alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  UT
<CIK>   0000092487
<NAME>  SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
<SUBSIDIARY>
<NUMBER> 005
<NAME> SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,832,730
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      5,937
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         168,478
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        19,839
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  89,401
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,116,385
<COMMON>                                       135,660
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      245,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            280,760
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 661,420
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,706
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           606,104
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              87,354
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   85,595
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 4,364
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 666,842
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,116,385
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      439,952
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            12,928
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     365,168
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     378,096
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         61,856
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 785
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  62,641
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        28,358
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,283
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        115
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   34,168
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        54,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       19,604
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          55,025
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
215.371-4 Exceptions. ( a ) The requirements at section 215.371-2 do not apply to— ( 1 ) Acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold;
( 2 ) Acquisitions, as determined by the head of the contracting activity, in support of contingency or humanitarian or peacekeeping operations; to facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; to facilitate the provision of international disaster assistance; or to support response to an emergency or major disaster;
( 3 ) Small business set-asides under FAR subpart 19.5, set asides offered and accepted into the 8(a) Program under FAR subpart 19.8, or set-asides under the HUBZone Program (see FAR 19.1305(c)), the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Procurement Program (see FAR 19.1405(c)), or the Women-Owned Small Business Program (see FAR 19.1505(d));
( 4 ) Acquisitions of science and technology, as specified in 235.016(a);
( 5 ) Acquisitions of architect-engineer services (see FAR 36.601-2); or
( 6 ) Acquisitions under a commercial solutions opening pursuant to subpart 212.70.
( b ) The applicability of an exception in paragraph (a) of this section does not eliminate the need for the contracting officer to seek maximum practicable competition and to ensure that the price is fair and reasonable.
[78 FR 65216, Oct. 31, 2013, as amended at 83 FR 24889, May 30, 2018; 84 FR 4365, Feb. 15, 2019; 88 FR 55940, Aug. 17, 2023]
# C_2019311EN.01000301.xml

| 16.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

13 September 2019

(2019/C 311/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1096 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 119,83 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4678 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89093 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6485 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0940 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 138,10 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,9213 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,843 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 331,53 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3248 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7352 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,2892 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6126 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4663 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6832 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7354 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5226 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 306,00 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,0983 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8589 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3945 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 495,56 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6209 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,644 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,2243 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,776 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4964 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,5070 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,7415 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1096

JPY

Japanese yen

119,83

DKK

Danish krone

7,4678

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89093

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6485

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0940

ISK

Iceland króna

138,10

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,9213

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,843

HUF

Hungarian forint

331,53

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3248

RON

Romanian leu

4,7352

TRY

Turkish lira

6,2892

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6126

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4663

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6832

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7354

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5226

KRW

South Korean won

1 306,00

ZAR

South African rand

16,0983

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8589

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3945

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 495,56

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6209

PHP

Philippine peso

57,644

RUB

Russian rouble

71,2243

THB

Thai baht

33,776

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4964

MXN

Mexican peso

21,5070

INR

Indian rupee

78,7415

---

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

---
# C_2017151EN.01000101.xml

| 15.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/1

---

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 151/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 144, 8.5.2017

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 129, 24.4.2017

OJ C 121, 18.4.2017

OJ C 112, 10.4.2017

OJ C 104, 3.4.2017

OJ C 95, 27.3.2017

OJ C 86, 20.3.2017

These texts are available on:

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

---
Copyright © 1997 Global Compliance, LLC. A LL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

## Basics Case No: 12-008-U - Flint Creek Retrofit Date Entered: 03/27/2012 09:30:33 AM Party/Requestor: Sierra Club, Jeff Speir Date Received: 03/26/2012 Date Requested: 03/26/2012 Internal Due Date: 04/03/2012 Service Due Date: 04/11/2012 Answer Status: New Service Date: 

## Question No: 1-045 Please provide the final cost, broken out by categories as indicated above in DR #37, for the Big Sandy 2 SCR. Answer: Please refer to "Sierra Club 1-45 Attachment 1" for the requested information. Advanced Date Verified: Date Accepted: Confidential: No Yes Attachments:

Voluminous: No Yes Highly Sensitive: No Yes
Comments:
Preparer(s): Kevin J Munson; Michael L Wilkinson; Twana Banks-Smith; William E Mast Witness: Christian T Beam

Modification History Created by Twana Banks-Smith Created on 04/23/2012 11:08:35 AM Modified on 04/24/2012 03:40:20 PM Edit History 1. Twana Banks-Smith 04/24/2012 03:40:11 PM 0. Twana Banks-Smith 04/23/2012 11:27:32 AM
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

In the Matter of the No. 53890-3-II

Personal Restraint of

JAMES H. ROWE, II,

Petitioner.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MAXA, C.J. – James Rowe II seeks relief from personal restraint resulting from the 2018 

revocation of his community custody by the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board and the 

Board’s setting of new minimum terms of confinement. The Board had charged Rowe with three 

violations of the conditions of his community custody: (1) viewing pornographic material, (2) 

failing to successfully participate in sex offender treatment by accessing social media sites, and 

(3) failing to successfully complete sex offender treatment by being terminated from treatment on 

February 8, 2018.1 Rowe pleaded guilty to the violations, and the Board revoked his community 

custody. The Board later set his new minimum term at 24 months and, in 2019, extended his 

minimum term by 18 months. 

Rowe now argues that the Board erred in revoking his community custody because the 

following community custody condition is unconstitutionally vague:

(17) The defendant shall not use or possess any pornographic material as defined 

by the sexual deviancy treatment provider and the [community corrections officer].

Pet., Ex. 3 at 2.

 

1 The Board had charged Rowe with a fourth violation, but dismissed it for lack of probable cause. 

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

April 7, 2020
No. 53890-3-II

2

Regarding the Board’s revocation of Rowe’s community custody, we review the Board’s 

decision for an abuse of discretion. In re Pers. Restraint of Dyer, 175 Wn.2d 186, 196, 283 P.3d 

1103 (2012). Given that Rowe, who was represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to the three 

violations, including those not related to pornography, he fails to show that the Board abused its 

discretion in revoking his community custody.

Regarding the argument that condition 17 is unconstitutionally vague under State v. Bahl, 

164 Wn.2d 739, 758, 193 P.3d 678 (2008), the State concedes that Rowe is correct and that 

condition 17 should be modified to make it constitutionally acceptable.

We grant Rowe’s petition and remand to the trial court to modify community custody 

condition 17. We deny the remainder of his petition. We deny Rowe’s request for appointment 

of counsel.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, 

it is so ordered.

MAXA, C.J.

We concur:

SUTTON, J.

GLASGOW, J.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00373-CV

In re Weldon Cowan

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BURNET COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Weldon Cowan has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex.

Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Based on this record, his petition is denied. See

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (relator has burden of providing court with

sufficient record to establish right to mandamus relief); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator

must file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s

claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Filed: July 9, 2014
#### BUSKIRK et al., Respondents, v. FORTE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 11, 1903.)

Action by Rose Mary Buskirk and Rose Margaret Claesgens against Erastus R. Forte.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### BURNS, Respondent, v. UNITED STATE PRINTING CO. OF OHIO, Appellant.

(Su preme Court, Appellate Division, Second De partment.

March 16, 1906.)

Action by Hugl Burns, an infant, by Margaret Burns, hi; guardian ad litem, against the United State; Printing Company of Ohio.

No opinion. In terlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John Henry TURNER, Jr., Appellant.

No. 07-1975.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 18, 2008.

Filed: June 17, 2008.

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal prisoner John Henry Turner, Jr., appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motions for postconviction relief and reconsideration. We lack jurisdiction to review the court’s denial of relief under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 4(b)(1)(A)®, (3)(A). We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Turner’s successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion or his motion for reconsideration, *see*28 U.S.C. §§ 2255, 2244(b)(3)(A), and thus we affirm. We deny the government’s pending motion.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
#### 3.1105 Violations.

If the contracting officer suspects violation by the contractor of a requirement of paragraph (b), (c)(3), or (d) of the clause at 52.203-16, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest, the contracting officer shall contact the agency legal counsel for advice and/or recommendations on a course of action.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KEVIN EPPERSON,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§

§ No. 573, 2014

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ Cr. ID 9408009291

§ 

§

Submitted: October 14, 2014

 Decided: November 17, 2014

Before STRINE, Chief Justice, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices.

O R D E R

This 17th day of November 2014, upon consideration of the 

appellant’s request for leave to file an appeal from the Superior Court’s 

denial of his twentieth motion for postconviction relief and his response to 

the Court’s rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, it 

appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Kevin Epperson, was convicted by a Superior 

Court jury in 1996 of Kidnapping in the First Degree and Unlawful Sexual 

Contact in the First Degree. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to 

serve fifty-two years in prison followed by a period of probation. His 

convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
2

(2) In 2006, following his appeal from the Superior Court’s denial 

of his eighth postconviction motion, this Court noted that Epperson’s 

repetitive filings were frivolous and constituted an abuse of the judicial 

process. We, therefore, enjoined Epperson from filing any future claims in 

this Court without first obtaining leave of the Court and filing a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with 10 Del. C. § 8803. 

(3) Epperson filed his current request seeking leave to appeal from 

the Superior Court’s denial of his twentieth postconviction motion. 

Epperson contends that his twentieth petition, which challenged the legality 

of the indictment against him, raises a constitutional issue that has never 

been addressed before by any court and is not procedurally barred.

(4) Having conducted a preliminary review of Epperson’s appeal 

from the Superior Court’s August 21, 2014 order, we conclude that his 

appeal is not approved for filing. This is Epperson’s twentieth Rule 61 

petition. We have now invested considerable time detailing our reasons why 

his previous petitions were procedurally barred. We will not continue to 

invest scarce judicial resources to address his untimely and repetitive claims. 

We encourage Epperson to be mindful of Rule 61(j) before filing any further 

frivolous petitions in the Superior Court.
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Epperson’s appeal 

papers are STRICKEN and this matter is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                        | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Postsecondary Education Home |
|                                        |

For application packages, contact:

Rice Capital Access Program, LLCWill FisherOne Atlantic Center 1202 West Peachtree Street NW, 23rd FloorAtlanta, Georgia  30309Telephone: (404) 736-3628Fax: (212) 908-9299Web site:  http://www.ricecapitalaccess.net**/**

Institutional Service Home

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FRIEDMAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1903.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York against David Friedman.

L. J. Vorhaus, for appellant.

R. C. Taylor, for the People.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed.

PATTERSON, J., dissents.
#### Anna F. Mann et al., Respondents, v. Joseph H. Mann, Sr., et al., Appellants.

Memorandum by the Court. Order affirmed upon the opinion of Mr. Justice Poster at Special Term (45 Misc 2d 19), with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.
# C_2019135EN.01001201.xml

| 11.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/12

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

10 April 2019

(2019/C 135/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1279 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 125,38 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4652 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86083 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4400 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1280 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 134,20 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5895 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,608 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 321,84 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2833 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7605 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,4144 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5785 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5032 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8405 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6697 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5258 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 283,09 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,7391 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,5758 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4253 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 959,79 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6328 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,543 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,8600 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,839 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3301 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,2783 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,9945 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1279

JPY

Japanese yen

125,38

DKK

Danish krone

7,4652

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86083

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4400

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1280

ISK

Iceland króna

134,20

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5895

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,608

HUF

Hungarian forint

321,84

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2833

RON

Romanian leu

4,7605

TRY

Turkish lira

6,4144

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5785

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5032

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8405

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6697

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5258

KRW

South Korean won

1 283,09

ZAR

South African rand

15,7391

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,5758

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4253

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 959,79

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6328

PHP

Philippine peso

58,543

RUB

Russian rouble

72,8600

THB

Thai baht

35,839

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3301

MXN

Mexican peso

21,2783

INR

Indian rupee

77,9945

---

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

---
2019 Preschool Development Grants Summary Report **[PDF, 14MB]**

2018 Preschool Development Grants Progress Report**[PDF, 569KB]**

2017 Preschool Development Grants Progress Report**[PDF, 899KB]**

Preschool Development Grants Program -- Pay for Success

Preschool Development Grants Program:  Grantee Snapshot**[PDF, 4M]**

PDG Brochure Years 1 and 2**[PDF, 4M]**

18 States Awarded $237M for Year 2

Preschool Development Grants Fact SheetPDF

**Program Office:**Office of Early Learning (OEL)

**CFDA Numbers**-   Preschool Development  Grants--Development Grants: 84.419A
-    Preschool Development  Grants--Expansion Grants: 84.419B
-    Preschool Development  Grants--Pay for Success: 84.419C

**Program Type:** Discretionary/Competitive Grants
Program Description
The Preschool Development Grants competition supports States to (1) build or enhance a preschool program infrastructure that would enable the delivery of high-quality preschool services to children, and (2) expand high-quality preschool programs in targeted communities that would serve as models for expanding preschool to all 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families.  These grants would lay the groundwork to ensure that more States are ready to participate in the Preschool for All formula grant initiative proposed by the Administration. 
States Recommended for Funding for FY 2014 Preschool Development Grants
 States Recommended for Funding for FY 2014 Preschool Development Grants -- Development Grants States Recommended for Funding for FY 2014 Preschool Development Grants -- Expansion Grants

 
Preschool Development Grants -- Development Grants      Alabama          Arizona          Hawaii          Montana          Nevada    
 
Preschool Development Grants -- Expansion Grants      Arkansas          Connecticut          Illinois          Louisiana          Maine          Maryland          Massachusetts          New Jersey          New York          Rhode Island          Tennessee          Vermont          Virginia      Last Modified: 01/21/2020
#### 326.604 Procedures.
#### 2832.006-2 Definition.

The SPE is the “Remedy coordination official” for the purposes of FAR 32.006-2.