alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Irving Kramer, Appellant, v. Town of Brookhaven et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*to declare that, upon a certain tract of unimproved real property, plaintiff has the right to erect dwellings on minimum plots of 75-foot frontage by 100-foot depth, even though a dwelling on a plot of such dimensions is, not permissible under the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Brookhaven, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered February 26, 1964 upon the court’s decision after a nonjury trial on stipulated facts, dismissing the complaint with prejudice and making a declaration in the defendants’ favor. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff relied on a resolution of the defendant Town Board, dated April 24, 1956, purporting to permit the construction in question, such resolution having been adopted under former section 1711C of the Zoning Ordinance. With respect to certain specified properties, that section recognized that it would be inequitable to require adherence to the Zoning Ordinance’s requirements as to plot size and width, and empowered the Town Board to vary and adjust the requirements as to such properties, provided that applications for such relief were made not later than December 31, 1955. Plaintiff also relied on two further resolutions or determinations of the Town Board, respectively dated February 5, 1957 and August 20, 1957, relating to the relief that had been granted by the prior April 24, 1956 resolu*812tion. The property was still unimproved on. November 28, 1961 when the Town Board, then comprised of a different membership than had obtained at the time of the August 20, 1957 determination, adopted a resolution revoking the grant under section 1711C of the relief which had been given for the subject property and for certain other properties, on the grounds, as stated in the revoking resolution, of “the failure of the petitioner, in each case, to have either tentative or final approval for the subdivision map for which Section 1711C relief was requested, and as a result of the various facts developed at the public hearings heretofore had”. The new board had the power, at least on the ground of fraud or illegality, to adopt the revocation resolution *(Matter of Equitable Trust Co.*v. *Hamilton,*226 N. Y. 241; *People ex rel. Chase*v. *Wemple,*144 N. Y. 478). The appeal record contains nothing on which it could be found that the new board did not make its determination on a ground within its jurisdictional competence, namely, the illegality of the prior resolutions. In our opinion, the revocation resolution operated not only against the April 24, 1956 resolution but also against the two 1957 resolutions. We pass on no other questions. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Big Sky Industries II, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer of our Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

1.

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 result of operations of our Company.



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis

Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)

January 21, 2009
#### 52.251-2 Interagency Fleet Management System Vehicles and Related Services.

As prescribed in 51.205, insert the following clause:

# Interagency Fleet Management System Vehicles and Related Services (JAN 1991)

The Contracting Officer may issue the Contractor an authorization to obtain interagency fleet management system vehicles and related services for use in the performance of this contract. The use, service, and maintenance of interagency fleet management system vehicles and the use of related services by the Contractor shall be in accordance with 41 CFR 101-39 and 41 CFR 101-38.301-1.

(End of clause)

[48 FR 42478, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 29284, July 11, 1989; 55 FR 52800, Dec. 21, 1990]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND
THE CONDENSED  BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      607
<ALLOWANCES>                                        34
<INVENTORY>                                          8
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   683
<PP&E>                                           7,306
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,960
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,001
<BONDS>                                            945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           874
<OTHER-SE>                                         524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,960
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,855
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,230
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  56
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    574
<INCOME-TAX>                                       219
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                355
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       355
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
45.606 Contractor scrap procedures. ( a ) The property administrator should, in coordination with the plant clearance officer, ensure that contractor scrap disposal processes, methods, and practices allow for effective, efficient, and proper disposition and are properly documented in the contractor's property management procedures.
( b ) The property administrator should determine the extent to which separate disposal processing or physical segregation for different scrap types is or may be required. Such scrap may require physical segregation, unique disposal processing, or separate plant clearance reporting. For example, the scope of work may create scrap— ( 1 ) Consisting of sensitive items;
( 2 ) Containing hazardous materials or wastes;
( 3 ) Contaminated with hazardous materials or wastes;
( 4 ) That is classified or otherwise controlled;
( 5 ) Containing precious or strategic metals; or
( 6 ) That is dangerous to public health or safety.
( c ) Absent contract terms and conditions to the contrary, the Government may abandon parts removed and replaced from property as a result of normal maintenance actions or removed from property as a result of the repair, maintenance, overhaul, or modification process.
[77 FR 12944, Mar. 2, 2012]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-29-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-29-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                          30,324
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,493
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,106
<INVENTORY>                                     58,282
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               160,527
<PP&E>                                         180,619
<DEPRECIATION>                                  97,714
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,237
<BONDS>                                         37,656
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,162
<OTHER-SE>                                     155,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   282,519
<SALES>                                        394,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               394,264
<CGS>                                          273,702
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  273,702
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   696
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,759
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,192
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,918
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,918
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.11
        

</TABLE>
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 
            -           Share with Youth: College and Your Mental Health      

# Share with Youth: College and Your Mental Health

This guide, developed by the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the Jed Foundation, can help new college students and their parents understand the importance of learning and communicating about mental health. **Learn more.**
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

            -           Fact Sheet: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act School Meals Implementation      

# Fact Sheet: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act School Meals Implementation

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was passed in 2010 to help ensure that all children in America have access to the nutrition they need. A goal of the Act is to reduce the childhood obesity epidemic and related health risks by helping schools provide balanced meals to students. This fact sheet provides an overview of the results of the school meals provision of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act and recent actions that support school nutrition programs. 

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2014/05/0098.xml&utm_source=FindYouthInfo&utm_medium=Federal%20Links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
#### 509.105 Procedures.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7188

WILLIAM LEBRON ANDREW CHURCH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Jointly and Severally; WILLIAM MUSE, Chairman, Jointly and Severally; KAREN D. BROWN, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Jointly and Severally; TERRY GLENN, Virginia Department of Corrections, Interstate Compact Coordinator, Jointly and Severally; OMBUDSMAN, Virginia Dept. Corrections, Jointly and Severally; LT. RONALD C. MAXEY, Virginia State Police, Criminal Justice Information, Jointly and Severally , Defendants

- Appellees

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:16

- cv
- 00845

- HEH

- RCY )

Submitted : January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018

Before MOTZ and KEENAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
William Lebron Andrew Church, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
William Lebron Andrew Church appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Church v. Dir. , Va. Dep ’ t of Corr. , No. 3:16

- cv
- 008 45

- HEH

RCY (E.D. Va. Aug. 16, 2017). We also deny Chur ch’s motion for a declaration regarding the constitutionality of the procedures of the Virginia Parole Board. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument w ould not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
#### 3009.470-1 Definition.

*Institution of higher education* as used in this section, means an institution that meets the requirements of 20 U.S.C. 1001 and includes all sub-elements of such an institution.

[68 FR 67871, Dec. 4, 2003, as amended at 86 FR 17315, Apr. 2, 2021]
7.107-3 Bundling. ( a ) Bundling may provide substantial benefits to the Government. However, because of the potential impact on small business participation, before conducting an acquisition strategy that involves bundling, the agency shall make a written determination that the bundling is necessary and justified in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 644(e). A bundled requirement is considered necessary and justified if the agency would obtain measurably substantial benefits as compared to meeting its agency's requirements through separate smaller contracts or orders.
( b ) The agency shall quantify the specific benefits identified through the use of market research and other techniques to explain how their impact would be measurably substantial (see 10.001(a)(2)(iv) and (a)(3)(vii)).
( c ) Such benefits may include, but are not limited to— ( 1 ) Cost savings;
( 2 ) Price reduction;
( 3 ) Quality improvements that will save time or improve or enhance performance or efficiency;
( 4 ) Reduction in acquisition cycle times, or
( 5 ) Better terms and conditions.
( d ) Benefits are measurably substantial if individually, in combination, or in the aggregate the anticipated financial benefits are equivalent to— ( 1 ) Ten percent of the estimated contract or order value (including options) if the value is $94 million or less; or
( 2 ) Five percent of the estimated contract or order value (including options) or $9.4 million, whichever is greater, if the value exceeds $94 million.
( e ) Reduction of administrative or personnel costs alone is not sufficient justification for bundling unless the cost savings are expected to be at least ten percent of the estimated contract or order value (including options) of the bundled requirements.
( f ) ( 1 ) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) through (e) of this subsection, the approving authority identified in paragraph (f)(2) of this subsection may determine that bundling is necessary and justified when— ( i ) The expected benefits do not meet the thresholds for a substantial benefit but are critical to the agency's mission success; and
( ii ) The acquisition strategy provides for maximum practicable participation by small business concerns.
( 2 ) The approving authority, without power of delegation, is— ( i ) For the Department of Defense, the senior procurement executive; or
( ii ) For the civilian agencies is the Deputy Secretary or equivalent.
( g ) In assessing whether cost savings and/or price reduction would be achieved through bundling, the agency and SBA shall— ( 1 ) Compare the price that has been charged by small businesses for the work that they have performed; or
( 2 ) Where previous prices are not available, compare the price, based on market research, that could have been or could be charged by small businesses for the work previously performed by other than a small business.
( h ) If a determination is made that bundling is necessary and justified, the contracting officer shall include it in the acquisition strategy documentation and provide it to SBA upon request.
[81 FR 67770, Sept. 30, 2016]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARVIN SILVERMAN,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-70384

Tax Ct. No. 13629-05L

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Argued and Submitted April 6, 2010

Pasadena, California

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Marvin Silverman appeals the tax court’s entry of summary

judgment in favor of Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue for

Petitioner’s tax liabilities for 1989, 1990, and 1998. We affirm.

1. Petitioner had an opportunity in his earlier bankruptcy proceeding to

challenge his underlying tax liabilities. In general, when the Internal Revenue

FILED

APR 09 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Service submits a proof of claim for unpaid federal tax in a taxpayer’s bankruptcy

action, the taxpayer has an opportunity to dispute the liabilities for purposes of 26

U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B). Kendricks v. Comm’r, 124 T.C. 69, 77 (2005). Here, in

Petitioner’s bankruptcy case, the IRS timely submitted proof of claims for

Petitioner’s unpaid tax liabilities, and Petitioner (who was represented by counsel)

could have contested those claims. But during the lengthy course of the

bankruptcy, Petitioner did not dispute those tax liabilities. Accordingly, Petitioner

had an opportunity to challenge the underlying liabilities even though he did not

take advantage of it. 

2. It is within Respondent’s discretion to grant Petitioner a face-to-face

meeting. 26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-1(d)(2)(A-D6). Because Petitioner raised only

groundless claims, such as a demand to inspect documents that the government

was not required to provide, he was not entitled to a face-to-face meeting. See id.

§ 301.6330-1(d)(2)(A-D7) (stating that a taxpayer who presents relevant, nonfrivolous arguments in the hearing request ordinarily will be offered the

opportunity for a face-to-face meeting). Respondent scheduled a telephonic

meeting with Petitioner, but Petitioner failed to provide the correct contact

information that would have allowed the conference to occur. Accordingly,

Petitioner has failed to establish a regulatory or statutory violation. 

AFFIRMED.
50.205-3 Authorization of offers contingent upon SAFETY Act designation or certification before contract award. ( a ) Contracting officers may authorize such contingent offers, only if— ( 1 ) DHS has issued— ( i ) For offers contingent upon SAFETY Act designation, a pre-qualification designation notice or a block designation; or
( ii ) For offers contingent upon SAFETY Act certification, a block certification;
( 2 ) To the contracting officer's knowledge, the Government has not provided advance notice so that potential offerors could have obtained SAFETY Act designations/ certifications for their offered technologies before release of any solicitation; and
( 3 ) Market research shows that there will be insufficient competition without SAFETY Act protections or the subject technology would be sold to the Government only with SAFETY Act protections.
( b ) Contracting officers shall not authorize offers contingent upon obtaining a SAFETY Act certification (as opposed to a SAFETY Act designation), unless a block certification applies to the class of technology to be acquired under the solicitation.
[72 FR 63030, Nov. 7, 2007, as amended at 74 FR 2738, Jan. 15, 2009]