alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
47.207-1 Qualifications of offerors. ( a ) *Operating authorities.* The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.247-2, Permits, Authorities, or Franchises, when regulated transportation is involved. The clause need not be used when a Federal office move is intrastate and the contracting officer determines that it is in the Government's interest not to apply the requirement for holding or obtaining State authority to operate within the State.
( b ) *Performance capability for Federal office moving contracts.* ( 1 ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.247-3, Capability to Perform a Contract for the Relocation of a Federal Office, when a Federal office is relocated, to ensure that offerors are capable to perform interstate or intrastate moving contracts involving the relocation of Federal offices.
( 2 ) If a Federal office move is intrastate and the contracting officer determines that it is in the Government's interest not to apply the requirements for holding or obtaining State authority to operate within the State, and to maintain a facility within the State or commercial zone, the contracting officer shall use the clause with its *Alternate I.*
( c ) *Inspection of shipping and receiving facilities.* The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.247-4, Inspection of Shipping and Receiving Facilities, when it is desired for offerors to inspect the shipping, receiving, or other sites to ensure realistic bids.
( d ) *Familiarization with conditions.* The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.247-5, Familiarization with Conditions, to ensure that offerors become familiar with conditions under which and where the services will be performed.
( e ) *Financial statement.* The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.247-6, Financial Statement, to ensure that offerors are prepared to furnish financial statements.
### NUMBER 13

- 1 7
- 00 404

- CV


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ THE TEXAS DEMOCRACY FOUNDATION D/B/A TEXAS OBSERVER AND NAVEENA SADASIVAM , A ppellant s ,

v.
LYDIA ANN CHANNEL MOORINGS, LLC , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 1 56 th District Court of Aransas County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez , Longoria, and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant s , Th e Texas Democracy Foundation d/b /a Texas Observer and

Naveena Sadasivam , perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 1 56 th District2

Court of Aransas County, Texas, in cause number A

- 17

- 0064

- CV

- B . Appellant s have

filed a second amended unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the
parties have resolved their dispute and have filed a joint notice of nonsuit in t he trial court.
Appellant s request that this Court dismiss the appeal.
The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant s ’ second
amended unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion
should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant s’ motion to dismiss is
granted , and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of
the parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring same. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d)
("Absent agreement of th e parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.").
Having dis missed the appeal at appellants ’ request, no motion for rehearing will be
entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 1 8th day of January , 20 1 8

.
#### 314.404 Rejection of bids.
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA)
#### Daniel Himbele et al., Respondents, v State of New York, Appellant.

Third Department,

June 14, 1979

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Bernard F. Carlin*of *Burke, Curry, Hammill & O’Brien*of counsel), for appellant.

*Corcoran & Brady, P. C. (William J. Corcoran*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Greenblott, J.

At approximately 3:00 p.m. on May 13, 1976, claimant Daniel Himbele, a surveyor employed by Peter Scalamandre and Sons, Inc. (subcontractor), was checking grades on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway pursuant to a safety improvement contract entered into between the State and Lizza Industries, Inc. (general contractor), which, in part, called for the closing of certain exit ramps.

*459At the site of the accident, the expressway contained three westbound lanes, separated from an adjacent service road by a three- to four-foot median. According to claimant’s testimony, the median had been replaced by a timber barrier which was abutted by approximately a half dozen traffic cones placed on the extreme right-hand side of the westbound lanes. The general contract provided for the closing of the entire extreme right-hand lane in the area immediately adjacent to the place where claimant was working. However, since the traffic cones were placed next to the timber barriers, traffic was permitted in the extreme right-hand lane. While claimant was performing his work, he was injured when struck by a traffic safety cone propelled by a passing truck. The Court of Claims concluded that the failure to close the lane pursuant to the contract plans constituted negligence on the part of the State.

The issue presented by this appeal is whether the State’s nondelegable duty to maintain its highways in a safe condition (see *Neddo v State of New York,*194 Misc 379, affd 275 App Div 492, affd 300 NY 533) extends to an employee of a subcontractor who suffers injuries caused *in part*by the general contractor’s negligence. In *Lopes v Rostad*(45 NY2d 617), decided by the Court of Appeals after the decision herein, where a contractor and not the county assumed the responsibility of placing warning devices around a road construction project, the Court of Appeals held that the nondelegable duty of a county to safely maintain its roads did not extend to the contractor’s employees injured while working on the construction site. In the case at bar, similarly, the general contractor was responsible under its contract with the State for properly closing the lanes and placing warning devices on the expressway. Thus, under *Lopes (supra),*the State owed no duty to claimant to maintain the expressway in a safe condition, and the general contractor’s failure to install warning devices called for under the contract cannot cast the State in liability.

The judgment should be reversed, on the law, and the claim dismissed, without costs.

Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, on the law, and claim dismissed, without costs.
#### George Panoff, Respondent, v. Anrob Realty Co., Inc., Appellant.

Judgment in the sum of $70,238 in favor of plaintiff in a personal injury negligence action, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with costs to defendant-appellant, and the complaint dismissed. Plaintiff has failed to establish actionable negligence against defendant. Defendant was not in possession of the premises. *(Berman*v. *H. J. Enterprises, Inc.,*13 A D 2d 199.) It is undisputed that at the time and site of the occurrence the lighting equipment was adequate and usable. The tenant, who was plaintiff’s employer, was in possession. The obligation, if any, to turn on the light on the premises at the time of the occurrence was at best the employer’s. Further, plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence by proceeding in the darkness in an area unfamiliar to him, especially when an approach to the men’s room familiar to the plaintiff which avoided the stairway was available. *(Dunn*v. *White Plains Housing Auth.,*8 A D 2d 839, affd. 7 N Y 2d 944.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
# C_2021258EN.01000701.xml

| 2.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/7

---

Calls for proposals and related activities under the 2021-2022 work programme implementing the Euratom research and training programme (2021-2025)

(2021/C 258/07)

Notice is hereby given of the launch of actions under the 2021-2022 work programme implementing the Euratom research and training programme (2021-2025).

The Commission has adopted the above mentioned work programme by Decision C(2021) 4201 of 1 July 2021.

The actions are subject to the availability of the appropriations provided for in the general budget of the Union for 2021 and 2022, following the adoption of the 2022 budget by the budgetary authority or as provided for in the system of provisional twelfths. The Commission reserves its right to cancel or make corrigendum to the actions.

Confirmation that these conditions have been met will be announced on the European Commission Funding & Tenders Portal website (https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/programmes/horizon).

This work programme, including deadlines and budgets for the actions, are available through the above-mentioned Funding & Tenders Portal along with information on the modalities of the actions, and guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals. All this information will be updated as necessary on the same Funding & Tenders Portal.

---
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018422EN.01000601.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 22.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/6 |

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2018/C 422/05)

![Image](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/uriserv/OJ.C_.2018.422.01.0006.01.ENG.xhtml.C_2018422EN.01000602.tif.jpg)

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Monaco

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018422EN.01000601-E0001). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2018422EN.01000601-E0002), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country
: Monaco

Subject of commemoration
: François Joseph Bosio

Description of the design
: The design shows Mr BOSIO and a statue as the background image. The inscription ‘MONACO’ is at the top of the image in semi-circle. At the bottom, in semi-circle as well, there are two inscriptions: ‘FRANÇOIS JOSEPH BOSIO’ and underneath ‘1768 – SCULPTEUR - 2018’. At the left and right sides of these two inscriptions, there are the mintmark and the mint master mark.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
:

16 000

Date of issue
:

1 June 2018

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018422EN.01000601-E0001)  See [OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2001_373_R_TOC) for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2018422EN.01000601-E0002)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation ([OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2009_009_R_TOC)).

---
Top of Form

Top of Form

# Preschool Development Grants

## Expansion Grants

## Technical Review Form for New YorkReviewer 1

### A. Executive Summary

### B. Commitment to State Preschool Programs

### C. Ensuring Quality in Preschool Programs

### D. Expanding High-Quality Preschool Programs in Each High-Need Community

### E. Collaborating with Each Subgrantee and Ensuring Strong Partnerships

### F. Alignment within a Birth Through Third Grade Continuum

### G. Budget and Sustainability

### Competitive Preference Priorities

### Absolute Priority

### Grand Total

Top of Form

Top of Form

# Preschool Development Grants

## Expansion Grants

## Technical Review Form for New YorkReviewer 2

### A. Executive Summary

### B. Commitment to State Preschool Programs

### C. Ensuring Quality in Preschool Programs

### D. Expanding High-Quality Preschool Programs in Each High-Need Community

### E. Collaborating with Each Subgrantee and Ensuring Strong Partnerships

### F. Alignment within a Birth Through Third Grade Continuum

### G. Budget and Sustainability

### Competitive Preference Priorities

### Absolute Priority

### Grand Total

Top of Form

Top of Form

# Preschool Development Grants

## Expansion Grants

## Technical Review Form for New YorkReviewer 3

### A. Executive Summary

### B. Commitment to State Preschool Programs

### C. Ensuring Quality in Preschool Programs

### D. Expanding High-Quality Preschool Programs in Each High-Need Community

### E. Collaborating with Each Subgrantee and Ensuring Strong Partnerships

### F. Alignment within a Birth Through Third Grade Continuum

### G. Budget and Sustainability

### Competitive Preference Priorities

### Absolute Priority

### Grand Total

# _1479580190.unknown

# _1479580191.unknown

# _1479580189.unknown
#### Morris Pianka, Respondent, v. James A. Monahan et al., Doing Business as Monahan-Gray Co., Appellants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for alleged injuries to person and property arising out of a rear-end automobile collision, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 23, 1960, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and directed an assessment of damages, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion for summary judgment denied. In view of the sharp dispute as to the force of the impact; as to the alleged injuries; and as to whether there were1 any injuries at all, there should be a plenary trial of the entire case so that it may he determined whether the claimed injuries could and did result from *834the accident *(Chmela*v. *Vought,*15 A D 2d 812, and cases cited). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
# C_2019001EN.01000501.xml

| 3.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 1/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 1/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

2 January 2019

(2019/C 1/07)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1397 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,28 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4669 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90165 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2145 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1239 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 133,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,9108 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,752 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 322,37 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2964 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6600 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,1130 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6273 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5547 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,9294 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7049 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5555 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 278,52 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,5075 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8165 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4205 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 484,11 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7195 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,894 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 79,3589 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,807 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3930 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,3941 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,9855 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1397

JPY

Japanese yen

124,28

DKK

Danish krone

7,4669

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90165

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2145

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1239

ISK

Iceland króna

133,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,9108

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,752

HUF

Hungarian forint

322,37

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2964

RON

Romanian leu

4,6600

TRY

Turkish lira

6,1130

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6273

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5547

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,9294

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7049

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5555

KRW

South Korean won

1 278,52

ZAR

South African rand

16,5075

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8165

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4205

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 484,11

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7195

PHP

Philippine peso

59,894

RUB

Russian rouble

79,3589

THB

Thai baht

36,807

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3930

MXN

Mexican peso

22,3941

INR

Indian rupee

79,9855

---

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

---
- 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 InfoResourcesSurplus PropertiesFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Finance and Operations Home |
|                                       |

**CFDA Number:** 84.145**Program Type:** Sale, Exchange, or Donation of Property and Goods

The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (P.L. 81-152), as amended, provides statutory authority for the disposal of excess real property to another executive agency having a need for the property, or, if there is no such need, for its disposal as surplus property in accordance with federal laws and regulations. The Federal Real Property Assistance Program conveys surplus Federal Real Property for educational purposes at fair market value. Property must be used for education purposes including but not limited to higher education, elementary and secondary education, libraries, central administrative facilities, educational television and radio, rehabilitation and training, vocational education and research, correctional education centers.

----

 

 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
Exhibit 10.2


 


Amendment
No. 1 to the


Restricted
Stock Agreement

Granted Under 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended


 


This Amendment No. 1, effective as of November 4, 2009,  is to the Restricted Stock Agreement made on March 7,
2007 between Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware  corporation
(the “Company”), and Steven Brugger (the “Participant”).


 


For valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree to amend the Agreement as follows.


 


2.             Section 2(a) of the Agreement
is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:


 


One hundred thousand
(100,000) Shares shall vest and become free from forfeiture under Section 2(c) hereof
and become free from the transfer restrictions in Section 3 hereof on the
date that the Company (or any of the Company’s partners or collaborators)
commercially launches M-Enoxaparin in the United States, provided, that
such commercial launch occurs on or before March 7, 2011 and provided
further, that such Shares shall only vest pursuant to this Section 2(a) if
the Participant is employed by the Company on the date of such vesting event.
For the purpose of this Section and vesting hereunder, “commercial launch”
shall not be deemed to have occurred earlier than ten (10) days after the
marketing approval of M-Enoxaparin in the United States by the United States
Food and Drug Administration.


 


Except as explicitly set forth herein, all other terms and conditions
of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
of the day and year first above written.


 


	
   

  	
  MOMENTA
  PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Richard P. Shea

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Richard
  P. Shea

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/
  Steven B. Brugger

  
	
   

  	
  Steven
  B. Brugger
| 1.   | The      Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ended October 31,      2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the 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. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                          | /s/ Henry P.      Herms           |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|                                          | Henry P.    Herms                 |   |
|                                          | Vice President -      Finance and |   |
| January 29,      2010     | Chief Financial      Officer      |   |
#### George W. Wagner, Appellant, v. John D. Wickstrom et al., Defendants. Cecil Emery, Appellee.

Gen. No. 41,316.

*327opinion filed January 22, 1941.

Walter C. Well-man, for appellant; Raymond J. Moudry, for appellee.

Opinion by

Justice Burke.

“Not to be published in full.”
#### Shoe Box of Kings Highway, Inc., Appellant, v Mitchell Fischerman, Individually and Doing Business as The Shoe Box, et al., Respondents.

Order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 24, 1978, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Derounian at Special Term. Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.