alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Website      

# Resource: 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Website

The website for the new 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline has launched. The site provides key information on the background and purpose of the 988 dialing code, which will officially go live on July 16, 2022. 988 will be replacing the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline phone number, 1-800-273-8255, which will remain available until the July transition. If you need help now, call 1-800-273-8255. **Learn more.**
#### 52.223-1 Biobased Product Certification.

As prescribed in 23.109(c)(1), insert the following provision:

# Biobased Product Certification (MAY 2024)

As required by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8101(4)) and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (7 U.S.C. 8102(a)(2)(F)), the offeror certifies, by signing this offer, that biobased products (within categories of products listed by the United States Department of Agriculture in 7 CFR part 3201, subpart B) to be used or delivered in the performance of the contract, other than biobased products that are not purchased by the offeror as a direct result of this contract, will comply with the applicable specifications or other contractual requirements.

(End of provision)

[89 FR 30248, Apr. 22, 2024]
41.103 Statutory and delegated authority. ( a ) *Statutory authority.* ( 1 ) The General Services Administration (GSA) is authorized by 40 U.S.C. 501 to prescribe policies and methods governing the acquisition and supply of utility services for Federal agencies. This authority includes related functions such as managing public utility services and representing Federal agencies in proceedings before Federal and state regulatory bodies. GSA is authorized by 40 U.S.C. 501 to contract for utility services for periods not exceeding ten years.
( 2 ) The Department of Defense (DOD) is authorized by 10 U.S.C. 3201(a) , and 40 U.S.C. 474(d)(3) to acquire utility services for military facilities.
( 3 ) The Department of Energy (DOE) is authorized by the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7251, *et seq.*) to acquire utility services. DOE is authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2204), to enter into new contracts or modify existing contracts for electric services for periods not exceeding 25 years for uranium enrichment installations.
( b ) *Delegated authority.* GSA has delegated its authority to enter into utility service contracts for periods not exceeding ten years to DOD and DOE, and for connection charges only to the Department of Veteran Affairs. Contracting pursuant to this delegated authority shall be consistent with the requirements of this part. Other agencies requiring utility service contracts for periods over one year, but not exceeding ten years, may request a delegation of authority from GSA at the address specified in 41.301(a). In keeping with its statutory authority, GSA will, as necessary, conduct reviews of delegated agencies' acquisitions of utility services to ensure compliance with the terms of the delegation and applicable laws and regulations.
( c ) Requests for delegations of contracting authority from GSA shall include a certification from the acquiring agency's Senior Procurement Executive that the agency has— ( 1 ) An established acquisition program;
( 2 ) Personnel technically qualified to deal with specialized utilities problems; and
( 3 ) The ability to accomplish its own pre-award contract review.
[59 FR 67018, Dec. 28, 1994, as amended at 60 FR 37777, July 21, 1995; 63 FR 58603, Oct. 30, 1998; 70 FR 57455, Sept. 30, 2005; 87 FR 73900, Dec. 1, 2022]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Julio Mallo, Appellant, v Stephen Dalsheim, as Superintendent of Ossining Correctional Facility, Respondent.

— In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 31, 1977, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the declaration of delinquency of July 7, 1976 is vacated. More than 13 months elapsed between petitioner’s arrest for violation of parole and the commencement of the within habeas corpus proceeding and he had not been accorded a final parole revocation hearing. This constitutes an unreasonable delay and has resulted in a deprivation of his due process rights (see *Morrissey v Brewer,*408 US 471; *People ex rel. Walsh v Vincent,*40 NY2d 1049; *Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole,*39 NY2d 445). The petitioner has at all times asserted his rights and is not chargeable with the delay. His failure to allege prejudice is not relevant in light of the extraordinary length of the delay (see *People ex rel. Allen v Dalsheim,*63 AD2d 973). Titone, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
#### SLOSS IRON & STEEL CO. v. JACKSON ARCHITECTURAL IRON WORKS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 16, 1906.)

Action by the SlossIron & Steel Company against the Jackson Architectural Iron Works.

No opinion. Motion denied, on payment of $10 costs. Order filed.
570.118 Foreign Ownership Disclosure. If a foreign ownership disclosure is made pursuant to clause 552.270-33: ( a ) The contracting officer shall notify the Federal tenant for the leased space in writing: ( 1 ) If the disclosure is made during the lease acquisition process, the contracting officer shall notify the Federal tenant prior to lease award.
( 2 ) If the disclosure is made concurrent with a request for novation, the contracting officer shall notify the Federal tenant prior to executing the novation.
( 3 ) If the disclosure is made concurrent with a renewal option or extension, the contracting officer shall notify the Federal tenant prior to executing the renewal option or extension.
( b ) The contracting officer shall coordinate with the Federal tenant regarding security concerns and any necessary mitigation measures.
[86 FR 34979, July 1, 2021]
#### Delcrete Corp., Appellant, v Jarrett B. Kling, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Defendant, formerly employed by Delcrete, is alleged to have charged personal items on company credit cards. In an action by the company for reimbursement, he sets forth affirmative defenses that the charges were forgiven by the plaintiff as a gift. Plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defenses was granted in an order entered and served by mailing to the defendant’s attorney on January 23, 1978. No appeal was taken from that order. However, by notice mailed February 27, 1978 defendant moved to reargue. Upon reargument, Special Term reversed its original decision and permitted the gift defense to stand. Plaintiff appeals from the latter order, asserting that the time to move for reargument had expired and that since no new material was presented to the court on reargument any consideration thereof was improper. A motion to reargue may not be used by a party to extend its time to appeal; such motion must be made before the expiration of the time in which to appeal from the determination of the original motion *(Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v Bero Constr. Corp.,*29 AD2d 627; *Matter of Huie [Furman],*20 NY2d 568). An appeal from the order must be taken within 30 days after its filing in the county clerk’s office and service with notice of its entry (CPLR 5513, subd [a]). Service of the order herein was deemed complete when mailed to the attorney on January 23, 1978 (CPLR 2103, subd [b], par 2). Where a period of time prescribed by law is measured from the service of a paper and service is by mail, three days are added to the prescribed period (CPLR 2103, subd [b], par 2). Therefore, defendant had until Saturday, February 25, 1978, to take an appeal from the order or to make a motion for leave to reargue. When a period of limitation expires on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, a party is given until the following business day to serve a notice of appeal (General Construction Law, § 25-a). Since the notice for reargument was served by mail on Monday and was completed when deposited in the mail, it was within the prescribed period of limitation *(Cyens v Town of Roxbury,*40 AD2d 915), therefore service was timely made. A Judge on reargument need not have new material facts presented in order to grant leave to reargue. Such a request is addressed to the Judge who decided the prior motion and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or *1100law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its decision *(People ex rel. Smith v Wilkins,*16 NY2d 894). Motions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The record herein does not reflect any abuse of discretion in granting leave to reargue. The issue of a gift is a valid defense and a question of fact for determination on the trial of the issues. (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court — summary judgment — reargument.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
#### 52.236-5 Material and Workmanship.

As prescribed in 36.505, insert the following clause:

# Material and Workmanship (APR 1984)

(a) All equipment, material, and articles incorporated into the work covered by this contract shall be new and of the most suitable grade for the purpose intended, unless otherwise specifically provided in this contract. References in the specifications to equipment, material, articles, or patented processes by trade name, make, or catalog number, shall be regarded as establishing a standard of quality and shall not be construed as limiting competition. The Contractor may, at its option, use any equipment, material, article, or process that, in the judgment of the Contracting Officer, is equal to that named in the specifications, unless otherwise specifically provided in this contract.

(b) The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer's approval of the machinery and mechanical and other equipment to be incorporated into the work. When requesting approval, the Contractor shall furnish to the Contracting Officer the name of the manufacturer, the model number, and other information concerning the performance, capacity, nature, and rating of the machinery and mechanical and other equipment. When required by this contract or by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall also obtain the Contracting Officer's approval of the material or articles which the Contractor contemplates incorporating into the work. When requesting approval, the Contractor shall provide full information concerning the material or articles. When directed to do so, the Contractor shall submit samples for approval at the Contractor's expense, with all shipping charges prepaid. Machinery, equipment, material, and articles that do not have the required approval shall be installed or used at the risk of subsequent rejection.

(c) All work under this contract shall be performed in a skillful and workmanlike manner. The Contracting Officer may require, in writing, that the Contractor remove from the work any employee the Contracting Officer deems incompetent, careless, or otherwise objectionable.

(End of clause)

[48 FR 42478, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 48995, Nov. 28, 1989]
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Preventing Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) Training      

# Resource: Preventing Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) Training

This training presents educators with approaches to preventing Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and helping students who may already be affected by ACEs. Throughout the training, participants will learn the following: 
                  -  the definition of ACEs   
                  -  how ACEs influence child development, health, and success later in life  
                  -  risk and protective factors for ACEs  
                  -  ways that ACEs can affect learning and success in school  
                  -  tips for recognizing signs that a student may be affected by ACEs  
                  -  prevention and intervention strategies that educators can implement to prevent or lessen the impact of ACEs  

**Learn more.**
#### 536.102 Definitions.

*Construction-Manager-as-Constructor (CMc)* means the project delivery method where design and construction are contracted concurrently through two separate contracts and two separate contractors. Unlike the traditional design-bid-build delivery method, under the CMc delivery method, the Government awards a separate contract to a designer (*i.e.,* architect-engineer contractor) and to a construction contractor (*i.e.,* CMc contractor) prior to the completion of the design documents. The Government retains the CMc contractor during design to work with the architect-engineer contractor to provide constructability reviews and cost estimating validation. The CMc contract includes design phase services at a firm-fixed-price and an option for construction at a guaranteed maximum price.

[84 FR 69632, Dec. 19, 2019]
#### 417.204 Contracts.

The head of the contracting activity is authorized to approve contracts which exceed the 5 year limitation in FAR 17.204(e).

[61 FR 53646, Oct. 15, 1996]
#### 528.202 Acceptability of corporate sureties.

Corporate surety bonds must be manually signed by the Attorney-in-Fact or officer of the surety company and the corporate seal affixed. The contracting officer may waive failure of the surety to affix the corporate seal as a minor informality. (See B-184120, July 2, 1975, 75-2 CPD 9.)

[74 FR 17099, Apr. 14, 2009]
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6342

ODOURI L. LYTES , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. LARRY CARTLEDGE, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. Mary G. Lewis , District Judge. ( 9:16

- cv - 02789

- MGL )

Submitted : August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge , and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Odouri L. Lytes , Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General , Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Od ouri L. Lytes seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S . 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional rig ht. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lytes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lytes’ motion for equitable tolling, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-11183 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DAVIDIAN MARQUIS LEFFALL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CR-057-X

- - - - - - - - - - August 21, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Davidian Marquis Leffall appeals his sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. He argues that the district court erroneously denied a departure under Section 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. We lack jurisdiction. "The imposition of a lawful sentence coupled with the decision not to depart from the guidelines provides no ground for relief.” United States v. DiMarco , 46No. 95-11183 - 2 - F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, Leffall has waived his right to challenge the sentence of the district court by entering into a plea agreement containing a specific waiver of that right. United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 567-68 (5th Cir. 1992). We grant Leffall’s motion to supplement the record on appeal.
DISMISSED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 3, 2020 b0224

Order 

Clerk

March 3, 2020

159794 & (33)(34)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159794

COA: 346298

Genesee CC: 14-034889-FC

TERRELL DEJUAN ROCHE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 23, 2019 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motions to remand and appoint counsel are DENIED.
#### 452.216-72 Evaluation Quantities—Indefinite-Delivery Contract.

As prescribed in 416.506(a), insert a provision substantially as follows:

# Evaluation Quantities—Indefinite-Delivery Contract (FEB 1988)

To evaluate offers for award purposes, the Government will apply the offeror's proposed fixed-prices/rates to the estimated quantities included in the solicitation, and will add other direct costs if applicable.

(End of provision)