alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
27.404-4 Contractor's release, publication, and use of data. ( a ) In contracts for basic or applied research with universities or colleges, agencies shall not place any restrictions on the conduct of or reporting on the results of unclassified basic or applied research, except as provided in applicable U.S. statutes. However, agencies may restrict the release or disclosure of computer software that is or is intended to be developed to the point of practical application (including for agency distribution under established programs). This is not considered a restriction on the reporting of the results of basic or applied research. Agencies may also preclude a contractor from asserting copyright in any computer software for purposes of established agency distribution programs, or where required to accomplish the purpose for which the software is acquired.
( b ) Except for the results of basic or applied research under contracts with universities or colleges, agencies may, to the extent provided in their FAR supplements, place limitations or restrictions on the contractor's exercise of its rights in data first produced in the performance of the contract, including a requirement to assign copyright to the Government or another party. Any of these restrictions shall be expressly included in the contract.
#### ■ GREENBERG et al. v. MENDELSON et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 2, 1906.)

1. Contracts—Performance ob Breach—Architect’s Approval—Necessity.

In the absence of proof of waiver of an architect’s certificate, required by the contract sued on, testimony of the architect, who was called as plaintiffs witness that the work was not completed, indicating numerous defects and deficiencies in the work, was affirmative proof of nonperformance, and, without evidence tending to establish an unreasonable refusal on the part of the architect to furnish his certificate, warranted a dismissal of the action.

2. Same—Waiver op Perpormance.

A provision in a contract that orders for extra work shall be in writing may be waived.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Thirteenth District.

Action by Wolff Greenberg and another against Israel Mendelson and another. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Argued before SCOTT, P. J„ and GIEGERICH and GREEN-BAUM, JJ..

Marks & Marks, for appellants.

Feltenstein & Rosenstein, for respondents.

GREENBAUM, J.

The first cause of action was properly dismissed. There was no proof of waiver of the architect’s certificate, and the architect, who was called as plaintiff’s witness, testified that the work was not completed; indicating numerous defects and deficiencies in the work. There was, therefore, affirmative proof of nonperformance, and there was no evidence tending to establish an unreasonable refusal on the part of the architect to furnish his certificate. •

A different situation, however, exists with respect to the second cause of action. The court excluded testimony proffered by plaintiff tending to establish the installation of washtubs for defendants, upon the ground that the written contract between the parties for the bathtubs, basins, and sinks provided that no work shall be considered as extra unless ordered in writing, or accepted on a written estimate. Aside from the fact that the putting in of washtubs would not necessarily be construed as extra work within the contemplation of the parties, it is well settled that a provision that orders for extra work shall be in wilting may be waived. Abells v. City of Syracuse, 7 App. Div. 501, 40 N. Y. Supp. 233; Weisbrod v. Dembosky, 25 Misc. Rep. 485, 55 N. Y. Supp. 1; Porter v. Swan (City Ct. Brook.) 17 N. Y. Supp. 351. It was error to exclude the proofs offered in support of the second cause of action.

The judgment should be affirmed as to the first cause of action, and reversed as to the second cause of action, and a new trial ordered in respect thereto, without costs to either party. All concur.
#### Joseph Nürnberg, Respondent, v. C. Irving Dworic et al., Appellants.

Order, entered on June 16, 1960, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants and the motion granted as to the first cause of action and the agreement declared void and unenforeible under subdivision 1 of section 31 of the Personal Property Law, and the motion granted as to the second and third causes of action, without prejudice to plaintiff-respondent, if so advised, serving an amended complaint in an action at law in *quantum meruit.*In this action for a declaratory judgment, the first cause of action is upon an oral agreement whereby plaintiff was to negotiate for the operation of retail outlets in stores of M. H. Fishman Co., Inc., and the defendants were to pay to the plaintiff 1% of the gross retail sales of the defendants in said stores. The second and third causes of action are in declaratory judgment for *quantum meruit*for the reasonable value of plaintiff’s services. The agreement relied on is within the Statute of Frauds in that by its terms it is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof. The defendants are required thereby to pay 1% of their gross sales at the Fishman stores during any period thereafter. *(Zupan*v. *Blumberg,*2 N Y 2d 547; *Martocci*v. *Greater N. Y. Brewery,*301 N. Y. 57; *Cohen*v. *Bartgis Bros. Co.,*289 N. Y. 846, affg. 264 App. Div. 260.) Plaintiff’s reliance on *Nat Nal Sen. Stations*v. *Wolf*(304 N. Y. 332) is misplaced. There the court held each purchase and sale of gasoline resulted from a separate contract not within the scope of the Statute of Frauds. In the instant ease, there is one underlying arrangement whereby the defendants are obligated to pay 1% of the gross sales if at any future time they *613establish concessions at stores of M. H. Fishman Co., Inc., so long as the concessions are maintained by the defendants. The agreement relied on, therefore, is within the Statute of Frauds. The second and third causes of action on *quantum meruit*may be maintainable as common-law actions but do not support an action for declaratory judgment. *(James*v. *Alderton Dock Yards,*256 N. Y. 298.) However, the respondent should be afforded the opportunity, if so advised, to serve an amended complaint alleging a cause of action at law in *quantum meruit. (Elsfelder*v. *Cournand,*270 App. Div. 162, 165.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-24-00066-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from Probate Court No. 2

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-GD00186-2

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HANNAH CHRISTINA MARIE TILTON, AN 

INCAPACITATED PERSON
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Kathleen Kienitz, in her capacity as Trustee of the Hannah Tilton

Supplemental Needs Trust, filed a notice of appeal from the probate court’s “Order 

Overruling Special Appearance.” This court then learned that the probate court had 

vacated the appealed-from order. This court notified Appellant that “it appear[ed] that 

there is no longer an order from which to appeal, and the appeal is moot” and would 

be dismissed unless this court received a response stating grounds for continuing it.

We have not received a response. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Khorrami v. Torres, No. 02-14-00242-CV, 2014 WL 5307196, 

at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 16, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal 

as moot after trial court vacated appealed-from order).

Per Curiam

Delivered: March 21, 2024
Exhibit 10.1






Exhibit 10.1




Executive Compensation Notification

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




2010 Fiscal Year Compensation Program of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.




2010 Fiscal Year Base Salaries: Table I below sets forth the 2010 fiscal year base salaries
for Mr. Horton and Mr. Tomnitz.



Table I




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Annual Base Salary	 	Performance Bonus
	Name	 	Office	 	(2010 Fiscal Year)	 	(2010 Fiscal Year)
	Donald R. Horton

	 	Chairman of the
Board
	 	$	1,000,000	 	 	See Below
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Donald J. Tomnitz

	 	Vice Chairman,
President and CEO
	 	$	900,000	 	 	See Below






2000 Amended and Restated Incentive Bonus Plan.




2010 Fiscal Year Annual Performance Bonus: The Compensation Committee approved
performance-based goals for measuring short-term performance bonuses that may be earned by Mr.
Horton and Mr. Tomnitz during the 2010 fiscal year. The 2010 performance goals were established
under the Company’s 2000 Amended and Restated Incentive Bonus Plan. The 2010 fiscal year
performance goal for Mr. Horton and Mr. Tomnitz relates to consolidated pre-tax income as set forth
below.



Annual Performance Bonus — Performance related to Pre-Tax Income:




Under the 2010 fiscal year performance bonus program, each of Mr. Horton and Mr. Tomnitz has
the opportunity to earn the following performance-based bonus:




	 	(1)	 	2.0% of Pre-Tax Income of the Company for the quarter ending December 31, 2009
(but not below $0).
	 
	 	(2)	 	2.0% of Pre-Tax Income of the Company for the quarter ending March 31, 2010
(but not below $0).
	 
	 	(3)	 	2.0% of Pre-Tax Income of the Company for the quarter ending June 30, 2010
(but not below $0).
	 
	 	(4)	 	2.0% of Pre-Tax Income of the Company for the quarter ending September 30,
2010 (but not below $0).





 


 









 









“Pre-Tax Income” shall mean income before income taxes, as publicly reported by the Company in
its quarterly or annual financial statements, as applicable, prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. The financial statements shall mean the consolidated financial
statements of the Company.



The Compensation Committee reserves the right to pay any bonus hereunder in cash or equity or
a combination of both and reserves the right to adjust downward, in part or in whole, the 2010
fiscal year performance bonus.



Other Long-Term Benefits.




Consistent with prior years, Mr. Horton and Mr. Tomnitz may participate in two separate
deferred compensation plans. The first plan allows the executive to make voluntary income
deferrals. The second plan is a promise by the Company to pay retirement benefits to the executive.
Furthermore, if the executive is employed by the Company on the last day of the current fiscal
year (for example September 30, 2010), then the Company will establish a liability to him equal to
10% of his annual base salary as of the first day of the current fiscal year (for example October
1, 2009). This liability will accrue earnings in future years at a rate established by the
administrative committee.
Case: 1:12-cr-00367 Document #: 8 Filed: 07/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:14
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 178 

To authorize testimony, document production, and representation in United 

States v. Kevin Lee Olson. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2017 

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself and Mr. SCHUMER) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony, document production, and 

representation in United States v. Kevin Lee Olson. 

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Kevin Lee Olson, Cr. 

No. 17–26, pending in the United States District Court 

for the District of North Dakota, the prosecution has requested the production of testimony and documents from 

Kobye Noel, an employee in the Washington, D.C. office 

of Senator Heidi Heitkamp; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent current or former employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their official responsibilities; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 178 ATS 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Kobye Noel, an employee in the Office 

2 of Senator Heidi Heitkamp, and any other current or 

3 former employee of the Senator’s office from whom rel4 evant evidence may be necessary, are authorized to testify 

5 and produce documents in the case of United States v. 

6 Kevin Lee Olson, except concerning matters for which a 

7 privilege should be asserted. 

8 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

9 represent current and former employees of Senator 

10 Heitkamp’s office in connection with the production of evi11 dence authorized in section one of this resolution. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### 252.216-7003 Economic price adjustment—wage rates or material prices controlled by a foreign government.

As prescribed in 216.203-4-70(c)(1), use the following clause:

# Economic Price Adjustment—Wage Rates or Material Prices Controlled by a Foreign Government (MAR 2012)

(a) As represented by the Contractor in its offer, the prices set forth in this contract—

(1) Are based on the wage rates or material prices established and controlled by the government of the country specified by the Contractor in its offer; and

(2) Do not include contingency allowances to pay for possible increases in wage rates or material prices.

(b) If wage rates or material prices are revised by the government named in paragraph (a) of this clause, the Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price and shall modify the contract to the extent that the Contractor's actual costs of performing this contract are increased or decreased, as a direct result of the revision, subject to the following:

(1) For increases in established wage rates or material prices, the increase in contract unit price(s) shall be effective on the same date that the government named in paragraph (a) of this clause increased the applicable wage rate(s) or material price(s), but only if the Contracting Officer receives the Contractor's written request for contract adjustment within 10 days of the change. If the Contractor's request is received later, the effective date shall be the date that the Contracting Officer received the Contractor's request.

(2) For decreases in established wage rates or material prices, the decrease in contract unit price(s) shall be effective on the same date that the government named in paragraph (a) of this clause decreased the applicable wage rate(s) or material price(s). The decrease in contract unit price(s) shall apply to all items delivered on and after the effective date of the government's rate or price decrease.

(c) No modification changing the contract unit price(s) shall be executed until the Contracting Officer has verified the applicable change in the rates or prices set by the government named in paragraph (a) of this clause. The Contractor shall make available its books and records that support a requested change in contract price.

(d) Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the Disputes clause of this contract.

(End of clause)

[62 FR 34128, June 24, 1997]
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Illinois

 Jerome Augutis )

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No. 12 C 2451

 United States of America

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus postjudgment interest at the rate of %, along with costs.

X the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name) United States of

 America recover costs from the plaintiff (name) Jerome Augutis

 other:

 

 

This action was (check one):

tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

X decided by Judge George M. Marovich on motion to dismiss

 .

Date: Aug. 7, 2012 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

/s / Carol Wing, Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:12-cv-02451 Document #: 18 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:84
212.272 Preference for certain commercial products and commercial services. ( a ) As required by section 855 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92), for requirements relating to the acquisition of commercial information technology products and services, see 239.101.
( b ) ( 1 ) As required by section 876 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328), a contracting officer may not enter into a contract above the simplified acquisition threshold for facilities-related services, knowledge-based services (except engineering services), medical services, or transportation services that are not commercial services, unless the appropriate official specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section determines in writing that no commercial services are suitable to meet the agency's needs as provided in 10 U.S.C. 3453(c)(2).
( 2 ) The following officials are authorized to make the determination specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section: ( i ) For contracts above $10 million, the head of the contracting activity, the combatant commander of the combatant command concerned, or the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (as applicable).
( ii ) For contracts in an amount above the simplified acquisition threshold and at or below $10 million, the contracting officer.
[84 FR 39204, Aug. 9, 2019, as amended at 87 FR 76991, Dec. 16, 2022]
#### 252.204-7015 Notice of Authorized Disclosure of Information for Litigation Support.

As prescribed in 204.7403(b), use the following clause:

# Notice of Authorized Disclosure of Information for Litigation Support (JAN 2023)

(a) *Definitions.* As used in this clause—

*Computer software* means computer programs, source code, source code listings, object code listings, design details, algorithms, processes, flow charts, formulae, and related material that would enable the software to be reproduced, recreated, or recompiled. Computer software does not include computer data bases or computer software documentation.

*Litigation support* means administrative, technical, or professional services provided in support of the Government during or in anticipation of litigation.

*Litigation support contractor* means a contractor (including its experts, technical consultants, subcontractors, and suppliers) providing litigation support under a contract that contains the clause at 252.204-7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors.

*Sensitive information* means controlled unclassified information of a commercial, financial, proprietary, or privileged nature. The term includes technical data and computer software, but does not include information that is lawfully, publicly available without restriction.

*Technical data* means recorded information, regardless of the form or method of the recording, of a scientific or technical nature (including computer software documentation). The term does not include computer software or data incidental to contract administration, such as financial and/or management information.

(b) *Notice of authorized disclosures* Notwithstanding any other provision of this solicitation or contract, the Government may disclose to a litigation support contractor, for the sole purpose of litigation support activities, any information, including sensitive information, received—

(1) Within or in connection with a quotation or offer; or

(2) In the performance of or in connection with a contract.

(c) *Subcontracts.* Include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all subcontracts, including subcontracts for commercial products or commercial services.

(End of clause)

[79 FR 11341, Feb. 28, 2014, as amended at 81 FR 28729, May 10, 2016; 84 FR 58332, Oct. 31, 2019; 88 FR 6589, Jan. 31, 2023]
AMENDMENT


     This Amendment is executed between Guntekin Koksal ("Koksal") and Chaparral
Resources,  Inc.  ("Chaparral") on April 14, 1997 in order to amend the Purchase
Agreement  dated  January 12, 1996  related to the  acquisition  of 15% (fifteen
percent) of the issued and outstanding  capital stock of Central Asian Petroleum
(Guernsey)   Limited   ("CAP(G)")  owned  by  Koksal  by  Chaparral   ("Purchase
Agreement").

     WHEREAS,  Chaparral  failed to make  certain  payments in  accordance  with
Article 1c of the Purchase Agreement; and

     WHEREAS, the Parties desire to defer the payment date;

     NOW, THEREFORE,  the Parties have agreed to amend the Purchase Agreement as
follows:

     1.   In accordance with the Purchase Agreement Chaparral shall purchase all
          of the Shareholder's right, title and interest in and to 75,000 shares
          of CAP(G) stock owned by Koksal in return for certain considerations.

     2.   As of March 11, 1997  Chaparral  owes Koksal US $543,750 (Five hundred
          forty three thousand seven hundred fifty US Dollars).

     3.   The Parties agree to make the final  deferment for the payment date of
          such  amount  mentioned  in Clause 2 above,  until the date  Chaparral
          shall obtain the financing  from any source  including but not limited
          to financial institutions or shareholders,  but not later than May 15,
          1997.

     4.   Koksal  will be  entitled  to  apply  all  remedies  mentioned  in the
          Purchase Agreement if Chaparral fails to make the payment mentioned in
          Clause 2 above before the date mentioned in Clause 3 above.

     5.   All other  provisions of the Purchase  Agreement which are not changed
          in this Amendment will stay valid and binding the Parties.

     This Amendment is signed in duplicate copies on the date indicated above.



/s/                                             /s/
   ------------------------------                  -----------------------------
Guntekin Koksal                                 Chaparral Resources, Inc.


                                       11
2416.603-2 Application. ( c ) The HCA shall approve additional time periods for definitization of letter contracts authorized by the Contracting Officer pursuant to FAR 16.603-2(c).
[64 FR 46096, Aug. 23, 1999]
## Key Staff

**Jymece Seward** Competition Manager and Program LeadTransitioning Gang-Involved Youth to Higher Education ProgramPhone:	202-453-6138Email:	Jymece.Seward@ed.gov

**Mailing Address:**Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary EducationU.S. Department of Education, OPETransitioning Gang-Involved Youth to Higher Education Program400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.Washington, DC 20202**E-mail:**TGIY-HEP@ed.gov

FIPSE Home
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0357 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SHELDON VERNON HAMELINE,

Defendant and Appellant .

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until October 6, 2023 , to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court August 30 2023

08/30/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0357