alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
3424.103 Procedures. ( a ) If the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act) applies to a contract, the contracting officer must specify in the contract the disposition to be made of the system or systems of records upon completion of performance. For example, the contract may require the contractor to completely destroy the records, to remove personal identifiers, to turn the records over to ED, or to keep the records but take certain measures to keep the records confidential and protect the individual's privacy.
( b ) If a notice of the system of records has not been published in the Federal Register *,* the contracting officer may proceed with the acquisition but must not award the contract until the notice is published, unless the contracting officer determines, in writing, that portions of the contract may proceed without maintaining information subject to the Privacy Act. In this case, the contracting officer may— ( 1 ) Award the contract, authorizing performance only of those portions not subject to the Privacy Act; and
( 2 ) After the notice is published and effective, authorize performance of the remainder of the contract.
##### 



Exhibit 32-5

Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PECO Energy Company
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, that
(i) the report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and (ii) the information contained in the report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of PECO Energy Company.

|                       |  |                                                                     
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: October 27, 2004 |  | /s/ JOHN L. SKOLDSJohn L. SkoldsPresident
    Exelon Energy Delivery
#### 952.216-7 Allowable cost and payment.

As prescribed in 916.307(a), when contracting with a commercial organization modify paragraph (a) of the clause at 48 CFR 52.216-7 by adding the phrase “as supplemented by subpart 931.2 of the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulations (DEAR),” after 48 CFR subpart 31.2.

[74 FR 36369, July 22, 2009, as amended at 76 FR 7694, Feb. 11, 2011]
Dismissed; Opinion Filed June 28, 2016.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 00650

- CR No. 05

- 16

- 00651

- CR No. 05

- 16

- 00652

- CR No. 05

- 16

- 00653

- CR AARON MUNOZ , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F12

- 24624

- U, F13

- 25152

- U, F14

- 54112

- U & F1 5

- 51997

- U



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Stoddart, and Whiteh ill Opinion by Justice Stoddart The Court has before it a motion to dismiss these appeals filed by Patty A. Tress. In the
motion, Tress states she appealed her court appointed attorney’s fees in these cases to the
Administrative Judge for Region One. When the Administrative Judge denied her appeal, a
Dallas County clerk “forwarded the motion and order for the appeal of attorney’s fees [to this
Court] erroneously and without knowledge or consent” of Tress.
We grant Tress’s motion and dismiss these appea ls.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47 160650F.U05 /Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

AARON MUNOZ, Appellant

No. 05

- 16

- 00650

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12

- 24624

- U. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, Justices Myers and Whitehill participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

Judgment entered this 28th day of June, 2016.– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

AARON MUNOZ, Appellant

No. 05

- 16

- 00651

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13

- 25152

- U. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, Justices Myers and Whitehill participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

Judgment entered this 28th day of June, 2016.– 4

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

AARON MUNOZ, Appellant

No. 05

- 16

- 00652

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14

- 54112

- U. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, Justices Myers and Whitehill participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

Judgment entered this 28th day of June, 2016.– 5

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

AARON MUNOZ, Appellant

No. 05

- 16

- 00653

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F15

- 51997

- U. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, Justice s Myers and Whitehill participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

Judgment entered this 28th day of June, 2016.
#### § 1030.72 Payments from the producer-settlement fund.

No later than the 16th day after the end of each month (except as provided in § 1000.90), the market administrator shall pay to each handler the amount, if any, by which the amount computed pursuant to § 1030.71(b) exceeds the amount computed pursuant to § 1030.71(a). If, at such time, the balance in the producer-settlement fund is insufficient to make all payments pursuant to this section, the market administrator shall reduce uniformly such payments and shall complete the payments as soon as the funds are available.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

I O@ DEFENSE PENTAGON

WASHINGTON, DC 2030t - I OOO

MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS

SUBJECT: Transgender Service Members JUL 2 8 2015

Effective as of July 13,2015, no Service member shall be involuntarily separated or

denied reenlistment or continuation of active or reserve service on the basis of their gender

identity, without the personal approval of the Under Secretary of Defense for personnel and

Readiness. This approval authority may not be further delegated.

The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness will chair a working group

composed of senior representatives from each of the Military Departments, Joint Staff, and

relevant components from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to formulate policy options for

the DoD regarding the military service of transgender Service members. The working group will

start with the presumption that transgender persons can serye openly without adverse impaci on

military effectiveness and readiness, unless and except where objective, practical impediments

are identified, and shall present its recommendations to me within 180 days. Pending the

issuance of DoD-wide policy following the submission of the working group's report, any

interim guidance issued by the Military Departments will be coordinated with, and subject to the

prior personal approval of, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. If

questions relating to the service of transgender members arise, the Military Departments should

address them to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.

GtA6^

cc:

DepSecDef

CJCS

USDs

DoD, GC

ASD(LA)

ArsD(PA)
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 21

- 00074

- CR

Edwin LOZANO , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the County Court at Law , Medina County, Texas Trial Court No. 34900 Honorable Mark Cashion , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios , Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Delivered and Filed: April 7, 2021
DIS MISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Edwin Lozano was ticketed by a Department of Public Safety trooper for speeding on Interstate 35 in Medina County. Lozano was tried and found guilty of the misdemeanor offense by the Justice Court, Precinct 3 of Medina County, Texas. Lozano appealed the conviction to the County Court at Law of Medina County. After a trial de novo to the bench , the county court at law found Lozano guilty a nd imposed a f ifty dollar fine . Lozano filed a notice seeking to appeal the judgment to this court

.04

- 21

- 00074

- CR

- 2

- In criminal cases that have been appealed from a justice court to a county court at law , this court’s jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the fine imposed by the county court at law, exclusive of costs, exceeds one hundred dollars or “ the sole issue is the constitutionality of the statute or ordinance on which the conviction is based .” T EX
. C ODE C RIM P ROC

. a rt. 4.03. See Khozindar v. State , No. 02

- 14

- 00515

- CR, 2015 WL 3422206, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth May 28, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ; Hernandez v. State , No. 04

- 07

- 00085

- CR, 2008 WL 441783, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Feb. 20, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not d esignated for publication ); Montpas v. State , 997 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1999, no pet.)

. After receiving and reviewing the clerk’s record, we ordered Lozano to file a response demonstrating why thi s appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Lozano has filed a
response in which he enumerates his complaints about the judgment : (1) “there was no probable cause for the vehicle stop” and Lozano not speeding ; (2) the complaint should have been filed in the municipal court in Natalia, Texas, close to where the traffic stop occurred, not in the more distant justice court; and (3) the county court at law should not have rescheduled the trial when the state trooper did not appear at the first setting. Lozano does not assert a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute pursuant to which he was convicted

. B ecause the county court at law did not impose a fine exceeding one hundred dollars and because the sole issue to be appealed is not the constitutionality of the speeding statute, the judgment of the county court at law is final and this court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal . We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
Exhibit 32.2
 
 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 Annual Report of Java Detour,  Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, Michael Binninger, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 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.
 
 February
      5, 2010
              /s/
      Michael BinningerMichael
      BinningerPresident
      & Chief Operating OfficerPrincipal
      Financial Officer
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Java Detour, Inc.. and will
be retained by Java Detour, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Lori Schuster

Management and Program Analyst Appraisal Subcommittee
1401 H Street, NW

Suite 760 Washington, DC 2005

RE: Docket Number AS12

- 16

Dear Ms. Schuster

We would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Revisions to

the AS C Policy Statements. The North Dakota Appraiser Board is appreciative of the work you and your colleges have put forth related to these proposed revisions.

Policy Statement 7

– Item B, Enforcement Process, sub

- item 1 is a concern as there are

times when final administrative decisions regarding complaints simply can not be resolved within a one year (12 month) period from the complaint filing date.

As you are aware, an individual has a vested right in an occupational license and must be afforded due pro cess when any action is taken that would impact this vested right.

The court system, including the administrative hearing process and a variety of legal procedures can add complexity and is not, in anyway, controlled by a State regulatory agency. Quite simply, the legal adjudication process can involve several steps that can lead to delays in case processing and these potential delays are simply beyond the control of any State regulatory agency.

While timelines is certainly important, time alone shou ld not be the issue, when determining if a State regulatory agency has met it’s obligation of public protection.

Rather it is due process that must be closely and vigarously protected.

We suggest that the time frame be extended to allow for due proce ss and further suggest that the State regulatory agency be held responsible only for the timeliness of the complaint adjudication within its reasonable control.

Obviously case loads and adequacy of staffing can have an impact on the timeliness of compla int adjudication and there will be times when a State regulatory agency should be allowed to fully document these as anomalies (special documented circumstances).
9904.407-20 Purpose. ( a ) The purpose of this Cost Accounting Standard is to provide criteria under which standard costs may be used for estimating, accumulating, and reporting costs of direct material and direct labor; and to provide criteria relating to the establishment of standards, accumulation of standard costs, and accumulation and disposition of variances from standard costs. Consistent application of these criteria where standard costs are in use will improve cost measurement and cost assignment.
( b ) This Cost Accounting Standard is not intended to cover the use of pre-established measures solely for estimating.
§ 1.622 How do I file a notice of intervention and response? ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) To intervene as a party to the hearing process, you must: ( i ) Be a license party; and
( ii ) File with NFS, at the appropriate address provided in § 1.612(a)(1), a notice of intervention and a written response to any request for a hearing within 20 days after the deadline in § 1.621(a)(2).
( 2 ) A notice of intervention and response must be limited to one or more of the issues of material fact raised in the hearing request and may not raise additional issues.
( b ) *Content.* In your notice of intervention and response you must explain your position with respect to the issues of material fact raised in the hearing request under § 1.621(b). ( 1 ) If you agree with the information provided by the Forest Service under § 1.620(a) or by the requester under § 1.621(b), your response may refer to the Forest Service's explanation or the requester's hearing request for support.
( 2 ) If you wish to rely on additional information or analysis, your response must provide the same level of detail with respect to the additional information or analysis as required under § 1.621(b).
( 3 ) Your notice of intervention and response must also indicate whether or not you consent to service by electronic means under § 1.613(c)(4) and, if so, by what means.
( c ) *Witnesses and exhibits.* Your response and notice must also list the witnesses and exhibits that you intend to present at the hearing, other than solely for impeachment purposes. ( 1 ) For each witness listed, you must provide: ( i ) His or her name, address, telephone number, and qualifications; and
( ii ) A brief narrative summary of his or her expected testimony; and
( 2 ) For each exhibit listed, you must specify whether it is in the license proceeding record.
( d ) *Page limits.* ( 1 ) For each disputed factual issue, the information provided under paragraph (b) of this section (excluding citations to scientific studies, literature, and other documented information supporting your opinions) may not exceed two pages.
( 2 ) For each witness, the information provided under paragraph (c)(1) of this section may not exceed one page.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1147 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow schools 

that participate in the school lunch program under such Act to serve 

whole milk. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 21, 2023 

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania (for himself, Ms. SCHRIER, Mr. FULCHER, 

Mr. BALDERSON, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Mr. TRONE, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT

of Georgia, Mr. MEUSER, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. SMUCKER, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mr. BANKS, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. GOTTHEIMER, Mr. 

RESCHENTHALER, Mr. PERRY, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. 

MANN, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. KELLY of Mississippi, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, 

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Ms. SLOTKIN, Mr. STEIL, Ms. STEFANIK, 

Mr. RYAN, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. BARR, Mr. JOHNSON of 

South Dakota, Mr. TONKO, Ms. SPANBERGER, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, 

Mr. GALLAGHER, Mr. FEENSTRA, Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania, and Mr. 

CLINE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 

Act to allow schools that participate in the school lunch 

program under such Act to serve whole milk. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1147 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Whole Milk for 

3 Healthy Kids Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. WHOLE MILK PERMISSIBLE. 

5 Section 9(a)(2)(A) of the Richard B. Russell National 

6 School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)(A)) is amended 

7 to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Lunches served by 

9 schools participating in the school lunch pro10 gram under this Act— 

11 ‘‘(i) shall offer students a variety of 

12 fluid milk; 

13 ‘‘(ii) may offer students flavored and 

14 unflavored whole, reduced-fat, low-fat and 

15 fat-free fluid milk and lactose-free fluid 

16 milk; and 

17 ‘‘(iii) shall provide a substitute for 

18 fluid milk for students whose disability re19 stricts their diet, on receipt of a written 

20 statement from a licensed physician that 

21 identifies the disability that restricts the 

22 student’s diet and that specifies the sub23 stitute for fluid milk.’’. 

24 SEC. 3. HEALTHY MILK FAT. 

25 The Secretary of Agriculture shall revise section 

26 210.10 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (or sucVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:34 Mar 11, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1147.IH H1147

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1147 IH

1 cessor regulations), to increase the allowable average satu2 rated fat content of a meal to account for milk fat included 

3 in whole milk. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Fisk Tire Company, Inc., appellee, v. James S. McClure et al., on appeal of James S. McClure, appellant.

Gen. No. 30,582.

Action for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William E. Viner, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1925.

Reversed with findings of fact and judgment here.

Opinion filed May 25, 1926.

Harry A. Fleck, for appellant.

Harmon, George *&*Gilbert, for appellee; Roy M. Harmon, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 14                       Code of Ethics

                               AMERICAN IDC CORP.
                      Code of Ethics for Executive Officers

Introduction

The Code of Ethics (the "Code") for Executive Officers has been adopted by the
Board of Directors of American IDC Corp. (the "Company") on March 2, 2004 to
promote the honest and ethical conduct, proper disclosure to outside
constituents, and compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations by the
Company's Executive Officers.

Applicability

The term "Executive Officers" includes any executive or senior officer of the
Company or its subsidiaries.

Principles and Practices

In performing his or her duties for the Company, each Executive Officer of the
Company agrees to abide by and to promote:

1.   Honest and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or
     apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional
     relationships;
2.   Full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in reports and
     documents that the Company files with, or submits to, the U.S. Securities
     and Exchange Commission and in other public communications made by the
     Company;
3.   Compliance with rules and regulations of Federal, State and local
     governments;
4.   Respect for confidential information acquired in the course of one's work
     except when otherwise legally obligated to disclose such confidential
     information;
5.   Compliance with Federal and State insider trading rules and regulations and
     the Company's policy on appropriate periods when trading in the Company's
     securities is permitted;
6.   Loyalty to the Company and avoidance of exploiting professional
     relationships for personal gains;
7.   Compliance with all Company policies and procedures, including those
     applicable to employees, generally; and
8.   Accountability for adherence to the Code.

Compliance and Accountability

Violations of the Company's Code of Ethics shall be reported promptly to the
Company's Board of Directors.

Any violations of the Company's Code of Ethics may result in disciplinary
action, up to and including immediate termination.
Amendment to the Freescale Holdings 2006 Management Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO THE FREESCALE HOLDINGS 
 2006 MANAGEMENT
INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This Amendment to the Freescale Holdings 2006 Management Incentive Plan (the “Incentive
Plan”) is made as of October 28, 2009 (the “Effective Date”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Incentive Plan. 
 WHEREAS, Section 10 of the Incentive Plan provides in relevant part that the Board of Directors of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I,
Ltd. (the “Company”) may amend the Incentive Plan at any time; 
 WHEREAS, the Incentive Plan currently
provides that a maximum of 60,478,971 shares of Common Stock may be delivered in satisfaction of Awards granted under the Incentive Plan shall be; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Incentive Plan to provide that up to 69,478,971 shares of Common Stock may be delivered in satisfaction of Awards granted under the Incentive Plan. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the Incentive Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Incentive Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

 A maximum of 69,478,971 shares of Common Stock of the Company may be delivered in satisfaction of Awards under the Plan. 
  

	 	2.	Except as provided herein, the Incentive Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 

 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, an authorized signatory of the Company has executed this Amendment, to be effective as
of the Effective Date. 
  

			
	FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR HOLDINGS I, LTD.
	
	         /s/ Michel Cadieux

	By: Michel Cadieux
	Title: Senior Vice President, Human Resources


  

 2
#### LEVY, Appellant, v. LEVY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Action by Lea Levy against Harris Levy. A. H. Sarasohn, for appellant. C. Goldzier, for respondent.,

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed. _
#### § 1005.5 Distributing plant.

See § 1000.5.