alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:12-cv-05088 Document #: 13 Filed: 10/19/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:148
#### 252.225-7025 Restriction on acquisition of forgings.

As prescribed in 225.7102-4, use the following clause:

# Restriction on Acquisition of Forgings (DEC 2009)

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

(1) Component means any item supplied to the Government as part of an end product or of another component.

(2) Domestic manufacture means manufactured in the United States, its outlying areas, or Canada.

(3) *Forging items* means—

| Items | Categories |
| --- | --- |
| Ship propulsion shafts | Excludes service and landing craft shafts. |
| Periscope tubes | All. |
| Ring forgings for bull gears | All greater than 120 inches in diameter. |

(b) End products and their components delivered under this contract shall contain forging items that are of domestic manufacture only.

(c) The restriction in paragraph (b) of this clause may be waived upon request from the Contractor in accordance with subsection 225.7102-3 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement.

(d) The Contractor shall retain records showing compliance with the restriction in paragraph (b) of this clause until 3 years after final payment and shall make the records available upon request of the Contracting Officer.

(e) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (e), in subcontracts for forging items or for other items that contain forging items.

(End of clause)

[68 FR 15639, Mar. 31, 2003, as amended at 70 FR 35548, June 21, 2005; 71 FR 39005, July 11, 2006; 74 FR 68384, Dec. 24, 2009]
4. N. Written Comments Received During the 45-Day

Comment Period.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 20, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00965-CV 

JANE DOE, Appellant 

V. 

BILLY JACK WILLIAMS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 429-03946-2019 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

At issue in this interlocutory appeal is the trial court’s granting of appellee’s 

motion to dismiss appellant’s negligence claim for failure to serve the expert report 

required in a health care liability claim.1

 See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 

74.351(a) (requiring report), (b) (providing for dismissal of claim where report not 

served). The appeal was filed pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 

sections 51.014(a)(9), which authorizes an appeal from an interlocutory order 

 1

 The trial court denied the motion as to appellant’s claims for assault and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress. 
 –2– 

denying in whole or in part a motion to dismiss for failure to serve an expert report, 

and (a)(10), which authorizes an appeal from an interlocutory order granting a 

motion challenging the adequacy of an expert report. See id. §§ 51.014(a)(9),(10). 

Because an appeal from an interlocutory order may only be taken if authorized by 

statute, see Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.3d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992), and 

neither of the relied upon sections nor any other statute appeared to authorize this 

appeal, we questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal. 

At our direction, the parties filed letter briefs addressing our concern. 

Appellant asserts generally in her letter brief that the appeal is authorized because 

the negligence claim is not a health care liability claim and therefore, a report was 

not required and the dismissal was improper. Our jurisdiction over an appeal, 

however, does not arise because the trial court may have committed error. Rather, 

in the context of an appeal from an interlocutory order, it is conferred by statute. See 

id. The only interlocutory order granting a motion in a health care liability claim 

that is authorized by statute to be appealed is an order granting a motion challenging 

the adequacy of an expert report. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 

51.014(a) & (a)(10). The order here is not such an order. Accordingly, we dismiss 

the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

200965F.P05 

/Robert D. Burns, III/ 

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JANE DOE, Appellant 

No. 05-20-00965-CV V. 

BILLY JACK WILLIAMS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 429th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 429-03946-

2019. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns, Justices Molberg and 

Goldstein participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER that appellee Billy Jack Williams recover his costs, if any, of 

this appeal from appellant Jane Doe. 

Judgment entered April 20, 2021
#### 252.217-7004 Job orders and compensation.

As prescribed in 217.7104(a), use the following clause:

# Job Orders and Compensation (MAY 2006)

(a) The Contracting Officer shall solicit bids or proposals and make award of job orders. The issuance of a job order signed by the Contracting Officer constitutes award. The job order shall incorporate the terms and conditions of the Master Agreement.

(b) Whenever the Contracting Officer determines that a vessel, its cargo or stores, would be endangered by delay, or whenever the Contracting Officer determines that military necessity requires that immediate work on a vessel is necessary, the Contracting Officer may issue a written order to perform that work and the Contractor hereby agrees to comply with that order and to perform work on such vessel within its capabilities.

(1) As soon as practicable after the issuance of the order, the Contracting Officer and the Contractor shall negotiate a price for the work and the Contracting Officer shall issue a job order covering the work.

(2) The Contractor shall, upon request, furnish the Contracting Officer with a breakdown of costs incurred by the Contractor and an estimate of costs expected to be incurred in the performance of the work. The Contractor shall maintain, and make available for inspection by the Contracting Officer or the Contracting Officer's representative, records supporting the cost of performing the work.

(3) Failure of the parties to agree upon the price of the work shall constitute a dispute within the meaning of the Disputes clause of the Master Agreement. In the meantime, the Contractor shall diligently proceed to perform the work ordered.

(c)(1) If the nature of any repairs is such that their extent and probable cost cannot be ascertained readily, the Contracting Officer may issue a job order (on a sealed bid or negotiated basis) to determine the nature and extent of required repairs.

(2) Upon determination by the Contracting Officer of what work is necessary, the Contractor, if requested by the Contracting Officer, shall negotiate prices for performance of that work. The prices agreed upon shall be set forth in a modification of the job order.

(3) Failure of the parties to agree upon the price shall constitute a dispute under the Disputes clause. In the meantime, the Contractor shall diligently proceed to perform the work ordered.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 49849, Aug. 16, 2010]
# C_2017047EN.01000102.xml

| 14.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8345 — HPS/MDP/NFP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 47/02)

On 7 February 2017, 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 32017M8345. 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 32017M8345. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2016454EN.01000202.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/2

---

Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court

(2016/C 454/03)

At its General Meeting on 27 September 2016, the Court designated the Fifth Chamber as the Chamber that is, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the Rules of Procedure, responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of those Rules, for the period from 7 October 2016 to 6 October 2017.

---
#### Frances Lucash et al., Respondents, v. Henry Shields et al., Doing Business under the Name of Shields & Meyers, Appellants.

In an action to recover damages because of the alleged malpractice of the defendants (who were plaintiffs’ former attorneys), the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and of a resettled order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated respectively September 5, 1962 and December 4, 1962, as granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike out as patently insufficient, pursuant to the Rules of Civil Practice (rule 109, subd. 6), defendants’ defense that plaintiffs’ causes of action “are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations in that the causes were not commenced within the applicable period prescribed by law.” Appeal from original order of September 5, 1962 dismissed, without costs as academic. That order was superseded by the subsequent resettled order. Resettled order modified by adding to the second decretal paragraph a provision granting leave to the defendants to seiwe an amended answer pleading properly th‘e defense of the specific Statute of Limitations claimed to be applicable. As so modified, resettled order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. Defendants’ time to serve-the amended answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. As presently pleaded, the defense of *794the Statute of Limitations is insufficient. Proper pleading requires that the prescribed period or periods of limitation upon which a party relies should be expressly stated (2 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, § 208, p. 378; cf. *Lindlots Realty Corp.*v. *County of Suffolk,*251 App. Div. 340). Ughetta, Acting P. J.. Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
# C_2017200EN.01000202.xml

| 23.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8476 — Oaktree/Vitanas)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 200/04)

On 14 June 2017, 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 32017M8476. 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 32017M8476. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
FILED

3/14/2013

THOMAS G. BRUTON CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-04950 Document #: 36 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:118
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−05568

Honorable Susan E. Cox

Vaxmax, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, November 21, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Pursuant to the Joint

Stipulation of dismissal by the parties, this case is dismissed with prejudice with each

party waiving the right to appeal, and the parties each agreeing to bear their own costs and

attorneys' fees. Putative class claims are dismissed without prejudice.Civil case

terminated. Mailed notice (np, )

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-05568 Document #: 62 Filed: 11/21/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:433
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet, statement of income, statement of retained earnings and
statement of cash flows contained in Form 10-Q of Canal Electric Company for
the three months ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000016906
<NAME> CANAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          195,236
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          2,799
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>             121,638
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            23,742
<OTHER-ASSETS>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     343,415
<COMMON>                            38,080
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            8,321
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 64,458
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     110,859
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                     0
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                       0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>            0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>         10,410
<LEASES-CURRENT>                       567
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     221,579
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      343,415
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>           12,248
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 3,134
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>           5,809
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>           8,943
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>              3,305
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                   8,039
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>      11,344
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>               (26)
<NET-INCOME>                        11,370
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>       11,370
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                 0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>              (9,437)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        


</TABLE>
|Color photo of Secretary Margaret SpellingsOfficial photo
|---------------------------------------------------------

> "We cannot prepare students for the global economy if we don't get them to grade level first."
>   Secretary Margaret Spellings

Margaret Spellings is the U.S. Secretary of Education.  As the first mother of school-aged children to serve as Education Secretary, Spellings has a special appreciation for the hopes and concerns of American families.

Secretary Spellings is working to ensure that every young American has the knowledge and skills to succeed in the 21st century. She has partnered with states to implement and enforce the No Child Left Behind Act, which commits our schools to bringing all students up to grade level or better in reading and math by 2014. The law has led to rising test scores and shrinking achievement gaps in states across the country.

Secretary Spellings has been a leader in reform to make education more innovative and responsive.  She supported teachers with new financial incentives for gains in student achievement and parents with new educational choices and options.  She announced new rules to ensure that students with disabilities and English language learners are educated to the highest standards.  She also proposed a landmark Plan for Higher Education that would improve accessibility, affordability and accountability.

Secretary Spellings believes we must not retreat from the world in the face of increased competition.  She led the effort to pass President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative to strengthen math and science instruction and encourage high schools to offer more rigorous and advanced coursework.  She worked to implement Academic Competitiveness and National SMART grants, which are providing millions of dollars to low-income students who major in math, science, or critical foreign languages.

Prior to her tenure as Education Secretary, Spellings served as Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, where she helped create the No Child Left Behind Act and crafted policies on education, immigration, health care, labor, transportation, justice, housing, and other elements of the President's domestic agenda.  Previously, Spellings worked for six years as Senior Advisor to Governor George W. Bush with responsibility for developing and implementing the Governor's education reforms and policies.  From the White House and the Statehouse to the school board and college campus, Spellings has been involved with education policy at every level.

Born in Michigan, Spellings moved with her family at a young age to Houston, Texas, where she attended public schools.  She graduated from the University of Houston with a bachelor's degree in political science.

|Last Modified: 06/02/2008
|-------------------------
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


(SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





The
undersigned, Patrick J. Callan, Jr., does hereby certify to his knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based upon a review of this Amendment to the
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 of One Liberty
Properties, Inc.  (“the Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):





(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)   The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.





Date:
      December 28, 2010
                  /s/ Patrick J. Callan,
  Jr.Patrick
      J. Callan, Jr.President
      andChief
      Executive Officer
Intalco Potline Total Fluoride Emission Rates

Month-Year Potline Secondary Control Device lb TF/ton Al Primary Control Device lb TF/ton Al

Jan-13 A 1.0 0.1

B 1.4 0.1 C 1.4 0.2 Average1.3 0.1 Feb-13 A 1.1 0.1

B 1.3 0.1 C 1.0 0.1 Average1.1 0.1 Mar-13 A 1.2 0.1

B 1.1 0.1 C 0.8 0.1 Average1.0 0.1 Apr-13 A 1.1 0.1

B 1.2 0.1 C 0.8 0.1 Average1.0 0.1 May-13 A 0.9 0.1

B 0.9 0.1 C 0.8 0.2 Average0.8 0.1 Jun-13 A 0.8 0.1

B 0.8 0.2 C 0.8 0.2 Average0.8 0.1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50331 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HUGO ALEXANDER BERMUDES-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-CR-652

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Hugo Alexander Bermudes-Cruz presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense, and by United States v. MendozaSanchez , 456 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that the district court may use all facts admitted by the defendant in determining whether the prior conviction qualifies as an enumerated offense under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. The Government’sNo. 06-50331 -2- motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.