alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
232.7002 Policy. ( a ) Payment requests and receiving reports are required to be submitted in electronic form, except for— ( 1 ) Classified contracts or purchases when electronic submission and processing of payment requests and receiving reports could compromise the safeguarding of classified information or national security;
( 2 ) Cases in which contractor submission of electronic payment requests and receiving reports is not feasible (*e.g.,* when contract performance is in an environment where internet connectivity is not available);
( 3 ) Cases in which DoD is unable to receive payment requests or provide acceptance in electronic form;
( 4 ) Cases in which the contractor has requested permission in writing to submit payment requests and receiving reports by nonelectronic means, and the contracting officer has provided instructions for a temporary alternative method of submission of payment requests and receiving reports in the contract administration data section of the contract or task or delivery order (*e.g.,* section G, an addendum to FAR 52.212-4, or applicable clause); and
( 5 ) When the Governmentwide commercial purchase card is used as the method of payment, in which case only submission of the receiving report in electronic form is required.
( b ) ( 1 ) The only acceptable electronic form for submission of payment requests and receiving reports is Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF) (*https://wawf.eb.mil/*), except as follows: ( i ) For payment of commercial transportation services provided under a Government rate tender, contract, or task or delivery order for transportation services, the use of a DoD-approved electronic third party payment system or other exempted vendor payment/invoicing system (*e.g.,* PowerTrack, Transportation Financial Management System, and Cargo and Billing System) is permitted.
( ii ) For submitting and processing payment requests and receiving reports for contracts or task or delivery orders for rendered health care services, the use of TRICARE Encounter Data System as the electronic form is permitted.
( 2 ) Facsimile, email, and scanned documents are not acceptable electronic forms of payment requests or receiving reports.
[83 FR 66063, Dec. 21, 2018]
31.103 Contracts with commercial organizations. This category includes all contracts and contract modifications for supplies, services, or experimental, developmental, or research work negotiated with organizations other than educational institutions (see 31.104), construction and architect-engineer contracts (see 31.105), State and local governments (see 31.107) and nonprofit organizations (see 31.108) on the basis of cost. ( a ) The cost principles and procedures in subpart 31.2 and agency supplements shall be used in pricing negotiated supply, service, experimental, developmental, and research contracts and contract modifications with commercial organizations whenever cost analysis is performed as required by 15.404-1(c).
( b ) In addition, the contracting officer shall incorporate the cost principles and procedures in subpart 31.2 and agency supplements by reference in contracts with commercial organizations as the basis for— ( 1 ) Determining reimbursable costs under ( i ) cost-reimbursement contracts and cost-reimbursement subcontracts under these contracts performed by commercial organizations and
( ii ) the cost-reimbursement portion of time-and-materials contracts except when material is priced on a basis other than at cost (see 16.601(c)(3));
( 2 ) Negotiating indirect cost rates (see subpart 42.7);
( 3 ) Proposing, negotiating, or determining costs under terminated contracts (see 49.103 and 49.113);
( 4 ) Price revision of fixed-price incentive contracts (see 16.204 and 16.403);
( 5 ) Price redetermination of price redetermination contracts (see 16.205 and 16.206); and
( 6 ) Pricing changes and other contract modifications.
[48 FR 42301, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 62 FR 51271, Sept. 30, 1997; 72 FR 6882, Feb. 13, 2007]
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 106 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale 

to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of certain defense articles and services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 2, 2024 

Ms. OMAR submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of 

certain defense articles and services. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the issuance of a license to export with respect to 

4 the following proposed export to the Kingdom of Saudi 

5 Arabia is hereby prohibited: 

6 (1) The sale of the following defense articles 

7 and services, described in Transmittal No. 23–15, 

8 submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(b)(1) 

9 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

10 2776(b)(1)): seven (7) Embedded Global Positioning 

2 

•HJ 106 IH 

1 System/Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS) 

2 (EGI) security devices, Airborne, with Selective 

3 Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) or M4 Code capability, and five (5) L3Harris BlackRock 

5 Communications Intelligence Sensor Suites. Also in6 cluded are KY–100M narrowband/wideband secure 

7 communications terminals; KIV–77 MODE 4/5 

8 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) cryptographic 

9 appliques; AN/PYQ–10 Simple Key Loaders; inte10 grated electronic intelligence (ELINT)/signals intel11 ligence (SIGINT) systems; L–3 Communication Sys12 tems-West (CSW) multiband receivers/transmitters; 

13 ARC–210 radios; high frequency (HF) radios; se14 cure communications equipment; precision naviga15 tion and cryptographic devices; aircraft support and 

16 support equipment; test and integration support; 

17 equipment; spare and repair parts; consumables and 

18 accessories; repair and return support; United States 

19 Government and contractor engineering, technical, 

20 and logistics support services; studies and surveys; 

21 and other related elements of logistics and program 

22 support. 

Æ
----

| (1) | The Report fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: September 2, 2009 | /S/ JAMES P. FOGARTY     |
|--------------------------|--------------------------|
|                     | James P. Fogarty         |
|                     | President                |
|                     | Chief Executive Officer  |
|                     |                     |
| Dated: September 2, 2009 | /S/ ERIC M. SPECTER      |
|                     | Eric M. Specter          |
|                     | Executive Vice President |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer  |

----
The purpose of the U.S. Department of Education's social media pages are to facilitate an ongoing dialogue on education issues. We encourage your comments - your ideas and concerns are important to help ensure that a broad range of Americans are active and informed participants in the discussion conducted on our social media pages. ED reserves the right to modify this policy at any time and ED expressly reserves the right to remove comments from its pages.

All comments on U.S. Department of Education social media pages are reviewed. ED retains the right to remove or not remove comments. In addition, we expect that participants will treat each other, as well as our agency and our employees, with respect and dignity.

Comments will be removed if they:

- contain vulgar or abusive language, personal attacks of any kind, or offensive terms that target specific ethnic or racial groups
- promote services or products (non-commercial links that are relevant to the blog post or comment are acceptable)
- are clearly "off topic," or "spam"
- make unsupported accusations
- reference federal employees by name
- violate the laws of the United States or the policies of the U.S. Department of Education

We won't edit comments to remove objectionable content, so please be sure that your comments contain none of the above.

To protect your own privacy and the privacy of others, please do not include personally identifiable information, such as name, Social Security number, addresses, phone numbers or email addresses in the body of your comment. If you do voluntarily include your name in a comment, which we generally do not recommend, that comment may or may not be removed. Under no circumstances will comments be allowed to remain that contain Social Security numbers, addresses, email address, phone numbers, or similar personally identifiable information.

Questions you post for the U.S. Department of Education may not be answered here. If you have a question for us, please contact 1-800-USA-LEARN. If you're a reporter please contact us at (202) 401-1576 or by mail at U.S. Department of Education Press Office, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, 7E-247, Washington, DC 20202.

|Last Modified: 01/29/2013
|-------------------------
85 So.2d 50

#### Mrs. Earl Bostwick ATTAWAY et al. v. Claude U. MELTON et al.

No. 42162.

Jan. 16, 1956.

Malcolm E. Lafargue, Shreveport, for defendants-appellants.

Love & Rigby, Shreveport, for plaintiffsappellees.

MOISE, Justice.

.Plaintiffs, Mrs. Earl Bostwick Attaway, Otis E. Pharr, Joyce Pharr, John E. Hayr good and Janice R. Haygood, filed suit to be recognized as officers of the Sterling Service Life Insurance Company and to restrain the named defendants from interfering with their work. The trial judge rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, making their rule absolute.

Defendants appealed to this Court and filed an exception of no right or cause of action. They also contended that plaintiffs should have proceeded by mandamus and quo warranto.

To this appeal plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the issues herein involved are moot.

There is no amount in dispute, nor is there a sum to be distributed. The thing in dispute is the right to office.

Article VII, Section 10, of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921, LSA-Const., provides that this Court shall have appellate' jurisdiction in civil suits where the amount in dispute or the fund to be distributed, irrespective of the amount claimed, shall exceed $2,000.

In the case of Lerner Shops of Louisiana v. Reeves, 224 La. 33, 68 So.2d 748, we held that neither precedent nor authority vested this Court with appellate jurisdiction where monetary terms and amounts were not asserted or shown of record, and that the appeal fell within none of the other classifications.

In Succession of Solari, 218 La. 671, 50 So.2d 801, 802, we stated:

> *115“The term ‘the amount in dispute’ in the article of the Constitution fixing appellate jurisdiction means the value of what the plaintiff claims and what the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s claim for. The value of what is involved in a collateral question which may have to be determined in order to decide the dispute does not govern the appellate jurisdiction. * * * ”

In Gamburg v. City of Alexandria, 227 La. 687, 80 So.2d 372, 373, we refused, appellate jurisdiction in an injunction proceeding, because no specific amount was involved. We stated:

> “Plaintiff contends that because of these changes and innovations his property has been depreciated in value.

> “Since the relief sought is injunctive, as shown by plaintiff’s prayer, we conclude that this Court does not have jurisdiction.”

See, City of New Orleans v. Langenstein, 227 La. 770, 80 So.2d 402.

For the reasons assigned, and by virtue of the authority vested in this Court by Act Nd. 19 of 1912, LSA-R.S. 13:4441, it is ordered that this appeal be transferred to the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, provided the record is filed in that court within thirty days from the date this judgment becomes effective — otherwise, the appeal shall be dismissed.

PONDER, J., absent.
#### 2828.101-1 Policy on use.

The HCA or designee is the agency head for the purposes of authorizing class waivers in accordance with FAR 28.101-1(c).
326.504 Tribal preference requirements. ( a ) When the contractor will perform work under a contract on an Indian reservation, the contracting officer may supplement the clause at 352.226-2, Indian Preference Program by adding specific Indian preference requirements of the tribe on whose reservation the contractor will work. The contracting activity and the tribe shall jointly develop supplemental requirements for the contract. Supplemental preference requirements shall represent a further implementation of the requirements of section 7(b) of Public Law 93-638 and require the approval of the affected program director and the appropriate legal office, or a regional attorney, before the contracting officer adds them to a solicitation and resultant contract. Any supplemental preference requirements the contracting officer adds to the clause at 352.226-2, Indian Preference Program shall also clearly identify in the solicitation the additional requirements.
( b ) Nothing in this part shall preclude tribes from independently developing and enforcing their own tribal preference requirements. Such independently-developed tribal preference requirements shall not, except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, become a requirement in contracts covered under this subpart, and shall not conflict with any Federal statutory or regulatory requirement concerning the award and administration of contracts.
22.603 Applicability. The requirements in 22.602 apply to contracts (including for this purpose, indefinite-delivery contracts, basic ordering agreements, and blanket purchase agreements) and subcontracts under Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, for the manufacture or furnishing of supplies that— ( a ) Will be performed in the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands;
( b ) Exceed or may exceed $15,000; and
( c ) Are not exempt under 22.604.
[68 FR 28082, May 22, 2003, as amended at 75 FR 53133, Aug. 30, 2010]
# C_2018223EN.01000801.xml

| 27.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 June 2018

(2018/C 223/07)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1672 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,95 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4510 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88160 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3383 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1543 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 125,20 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4718 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,900 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 326,00 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3410 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6669 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 5,4053 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5778 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5549 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,1608 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6998 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5892 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 306,32 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,8232 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6749 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3810 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 548,56 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6956 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,714 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 73,5257 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,523 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4051 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,2370 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,7095 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1672

JPY

Japanese yen

127,95

DKK

Danish krone

7,4510

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88160

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3383

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1543

ISK

Iceland króna

125,20

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4718

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,900

HUF

Hungarian forint

326,00

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3410

RON

Romanian leu

4,6669

TRY

Turkish lira

5,4053

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5778

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5549

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,1608

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6998

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5892

KRW

South Korean won

1 306,32

ZAR

South African rand

15,8232

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6749

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3810

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 548,56

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6956

PHP

Philippine peso

62,714

RUB

Russian rouble

73,5257

THB

Thai baht

38,523

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4051

MXN

Mexican peso

23,2370

INR

Indian rupee

79,7095

---

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

1

Source

---
#### Dykes *vs.*The State of Georgia.

1. There was no material error in the charge of the court.

2. Where the defendant was convicted of an assault with intent to rape, and was sentenced to twenty years’ confinement in the penitentiary, as the term was within the limit prescribed by the statute, this court will not interfere on the ground that it was excessive.

Warner, Chief Justice.
# C_2019186EN.01000301.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

31 May 2019

(2019/C 186/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1151 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,27 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4680 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88693 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6390 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1214 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 138,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7915 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,816 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 324,34 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2843 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7430 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,5270 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6136 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5115 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7457 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7134 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5378 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 328,31 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,3834 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7045 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4185 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 982,17 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6747 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,225 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,9053 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,282 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4462 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,8922 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,7410 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1151

JPY

Japanese yen

121,27

DKK

Danish krone

7,4680

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88693

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6390

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1214

ISK

Iceland króna

138,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7915

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,816

HUF

Hungarian forint

324,34

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2843

RON

Romanian leu

4,7430

TRY

Turkish lira

6,5270

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6136

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5115

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7457

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7134

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5378

KRW

South Korean won

1 328,31

ZAR

South African rand

16,3834

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7045

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4185

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 982,17

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6747

PHP

Philippine peso

58,225

RUB

Russian rouble

72,9053

THB

Thai baht

35,282

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4462

MXN

Mexican peso

21,8922

INR

Indian rupee

77,7410

---

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

---
#### Boyer *vs.*Ausburn *et al.*

A promise in writing to pay for a colt on *the 1st of November*thereafter, with a stipulation that the vendor retain title until paid for, and yet vendees were liable to pay “in the event said colt should die,” is *prima fade*a promise to pay for the colt at that date, even if it die before payment and while title is in the vendor, and not a promise to pay only if the colt should die; and therefore a non-suit because plaintiff did not prove that the colt was dead, vras error»

Contracts. Promissory notes. Non-suit. Before Judge Pottle. Hancock Superior Court. April Term, 187.9.

This was an appeal case. Boyer sued Ausburn *et al.*on the written instrument set out in the opinion. On the trial he introduced it, and closed. The court granted a non-suit, and he excepted.

J. T. Jordan; E. H. Neayy, for plaintiff in error.

Seaborn Reese, for defendants.

Jackson, Justice.

The sole question is, was the non-suit properly awarded ? That turns on the construction of the contract sued. That contract is in these words :

> “By the first day of November, *1878,*we promise to pay Jasper J. Boyer or bearer sixty-five dollars for one bay stallion colt, named Mark, about two years old, the title to said colt remaining in said. Jasper J. Boyer until the p'urehase money is paid in full, but our liability is to pay the above amountiin the event said colt should die.”

This paper being introduced, the court held that unless, the plaintiff showed that the colt was dead, there could be no recovery, and non-suited the plaintiff.

*Prima*facie, the meaning of the paper is, that on the first day of November the money due should be paid, though the title was retained by the plaintiff to the colt, and to avoid trouble in the event the colt died before the *272money was paid, and while title was still in the vendor, the vendees agreed to pay for him notwithstanding they had no title. The consideration of the promise was the delivery and present use of the colt, and the vendor at his option could recover the money on the 1st of November, whether the colt was dead or alive, or if alive, on refusal to pay for him at that date he could recover him in trover.

It is true that there may be some ambiguity in the paper, and if so it may be explained by parol; but on its face it seems to us to mean as indicated above, though awkwardly expressed. Whether ambiguous or not, as it means on its face a promise to pay for the colt, dead or alive, on the first of November, the court should not have granted the non-suit ; as the note itself *w&s prima facie-,*at least, an absolute-promise to pay on sufficient consideration.

Judgment reversed.