primary weighted average number
   of common shares and common share
   equivalents                                          5,987,925     5,321,575

Additional shares for full dilution
   pursuant to APB 15                                        --            --
                                                      -----------   -----------

Total fully diluted average number of
   common shares and common share
   equivalents                                          5,987,925     5,321,575

Net income (loss) per share:
   Primary                                                  $0.06        ($0.03)
                                                      ===========   ===========
   Fully diluted                                            $0.06        ($0.03)
                                                      ===========   ===========
</TABLE>
# C_2016409EN.01000101.xml

| 5.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/1

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.7962 — ChemChina/Syngenta)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 409/01)

On 28 October 2016, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

1

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.7962 — ChemChina/Syngenta, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
#### 252.225-7043 Antiterrorism/force protection policy for defense contractors outside the United States.

As prescribed in 225.372-2, use the following clause:

# Antiterrorism/Force Protection Policy for Defense Contractors Outside the United States (JUN 2015)

*Definition. United States,* as used in this clause, means, the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and outlying areas.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this clause, the Contractor and its subcontractors, if performing or traveling outside the United States under this contract, shall—

(1) Affiliate with the Overseas Security Advisory Council, if the Contractor or subcontractor is a U.S. entity;

(2) Ensure that Contractor and subcontractor personnel who are U.S. nationals and are in-country on a non-transitory basis, register with the U.S. Embassy, and that Contractor and subcontractor personnel who are third country nationals comply with any security related requirements of the Embassy of their nationality;

(3) Provide, to Contractor and subcontractor personnel, antiterrorism/force protection awareness information commensurate with that which the Department of Defense (DoD) provides to its military and civilian personnel and their families, to the extent such information can be made available prior to travel outside the United States; and

(4) Obtain and comply with the most current antiterrorism/force protection guidance for Contractor and subcontractor personnel.

(c) The requirements of this clause do not apply to any subcontractor that is—

(1) A foreign government;

(2) A representative of a foreign government; or

(3) A foreign corporation wholly owned by a foreign government.

(d) Information and guidance pertaining to DoD antiterrorism/force protection can be obtained from [*Contracting Officer to insert applicable information cited in PGI 225.372-1*].

(End of clause)

[63 FR 31937, June 11, 1998, as amended at 70 FR 23803, May 5, 2005; 70 FR 35548, June 21, 2005; 71 FR 14100, Mar. 21, 2006; 80 FR 36903, June 26, 2015]
Case: 3:11-cr-50082 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/07/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1
Case: 3:11-cr-50082 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/07/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2
Case: 3:11-cr-50082 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/07/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:3
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 14 (Monday, January 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01521]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable 
legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property 
subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. 
persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with 
them.

DATES: See Supplementary Information section for effective date(s).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Associate Director for Global 
Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions 
Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for 
Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; or Assistant Director for Regulatory 
Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability

    The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and 
additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available 
on OFAC's website (https://www.treasury.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Action(s)

    On January 15, 2021, OFAC determined that the property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed 
below.

Individual

    1. ALVAREZ CASAS, Lazaro Alberto, Cuba; DOB 1963; Gender Male 
(individual) [GLOMAG].
    Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C)(1) of Executive Order 
13818 of December 20, 2017, ``Blocking the Property of Persons 
Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption,'' 82 FR 60839, 
3 CFR, 2018 Comp., p. 399, (E.O. 13818) for being a foreign person 
who is or has been a leader or official of an entity, including any 
government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have 
engaged in, serious human rights abuse relating to the leader's or 
official's tenure.

Entity

    1. MINISTRY OF INTERIOR (a.k.a. MINISTERIO DEL INTERIOR; a.k.a. 
``MININT''), Aranguren and Carlos Manuel de Cespedes, Havana, Cuba; 
Organization Established Date Jun 1961 [GLOMAG].
    Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 13818 for 
being a foreign person who is responsible for or complicit in, or 
has directly or indirectly engaged in, serious human rights abuse.

    Dated: January 15, 2021.
Andrea M. Gacki,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the 
Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2021-01521 Filed 1-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 186 

Recognizing the Aviation Cadet Museum in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, as 

the national aviation cadet museum of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 7, 2017 

Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself and Mr. COTTON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the Aviation Cadet Museum in Eureka Springs, 

Arkansas, as the national aviation cadet museum of the 

United States. 

Whereas the Aviation Cadet Museum was founded in 1994 by 

former aviation cadet and Air Force First Lieutenant 

Errol Severe; 

Whereas, from 1917 until 1965, the flying cadet and succeeding aviation cadet programs served as the primary 

production source for nearly 500,000 joint service pilots, 

navigators, and bombardiers; 

Whereas the bravery, courage, dedication, and heroism of aviators and supporting ground crews from the Army Air 

Corps and the Army Air Forces were critical factors in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 186 IS 

defeating the enemies of the United States during World 

War I and World War II; 

Whereas the Aviation Cadet Museum in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, is the only museum in the United States that exists exclusively to preserve and promote an understanding 

of the role of aviation cadets in the 20th century; and 

Whereas the Aviation Cadet Museum is dedicated to— 

(1) celebrating the spirit of the United States; and 

(2) recognizing the teamwork, collaboration, patriotism, and courage of the men who trained for and fought 

in, as well as those individuals on the home front who 

mobilized and supported, the national aviation effort: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate recognizes the Aviation 

2 Cadet Museum in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, as the na3 tional aviation cadet museum of the United States. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1

Eastern Division

Gary Hanley

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−04158

Honorable Ruben Castillo

Green Tree Servicing, LLC

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, January 28, 2014:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ruben Castillo:Status hearing held on

1/28/2014. Counsel appeared and advised the court that the parties have reached an

individual settlement. This case is hereby dismissed without prejudice subject to a

dismissal with prejudice upon the filing of a stipulation or appropriate settlement

documents within the next 30 days. Defendant's motion to dismiss [80] is denied as moot.

Mailed notice(rao, )

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-04158 Document #: 96 Filed: 01/28/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:415
**Exhibit 23.1**

# **Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

Aspyra, Inc.

Calabasas, CA

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8(File No. 333-71599 and file No. 333-138795) and on Forms S-3 (File No.33-89278 and file No. 333-134926) of our report dated April 16, 2007, relatingto the consolidated financial statements of Aspyra, Inc. appearing in theCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,2006.

BDO Seidman, LLP

Los Angeles, California

April 16, 2007

 

----
234.7100 Policy. ( a ) The cost and software data reporting (CSDR) requirement is mandatory for major defense acquisition programs (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 4201) as specified in DoDI 5000.02, Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework and the DoD 5000.04-M-1, CSDR Manual. The CSDR system is applied in accordance with the reporting requirements established in DoDI 5000.02. The two principal components of the CSDR system are contractor cost data reporting and software resources data reporting.
( b ) Prior to contract award, contracting officers shall consult with the Defense Cost and Resource Center to determine that the offeror selected for award has proposed a standard CSDR system, as described in the offeror's proposal in response to the provision at 252.234-7003, that is in compliance with DoDI 5000.02, Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, and the DoD 5000.04-M-1, CSDR Manual.
( c ) Contact information for the Defense Cost and Resource Center and the Deputy Director, Cost Assessment, is located at PGI 234.7100.
[75 FR 71561, Nov. 24, 2010, as amended at 87 FR 76995, Dec. 16, 2022; 88 FR 46904, July 20, 2023; 88 FR 80466, Nov. 17, 2023]
245.604-1 Sales procedures. ( 1 ) *Best value sales approach.* Plant clearance officers shall determine a best value sales approach, to include due consideration for costs, risks, and benefits, *e.g.,* potential sales proceeds.
( 2 ) *Invitation for bid procedures.* The plant clearance officer may direct the contractor to issue informal invitations for bid (orally, telephonically, or by other informal media), provided— ( i ) Maximum practical competition is obtained;
( ii ) Sources solicited are recorded; and
( iii ) Informal bids are confirmed in writing.
( 3 ) *Sale approval and award.* Plant clearance officers shall— ( i ) Evaluate bids to establish that the sale price is fair and reasonable, taking into consideration— ( A ) Knowledge or tests of the market;
( B ) Current published prices for the property;
( C ) The nature, condition, quantity, and location of the property; and
( D ) Past sale history for like or similar items;
( ii ) Approve award to the responsible bidder whose bid is most advantageous to the Government. The plant clearance officer shall not approve award to any bidder who is an ineligible transferee, as defined in 252.245-7005, Management and Reporting of Government Property; and
( iii ) Notify the contractor of the bidder to whom an award will be made within 5 working days from receipt of bids.
( 4 ) *Negotiated sales.* ( i ) Negotiated sales include purchases or retention at less than cost by the contractor. Negotiated sales may be made when— ( A ) The plant clearance officer determines that this method is essential to expeditious plant clearance; and
( B ) The Government's interests are adequately protected.
( ii ) Negotiated sales shall be at fair and reasonable prices, not less than those reasonably expected under competitive sales.
( iii ) Conditions justifying negotiated sales are— ( A ) No acceptable bids are received under competitive sale;
( B ) Anticipated sales proceeds do not warrant competitive sale;
( C ) Specialized nature of the property would not create bidder interest;
( D ) Removal of the property would reduce its value or result in disproportionate handling expenses; or
( E ) Such action is essential to the Government's interests.
( 5 ) Plant clearance officers shall consider any special disposal requirements such as demilitarization or trade security control requirements in accordance with DoDM 4160.28-M, Defense Demilitarization Manual, and DoDI 2030.08, Implementation of Trade Security Controls (TSCs) for Transfers of DoD Personal Property to Parties Outside DoD Control, respectively. *See* PGI 245.6.
[86 FR 59871, Oct. 29, 2021, as amended at 88 FR 88537, Dec. 22, 2023]
#### 2452.246-70 Inspection and acceptance.

As prescribed in 2446.502-70, insert the following clause in all solicitations and contracts:

# INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE (APR 2019)

Inspection and acceptance of all work required under this contract shall be performed by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) or other individual as designated by the Contracting Officer or COR.

(End of clause)

[84 FR 15136, Apr. 15, 2019]
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 20, 2020

v No. 346668 Macomb Circuit Court JULIE ANN FLYNN, LC No. 2017

- 002784

- FC

Defendant

- Appellant.

Before: R ONAYNE K RAUSE , P.J., and S AWYER and B OONSTRA , JJ.

R ONAYNE K RAUSE , P.J

. ( concurring )
I reluctantly concur with the majority. I find it difficult to imagine a more clear

- cut case of legal insanity, but this Court may not interfere with a jury’s verdict so long as there is evidence in the record to support it without resorting to speculation. People v Howard , 50 Mich 239, 242

- 243; 15 NW 101 (1883); People v Bailey , 451 Mich 657, 673

- 675, 68 1

- 682; 549 NW2d 325 (1996). The jury is simply not obligated to accept an expert’s testimony ; even if , as was the case here, that testimony is unrebutted. Olson v Village of Manistique , 110 Mich 656, 657

- 659; 68 NW 986 (1896); People v Gray , 57 Mich App 289, 296; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). Furthermore, this Court is bound to follow decisions from our Supreme Court. Pellegrino v AMPCO Sys Parking
, 486 Mich 330, 352

- 354; 785 NW2d 45 (2010)

.
I write separately because I am concerned that People v Carpenter , 464 Mich 223; 627 NW2d 276 (2001), may no longer reflect a state

- of

- the

- art understanding of mental illness or the devastating effect of imprisoning mentally ill individuals

. I recognize that “insanity” is to some extent controlled by the Legi slature. However, our Supreme Court relied in part on what was then regarded as a “moral judgment of the culpability of the accused.” Id . at 236

- 237. Subsequent scientific, medical, neurological, and psychological developments and discoveries have, over the past two decades, shed considerable new light on our ability to make truly objective determinations of individuals’ mental capabilities. In light of those advances, I question whether a “bright line test” can still be considered constitutional

. This Court is powerless to address defendant’s argument that Carpenter infringes upon the rights of mentally ill individuals to present a meaningful defense consistent with up

- to

- date scientific and medical understandings of mental- 2

-

illness. However, I believe that, almost twenty years later, there may be merit to revisiting Carpenter . I respectfully urge our Supreme Court to do so.
/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
#### 227.7003 Claims for copyright infringement.

The procedures set forth herein will be followed, where applicable, in copyright infringement claims.