alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
On  April 18, 2013, OCR resolved a proactive compliance review initiated against the White Plains Public School District, New York.  OCR’s investigation revealed that there was a  disproportionately low number of minority students participating in the District’s  GATE programs, and Honors and AP courses.  To resolve the review, the District agreed to ensure  that all students are provided with equal access and an equal opportunity to participate in the identified courses and programs, by considering information from a self-assessment; recommendations from an expert consultant; and feedback from surveys of students, parents, and staff.  Possible changes will include revising or expanding criteria to determine eligibility and selection for enrollment;  expanded outreach about the available courses and programs to students,  parents/guardians and community organizations; and improvements to the academic counseling services at the middle and high school levels to ensure that all students are informed of all available and relevant program and course options.Read the Press Release | *Read    the Resolution Letter*MS WORD (112K)    | *Read    the Resolution Agreement*MS WORD (57K)

Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,484
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,484
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      (4766)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,484
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    600
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       600
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
19.705-1 General. ( a ) The contracting officer may encourage the development of increased subcontracting opportunities in negotiated acquisition by providing monetary incentives such as payments based on actual subcontracting achievement or award-fee contracting (see the clause at 52.219-10, Incentive Subcontracting Program, and 19.708(c)). When using any contractual incentive provision based upon rewarding the contractor monetarily for exceeding goals in the subcontracting plan, the contracting officer must ensure that (a) the goals are realistic and (b) any rewards for exceeding the goals are commensurate with the efforts the contractor would not have otherwise expended. Incentive provisions should normally be negotiated after reaching final agreement with the contractor on the subcontracting plan.
( b ) ( 1 ) Except where a contractor has a commercial plan, the contracting officer shall require a subcontracting plan for each indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract (including task or delivery order contracts, FSS, GWACs, and MACs), when the estimated value of the contract meets the subcontracting plan thresholds at 19.702(a)and small business subcontracting opportunities exist.
( 2 ) Contracting officers placing orders may establish small business subcontracting goals for each order. Establishing goals shall not be in the form of a new subcontracting plan as a contract may not have more than one plan (19.705-2(e)).
[48 FR 42240, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 60 FR 48262, Sept. 18, 1995; 63 FR 34065, June 22, 1998; 63 FR 36123, July 1, 1998; 79 FR 61750, Oct. 14, 2014; 81 FR 45845, July 14, 2016; 85 FR 11765, Feb. 27, 2020]
2845.105-70 Contractor reporting of Government-furnished property. ( a ) In compliance with FAR 45.105, by January 31 of each year, DOJ contractors shall furnish the cognizant contracting officer an annual report of the DOJ property for which they are accountable as of the end of the calendar year.
( b ) By March 1 of each year, bureaus shall submit to the FASS, JMD, a summary report of agency property furnished under each contract as of the end of the calendar year. The report shall include a listing of Government-furnished property for all contracts for which the bureau maintains the official Government records.
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:25
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:26
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:27
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:28
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:29
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:30
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:31
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:32
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:33
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 10 of 37 PageID #:34
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 11 of 37 PageID #:35
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 12 of 37 PageID #:36
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 13 of 37 PageID #:37
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 14 of 37 PageID #:38
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 15 of 37 PageID #:39
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 16 of 37 PageID #:40
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 17 of 37 PageID #:41
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 18 of 37 PageID #:42
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 19 of 37 PageID #:43
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 20 of 37 PageID #:44
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 21 of 37 PageID #:45
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 22 of 37 PageID #:46
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 23 of 37 PageID #:47
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 24 of 37 PageID #:48
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 25 of 37 PageID #:49
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 26 of 37 PageID #:50
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 27 of 37 PageID #:51
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 28 of 37 PageID #:52
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 29 of 37 PageID #:53
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 30 of 37 PageID #:54
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 31 of 37 PageID #:55
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 32 of 37 PageID #:56
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 33 of 37 PageID #:57
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 34 of 37 PageID #:58
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 35 of 37 PageID #:59
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 36 of 37 PageID #:60
Case: 1:12-cv-04582 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/26/12 Page 37 of 37 PageID #:61
#### 252.237-7017 Individual laundry.

As prescribed in 237.7101(f), use the following clause:

# Individual Laundry (DEC 1991)

(a) The Contractor shall provide laundry service under this contract on both a unit bundle and on a piece-rate bundle basis for individual personnel.

(b) The total number of pieces listed in the “Estimated Quantity” column in the schedule is the estimated amount of individual laundry for this contract. The estimate is for information only and is not a representation of the amount of individual laundry to be ordered. Individuals may elect whether or not to use the laundry services.

(c) Charges for individual laundry will be on a per unit bundle or a piece-rate basis. The Contractor shall provide individual laundry bundle delivery tickets for use by the individuals in designating whether the laundry is a unit bundle or a piece-rate bundle. An individual laundry bundle will be accompanied by a delivery ticket listing the contents of the bundle.

(d) The maximum number of pieces to be allowed per bundle is as specified in the schedule and as follows—

(1) *Bundle consisting of 26 pieces, including laundry bag.* This bundle will contain approximately ________ pieces of outer garments which shall be starched and pressed. Outer garments include, but are not limited to, shirts, trousers, jackets, dresses, and coats.

(2) *Bundle consisting of 13 pieces, including laundry bag.* This bundle will contain approximately ________ pieces of outer garments which shall be starched and pressed. Outer garments include, but are not limited to, shirts, trousers, jackets, dresses, and coats.

(End of clause)

[56 FR 36479, July 31, 1991, as amended at 71 FR 3416, Jan. 23, 2006]
#### 244.403 Contract clause.

Use the clause at 252.244-7000, Subcontracts for Commercial Products and Commercial Services, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services.

[78 FR 37989, June 25, 2013, as amended at 88 FR 6588, Jan. 31, 2023]
#### 252.225-7010 Commercial Derivative Military Article—Specialty Metals Compliance Certificate.

As prescribed in 225.7003-5(b), use the following provision:

# Commercial Derivative Military Article—Specialty Metals Compliance Certificate (JUL 2009)

(a) *Definitions.* *Commercial derivative military article,* *commercially available off-the-shelf item,* *produce,* *required form,* and *specialty metal,* as used in this provision, have the meanings given in the clause of this solicitation entitled “Restriction on Acquisition of Certain Articles Containing Specialty Metals” (DFARS 252.225-7009).

(b) The offeror shall list in this paragraph any commercial derivative military articles it intends to deliver under any contract resulting from this solicitation using the alternative compliance for commercial derivative military articles, as specified in paragraph (d) of the clause of this solicitation entitled “Restriction on Acquisition of Certain Articles Containing Specialty Metals” (DFARS 252.225-7009). The offeror's designation of an item as a “commercial derivative military article” will be subject to Government review and approval.

(c) If the offeror has listed any commercial derivative military articles in paragraph (b) of this provision, the offeror certifies that, if awarded a contract as a result of this solicitation, and if the Government approves the designation of the listed item(s) as commercial derivative military articles, the offeror and its subcontractor(s) will demonstrate that individually or collectively they have entered into a contractual agreement or agreements to purchase an amount of domestically melted or produced specialty metal in the required form, for use during the period of contract performance in the production of each commercial derivative military article and the related commercial article, that is not less than the Contractor's good faith estimate of the greater of—

(1) An amount equivalent to 120 percent of the amount of specialty metal that is required to carry out the production of the commercial derivative military article (including the work performed under each subcontract); or

(2) An amount equivalent to 50 percent of the amount of specialty metal that will be purchased by the Contractor and its subcontractors for use during such period in the production of the commercial derivative military article and the related commercial article.

(d) For the purposes of this provision, the amount of specialty metal that is required to carry out the production of the commercial derivative military article includes specialty metal contained in any item, including commercially available off-the-shelf items, incorporated into such commercial derivative military articles.

(End of provision)

[74 FR 37639, July 29, 2009]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.H., A MINOR

PETITION OF: J.K., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 571 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of November, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
AAM-12-137-E 

January 4, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10423 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1391 

Mr. Klaus Thalinger 

Airlink LLC 

2 Lafleur Road 

Waterville, ME 04901 

Dear Mr. Thalinger: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By submission received December 19, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Airlink LLC (Airlink) and Air New England LLC (Air 

New England) for an exemption to allow Airlink and Air New England, which are operating 

under separate parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to cover their safetysensitive employees under one testing program. The FAA finds that you require relief from 

part 120 of 14 CFR. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Airlink and Air New England. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Airlink LLC and Air New England LLC an exemption 

from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Airlink and Air New England, which are 

operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover their safety-sensitive employees 

under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Airlink and Air New England are subject to the drug and alcohol 

regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Air New England LLC part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on January 31, 2014 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
# C_2017043EN.01000101.xml

| 10.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 43/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 43/1

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.8283 — General Electric Company/LM Wind Power Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 43/01)

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

On 11 January 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration between General Electric Company and LM Wind Power Holding A/S. On 2 February 2017, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 22 (Thursday, February 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 8210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02306]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK Multi-Center 
Clinical Trial Cooperative Agreement (U01 Clinical Trial Required).
    Date: March 2, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Ann A. Jerkins, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 7119, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 301-
594-2242, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed87889f8684839e8cad8384898986c3838485c38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="deb4bbacb5b7b0adbf9eb0b7babab5f0b0b7b6f0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 29, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-02306 Filed 2-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### KROMBACK v. PENNSYLVANIA STEEL CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Order Dismissing Complaint—Appealable.

No appeal lies from an order of the trial court dismissing a complaint; the appeal must be from the judgment entered thereon.

Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.

Action by Joseph Kromback against the Pennsylvania Steel Company. From an order of the city court setting aside the verdict of a jury in plaintiff’s favor and dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

*298Alexander Rosenthal, for appellant.

McCurdy & Yard, for respondent.

GILDERSLEEVE, J.

At the end of plaintiff’s case defendant’s attorney moved to dismiss the complaint, which motion was denied. At the end of the whole case he renewed the motion, which was again denied. The court then submitted the whole case to the jury on the facts. The jury found a general verdict for' the plaintiff, and fixed the damages at $415.

The action, as set forth in the complaint, was for services rendered “upon promise of defendant to pay plaintiff therefor the reasonable value thereof.” Upon the bringing in of the verdict, the defendant’s counsel made a motion to set aside the same and for a dismissal of the complaint. The court reserved its decision, but subsequently granted the said motion. From an order setting aside the verdict and dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.

The opinion of the court below shows that the complaint was dismissed for the failure of plaintiff to establish his cause of action by showing an agreement to pay for extra work. In the cases of Citron v. Bayley, 36 App. Div. 130, 55 N. Y. Supp. 382, and Robinson v. Chinese Ass’n, 42 App. Div. 65, 58 N. Y. Supp. 885, it was held, in this department, that no appeal lies from an order of the trial court dismissing a complaint, as such ruling must be reversed by an-appeal from the judgment.

This appeal from the order must be dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
<PAGE>   1


                         CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF THE

                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF

                                TIGERA GROUP, INC

                         -------------------------------
                         Pursuant to Section 242 of the
                             General Corporation Law
                         -------------------------------


     THE UNDERSIGNED, the President of Tigera Group, Inc., a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the
"Corporation"), hereby certifies as follows:

     FIRST: Article FIRST of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation
is hereby amended so that, as amended, said Article shall be and read as
follows:

          "FIRST: The name of this corporation is Connectivity Technologies Inc.

     SECOND: This amendment has been duly adopted by the holders of a majority
of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of the Corporation in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 228 and 242 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate this 4th
day of December, 1996.


                                                     /s/ James S. Harrington
                                                     ------------------------
                                                         James S. Harrington
                                                              President