alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 52.204-15 Service Contract Reporting Requirements for Indefinite-Delivery Contracts.

As prescribed in 4.1705(b), insert the following clause:

# Service Contract Reporting Requirements for Indefinite-Delivery Contracts (OCT 2016)

(a) Definition.

*First-tier subcontract* means a subcontract awarded directly by the Contractor for the purpose of acquiring supplies or services (including construction) for performance of a prime contract. It does not include the Contractor's supplier agreements with vendors, such as long-term arrangements for materials or supplies that benefit multiple contracts and/or the costs of which are normally applied to a Contractor's general and administrative expenses or indirect costs.

(b) The Contractor shall report, in accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) of this clause, annually by October 31, for services performed during the preceding Government fiscal year (October 1-September 30) under this contract for orders that exceed the thresholds established in 4.1703(a)(2).

(c) The Contractor shall report the following information:

(1) Contract number and order number.

(2) The total dollar amount invoiced for services performed during the previous Government fiscal year under the order.

(3) The number of Contractor direct labor hours expended on the services performed during the previous Government fiscal year.

(4) Data reported by subcontractors under paragraph (f) of this clause.

(d) The information required in paragraph (c) of this clause shall be submitted via the internet at *www.sam.gov.* (See SAM User Guide). If the Contractor fails to submit the report in a timely manner, the Contracting Officer will exercise appropriate contractual remedies. In addition, the Contracting Officer will make the Contractor's failure to comply with the reporting requirements a part of the Contractor's performance information under FAR subpart 42.15.

(e) Agencies will review Contractor reported information for reasonableness and consistency with available contract information. In the event the agency believes that revisions to the Contractor reported information are warranted, the agency will notify the Contractor no later than November 15. By November 30, the Contractor shall revise the report, or document its rationale for the agency.

(f)(1) The Contractor shall require each first-tier subcontractor providing services under this contract, with subcontract(s) each valued at or above the thresholds set forth in 4.1703(a)(2), to provide the following detailed information to the Contractor in sufficient time to submit the report:

(i) Subcontract number (including subcontractor name and unique entity identifier), and

(ii) The number of first-tier subcontractor direct-labor hours expended on the services performed during the previous Government fiscal year.

(2) The Contractor shall advise the subcontractor that the information will be made available to the public as required by section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010.

(End of clause)

[78 FR 80375, Dec. 31, 2013, as amended at 79 FR 4630, Jan. 29, 2014; 81 FR 67740, Sept. 30, 2016]
|EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Robert H. Young, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Robert H. Young   
Robert H. Young
Chief Executive Officer
November 8, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Central Vermont Public Service Corporation ("CVPS") and will be retained by CVPS and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Nathaniel Boatwright, Appellant.

Fourth Department,

April 1, 1965.

*Wesley A. Gifford*for appellant.

If. *Maurice Chacchia, District Attorney,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Defendant has been convicted of burglary and grand larceny for breaking into a restaurant in the early hours of November 5, 1961 and stealing money and other property therefrom.

Appellant and one Elliott occupied an apartment in a building that adjoined the restaurant. Shortly before 8 o’clock in the morning it was discovered that the restaurant had been burglarized. Peace officers were summoned, who questioned Elliott. It may fairly be inferred that thereafter attention focused upon defendant and *“*the process shift [ed] from investigatory to accusatory ” *(Escobedo*v. *Illinois,*378 U. S. 478, 492).

A group of peace officers promptly descended upon another nearby restaurant where with no preliminary questioning defendant was arrested, slapped and handcuffed. He was returned to the site of the burglary and questioned. Appellant orally admitted his commission of the crime. Shortly thereafter he was arraigned before a Police Justice on an information charging burglary and grand larceny. He waived examination and was ordered held for Grand Jury action.

Appellant was then taken to the Sheriff’s office where a written statement was taken, signed by defendant, and sworn to before *600a *notary*public. Therein he admitted *the*burglary and larceny and of telling Elliott of his plan to do so. This statement was received in evidence at the trial over the vigorous objection of defense counsel. It is now settled in this 'State *“*that an inculpatory statement made by a defendant after his arraignment or indictment, in the absence of counsel, may not be used against him on a subsequent .trial.” *(People*v. *Stanley,*15 N Y 2d 30, 32.) (See, also, *People*v. *Meyer,*11 N Y 2d 162; *People*v. *Santmyer,*20 A D 2d 960.)

There were, as heretofore stated, oral admissions made by defendant prior to arraignment in the presence of peace officers and members of the public. The surrounding facts were not explored to any great extent on the trial. Upon the retrial the admissibility of these oral admissions must be passed upon in the light of *People*v. *Gunner*(15 N Y 2d 226) and cases therein discussed.

Although we do not base reversal upon that ground, we condemn the remarks of the District Attorney made at the time of sentencing wherein, in substance, the court was told that the defendant by standing trial had shown “ an improper attitude ”. Thereafter the prosecutor urged the court to consider such fact in imposing sentence. The defendant was exercising a constitutional right in demanding a trial, and it was highly improper to suggest that he be penalized for so doing.

The judgment should be reversed on the law and a new trial ordered.

Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Noonan, JJ„, concur.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial granted.
Exhibit 10.3

 


Amendment 2 to Asset Transfer and
License Agreement


 


This second amendment
("Amendment 2") to the Asset Transfer and License Agreement by and between Revogenex Ireland Limited, an Irish
limited company ("Revogenex"), and Fortress Biotech, Inc. (f/k/a Coronado Biosciences, Inc.), a Delaware corporation
("Fortress") dated as of February 17, 2015 (the "Agreement"), is entered into as of May 4th,
2017. Fortress and Revogenex are both referred to herein as "Parties" or each individually, as a "Party."


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, pursuant
to the Agreement, Revogenex transferred the IND, and licensed the Product Intellectual Property, to Fortress, and Fortress will
use Commercially Reasonable Efforts to complete the Development of the Product and submit the NDA for the Product to the FDA for
approval, and thereafter commercialize, market and sell the Product in the Territory; and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties
now wish to amend certain aspects of the Agreement's termination provision;


 


WHEREAS, the Parties
hereto agree that this Amendment 1 is hereby made an integral part of the Agreement, incorporated therein by this reference;


 


WHEREAS, capitalized
terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the respective meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises contained herein and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:


 


		1.	Definition of "Territory". The definition of "Territory" is hearby deleted
in its entirety and made to read as follows:



 


"Territory" means
worldwide: provided, however it shall not mean Canada, Central America, or South America with respect to 50 mg and 100 mg IV tramadol
HCl injections.


 


		2.	Section 16.2(e) (Termination) is hereby deleted in its entirety and amended to include the
following termination provision:



 


(e) By
Revogenex if (1) the NDA has not been filed within 60 months of the Effective Date or within 72 months of the Effective Date in
the event a Phase 3 Trial does not meet its primary endpoint, and (2) Coronado is in breach of Section 2.1 for failure to use Commercially
Reasonable Efforts to carry out all of the Product Development.


 


Except as amended above,
all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 



     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have
caused this Amendment 1 to be duly executed by their respective authorized representatives.


 





	Revogenex Ireland Limited	 	Fortress Biotech, Inc, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Jeffrey H Ping, PhD	 	By:	/s/ Lucy Lu
	Name: 	Jeffrey H Ping, PhD	 	Name:	Lucy Lu
	Title: 	Chairman & CEO	 	Title:	CEO
	Date: 	May 15th, 2017	 	Date:	May 15, 2017
To: Linda Chappell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov> 

Date: 05/11/2010 10:46AM 

cc: Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph Mangino/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Carrie 

Wheeler/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Ling/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul 

Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject: RE: Draft GHG Tailoring Rule RIA 

Thanks Linda, 

I understand this is a draft and that EPA continues to refine. I 

noticed that on P 804 EPA may want to reconsider a statement that the 

Tailoring Rule offers environmental protection in the Environmental 

Justice section: "EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 

having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any population, including any minority or 

low-income population." 

Also, we spoke with Ron last night about how to characterize the 

illustrative nature of the RIA, given that in the preamble we discuss 

the infeasibility of actually experiencing the costs of full permitting. 

Thank you for your hard work on this! 

heidi 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Chappell.Linda@epamail.epa.gov 

[mailto:Chappell.Linda@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 5:22 PM 

To: King, Heidi R. 

Cc: Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov; Mangino.Joseph@epamail.epa.gov; 

Wheeler.Carrie@epamail.epa.gov; Chappell.Linda@epamail.epa.gov; 

Ling.Michael@epamail.epa.gov; Balserak.Paul@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: Draft GHG Tailoring Rule RIA 

Hi Heidi, 

Another draft of the GHG tailoring rule RIA is attached. This draft is 

an improvement over the last version sent to you late last week. 

However, it still needs some edits from the editor such as revising the 

table of contents and formatting issues. We are also still checking the 

regulatory relief estimates in the document to insure accuracy. If you 

have questions or comments, please let us know. 

Have a great evening, 

Linda 

___________________ 

Linda M. Chappell PhD 

US EPA 

C-439-02 

RTP, NC 27711 

telephone: 919.541.2864 

fax: 919.541.0839 

(See attached file: RIAghgtailoring 051010 report with omb edits.doc) 

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\plong\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web2516.htm 5/13/2010
Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\plong\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web2516.htm 5/13/2010
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frances Traversone, Respondent, v. Lee Brothers Storage et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Memorandum by the Court. After further review and upon substantial evidence, the board has found that “the decedent’s work activities * * * constituted an accidental injury in that they were sufficiently strenuous to require more than normal exertion and as a result, precipitated a coronary thrombosis from which he subsequently died.” (Cf. prior appeal, 17 A D 2d 175.) Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
27.202-1 Reporting of royalties. ( a ) To determine whether royalties anticipated or actually paid under Government contracts are excessive, improper, or inconsistent with Government patent rights the solicitation provision at 52.227-6 requires prospective contractors to furnish royalty information. The contracting officer shall take appropriate action to reduce or eliminate excessive or improper royalties.
( b ) If the response to a solicitation includes a charge for royalties, the contracting officer shall, before award of the contract, forward the information to the office having cognizance of patent matters for the contracting activity. The cognizant office shall promptly advise the contracting officer of appropriate action.
( c ) The contracting officer, when considering the approval of a subcontract, shall require royalty information if it is required under the prime contract. The contracting officer shall forward the information to the office having cognizance of patent matters. However, the contracting officer need not delay consent while awaiting advice from the cognizant office.
( d ) The contracting officer shall forward any royalty reports to the office having cognizance of patent matters for the contracting activity.
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)

# OJJDP’s Statistical Briefing Book - 2012

The Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has updated the “frequently asked questions” section of its Statistical Briefing Book. This section provides answers to some commonly asked questions about juvenile justice

http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/faqs.html
#### In the Matter of New York City Housing and Redevelopment Board v. Max H. Foley et al. In the Matter of Amalia V. Betanzos et al. v. Max H. Foley et al.

Motions granted to the following extent: granting leave to petitioners to appeal and respondent, Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, is granted permission to cross-appeal on the issue referred to in its affidavit on the motion; staying the execution and enforcement of the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 14, 1964, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, *789on condition that the appellants procure the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before December 8, 1964, with notice of argument for the January 1965 Term of this court; consolidating, for purposes of argument only, the instant appeal with the appeal from the order granting the motion to strike petitioner’s replies; and dispensing with the printing of all original exhibits insofar as they consist of photographs, drawings, plans, diagrams and renderings on condition that the originals are filed with this court on or before December 30, 1964. In all other respects, the motion is denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
#### Peter J. Barra et al., Respondents, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 40163.)

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, unless the claimants shall, within 10 days, stipulate to reduce the award to the sum of $13,300 less $6,419.74 advanced, as of the date of the rendition thereof, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly and, as so modified is affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: The claimants were owners of 21.110 acres of vacant land in the Town of Gates, Monroe County. This claim is for the taking of 4.484 acres. It is undisputed that the land involved was in a residential zone and that its highest and best use at the time was as a potential real estate subdivision. The land had not been subdivided, no map had been filed, no lots offered for sale and the only improvement consisted of a water main and sanitary sewer lines which had been placed within the land by the township. Both the claimants and the State appraised the land as though it had been subdivided at the time of the taking, i.e., the potential sale value as developed lots less the cost of development. This is the method which was adopted by the court. We said in *Hewitt*v. *State of New York*(18 A D 2d 1128) that this method of valuation was highly speculative and improper and that the correct rule to be applied under the existing conditions was to treat the land as a potential subdivision site giving the acreage an increment value because of that potential use. The record does however also contain evidence of comparable sales and testimony by only the State’s expert, estimating the parcel taken before appropriation to be worth $1,500 per acre, fixing a value of $6,726 for the taking and $6,574 for consequential damages, making the total damages $13,300, which the State is willing to pay. In these circumstances the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted unless claimants stipulate to accept an award to $13,300 less $6,419.74 advanced, within 10 days. (Appeal from *751judgment of the Court of Claims for claimants on a claim for permanent appropriation of realty.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
Exhibit32.1

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofVillageEDOCS (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year endedDecember 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)The information contained in the Quarterly Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

| Date:  March 29, 2004                                                             | /s/ K. Mason Conner                       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|           ------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |
|                                                                                        | President and Chief Executive Officer     |

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BYSECTION 906, OR OTHER DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISEADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSIONOF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TOVILLAGEEDOCS AND WILL BE RETAINED BY VILLAGEEDOCS AND FURNISHED TO THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.