alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
22.103-4 Approvals. ( a ) The contracting officer shall review the contractor's request for overtime. Approval of the use of overtime may be granted by an agency approving official after determining in writing that overtime is necessary to— ( 1 ) Meet essential delivery or performance schedules;
( 2 ) Make up for delays beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor; or
( 3 ) Eliminate foreseeable extended production bottlenecks that cannot be eliminated in any other way.
( b ) Approval by the designated official of use and total dollar amount of overtime is required before inclusion of an amount in paragraph (a) of the clause at 52.222-2, Payment for Overtime Premiums.
( c ) Contracting officer approval of payment of overtime premiums is required for time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts (see paragraph (a)(8) of the clause at 52.232-7, Payments Under Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour Contracts).
( d ) No approvals are required for paying overtime premiums under other types of contracts.
( e ) Approvals by the agency approving official (see 22.103-4(a)) may be for an individual contract, project, program, plant, division, or company, as practical.
( f ) During contract performance, contractor requests for overtime exceeding the amount authorized by paragraph (a) of the clause at 52.222-2, Payment for Overtime Premiums, shall be submitted as stated in paragraph (b) of the clause to the office administering the contract. That office will review the request and if it approves, send the request to the contracting officer. If the contracting officer determines that the requested overtime should be approved in whole or in part, the contracting officer shall request the approval of the agency's designated approving official and modify paragraph (a) of the clause to reflect any approval.
( g ) Overtime premiums at Government expense should not be approved when the contractor is already obligated, without the right to additional compensation, to meet the required delivery date.
( h ) When the use of overtime is authorized under a contract, the office administering the contract and the auditor should periodically review the use of overtime to ensure that it is allowable in accordance with the criteria in part 31. Only overtime premiums for work in those departments, sections, etc., of the contractor's plant that have been individually evaluated and the necessity for overtime confirmed shall be considered for approval.
( i ) Approvals for using overtime shall ordinarily be prospective, but, if justified by emergency circumstances, approvals may be retroactive.
[48 FR 42258, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 71 FR 57367, Sept. 28, 2006; 72 FR 6882, Feb. 13, 2007]
#### 252.204-7000 Disclosure of information.

As prescribed in 204.404-70(a), use the following clause:

# Disclosure of Information (OCT 2016)

(a) The Contractor shall not release to anyone outside the Contractor's organization any unclassified information, regardless of medium (e.g., film, tape, document), pertaining to any part of this contract or any program related to this contract, unless—

(1) The Contracting Officer has given prior written approval;

(2) The information is otherwise in the public domain before the date of release; or

(3) The information results from or arises during the performance of a project that involves no covered defense information (as defined in the clause at DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting) and has been scoped and negotiated by the contracting activity with the contractor and research performer and determined in writing by the contracting officer to be fundamental research (which by definition cannot involve any covered defense information), in accordance with National Security Decision Directive 189, National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and Engineering Information, in effect on the date of contract award and the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) memoranda on Fundamental Research, dated May 24, 2010, and on Contracted Fundamental Research, dated June 26, 2008 (available at DFARS PGI 204.4).

(b) Requests for approval under paragraph (a)(1) shall identify the specific information to be released, the medium to be used, and the purpose for the release. The Contractor shall submit its request to the Contracting Officer at least 10 business days before the proposed date for release.

(c) The Contractor agrees to include a similar requirement, including this paragraph (c), in each subcontract under this contract. Subcontractors shall submit requests for authorization to release through the prime contractor to the Contracting Officer.

(End of clause)

[78 FR 48333, Aug. 8, 2013, as amended at 81 FR 72999, Oct. 21, 2016]
28.204 Alternatives in lieu of corporate or individual sureties. ( a ) Any person required to furnish a bond to the Government may furnish any of the types of security listed in 28.204-1 through 28.204-3 instead of a corporate or individual surety for the bond. When any of those types of security are deposited, a statement shall be incorporated in the bond form pledging the security in lieu of execution of the bond form by corporate or individual sureties. The contractor shall execute the bond forms as the principal. Agencies shall establish safeguards to protect against loss of the security and shall return the security or its equivalent to the contractor when the bond obligation has ceased.
( b ) Upon written request by any contractor securing a performance or payment bond by any of the types of security listed in 28.204-1 through 28.204-3, the contracting officer may release a portion of the security only when the conditions allowing the partial release of security in 28.203-3(c) are met. The contractor shall, as a condition of the partial release, furnish an affidavit agreeing that the release of such security does not relieve the contractor of its obligations under the bond(s).
( c ) The contractor may satisfy a requirement for bond security by furnishing a combination of the types of security listed in 28.204-1 through 28.204-3 or a combination of bonds supported by these types of security and additional surety bonds under 28.202 or 28.203. During the period for which a bond supported by security is required, the contractor may substitute one type of security listed in 28.204-1 through 28.204-3 for another, or may substitute, in whole or combination, additional surety bonds under 28.202 or 28.203.
[61 FR 31653, June 20, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 44807, Aug. 22, 1997; 86 FR 3686, Jan. 14, 2021]
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Civil Case No. 1:12-cv-04669

)

v. )

)

JOHN DOES 1-7, )

)

Defendants. )

)

NOTICE OF RETRACTING VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: A legal assistant erroneously filed the Notice of Voluntary

Dismissal contained on the preceding docket entry [Dkt. 19] without my knowledge.

Consequently, Plaintiff voluntarily retracts its notice.

Dated: December 4, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

NICOLETTI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

By: /s/ Paul J. Nicoletti

Paul J. Nicoletti, Esq. (P44419)

36880 Woodward Ave, Suite 100

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

Tel: (248) 203-7800

Fax: (248) 203-7801

E-Fax: (248) 928-7051

Email: paul@nicoletti-associates.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 4, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing document

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF and that service was perfected on all counsel of

record and interested parties through this system.

By: /s/ Paul J. Nicoletti

Case: 1:12-cv-04669 Document #: 20 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:960
#### Carthage Central School District No. 1, Respondent, v Reddick & Sons of Gouverneur, Inc., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, without prejudice to the right of appellant, if so advised, to serve an amended notice of intention to arbitrate within 10 days of the order herein in accordance with the same memorandum as in *Carthage Cent. School Dist. No. 1 v Reddick & Sons of Gouverneur*(67 AD2d 808). (Appeal from order of Jefferson Supreme Court — arbitration.) Present —Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Schnepp, JJ.
#### 237.102-74 Taxonomy for the acquisition of services, and supplies and equipment.

See PGI 237.102-74 for further guidance on the taxonomy for the acquisition of services and the acquisition of supplies and equipment.

[79 FR 51264, Aug. 28, 2014]
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-1062 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-038-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 46328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18355]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DoD-2013-HA-0084]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 
30, 2013.
    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Women, Infants, and Children 
Overseas Program Eligibility Determination; OMB Control Number 0720-
0030.
    Type of Request: Extension
    Number of Respondents: 15,836
    Responses per Respondent: 2
    Annual Responses: 31,672
    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes
    Annual Burden Hours: 7,918
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
for individuals to apply for certification and periodic recertification 
to received WIC Overseas benefits.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On occasion, semi-annually
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. John Kraemer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Kraemer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD Information Management 
Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, 
VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: July 26, 2013.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2013-18355 Filed 7-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 97-10235 Summary Calendar

__________________

CALEB O. ADONGO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DAVID W. WILLIAMS, Sheriff, Tarrant County, Texas; COUNTY COMMISSIONER, Tarrant County, Texas, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CV-765-A

- - - - - - - - - - September 29, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Caleb O. Adongo, a pretrial detainee at the Tarrant County (Tex.) Jail, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants in his civil rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This court may affirm the district court’s order on any ground apparent from the record. See Sojourner T v. Edwards , 9742

F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992). In this case, Adongo has failed to allege how the named defendants were personally involved in the wrongdoing he alleges; he has asserted that jail employees fed him and other inmates servings of cake, baked by a private corporation, that had been contaminated with a cleaning product.
See Woods v. Edwards , 51 F.3d 577, 583 (5th Cir. 1995). Individual liability under § 1983 may not be predicated on the vicarious-liability doctrine of respondeat superior
. See Coleman v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. , 113 F.3d 528, 534 (5th Cir. 1997). For the first time on appeal, Adongo raises a speedy-trial claim. Such a claim is in the nature of a habeas corpus claim because it is a challenge to the fact or duration of his confinement and must be brought in a habeas proceeding. See Cook v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Justice Transitional Planning Dep’t , 37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)).
AFFIRMED.
Color photoSmall

Color photoLarge

Color photoPrint quality

Black and white photoSmall

Black and white photoLarge

Black and white photoPrint quality

For additional photos, visit the Press Room's photo area.

|Last Modified: 05/18/2007
|-------------------------
23.400 Scope of subpart. This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for— ( a ) Obtaining information needed for Government compliance with right-to-know laws and pollution prevention requirements;
( b ) Contractor compliance with environmental management systems; and
( c ) Ensuring waste reduction at Federal facilities.
- Program Office: 
      -  Office of Special Education Programs 
      - CFDA Number: 
      -  84.323A 
      - Program Type: 
      -  Discretionary/Competitive Grants 
      - Also Known As: 
      -  Special Education—National Activities—State Improvement, State Improvement Grant Program 

 The State Personnel Development Grants (SPDG) program provides grants to help state educational agencies (SEAs) reform and improve their systems for personnel preparation and professional development of individuals providing early intervention, educational, and transition services to improve results for children with disabilities.

----

Program Description

The SPDG program focuses on professional development needs. Awards are provided only to State Education Agencies (e.g., the Hawaii Department of Education). Each state must spend at least 90 percent of its funds on professional development activities, including the recruitment and retention of qualified special education teachers. No more than 10 percent of the state's funds can be spent on state activities, such as reforming special education and regular education teacher certification (including recertification) or licensing requirements and carrying out programs that establish, expand, or improve alternative routes for state certification of special education teachers.

 Awards are based on state personnel development plans that identify and address state and local needs for the preparation and professional development of personnel who serve infants, toddlers, preschoolers, or children with disabilities, as well as individuals who provide direct supplementary aids and services to children with disabilities. Plans must be designed to enable the state to meet the personnel requirements in Parts B and C (section 612(a)(14)) and section 635(a)(8) and (9)) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These plans must also be integrated and aligned, to the maximum extent possible, with state plans and activities under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Higher Education Act of 1965

 Top
#### 1536.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.
State Master's Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities FY 2011 Grantees (Non-Competing Continuation) FY 2011 Awards

AR University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff $500,000.00 

GA Savannah State University $500,000.00 

GA Albany State University $500,000.00 

GA Fort Valley State University $500,000.00 

KY Kentucky State University $500,000.00 

LA Grambling State University $500,000.00 

MD Coppin State University $500,000.00 

MS Alcorn State University $500,000.00 

MS Mississippi Valley State University $500,000.00 

NC Elizabeth City State University $500,000.00 

NC Fayetteville State University $500,000.00 

NC Winston-Salem State University $500,000.00 

OH Wilberforce University $500,000.00 

SC South Carolina State University $500,000.00 

SC Claflin University $500,000.00 

TN Fisk University $500,000.00 

VA Virginia State University $500,000.00 

WV West Virginia State University $500,000.00 

Total Award Amount: $9,000,000.00 

11/15/2011
Exhibit 99.1

Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  By  Principal Executive Officer Regarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act FilingsDatedNovember 15, 2002

In
accordance with Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Steven M. Besbeck, Chief Executive Officer of Creative Computer Applications, Inc. a California Corporation
("Company"), hereby certify that the Company's annual report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended August 31 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the annual report on Form 10KSB for the period ended August 31, 2002, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Statement as of the date first written above.

| |  |                                                                                                      
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |                                                                                                      
| |  | /s/STEVEN M. BESBECKSteven M. Besbeck President,
Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
247.270-1 Definitions. *Commodity rate* is— ( 1 ) The price quoted for handling a ton (weight or measurement) of a specified commodity; and
( 2 ) Computed by dividing the hourly stevedoring gang cost by the estimated number of tons of the specified commodity that can be handled in 1 hour.
*Gang cost* is— ( 1 ) The total hourly wages paid to the workers in the gang, in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement between the maritime industry and the unions at a specific port; and
( 2 ) Payments for workmen's compensation, social security taxes, unemployment insurance, taxes, liability and property damage insurance, general and administrative expenses, and profit.
*Stevedoring* is the— ( 1 ) Loading of cargo from an agreed point of rest on a pier or lighter and its storage aboard a vessel; or
( 2 ) Breaking out and discharging of cargo from any space in the vessel to an agreed point of rest dockside or in a lighter.
[56 FR 36466, July 31, 1991, as amended at 65 FR 50144, Aug. 17, 2000. Redesignated at 75 FR 51417, Aug. 20, 2010]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0571 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JEFFREY ALLEN WESTFALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until November 16 , 202 3 , to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 16 2023

10/16/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0571
Turn on more accessible mode

Turn off more accessible mode

Skip Ribbon Commands

Skip to main content

This page location is:

US Fleet Forces Command > InfoDOMAIN

Sign In
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 334 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 334

     Authorizing the taking of a photograph in the Senate Chamber.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2017

  Mr. McConnell (for himself and Mr. Schumer) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Authorizing the taking of a photograph in the Senate Chamber.

    Resolved, That paragraph 1 of rule IV of the Rules for the 
Regulation of the Senate Wing of the United States Capitol and Senate 
Office Buildings (prohibiting the taking of pictures in the Senate 
Chamber) be temporarily suspended for the sole and specific purpose of 
permitting the Senate Photographic Studio to photograph the Senate in 
actual session on Tuesday, December 5, 2017, at the hour of 2:15 p.m.
    Sec. 2.  The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is authorized and 
directed to make the necessary arrangements therefore, which 
arrangements shall provide for a minimum of disruption to Senate 
proceedings.
                                 <all>
```
#### 252.237-7002 [Reserved]
#### 2806.202 Establishing or maintaining alternative sources.

The HCA or designee is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 6.202.