alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 252.232-7016 Notice of Progress Payments or Performance-Based Payments.

As prescribed in 232.1005-70(c), insert the following provision:

# Notice of Progress Payments or Performance-Based Payments (APR 2020)

(a) The need for customary progress payments in accordance with subpart 32.5 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or performance-based payments in accordance with FAR subpart 32.10 will not be considered as a handicap or adverse factor in the award of the contract.

(b) This solicitation includes a FAR and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause for performance-based payments and a FAR clause for progress payments. The resultant contract will include either performance-based payments or progress payments, not both, except as may be authorized on separate orders subject to FAR 32.1003(c).

(1) The performance-based payments clauses will be included in the contract if—

(i) The Offeror has provided positive representation in response to DFARS 252.232-7015, Performance-Based Payments—Representation;

(ii) The Offeror proposes a performance-based payment arrangement in accordance with FAR 52.232-28, Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments, including proposed events and timing, event completion criteria, event values, and expected expenditure profile; and

(iii) The Offeror and the Government reach agreement on all aspects of the arrangement.

(2) If performance-based payments clauses are not included in the resultant contract, the progress payments clause included in this solicitation will be included in any resultant contract, modified or altered if necessary in accordance with FAR 52.232-16 and its Alternate I. Even though the progress payments clause is included in the contract, the clause shall be inoperative during any time the contractor's accounting system and controls are determined by the Government to be inadequate for segregation and accumulation of contract costs.

(End of provision)

[85 FR 19691, Apr. 8, 2020]
#### Pat Auselio, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 37106.)

—• Appeal by claimant from an award for the State’s appropriation of lands of 0.419 acre from his parcel of 1.13 acres at the intersection of Highways Nos. 13 and 31 in the Town of Lenox. The lands taken included a frame structure used as a restaurant which claimant leased to a tenant for one year at $1,800. The operation of a gasoline filling station in conjunction with the restaurant had been discontinued sometime before. Both of claimant’s real estate experts testified that the most advantageous use of the property was for a motel, restaurant and bar (although an exhibit in evidence seems to indicate that the area of filled land was inadequate to accommodate the motel envisioned by the witnesses). One testified to before and after values of $100,000 and $2,000 and the other to $90,000 and $2,000. As the State points out, the value assigned to these rural lands by claimant’s experts is at the rate of $190,000 per acre. The State’s expert’s appraisal was $22,000 before and $2,400 after the taking. The court .found a before value of $23,500, an after value of $2,000 and resulting damage of $21,500. Each of claimant’s experts appraised the aggregate frontage of 750 feet on the two highways at $100 per foot but since the parcel was triangular it is obvious that some of the frontage computed in this manner would be without any appreciable depth from one or the other of the two highways. Further, the witnesses considered that all of the land (except the portion thereof extending 100 feet *685on one highway and 140 feet on the other, which claimant had filled) was useless unless filled, at a cost estimated by one of these witnesses at $60,000. The State’s expert gave consideration to sales of comparable properties, to the capitalization of net rental under the lease and to the summation method of valuation of improvements and applied his own knowledge of the property and of the volume of business done there and in the area. He said that the construction of a motel would be economically unwise and that the most advantageous use of the property was that of the “ diner-type restaurant ” for which it had been used. The bases of the conflicting appraisals were so radically and fundamentally divergent as to be irreconcilable. The Court of Claims was justified in considering the State’s expert better qualified, if, indeed, it so concluded; and was warranted, in any event, in rejecting the factors and assumptions necessarily underlying claimant’s experts’ appraisal and in approving the factors upon which the State’s expert based his appraisal. •Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present■ — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
# C_2017188EN.01000101.xml

| 14.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 188/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 188/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8315 — Siemens/Mentor Graphics)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 188/01)

On 27 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 32017M8315. 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 32017M8315. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: June 30, 2009



By:

/s/    Yoichi
HojoName:

Yoichi HojoTitle:

Chief Operating Officer for Business Management Operations (Chief Financial Officer) Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
Exibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lubys, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
November 19, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Christopher J. Pappas, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: December 19, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Christopher J. Pappas            
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Christopher J. Pappas                
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
#### 2901.602-70 Contract clause.

Contracting officers shall insert clause 2952.201-70, Contracting Officer's Representative, in all solicitations and awards.
27.406-3 Major system acquisition. ( a ) The clause at 52.227-21, Technical Data Declaration, Revision, and Withholding of Payment—Major Systems, implements 41 U.S.C. 2302(e). When using the clause at 52.227-21, the section of the contract specifying data delivery requirements (see 27.406-1(b)) shall expressly identify those line items of technical data to which the clause applies. Upon delivery of the technical data, the contracting officer shall review the technical data and the contractor's declaration relating to it to assure that the data are complete, accurate, and comply with contract requirements. If the data are not complete, accurate, or compliant, the contracting officer should request the contractor to correct the deficiencies, and may withhold payment. Final payment shall not be made under the contract until it has been determined that the delivery requirements of those line items of data to which the clause applies have been satisfactorily met.
( b ) In a contract for, or in support of, a major system awarded by a civilian agency other than NASA or the U.S. Coast Guard, the following applies: ( 1 ) The contracting officer shall require the delivery of any technical data relating to the major system or supplies for the major system, that are to be developed exclusively with Federal funds if the delivery of the technical data is needed to ensure the competitive acquisition of supplies or services that will be required in substantial quantities in the future. The clause at 52.227-22, Major System—Minimum Rights, is used in addition to the clause at 52.227-14, Rights in Data—General, and other required clauses, to ensure that the Government acquires at least those rights required by Pub. L. 98-577 in technical data developed exclusively with Federal funds.
( 2 ) Technical data, relating to a major system or supplies for a major system, procured or to be procured by the Government and also relating to the design, development, or manufacture of products or processes offered or to be offered for sale to the public (except for such data as may be necessary for the Government to operate or maintain the product, or use the process if obtained by the Government as an element of performance under the contract), shall not be required to be provided to the Government from persons who have developed such products or processes as a condition for the procurement of such products or processes by the Government.
[72 FR 63049, Nov. 7, 2007, as amended at 79 FR 24210, Apr. 29, 2014]
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Mattie Williams, Deceased. Maude L. Reavis, Individually and as Administratrix D. B. N. of the Estate of Mattie Williams, Deceased, Appellant; Lottie V. Williams, Respondent.

Motion by appellant for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, denied. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 225.802-70 Contracts for performance outside the United States and Canada.

Follow the procedures at PGI 225.802-70 when placing a contract requiring performance outside the United States and Canada. Also see subpart 225.3, Contracts Performed Outside the United States.

[70 FR 23801, May 5, 2005, as amended at 77 FR 43472, July 24, 2012; 80 FR 36902, June 26, 2015]
Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35-1 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:198
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 12, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 12, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24I0153. YI HENG HUANG v. PATRICIA DOUGHTIE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

23A1106
Google Map of Participating Institutions

## FY 2023

Title III, Part B 

- HBCU New Awards:    MS Excel  (10K)
- HBCU NCC Awards:    MS Excel  (14K)

Title III, Part F  

- HBCU New Awards:    MS Excel  (10K)
- HBCU NCC Awards:    MS Excel  (14K)

## FY 2022

Title III, Part B 

- HBCU New Awards:    MS Excel  (14K)

Title III, Part F  

- HBCU NCC Awards:     MS Excel  (13K)

## FY 2021

Title III, Part B 

- HBCU NCC Awards:    MS Excel  (18K)

Title III, Part F  

- FUTURE Act NCC Awards:     MS Excel  (17K)

## FY 2020

Title III, Part B 

- HBCU NCC Awards:    MS Excel  (17K)  Title III, Part F     - FUTURE Act New Awards:     MS Excel  (14K))  FY 2019  Title III, Part B    - HBCU NCC Awards:    MS Word  (33K)  Title III, Part F    - SAFRA NCC Awards:    MS Word  (33K)     For Historical Purposes Only - Previous HBCU Part B & F Awards FY 2018
Title III, Part B
- HBCU NCC Awards:    MS Word  (23K)

Title III, Part F
- SAFRA Noncompeting Continuation Awards:    MS Word  (24K)
FY 2017
Title III, Part B
- HBCU New Awards:    MS Word  (58K)

Title III, Part F
- SAFRA Noncompeting Continuation Awards:    MS Word  (127K)
FY 2016
Title III, Part B
- HBCU Noncompeting Continuation Grantees:    MS Word  (104K)

Title III, Part F
- Noncompeting Continuation SAFRA Grantees:    MS Word  (112K)
FY 2015
Title III, Part B
- HBCU Noncompeting Continuation Grantees:    MS Word  (132K)

Title III, Part F
- New SAFRA Grantees:    MS Word  (134K)
FY 2014
Title III, Part B
- HBCU Grantees - Regular Awards:    MS Word  (98K) |  PDF  (56K)

Title III, Part F
- HBCU Grantees - Mandatory Awards:    MS Word  (101K) |  PDF  (126K)
FY 2013
Title III, Part B
- HBCU Grantees - Regular Awards:    MS Word  (102K) |  PDF  (56K)

Title III, Part F
- HBCU Grantees - Mandatory Awards:    MS Word  (102K) |  PDF  (56K)
FY 2012
Title III, Part B
- HBCU Grantees - Regular Awards:    MS Word  (101K) |  PDF  (55K)

Title III, Part F
- HBCU Grantees - Mandatory Awards:    MS Word  (100K) |  PDF  (55K)

Institutional Service Home
           Last Modified: 07/20/2023
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                        | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Postsecondary Education Home |
|                                        |

## FY 2023

                - New award(s):    MS Word  (14K)
                - Project Abstract(s):     MS Word  (19K)

## FY 2022

                - New award(s):    MS Word  (14K)
                - Project Abstract(s):     MS Word  (85K)

FIPSE Home

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 284 

Calling on Congress, schools, and State and local educational agencies to 

recognize the significant educational implications of dyslexia that must 

be addressed, and designating October 2017 as ‘‘National Dyslexia 

Awareness Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 4, 2017 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr. MURPHY, Ms. WARREN, Mr. GRAHAM, Mrs. 

CAPITO, Mr. KING, and Mr. BOOZMAN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Calling on Congress, schools, and State and local educational 

agencies to recognize the significant educational implications of dyslexia that must be addressed, and designating 

October 2017 as ‘‘National Dyslexia Awareness Month’’. 

Whereas dyslexia is— 

(1) defined as an unexpected difficulty in reading for 

an individual who has the intelligence to be a much better reader; and 

(2) most commonly caused by a difficulty in phonological processing (the appreciation of the individual 

sounds of spoken language), which affects the ability of 

an individual to speak, read, and spell, and often, the 

ability to learn a second language; 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 284 ATS 

Whereas dyslexia is the most common learning disability and 

affects 80 percent to 90 percent of all individuals with a 

learning disability; 

Whereas dyslexia is persistent and highly prevalent, affecting 

as many as 1 out of 5 individuals; 

Whereas dyslexia is a paradox, in that an individual with dyslexia may have both— 

(1) weaknesses in decoding that result in difficulties 

in accurate or fluent word recognition; and 

(2) strengths in higher-level cognitive functions, such 

as reasoning, critical thinking, concept formation, or 

problem solving; 

Whereas great progress has been made in understanding dyslexia on a scientific level, including the epidemiology and 

cognitive and neurobiological bases of dyslexia; and 

Whereas early screening for and early diagnosis of dyslexia 

are critical for ensuring individuals with dyslexia receive 

focused, evidence-based intervention that leads to fluent 

reading, promotion of self-awareness and self-empowerment, and the provision of necessary accommodations 

that ensure success in school and in life: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) calls on Congress, schools, and State and 

3 local educational agencies to recognize that dyslexia 

4 has significant educational implications that must be 

5 addressed; and 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 284 ATS 

1 (2) designates October 2017 as ‘‘National Dys2 lexia Awareness Month’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
# C_2017329EN.01001101.xml

| 30.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/11

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2017/C 329/08)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuance of euro coins are authorised to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, one of these being that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national side features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : The Republic of San Marino

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The design shows in the center Planet Earth surrounded by waves; to the right a circle with the letter A, symbol of the designer Andrew Lewis. Arched, above the writing “TURISMO SOSTENIBILE”, below “SAN MARINO” and the year “2017”; to the right the initials of the engraver Uliana Pernazza “UP INC.”; to the left the letter “R” of the Italian Mint which took care of the mintage.

Description of the design

The United Nations General Assembly approved the adoption of 2017 as the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development. The idea of sustainable Tourism indicates a kind of travelling that respects the planet, it doesn’t alter the natural, social and artistic environment and it doesn’t inhibit the growth of social and economic activities. It is a kind of tourism opposite to mass tourism and it tends to promote the weakest economies. The Republic of San Marino dedicated a 2 euro commemorative coin, designed by the Canadian artist Andrew Lewis to this theme, in order to promote a new mentality and to encourage tourists’ respect for environment.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : September 2017

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national sides of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
#### Abraham Silverman, as Administrator of the Estate of Fay Silverman, Deceased, Respondent, v. David I. Ashe, Appellant.

Order entered June 19, 1964, herein appealed from, unanimously modified as hereinafter indicated. This action for wrongful death, pain and suffering, medical expenses and loss of services was commenced August 15, 1961. The suit arose out of an automobile accident which occurred October 22, 1960. Plaintiff claimed in Ms bill of particulars served in January, 1962 that decedent, who died April 29, 1961, suffered an injury to the heart of coronary occlusion with myocardial infarction. The case was noticed for trial for the May 1962 Term. In June, 1964, after the case had been marked ready for trial and was being held before one of the Justices of the Supreme Court, plaintiff moved at Special Term to amend his bill of particulars to include a claim of aggravation and precipitation of a previously existing heart condition. Plaintiff asserted its omission from the bill previously served was due to an oversight of plaintiff’s counsel. The motion to amend was granted. However, no reasonable excuse is offered for the extended delay in moving to amend. All of the information upon which plaintiff predicates Ms request was in plaintiff’s possession before the action was commenced. A delay until the very eve of trial under these circumstances should not be lightly countenanced. Accordingly, the order appealed from is modified in the exercise of discretion to grant the motion upon condition that plaintiff pays a full bill of costs of the case to date together *660with the costs of this appeal, and is otherwise affirmed (CPLR 3042, 8107). Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bastow, JJ.