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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       5,621,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,226,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,861,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   273,000
<INVENTORY>                                    711,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,146,000
<PP&E>                                     103,474,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,889,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             138,765,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,670,000
<BONDS>                                     44,958,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,196,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  61,309,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               138,765,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,480,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,220,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,771,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             867,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,767,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   684,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,083,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,083,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 10090 

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the sale 

or other disposition of a firearm to, and the possession, shipment, transportation, or receipt of a firearm by, certain classes of high-risk individuals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2024 

Ms. KELLY of Illinois (for herself, Ms. BROWNLEY, Mr. CASTEN, Mrs. 

CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. 

ROBERT GARCIA of California, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. MOULTON, 

Mr. NEGUSE, Ms. NORTON, Ms. ROSS, Mr. AMO, and Mr. THOMPSON of 

California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 

prohibit the sale or other disposition of a firearm to, 

and the possession, shipment, transportation, or receipt 

of a firearm by, certain classes of high-risk individuals. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keeping Guns from 

5 High-Risk Individuals Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 10090 IH

1 SEC. 2. FIREARM PROHIBITIONS APPLICABLE WITH RE2 SPECT TO CERTAIN HIGH-RISK INDIVIDUALS. 

3 (a) SALES OR OTHER DISPOSITIONS.—Section 

4 922(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (10), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

6 end; 

7 (2) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at 

8 the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(12) in the most recent 5-year period, has 

11 been convicted in any court of a crime of violence 

12 (as defined in section 16); 

13 ‘‘(13) has not attained 25 years of age, and has 

14 been adjudicated by any court as having committed 

15 an offense that would have been a crime of violence 

16 (as defined in section 16) if committed by an adult; 

17 or 

18 ‘‘(14) has been convicted in any court of stalk19 ing.’’. 

20 (b) POSSESSION, SHIPMENT, TRANSPORTATION, OR

21 RECEIPT.—Section 922(g) of such title is amended— 

22 (1) in paragraph (8)(C)(ii), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

23 the end; 

24 (2) in paragraph (9), by striking the comma at 

25 the end and inserting a semicolon; and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 10090 IH

1 (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(10) who, in the most recent 5-year period, 

4 has been convicted in any court of a crime of vio5 lence (as defined in section 16); or 

6 ‘‘(11) who has been convicted in any court of 

7 stalking,’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
570.303-1 Preparing the SFO. The SFO forms the basis for the lease negotiation process and becomes part of the lease. Document each SFO in writing or electronically. Include the information necessary to enable prospective offerors to prepare proposals. Each SFO, at a minimum, must : ( a ) Describe the Government's requirements.
( b ) State the method the Government will use to measure space.
( c ) Explain how to structure offers.
( d ) Specify a date, time, and place for submission of offers.
( e ) Explain how the Government will evaluate offers.
( f ) Describe the source selection procedures the Government will use.
( g ) Include a statement outlining the information the Government may disclose in debriefings.
( h ) Include appropriate forms prescribed in 570.8.
( i ) Include sustainable design requirements.
[64 FR 37265, July 9, 1999, as amended at 76 FR 30851, May 27, 2011]
# C_2020175EN.01000101.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2020/C 175/01)

Last publication

OJ C 161, 11.5.2020

OJ C 162, 11.5.2020

Past publications

OJ C 137, 27.4.2020

OJ C 129, 20.4.2020

OJ C 114, 6.4.2020

OJ C 103, 30.3.2020

OJ C 95, 23.3.2020

OJ C 87, 16.3.2020

These texts are available on:

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

---
#### Kasimier Wiczas, appellee, v. Antoni Makowan and Wanda Makowan, appellants.

Gen. No. 30,638.

Action upon promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Philip J. Finnegan, *635Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first dstriet at the October term, 1925.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed July 13, 1926.

Brundage & Gorman, for appellants.

Smietanka, Rickard & Poulton, for appellee; James R. Bryant, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### 52.236-22 Design Within Funding Limitations.

As prescribed in 36.609-1(c), insert the following clause:

# Design Within Funding Limitations (APR 1984)

(a) The Contractor shall accomplish the design services required under this contract so as to permit the award of a contract, using standard Federal Acquisition Regulation procedures for the construction of the facilities designed at a price that does not exceed the estimated construction contract price as set forth in paragraph (c) below. When bids or proposals for the construction contract are received that exceed the estimated price, the contractor shall perform such redesign and other services as are necessary to permit contract award within the funding limitation. These additional services shall be performed at no increase in the price of this contract. However, the Contractor shall not be required to perform such additional services at no cost to the Government if the unfavorable bids or proposals are the result of conditions beyond its reasonable control.

(b) The Contractor will promptly advise the Contracting Officer if it finds that the project being designed will exceed or is likely to exceed the funding limitations and it is unable to design a usable facility within these limitations. Upon receipt of such information, the Contracting Officer will review the Contractor's revised estimate of construction cost. The Government may, if it determines that the estimated construction contract price set forth in this contract is so low that award of a construction contract not in excess of such estimate is improbable, authorize a change in scope or materials as required to reduce the estimated construction cost to an amount within the estimated construction contract price set forth in paragraph (c) below, or the Government may adjust such estimated construction contract price. When bids or proposals are not solicited or are unreasonably delayed, the Government shall prepare an estimate of constructing the design submitted and such estimate shall be used in lieu of bids or proposals to determine compliance with the funding limitation.

(c) The estimated construction contract price for the project described in this contract is $____.

(End of clause)

[48 FR 42478, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 26904, June 28, 1985]
**Exhibit 23**

** **

**INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-64316, 333-83723, 333-59667and 333-33095) of National Mercantile Bancorp and Subsidiaries of our reportdated February 14, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedules of National Mercantile Bancorp and Subsidiariesincluded in the Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002.

 

 
|   | /s/  Ernst & Young LLP |
|--------|---------------------------------|

 

Los Angeles, California

April 15, 2003

 

----
129 STAT. 674 PUBLIC LAW 114–85—NOV. 5, 2015 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1362: 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 114–108 (Comm. on Finance). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015): 

Aug. 5, considered and passed Senate. 

Oct. 21, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–85 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to clarify waiver authority regarding 

programs of all-inclusive care for the elderly (PACE programs). 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF WAIVER AUTHORITY REGARDING PACE 

PROGRAMS. 

Subsection (d)(1) of section 1115A of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 1315a) is amended by striking ‘‘and 1903(m)(2)(A)(iii)’’ 

and inserting ‘‘1903(m)(2)(A)(iii), and 1934 (other than subsections 

(b)(1)(A) and (c)(5) of such section)’’. 

Approved November 5, 2015. 

Nov. 5, 2015 

[S. 1362] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1 with PUBLAWLAW
#### The People of the State of New York v. Maitland Dillard.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person denied as academic in view of the disposition of the motion decided simultaneously herewith. Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
#### Merchants Mutual Insurance Co., Respondent, v. John Valilis, Appellant.

Order, entered August 1, 1961, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. Under the circumstances here, the delivery by the defendant (the insured) of a check for the balance of the premium and the acceptance of the same by the broker would not have the effect of nullifying or waiving a cancellation of the policy, if duly effected. (See Insurance Law, § 121; *Mord*v. *Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co.,*245 N. Y. 279; *Standard Acc. Ins. Co.*v. *Roth,*28 Misc 2d 1080.) Therefore, if the plaintiff insurance company had complied with the requirements to effect a cancellation of the policy, it would be entitled to judgment. The matter of whether or not there was such compliance, including whether or not there was a due mailing of the notice of cancellation to the insured was not, however, briefed or argued; and the plaintiff on this appeal merely asks for affirmance of the order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore, we have not considered the question of whether or not plaintiff should have had judgment in its favor on this motion. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.
601.303 Publication and codification. ( a ) The DOSAR is issued as Chapter 6 of Title 48, Code of Federal Regulations. The DOSAR is established as Chapter 6 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations System. The DOSAR is divided into the same parts, subparts, sections, subsections, and paragraphs as is the FAR. However, when the FAR coverage is adequate by itself there will be no corresponding DOSAR coverage. Where the DOSAR implements a specific part, subpart, section, or subsection of the FAR, the DOSAR coverage is numbered and titled to correspond to the appropriate FAR number and title, except that the DOSAR number will include a 6 or 60 such that there will always be three numbers to the left of the decimal. For example, the DOSAR implementation of FAR 14.1 is shown as 614.1 and the DOSAR implementation of FAR 1.301 is shown as 601.301. Materials that supplement the FAR are assigned the numbers 70 and up. For example, DOSAR requires additional definitions than those used in FAR; this supplementary material is provided in 602.101-70.
( b ) The DOSAR and its revisions are published in the Federal Register and in the Code of Federal Regulations, both of which may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
( c ) The DOSAR shall be referenced in the same manner as described at FAR 1.105-2(c).
[53 FR 26159, July 11, 1988, as amended at 59 FR 66751, Dec. 28, 1994; 64 FR 43620, Aug. 11, 1999]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Robert Brown, Appellant, v New York State Department of Correctional Services, Parole Board Division, Respondent.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Relator was convicted in 1974 of manslaughter in the first degree and two counts of assault in the second degree. He was sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms with máximums of 25 years on the manslaughter conviction and 7 years each on the assault convictions. He was denied parole on June 6, 1977 for the following reasons: "1. Seriousness of the offenses for which you are incarcerated, in which you without concern for anyone you shot and killed your wife while she was seated in a grand stand in a ball park, also injuring two innocent bystanders. It is not felt that justice would be served releasing you at this early date on a 25 year sentence. 2. There is a strong recommendation from the D.A. of Niagara County that you not be released at this time. 3. There is nothing in the record or official and professional reports provided to us, that would indicate that if you were released at this time your stability is such that you would not react violently.” Although relator proceeded by writ of habeas corpus, it is familiar law that his proper procedural remedy is a CPLR article 78 proceeding. We thus convert the petition accordingly. Relator’s claim that the reasons given do not constitute a full and meaningful statement for the Parole Board’s action is without merit. The board may properly consider the nature and circumstances of his crimes as well as his mental and emotional stability. The board’s statement, other than the reference to "a strong recommendation from the D.A. of Niagara County” (cf. *Matter of Ebbs v Regan,*54 AD2d 611) satisfies the standard set forth in *Matter of Watkins v Caldwell*(54 AD2d 42; see *Matter of Jackson v Bombard,*62 AD2d 1000). (Appeal from judgment of Orleans Supreme Court — article 78.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Moule, JJ.
Exhibit
      32.5








SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION OF


CILCORP
      INC.


(required
      by Section 906 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002)








In
      connection with the report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June
      30, 2007 of CILCORP Inc. (the “Registrant”) as filed by the Registrant
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
      10-Q"),


each
      undersigned officer of the Registrant does hereby certify, pursuant to
      18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906


of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                15(d)
                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
                and





(2)
            The
                information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Registrant.










Date:  August 9,
      2007










/s/
      Gary L.
      Rainwater


Gary
      L.
      Rainwater


Chairman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)











/s/
      Warner L.
      Baxter


Warner
      L.
      Baxter


Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Vickie Mravlja, Respondent.

— Appeal from an order of the County Court of Schoharie County, entered June 7, 1978, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment charging her with the crime of endangering the welfare of an incompetent person. The issue for our review is whether dismissal of an indictment on the ground that Grand Jury minutes were legally insufficient to establish the commission by the defendant of the crime of endangering the welfare of an incompetent person was proper. A motion was made orally for inspection of Grand Jury minutes over the objection of the District Attorney and, subsequently, the indictment was dismissed by the court. CPL 210.30 requires that a motion to inspect Grand Jury minutes be in writing and state that there is reasonable cause to believe that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support the indictment. Moreover, it must contain sworn allegations of fact supporting such claim. The court can, notwithstanding a failure to make out reasonable *769cause to inspect, proceed to inspect the minutes nonetheless. In the instant case, however, the court swept away the procedural requirements of the section and decided the motion without an opportunity for the District Attorney to be heard. Such disregard of procedural law should be avoided. The adversary system is the best guarantor both that justice will be evenly meted out to accused persons and the public protected from criminal transgressions. Since the issue before us is one of law, and for the purpose of economizing on judicial time, we will pass on the propriety of the dismissal of the indictment. The Grand Jury minutes indicate that the defendant on two occasions placed fecal matter into the mouth of an 80-year-old nursing home patient who was severely retarded and totally unable to care for herself. The patient’s physician testified that the old woman could have choked on the feces, or contracted pneumonia, or developed a lung abscess if a particle of the fecal matter were to have entered one of her lungs. Section 260.25 of the Penal Law prohibits knowingly doing acts "in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of one who is unable to care for himself because of mental disease or defect.” Common human experience indicates that placing human waste in the mouth of another is inimical to his well-being. One need not be learned in science to discern such a possibility. Defendant was a nurse’s aid entrusted with the responsibility of guarding the health of those in her charge and, consequently, was more fully cognizant of the requirements of rudimentary hygiene than the average person. Thus, it is clear that defendant must have known that her acts were such that society would find likely to be injurious to the welfare of the old woman. The evidence was sufficient to support the indictment. Order reversed, on the law, indictment reinstated, and matter remitted to the County Court of Schoharie County for trial. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
#### 436.204 Disclosure of the magnitude of construction projects.

In the case of indefinite-delivery type contracts, the reasonable estimate of work to be done or the maximum in the solicitation, both including all options, is to be used to select the price range. Contracting officers may elect to use both a price range for the base period of services and the total, inclusive of options, to best describe the magnitude of the solicitation.
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 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

            -           Child Passenger Safety      

# Child Passenger Safety

Factsheet on child safety when riding in vehicles, including links to other resources.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Safety/CPS
#### 604.804 Closeout of contract files.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-3 (File No. 333-66341 and No. 333-13303) and in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-78463, No. 333-86369, No 333-66167, No.
333-60475, No. 333-58825, No. 333-42721, No. 333-37653, No. 33-65402, and
No. 33-56681) of Sterling Software, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of
our report dated October 29, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Sterling Software, Inc. included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1999.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Dallas, Texas
November 8, 1999