alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2009.570-4 Representation. ( a ) The following procedures are designed to assist the NRC contracting officer in determining whether situations or relationships exist which may constitute organizational conflicts of interest with respect to a particular offeror or contractor. The procedures apply to small purchases meeting the criteria stated in the following paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The organizational conflicts of interest representation provision at 2052.209-71 must be included in solicitations and contracts resulting from unsolicited proposals. The contracting officer must also include this provision for task orders and contract modifications for new work for: ( 1 ) Evaluation services or activities;
( 2 ) Technical consulting and management support services;
( 3 ) Research; and
( 4 ) Other contractual situations where special organizational conflicts of interest provisions are noted in the solicitation and would be included in the resulting contract. This representation requirement also applies to all modifications for additional effort under the contract except those issued under the “Changes” clause. Where, however, a statement of the type required by the organizational conflicts of interest representation provisions has previously been submitted with regard to the contract being modified, only an updating of the statement is required.
( c ) The offeror may, because of actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest, propose to exclude specific kinds of work contained in a RFP unless the RFP specifically prohibits the exclusion. Any such proposed exclusion by an offeror will be considered by the NRC in the evaluation of proposals. If the NRC considers the proposed excluded work to be an essential or integral part of the required work and its exclusion would be to the detriment of the competitive posture of the other offerors, the NRC shall reject the proposal as unacceptable.
( d ) The offeror's failure to execute the representation required by paragraph (b) of this section with respect to an invitation for bids is considered to be a minor informality. The offeror will be permitted to correct the omission.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0175

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

NATALIE AMANDA RICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 3, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 28 2020

12/28/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0175
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBB ER COMPANY AND LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP.

v. Record No. 2054-05-3

BRYANT O. COVINGTON MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM BRYANT O. COVINGTON JANUARY 17, 2006

v. Record No. 2132-05-3

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBB ER COMPANY AND LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP.

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (James A. L. Daniel; Brian R. Ch arville; Janine M. Jacob; Daniel, Vaughan, Medley & Smitherman, P.C., on briefs), for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Liberty Insurance Corp. (Phillip B. Baker; Sanzone & Bake r, P.C., on briefs), for Bryant O. Covington.

The parties each appeal from an August 5, 2005 decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and its insurer (collectively referred to hereinafter as “employer”) contend the commission erred in ruling that (1 ) Bryant O. Covington proved he sustained an injury by accident on January 14, 2004, and (2) em ployer is responsible for Covington’s treatment with Dr. Robert E. Cassidy. Covington contends the commission erred in ruling that (1) he was under light du ty work restrictions from April 19, 2004 and continuing, and (2) he did not adequately market his residual work capaci ty during that period.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - We have reviewed the record and the co mmission’s opinion, and we hold that these appeals are without merit. A ccordingly, we affirm the commi ssion’s decision for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Covington v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company , VWC File No. 217-33-05 (Aug. 5, 2005). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
Case: 1:12-cv-04562 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1

Case: 1:12-cv-04562 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2

Case: 1:12-cv-04562 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3

Case: 1:12-cv-04562 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4

Case: 1:12-cv-04562 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5

Case: 1:12-cv-04562 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6

Case: 1:12-cv-04562 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7

Case: 1:12-cv-04562 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/12/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 389 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 389

           Commemorating the commissioning of the USS Omaha.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2018

   Mrs. Fischer (for herself and Mr. Sasse) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
           Commemorating the commissioning of the USS Omaha.

Whereas the great city of Omaha, Nebraska, was founded on July 4, 1854;
Whereas the Lone Tree Ferry bringing pioneers across the Missouri River into 
        Omaha caused Omaha to become known as the ``Gateway to the West'';
Whereas Nebraska is the only triply landlocked State in the Union;
Whereas the first USS Omaha was a screw sloop launched in 1869, 2 years after 
        Nebraska became a State on March 1, 1867;
Whereas the second USS Omaha (CL-4) was an Omaha class light cruiser 
        commissioned on February 24, 1923;
Whereas the USS Omaha (CL-4) served in both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters 
        and captured a German blockade runner a month before World War II 
        officially began;
Whereas the Nebraska Admirals Association, formed in 1931, has had thousands of 
        Admirals commissioned in the Nebraska Navy to promote ``The Good Life'';
Whereas the Big Red Sub Club--

    (1) was formed to support the crews of the USS Nebraska (SSBN-739); and

    (2) is the most active State organization supporting the submarine 
fleet of the United States;

Whereas the Navy League of the United States, Nebraska Council, strongly 
        supports a strong United States Navy for national security;
Whereas on June 11, 2012, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced that an 
        Independence class littoral combat ship would be named the United States 
        Ship Omaha;
Whereas on November 20, 2015, the United States Navy launched the USS Omaha;
Whereas on December 19, 2015, the USS Omaha was christened in Mobile, Alabama, 
        sponsored by Omaha philanthropist Susie Buffett; and
Whereas on February 3, 2018, the USS Omaha will be commissioned: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate commemorates--
            (1) the commissioning of the United States Ship Omaha (LCS-
        12); and
            (2) the mission of the USS Omaha as a networked, agile, 
        stealthy surface combatant capable of defeating antiaccess and 
        asymmetric threats in the littorals.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Sally A. Baumgarten, Appellant, v. Gilbert David, Respondent.

In a paternity proceeding under former article VIII (§ 119 *et seq.)*of the Domestic Relations Law, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, entered June 28, 1963 upon the court’s decision and opinion after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Hill, J., dissents, and votes to reverse the order and to direct an order of filiation against the respondent, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, under all the circumstances disclosed in the instant record, the petitioner sustained the required burden of proof by *“*entirely satisfactory ” evidence as defined in numerous eases (see, e.g., *Commissioner of Public Works [McNamee]*v. *Ryan,*238 App. Div. 607, 608; *Commissioner of Public Welfare of City of N. Y.*v. *Kotel,*256 App. Div. 352). Hence, a finding and order of filiation against the respondent should have been made.
# C_2017362EN.01000101.xml

| 26.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

25 October 2017

(2017/C 362/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1785 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,41 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4429 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88883 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6858 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1690 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4383 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,589 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,16 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2355 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5975 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,3970 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5282 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4963 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,1971 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7123 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6047 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 325,38 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,2970 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8317 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5148 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 994,60 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9915 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,039 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 67,8640 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,103 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,8134 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,6028 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 76,5140 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1785

JPY

Japanese yen

134,41

DKK

Danish krone

7,4429

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88883

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6858

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1690

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4383

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,589

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,16

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2355

RON

Romanian leu

4,5975

TRY

Turkish lira

4,3970

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5282

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4963

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,1971

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7123

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6047

KRW

South Korean won

1 325,38

ZAR

South African rand

16,2970

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8317

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5148

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 994,60

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9915

PHP

Philippine peso

61,039

RUB

Russian rouble

67,8640

THB

Thai baht

39,103

BRL

Brazilian real

3,8134

MXN

Mexican peso

22,6028

INR

Indian rupee

76,5140

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
MAYSEPDEC152009 20102011 5             captures             15 May 10 - 15 Dec           10CloseHelp
Search HelpMore Search Options
Search 
EERE Information Center
Printable VersionSummer 2010
Welcome to the Summer 2010 issue of Building E2 News, the quarterly newsletter for the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Building Technologies Program. Each issue provides information to improve energy efficiency of new and existing commercial and residential buildings.
Saving Energy—and Money—in Existing Commercial Buildings
DOE and its national laboratories are teaming up with commercial building partners to boost energy efficiency of existing buildings. Learn about two projects in the Commercial Building Partnerships initiative that are boosting building efficiency and serving as models for replication across the commercial building sector.

Read more
Building America Research in Action: Air Sealing in Existing Homes
DOE's Building America research teams have identified air sealing as one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce building energy loads. Read this article to learn about several Building America retrofit projects that targeted air leakage improvements to reach optimal energy savings.

Read more
ENERGY STAR Pilot Verification Testing Program
Join the Building Technologies Program Webinar on August 24 to learn about DOE's pilot testing program for appliances in support of the State Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program. This Webinar will discuss how the pilot verification program operates, the results to date, and plans for future testing in 2011.

View the full list of events
Interview with Richard Karney, Program Lead in Appliance Testing and Verification
Read our interview with Richard Karney, Team Lead for Testing and Verification for DOE's Building Technologies Program, to learn about a new testing program that ensures appliances perform to ENERGY STAR requirements.

Read more
Best Practices for Market Transformation
Learn about pioneering building owners and managers that are implementing sustainable operation practices and remodeling for energy and cost savings in their buildings.

Visit the Museum's Web site
Revolution in Retrofit: Cost-Effective Triple Pane and Low-e Storm Windows
With the launch of the new Windows Volume Purchase Program, DOE is making affordable, high performance windows available to the marketplace for the first time.

Read more
Find Appliance Rebates in Your State!
The State Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program is a win-win for consumers, states, manufacturers, retailers, and the U.S. workforce. This article describes this successful program and helps you locate appliance rebates in your state.

Learn about the program
Printable Version- Archives
- Subscribe
In This Issue- >   Commercial News
- >   Residential News
- >   Special Guest
- >   Technology Spotlight

Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of EnergyWebmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: August 9, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,643
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              23
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,075
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     94,814
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,827
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             2,868
<LOANS>                                        277,475
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,908
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 406,356
<DEPOSITS>                                     329,951
<SHORT-TERM>                                    12,433
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,206
<LONG-TERM>                                     25,452
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,257
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,057
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 406,356
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 22,768
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,033
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   518
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                28,319
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,338
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,941
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,378
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      910
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 670
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,549
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,178
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,807
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,807
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.04
<LOANS-NON>                                        331
<LOANS-PAST>                                       174
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   221
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,800
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,403
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      586
<RECOVERIES>                                       181
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,908
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,908
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Wegener Corporation

Duluth, Georgia

We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (File No. 33-45390, No. 33-42007, No. 333-08017, No. 33-27527, No. 333-29887, No. 33-51205, and No. 333-29889) of Wegener Corporation of our
reports dated November 29, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule appearing in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2007.



|                  |  |  |  |                  |  |  |  | 
|----------------- |  |  |  | ---------------- |  |  |  | 
|LOGO              |  |  |  |                  |  |  |  | 
|Atlanta, Georgia  |  |  |  | BDO Seidman, LLP
|November 29, 2007 |  |  |  |                  |  |  |  |
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 24, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41181

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS RAMIREZ-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-268-1

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Ramirez-Gonzalez appeals his guilty-plea conviction

and sentence for illegally reentering the United States after a

previous deportation subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated

felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Ramirez

argues that the district court erred when it increased his

offense level by sixteen levels pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii) due to his prior conviction for

transporting undocumented aliens within the United States, which
No. 02-41181

-2-

he contends is not an alien smuggling offense. He acknowledges

that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. SolisCampozano, 312 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2002), petition for cert.

filed, (U.S. Mar. 6, 2003)(No. 02-9474), but seeks to preserve

the issue for possible further review. In Solis-Campozano, 312

F.3d at 167-68, we held that the term “alien smuggling offense,”

as used in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) includes the offense of

transporting aliens within the United States. Thus, the 16-level

increase to Ramirez’s offense level was not error.

Ramirez argues for the first time on appeal that the

“felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

are unconstitutional because a prior felony conviction is an

element of the offense of illegal re-entry, and not merely a

sentence enhancement, and should have been charged in the

indictment and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He acknowledges

that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision

in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 239-47

(1998), but seeks to preserve it for possible further review in

light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530

U.S. at 489-90. We must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and

until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” 

United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.

2000)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32**

**Certification ofChief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officerpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection withthe quarterly report of Cascade Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i)                                     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  ROBERT C. WARREN, JR. |     |
|----------------------------|----------|
| Robert C. Warren, Jr. |     |
| *Chief Executive Officer*  | * * |
| September 8, 2006          |     |
|                       |     |
| /s/ RICHARD S. ANDERSON    |     |
| Richard S. Anderson        |     |
| *Chief Financial Officer*  | * * |
| September 8, 2006          |     |

 

----
#### In re FITZGERALD.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 17, 1903.)

Application of William D. Fitezgerald for an order requiring Charles Keenan to deliver books, papers, etc.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, upon opinion of Thrasher, J., county judge of Cattaraugus. 82 N. Y. Supp. 811.
Case: 1:12-cv-03283 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:5

Case: 1:12-cv-03283 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:6

Case: 1:12-cv-03283 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:7

Case: 1:12-cv-03283 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:8

Case: 1:12-cv-03283 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:9

Case: 1:12-cv-03283 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:10

Case: 1:12-cv-03283 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:11

Case: 1:12-cv-03283 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:12

Case: 1:12-cv-03283 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:13

Case: 1:12-cv-03283 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:14

Case: 1:12-cv-03283 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:15

Case: 1:12-cv-03283 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:16
#### 237.173 Prohibition on interrogation of detainees by contractor personnel.
# C_2017269EN.01000101.xml

| 14.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2017/C 269/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.

OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---