alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
212.209 Determination of price reasonableness. ( a ) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 3453(d), agencies shall conduct or obtain market research to support the determination of the reasonableness of price for commercial products and commercial services contained in any bid or offer submitted in response to an agency solicitation. To the extent necessary to support such market research, the contracting officer— ( 1 ) In the case of major weapon systems, for subsystems of major weapon systems and components and spare parts of major weapon systems and of subsystems of major weapon systems acquired as commercial products in accordance with subpart 234.70, shall use information submitted under 234.7002(e); and
( 2 ) In the case of other items, may require the offeror to submit other relevant information.
( b ) If the contracting officer determines that the information obtained through market research pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section is insufficient to determine the reasonableness of price, the contracting officer shall consider information submitted by the offeror of recent purchase prices paid by the Government and commercial customers for the same or similar commercial products or commercial services under comparable terms and conditions in establishing price reasonableness on a subsequent purchase if the contracting officer is satisfied that the prices previously paid remain a valid reference for comparison. In assessing whether the prices previously paid remain a valid reference for comparison, the contracting officer shall consider the totality of other relevant factors such as the time elapsed since the prior purchase and any differences in the quantities purchased (10 U.S.C. 3703(e)).
( c ) If the contracting officer determines that the offeror cannot provide sufficient information as described in paragraph (b) of this section to determine the reasonableness of price, the contracting officer should request the offeror to submit information on— ( 1 ) Prices paid for the same or similar items sold under different terms and conditions;
( 2 ) Prices paid for similar levels of work or effort on related products or services;
( 3 ) Prices paid for alternative solutions or approaches; and
( 4 ) Other relevant information that can serve as the basis for determining the reasonableness of price.
( d ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude the contracting officer from requiring the contractor to supply information that is sufficient to determine the reasonableness of price, regardless of whether or not the contractor was required to provide such information in connection with any earlier procurement. If the contracting officer determines that the pricing information submitted is not sufficient to determine the reasonableness of price, the contracting officer may request other relevant information regarding the basis for price or cost, including uncertified cost data such as labor costs, material costs, and other direct and indirect costs.
[83 FR 4442, Jan. 31, 2018, as amended at 85 FR 34531, June
5, 2020; 87 FR 76991, Dec. 16, 2022; 88 FR 6582, Jan. 31, 2023; 89 FR 46808, May 30, 2024]
#### David Zibbon, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Anna Z. Cisek, Respondent, v. *Cayuga*County et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Williams, P. J., who dissents and votes to reverse and to grant a new trial because of errors of law. in the admission of evidence and errors in the charge. (Appeal from judgment and order of Cayuga Trial Term for plaintiffs in a negligence action; the order denied a motion for a new trial.) Present- — -Williams, R. J., Bastow, Goldman and Noonan, JJ.
#### 2832.114 Unusual contract financing.

The HCA, or designee at a level at or above the BPC, is the official authorized to approve unusual contract financing as set forth in FAR 32.114.
#### In the Matter of Tina M. Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Edith M., Appellant.

In a proceeding to adjudicate a child as permanently neglected, the child’s mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, dated October 4, 1977, which, after a hearing, *inter alia,*found the child to be permanently neglected. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on the opinion of Judge Murphy at the Family Court. O’Connor, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Mangano, JJ., concur.
#### Akin *vs.*Peck *&*Allen.

Where a levy is made upon the mill, engine, boiler, etc., under an execution based upon the foreclosure of a saw-mill lien, and a claim filed, the case thus made must be returned for trial to the county of the residence of the defendant in A *fa.*

Levy and sale. Claim. Lien. Before Judge Simmons. Polk Superior Court. August Term, 1879.

Reported in the opinion.

*644Tidwell *&*Thompson, for plaintiff in error.

A. T. Williamson; Broyles & Jones, for defendants.

Crawford, Justice.

The plaintiff in error foreclosed a lien against L. H. Hall & Co., whom he alleged to be citizens of the county of Fulton, in this state, as the owners of a certain saw-mill located in the county of Polk, and to whom, as such owners, he had furnished logs amounting in value to the sum of $1,074.79. The affidavit for foreclosure was made before the ordinary of the said county of Polk, who ordered and adjudged that the clerk of the superior court of said county should issue execution therefor, to be levied on the said mill, engine, boiler and fixtures.

In obedience to said order the *fi. fa.*was issued as directed, and made returnable to the superior court of the county of Fulton. A levy was made on the saw-mill, engine, boilers and fixtures, when Peck & Allen filed a claim thereto, which was returned by the sheriff to the superior court of the county of Polk, as the proper tribunal for the trial of the said claim. When the said case came on to be heard, it was, on motion of claimant’s counsel, dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the said superior court to hear and determine the same ; and to which ruling and judgment the plaintiffs in error excepted.

The single question made by this record is whether the superior court of Polk county had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim which had been returned thereto ?

By the constitution of 1877, article vi., section xvi., paragraph 6, all civil eases excepting those of divorce, titles to land, joint obligors, joint promissors, copartners, of joint trespassers residing in different counties, shall be brought in the county where the defendant resides. The same provision is to be found in the constitution of 1868, Code, §5123.

*645This being a suit, against L. H. Hall *&*Go., must be made returnable to the county of Fulton where they reside, although the foreclosure of the lien may have been legally made in the county of Polk. 52 *Ga., 79. So, too, if*a claim be filed by any person not a party to the said *fi.fa.,*to any property levied upon, the same not being real estate, it must be returned to the same court to which *the fi.fa.*is made returnable, and there tried as other cases of claims. 49 *Ga.,*596; 52 *Ib.,*79-80.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 OF CARROLS CORPORATION
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,962,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  661,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (28,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  4,250,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,574,000
<PP&E>                                     227,800,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (97,833,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             324,655,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       33,223,000
<BONDS>                                    247,296,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,674,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               324,655,000
<SALES>                                    229,373,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           229,829,000
<CGS>                                       65,926,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              188,955,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            24,474,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,625,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,775,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,152,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,623,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,623,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:9
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:10
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:11
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:12
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:14
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:15
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:16
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:17
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:18
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:19
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:20
Case: 1:12-cv-02473 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/04/12 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:21
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00801-CR

IN RE David SALINAS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 24, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED AS MOOT

On November 3, 2010, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the 

trial court’s failure to rule on his “Motion for Judgment and Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc to Correct 

Clerical Error in Judgment.” However, on November 8, 2010, the trial court signed an order 

denying relator’s motion. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED AS 

MOOT. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1991-CR-0208, styled State of Texas v. David Salinas, in the 187th 

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Raymond Angelini presiding.
#### Leone M. Tuthill, Respondent, v. Stanley R. Benjamin, Appellant, et al., Defendants. Stanley R. Benjamin, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Long Beach Hospital, Third-Party Defendant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury' sustained by plaintiff when she. tripped over the foot of a sign, the defendant Benjamin appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the1 Supreme Court, Nassau -County, entered November 16, 1961 (and amd. Dec. 20, 1961), upon the jury’s verdict after trial, as is in favor of the plaintiff against said defendant. Amended judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts; new trial granted as between plaintiff and said defendant Benjamin, with costs to abide the event; and action severed as against all other parties. Defendant Benjamin, and others, were engaged by the Long Beach Hospital in connection with the construction of additions to an existing building. A large sign, warning of the construction, was built by' defendant’s employee and placed in a corridor of the hospital. Some time thereafter plaintiff, employed hyr the hospital as a nurse and while engaged in the performance of her duties, was injured when she tripped over the foot of the sign. There was proof that the sign was moved from time to time, hut there was no proof whatever that the defendant Benjamin or his employees placed it in the position which it occupied at the time of the accident. In our opinion, in the absence of such proof, a finding that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by' said defendant’s negligence, may not be sustained (cf. *Inman*v. *Binghamton Housing Auth-.,*3 N Y 2d 137, 144-145; *He Nisi*v. *Krug man Go.,*256 App. Div. 567, 571, affid. 281 N. Y. 851). A new trial is granted to enable plaintiff to adduce any proof which may be available on that question. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur; Hill and Hopkins, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment insofar as appealed from.
## FY 2023

- Project Abstracts for new awards (FY 2023 Competition):     PDF  (119K)

## FY 2022

- Project Abstract(s):   Allan Hancock College -  PDF (119K)  Atlanta Technical College -  HTML (7K) 

## FY 2021

- Project Abstract(s):     PDF  (71K)

FIPSE Home
Case: 1:12-cv-05014 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-05014 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-05014 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-05014 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-05014 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-05014 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-05014 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-05014 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-05014 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/25/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9
- The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (Amendments Act), effective January 1, 2009, amends the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and includes a conforming amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act) that affects the meaning of the term disability in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504). The Amendments Act retains the definition of disability under Section 504 and the ADA but emphasizes that the definition should be interpreted broadly.  Among other things, the Amendments Act directs that the ameliorating effects of mitigating measures (other than ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses) not be considered in determining whether an individual has a disability; expands the scope of "major life activities" by providing a non-exhaustive list of general activities and a non-exhaustive list of major bodily functions; clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active; and clarifies the meaning of "regarded as" having a disability, including that individuals "regarded as" having a disability are not entitled to reasonable accommodations or reasonable modifications.  OCR is evaluating the impact of the Amendments Act on OCR's enforcement responsibilities under Section 504 and under Title II of the ADA, including whether any changes in regulations, guidance, or other publications are appropriate.                - 			  See   Protecting				Students with Disabilities (504 FAQs)  (Revised March 2009)  
            -  Overview of the laws  Questions and Answers on disability discrimination		Disability discrimination regulations: 		
Section 504
Title II of the ADA

Disability discrimination resources
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Resources
  Last Modified: 06/25/2020
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 132 

Congratulating the Ashland University women’s basketball team for winning 

the 2017 National Collegiate Athletic Association division II championship. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 7, 2017 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Mr. BROWN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the Ashland University women’s basketball 

team for winning the 2017 National Collegiate Athletic 

Association division II championship. 

Whereas the Ashland University Eagles won the 2017 National Collegiate Athletic Association (referred to in this 

preamble as the ‘‘NCAA’’) division II women’s basketball 

championship game against the Virginia Union University Panthers at Alumni Hall on the campus of Ohio Dominican University by a score of 93 to 77; 

Whereas, with a record of 37–0, the Ashland University Eagles achieved the best record ever by an NCAA division 

II women’s team; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 132 IS 

Whereas the 2017 NCAA championship was the second division II national championship for Ashland University 

during the last 5 years; 

Whereas head coach Robyn Fralick was named the 2017 

United States Marine Corps Women’s Basketball Coaches Association NCAA Division II Coach of the Year; 

Whereas assistant coach Kari Pickens was named the 2017 

Women’s Basketball Coaches Association NCAA Division 

II Assistant Coach of the Year; 

Whereas junior forwards Laina Snyder and Andi Daugherty 

were named Division II Conference Commissioner’s Association All-Americans; and 

Whereas Laina Snyder was named the Most Outstanding 

Player of the NCAA division II women’s basketball tournament: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) congratulates the Ashland University wom3 en’s basketball team on winning the 2017 National 

4 Collegiate Athletic Association division II champion5 ship; and 

6 (2) recognizes the contributions and achieve7 ments of each player, coach, and staff member of 

8 the Ashland University women’s basketball team 

9 who contributed to the 2016–2017 undefeated sea10 son. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### 2401.601-70 Senior Procurement Executive.

Unless otherwise designated by the Secretary through a delegation of authority, the Chief Procurement Officer is the Department's Senior Procurement Executive and is responsible for all departmental procurement policy, regulations, and procedures, and oversight of all HUD procurement operations. The Senior Procurement Executive is also responsible for the development of HUD's procurement system standards, evaluation of the system in accordance with approved criteria, enhancement of career management of the procurement workforce, and certification to the Secretary that the Department's procurement system meets approved criteria.

[71 FR 2434, Jan. 13, 2006]
# C_2017066EN.01000201.xml

| 2.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 66/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66/2

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2017/C 66/02)

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 issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Latvia

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : Kurzeme

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The design shows the coat of arms of the region of Kurzeme. At the top, the name of the issuing country ‘LATVIJA’ and at the bottom the inscription ‘KURZEME’. At the right hand side, the year of issuance ‘2017’.

Description of the design

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

Approximate number of coins to be issued
  :

Approximate number of coins to be issued

Approximate date of issue
  : September 2017

Approximate date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces 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

---
#### 28.106-8 Payment to subcontractors or suppliers.

The contracting officer will only authorize payment to subcontractors or suppliers from an ILC (or any other cash equivalent security) upon a judicial determination of the rights of the parties, a signed notarized statement by the contractor that the payment is due and owed, or a signed agreement between the parties as to amount due and owed.

[62 FR 44807, Aug. 22, 1997]
MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 227TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on September 10, 2014, the cause upon appeal to 

revise or reverse your judgment between

Juan Garcia, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-13-00510-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2012CR1531

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED and we GRANT appellate counsel’s motion to 

withdraw.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, with 

the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on January 12, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 3853