alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 252.204-7021 Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirement.

As prescribed in 204.7503(a) and (b), insert the following clause:

# Contractor Compliance With the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirement (JAN 2023)

(a) *Scope.* The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) CMMC is a framework that measures a contractor's cybersecurity maturity to include the implementation of cybersecurity practices and institutionalization of processes (see *https://www.acq.osd.mil/cmmc/index.html*).

(b) *Requirements.* The Contractor shall have a current (*i.e.* not older than 3 years) CMMC certificate at the CMMC level required by this contract and maintain the CMMC certificate at the required level for the duration of the contract.

(c) *Subcontracts.* The Contractor shall—

(1) Insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all subcontracts and other contractual instruments, including subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services, excluding commercially available off-the-shelf items; and

(2) Prior to awarding to a subcontractor, ensure that the subcontractor has a current (*i.e.,* not older than 3 years) CMMC certificate at the CMMC level that is appropriate for the information that is being flowed down to the subcontractor.

(End of clause)

[85 FR 61520, Sept. 29, 2020, as amended at 88 FR 6589, Jan. 31, 2023]
#### In the Matter of Charles Meinecke, Respondent, v. John M. Beckmann, as Police Commissioner of Nassau County, Appellant.

Oral motion to dismiss appeal, made by petitioner-respondent on the argument of the appeal, denied, without costs (see *Matter of Meinecke*v. *Beckmann, post,*p. 787). Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### 225.7019 Prohibition on use of certain energy sourced from inside the Russian Federation.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Gulf of Mexico [electronicresource]
** 
1984: jpgpdf |1985: jpgpdf | 1987:jpgpdf | 1989: jpgpdf | 1991: jpgpdf | 1992: jpgpdf
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.418/7:411
Item Number:0191-B-13 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000719484
 
January 14, 2020****
#### 237.173-5 Contract clause.

Insert the clause at 252.237-7010, Prohibition on Interrogation of Detainees by Contractor Personnel, 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 provision of services.

[75 FR 67633, Nov. 3, 2010, as amended at 78 FR 37989, June 25, 2013; 88 FR 6588, Jan. 31, 2023]
EXHIBIT 32.1
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Marvin F.  Romanow,  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, 2010 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 21, 2010

                                           /s/ Marvin F. Romanow
                                           ---------------------
                                           Marvin F. Romanow
                                           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.


                                       62
# C_2016368EN.01000301.xml

| 7.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 October 2016

(2016/C 368/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1185 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 116,00 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4413 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88323 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6320 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0942 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9938 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 305,07 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2928 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4760 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,4141 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4762 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4769 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6764 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5647 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5365 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 249,22 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,4574 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4605 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5120 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 560,63 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6563 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,107 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,7269 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,985 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6206 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,5700 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,6445 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1185

JPY

Japanese yen

116,00

DKK

Danish krone

7,4413

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88323

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6320

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0942

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9938

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

305,07

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2928

RON

Romanian leu

4,4760

TRY

Turkish lira

3,4141

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4762

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4769

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6764

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5647

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5365

KRW

South Korean won

1 249,22

ZAR

South African rand

15,4574

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4605

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5120

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 560,63

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6563

PHP

Philippine peso

54,107

RUB

Russian rouble

69,7269

THB

Thai baht

38,985

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6206

MXN

Mexican peso

21,5700

INR

Indian rupee

74,6445

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999<F1>
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-20-1998
<CASH>                                          32,764
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  654,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                    61,077
<INVENTORY>                                    441,294
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,119,308
<PP&E>                                       1,735,158
<DEPRECIATION>                                 677,965
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,591,662  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          701,739
<BONDS>                                        774,681
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       321,011
<OTHER-SE>                                     434,830
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,591,662
<SALES>                                      2,175,970
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,175,970
<CGS>                                        1,828,751
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,828,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               192,826
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,868
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                127,856
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            104,856
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   104,856
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.74<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.72<F3>
<FN>
<F1> THE COMPANY'S FISCAL YEAR ENDS ON THE SATURDAY CLOSEST TO DECEMBER 31. 
FISCAL YEAR 1998 ENDS JANUARY 2, 1999 AND INCLUDES 52 WEEKS. ALL QUARTERS IN
1998 HAVE 12 WEEKS, EXCEPT THE THIRD QUARTER WHICH HAS 16 WEEKS.
<F2> IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE", THIS ITEM REFLECTS
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE.
<F3> IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE", THIS ITEM REFLECTS
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
226.7201 Definitions. As used in this subpart— *Eligible contractor* means a business entity operated on a for-profit or nonprofit basis that— ( 1 ) Employs severely disabled individuals at a rate that averages not less than 33 percent of its total workforce over the 12-month period prior to issuance of the solicitation;
( 2 ) Pays not less than the minimum wage prescribed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 206 to the employees who are severely disabled individuals; and
( 3 ) Provides, for its employees, health insurance and a retirement plan comparable to those provided for employees by business entities of similar size in its industrial sector or geographic region.
*Severely disabled individual* means an individual with a disability (as defined in 42 U.S.C. 12102) who has a severe physical or mental impairment that seriously limits one or more functional capacities.
239.7408-2 Applicability of construction labor standards for special construction. ( a ) The construction labor standards in FAR Subpart 22.4 ordinarily do not apply to special construction. However, if the special construction includes construction, alteration, or repair (as defined in FAR 22.401) of a public building or public work, the construction labor standards may apply. Determine applicability under FAR 22.402.
( b ) Each CSA or other type contract which is subject to construction labor standards under FAR 22.402 shall cite that fact.
[56 FR 36429, July 31, 1991, as amended at 71 FR 39011, July 11, 2006]
#### 235.071 Export-controlled items.

For requirements regarding access to export-controlled items, see 225.7901.

[73 FR 42278, July 21, 2008, as amended at 78 FR 36111, June 17, 2013]
#### In the Matter of Mark Coleman, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[834 NYS2d 368]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

While in the food service area, petitioner began acting in an intimidating manner by calling a correction officer names, taking a stance with clenched fists and ignoring the officer’s repeated directives to leave the area. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with making threats, harassing an employee, being out of place and refusing a direct order. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of harassment, being out of place and refusing a direct order. The charge of being out of place was dismissed on administrative appeal, but the rest of the determination was upheld. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.*

Initially, the record does not support petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased nor does it indicate that the determination flowed from any alleged bias *(see Matter of Burgess v Goord,*34 AD3d 948, 949 [2006]; *Matter of Nelson v Goord,*33 AD3d 1135, 1136 [2006]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the Hearing Officer did not prevent him from presenting his defense that the misbehavior report was written in retaliation for a grievance that he filed against the correction officer who wrote it. Similarly, petitioner was not denied effective employee assistance. Although petitioner takes issue with the assistant’s failure to interview witnesses, he has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by this omission *(see Matter of Tusa v Goord,*287 AD2d 907, 908 [2001], *appeal dismissed*98 NY2d 646 [2002]). Petitioner’s remaining arguments are either unpreserved for our review or are lacking in merit.

Cardona, PJ., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

*

 While the petition arguably raises an issue of substantial evidence and the proceeding was transferred on that basis, petitioner has abandoned this claim by not raising it in his brief (see *Matter of Rolon v Goord,*30 AD3d 946, 947 n [2006]).
December 7, 2011 

Mr. Christian Toro 

Chief Inspector/Director, Quality Control 

Southwest Airlines Co. 

2832 Shorecrest Drive 

Dallas, TX 75235 

Dear Mr. Toro: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§ 121.139 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t 

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can’t Process Your Request 

We entered your November 11, 2011, exemption request on behalf of Southwest Airlines Co. 

into the public docket (No. FAA-2011-1281), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the 

following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

 The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside 

the United States, if applicable. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to 

send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption. 

If We Don’t Hear From You 

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Thuy H. Cooper 

Acting Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
## Timeline

**FY 2023 MSEIP Competition**Application available in Grants.gov: March 30, 2023Application Deadline: May 30, 2023 at 11:59:59 p.m. Washington, DC time

## Federal Register Notice

- Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for FY 2023 was published in the  Federal Register  on March 30, 2023 

Current Application
**All applicants are required to submit a completed Mandatory FY 2023 MSEIP Eligibility Certification Form.** The **Mandatory FY 2023 MSEIP Eligibility Certification Form** is a critical document used to determine applicant eligibility and is not available through Grants.gov; it is only available in the MSEIP application package. This form should be copied from the application package, completed, saved, and attached as a separate file to the “Other Attachments Form” with your application in Grants.gov. (Do not use forms from previous competitions.)

**All applicants are required to submit an application online through Grants.gov.** Grants.gov is a single access point for over 1,000 grant programs offered by federal and other grant-making agencies.

Through Grants.gov you will be able to download a copy of the MSEIP application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may search for the downloadable application package for this program by the **Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.120, formerly referred to as the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA).**

If you experience problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, refer to the Support page and/or contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726 or email at: support@grants.gov or access the Grants.gov Self-Service Knowledge Base web portal at: https://grants-portal.psc.gov/Welcome.aspx?pt=Grants. 

Grants.gov Customer Service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, excluding federal holidays.

For program-specific questions, contact the program officer. 

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339 . Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program officer.
Tips and Assistance
Three FY 2023 MSEIP Pre-Application Webinars will be held in April 2023. Please send an email to Bernadette.Hence@ed.gov to receive the Webinar link.Wednesday, April 19, 20233:00 pm – 4:30 pm, ET
Thursday, April 20, 202311:00 am – 12:30 pm, ET
Friday, April 21, 202310:00 am – 11:30 am, ET
Application Contact
Dr. Bernadette Hence, (202) 453-7913, bernadette.hence@ed.gov

**Mailg Address**U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Postsecondary Education, Institutional ServiceMinority Science and Engineering Improvement ProgramWashington, DC 20202

E-mail:  OPE.MSEIP@ed.gov

Top

Institutional Service Home | Discretionary Grant Application Packages
  Last Modified: 05/01/2023
#### 232.604 Demand for payment.

When issuing a demand for payment of a contract debt, follow the procedures at PGI 232.604.

[80 FR 58633, Sept. 30, 2015]
27.408 Cosponsored research and development activities. ( a ) In contracts involving cosponsored research and development that require the contractor to make substantial contributions of funds or resources (*e.g.*, by cost-sharing or by repayment of nonrecurring costs), and the contractor's and the Government's respective contributions to any item, component, process, or computer software, developed or produced under the contract are not readily segregable, the contracting officer may limit the acquisition of, or acquire less than unlimited rights to, any data developed and delivered under the contract. Agencies may regulate the use of this authority in their supplements. Lesser rights shall, at a minimum, assure use of the data for agreed-to Governmental purposes (including reprocurement rights as appropriate), and address any disclosure limitations or restrictions to be imposed on the data. Also, consideration may be given to requiring the contractor to directly license others if needed to carry out the objectives of the contract. Since the purpose of the cosponsored research and development, the legitimate proprietary interests of the contractor, the needs of the Government, and the respective contributions of both parties may vary, no specific clauses are prescribed, but a clause providing less than unlimited rights in the Government for data developed and delivered under the contract (such as license rights) may be tailored to the circumstances consistent with the foregoing and the policy set forth in 27.402. As a guide, a clause may be appropriate when the contractor contributes money or resources, or agrees to make repayment of nonrecurring costs, of a value of approximately 50 percent of the total cost of the contract (*i.e.*, Government, contractor, and/or third party paid costs), and the respective contributions are not readily segregable for any work element to be performed under the contract. A clause may be used for all or for only specifically identified tasks or work elements under the contract. In the latter instance, its use will be in addition to whatever other data rights clause is prescribed under this subpart, with the contract specifically identifying which clause is to apply to which tasks or work elements. Further, this type of clause may not be appropriate where the purpose of the contract is to produce data for dissemination to the public, or to develop or demonstrate technologies that will be available, in any event, to the public for its direct use.
( b ) Where the contractor's contributions are readily segregable (by performance requirements and the funding for the contract) and so identified in the contract, any resulting data may be treated under this clause as limited rights data or restricted computer software in accordance with 27.404-2(c) or (d), as applicable; or if this treatment is inconsistent with the purpose of the contract, rights to the data may, if so negotiated and stated in the contract, be treated in a manner consistent with paragraph (a) of this section.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 95-3255. David M. ARMSTRONG, L. Benson Barger, Wallace D. Black, Howard Brooks, Jerry A. Budd, Sonja M. Carter, Dominick C. Cizek, Carol D. Clark-Iley, Charles H. Davis, Kenneth O. Giessuebel, Herold P. Glaser, Robert A. Havlish, Kumar Hinduja, Joseph C. Jett, Glenn E. Johnson, Robert C. Lerche, Calvin N. Lightner, George W. McGuirk, James W. McLean, William G. Murphy, Donald L. Prasky, Clark C. Rains, Myrtle Y. Redding, Kenneth A. Richards, Russell G. Roberts, Linda L. Ryan, Victor W. Shaw, Linton W. Smith, Michael Sylvestri, Marlon K. Tarter, Delbert S. Turner, Edward W. Walsh, Joseph W. Williamson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Constantino A. Barbitta, James R. Baxter, Robert D. Biggs, James H. Black, Rick L. Bordner, Rodmond M. Cookson, David B. Pool, Roger A. Purcell, Rama S. Singh, Charles M. Smith, Robert G. Swanson, William F. Waldrop, Kenneth E. Welch, Plaintiffs,

v. MARTIN MARIETTA CORP., Martin Marietta Technologies, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. Feb. 18, 1997. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 94-1066-CV-ORL-18), G. Kendall Sharp, Judge. Prior report: 93 F.3d 1505. Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT: A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the appellees' Suggestion of Hearing En Banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor thereof, IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be heard by this court sitting en banc.