alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9.409 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.209-6, Protecting the Government’s Interests

when Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment, in

solicitations and contracts where the contract value exceeds $35,000.

Parent topic: Subpart 9.4 - Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility
#### Alex Levin, defendant in error, v. Morris Lewis, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 37,172.

Opinion filed November 27, 1934.

Abrams, Sherman & Lewis, for plaintiff in error; Clyde C. Fisher and Louis A. Sherman, of counsel. No appearance for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29678]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a 
Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of SGS North America, 
Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, SGS North America, Inc., 1100 SE. 24th Street, Fort 
Lauderdale, FL 33316, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test 
petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance 
with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing 
to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger 
services should request and receive written assurances from the entity 
that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. 
Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service 
this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The 
inquiry may also be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8dbdac896d4d9dad0c9f8dcd0cb96dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a7c4c5d789cbc6c5cfd6e7c3cfd489c0c8d1">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web 
site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and 
accredited laboratories.

http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/


DATES: The accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as 
commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on August 25, 2010. 
The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Malana, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: November 16, 2010.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-29678 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
9.405-2 Restrictions on subcontracting.

(a) When a contractor debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment is proposed as a

subcontractor for any subcontract subject to Government consent (see subpart 44.2), contracting

officers shall not consent to subcontracts with such contractors unless the agency head states in

writing the compelling reasons for this approval action. (See 9.405 concerning declarations of

ineligibility affecting sub-contracting.)

(b) The Government suspends or debars contractors to protect the Government’s interests.

Contractors are prohibited from entering into any subcontract in excess of $35,000, other than a

subcontract for a commercially available off-the-shelf item, with a contractor that has been

debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. If a

contractor intends to enter into a subcontract in excess of $35,000, other than a subcontract for a

commercially available off-the-shelf item, with a party that is debarred, suspended, or proposed for

debarment as evidenced by the party's having an active exclusion record in SAM (see 9.404), a

corporate officer or designee of the contractor is required by operation of the clause at 52.209-6,

Protecting the Government’s Interests when Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended,

or Proposed for Debarment, to notify the contracting officer, in writing, before entering into such

subcontract. For contracts for the acquisition of commercial products, the notification requirement

applies only for first-tier subcontracts. For all other contracts, the notification requirement applies

to subcontracts at any tier. The notice must provide the following:

(1) The name of the subcontractor;

(2) The contractor’s knowledge of the reasons for the subcontractor having an active exclusion

record in SAM;

(3) The compelling reason(s) for doing business with the subcontractor notwithstanding its having

an active exclusion record in SAM; and

(4) The systems and procedures the contractor has established to ensure that it is fully protecting

the Government’s interests when dealing with such subcontractor in view of the specific basis for

the party’s debarment, suspension, or proposed debarment.

(c) The contractor’s compliance with the requirements of 52.209-6 will be reviewed during

Contractor Purchasing System Reviews (see subpart 44.3).

Parent topic: 9.405 Effect of listing.
# C_2021523EN.01000101.xml

| 28.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 523/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 523/1

---

Joint statement by the European Parliament and by the Council

(2021/C 523/01)

The European Parliament and the Council agree that the minimum operational budget for the implementation of the European Year of Youth (2022) shall be set at EUR 8 million. Of that amount, EUR 3 million will come from the annual budget for 2022 of the European Solidarity Corps and EUR 5 million will come from the annual budget for 2022 of the Erasmus+ programme.

Furthermore, the co-legislators are committed to leaving a lasting legacy of the European Year, beyond 2022. Without prejudice to the powers of the budgetary authority, in accordance with Article 314 TFEU, any additional funding beyond 2022 should be identified within the MFF 2021-2027.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Cartagena, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, dated July 18, 1977, convicting defendant after a jury trial of sexual abuse in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of *3 1/2*to 7 and 12 1/2 to 25 years to run consecutively to a 10- to 20-year term earlier imposed for a different conviction, unanimously reversed, on the facts, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter remanded for a new trial. The jury commenced deliberations at 12:27 in the afternoon. At 5:45 they reported that they were deadlocked. Upon the urging of the court they continued to 9:15 that night and on the following morning. At noon that day they requested instructions pertaining to their duty as jurors. In giving the instruction, the court added: 'T dare say if we had most of you in the beauty shop or in the barber shop, you could have decided this case in five minutes. And, of course, you hear the clamor of Judges letting people go, and soft-headed judges, et cetera. Now is the time for the citizens to assist and reach a decision. I can’t reach this decision, and you have a chance. And rather than having demonstrations in the street, you can do it in the courtroom.” We find these remarks so inappropriate and injudicious that they exceeded the bounds of fairness to the defendant and may well have coerced the *602verdict of guilt that followed a half hour later. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Markewich, Silverman and Lynch, JJ.
July 30, 1999

Nicholas Fund, Inc.
700 North Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202

Gentlemen:

      We have acted as counsel to Nicholas Fund, Inc. ("Fund"), a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Maryland, in
connection  with  the preparation and filing  of  a  registration
statement  on  Form  N-1A  and amendments thereto  ("Registration
Statement"), relating to the registration of the common stock  of
the  Fund  ("Common Stock") under the Securities Act of 1933,  as
amended.

      We  have reviewed the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws
of the Fund and the Registration Statement; we have also reviewed
such  corporate  records and other documents and have  made  such
examinations of law as we have deemed necessary for  purposes  of
the  opinion  hereinafter  expressed.  We  have  assumed  without
independent  verification the genuineness of signatures  and  the
conformity  with originals of all documents submitted  to  us  as
copies.  Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that:

           1.  The Fund is a corporation, duly organized and
     legally  existing  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of
     Maryland.

           2.  The  Fund  is authorized to issue up  to  two
     hundred  million (200,000,000) shares of Common  Stock,
     par  value  $.50  per  share,  including  those  shares
     currently issued and outstanding.

           3.  The  shares of Common Stock to be offered for
     sale  pursuant to the Registration Statement have  been
     duly  authorized and, upon the effectiveness  of  Post-
     Effective   Amendment  No.  45  to   the   Registration
     Statement  and compliance with applicable  federal  and
     state  securities  laws  and  regulations,  when  sold,
     issued (within the limits authorized under the Articles
     of   Incorporation  of  the  Fund)  and  paid  for   as
     contemplated in the Registration Statement, such shares
     will  have been validly and legally issued, fully  paid
     and non-assessable.

      We  consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit  to
the  Registration Statement and to the references to  us  in  the
prospectus  comprising Part A and elsewhere in  the  Registration
Statement.

                                   Sincerely yours,



                                   /s/ DAVIS & KUELTHAU, S.C.
                               -----------------------------------
                                       DAVIS & KUELTHAU, S.C.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71711-71712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29650]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which

[[Page 71712]]

would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Initial Review Group; Neuroscience Review Subcommittee.
    Date: March 8-9, 2011.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Beata Buzas, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes 
of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Room 2081, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-
0800, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ccaeaeb9b6adbf8ca1ada5a0e2a2a5a4e2aba3ba"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="513333242b3022113c30383d7f3f38397f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical 
Research and Research Support Awards, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS)

    Dated: November 18, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-29650 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### BANKS, Respondent, v. CITY OF MT. VERNON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Second Department.

September 28, 1906.)

Action by Charles G. Banks against the city of Mt. Vernon.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### § 42.114 Procedures for evaluating interior container defects.

(a) Sections 42.101-42.136 provide procedures for determining lot conformance with the U.S. Standards for Condition of Food Containers. This determination is based on the examination of the external characteristics of the food containers.

(b) As an option, if a user of the inspection service requests to have the interior characteristics of containers examined, and apply these results in the determination of lot acceptability, the defects listed in Table XII may be used.

(c) The determination of lot acceptability based on internal container defects shall be independent of the determination of lot acceptability for U.S. Standards for Condition of Food Containers. A user of the inspection service may choose to require inspection for internal can defects as well as inspection for U.S. Standards for Condition of Food Containers.

(d) If a user of the inspection service requests an examination for internal container defects in addition to an official USDA/USDC inspection for product quality and/or U.S. grade, the containers opened by the official inspection service for inspection of product quality and/or U.S. grade will be used for examination of interior container defects. The minimum sample size for evaluation of interior container defects will be 13 containers. As a result, additional containers will be required if the inspection for quality or U.S. grade calls for fewer than 13 containers. Table XIII provides acceptance numbers for internal container defects for selected sample sizes.

Table XII—Interior Container Defects

| Defects | Categories | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Major | Minor |
| De-tinning in metal container materially affecting usability | 101 | |
| De-tinning in metal container not materially affecting usability | | 201 |
| Black spots in metal container | | 202 |
| Enamel missing (when required) in metal container | 102 | |
| Enamel breakdown in metal container material affecting usability | 103 | |
| Enamel breakdown in metal container material not affecting usability | | 203 |
| Other defect(s) of the interior of the container (metal, plastic, paper, rigid, etc.) e.g., interior damage, tear, delamination, missing layer, off-odor, interior blisters, etc. that materially affects usability | 104 | |
| Defect(s) of the interior of the container (metal, plastic, paper, rigid, etc.) e.g., interior damage, tear, delamination, missing layer, off-odor, interior blisters, etc. that materially affects appearance but not usability | | 204 |

Table XIII—Acceptance Numbers for Internal Container Defects

| Sample Size (n = number of containers) | Major | | Total | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Interior Defects | | Interior Defects | |
| Ac | Re | Ac | Re |
| n—13 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| n—21 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| n—29 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 |
| n—38 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 |
| n—48 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 7 |
| n—60 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 8 |

[[78 FR 57046](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/78-FR-57046), Sept. 17, 2013]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Dabney, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered February 8, 1977, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree, and the sentence imposed thereon, and the said count is dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. On the instant facts the count charging sexual abuse is a lesser inclusory count of rape in the first degree. No evidence, independent of the rape, was presented to establish sexual abuse. Therefore, as the People concede, the conviction on the rape charge mandates reversal and dismissal of the sexual abuse charge (see CPL 300.40, subd 3, par [b]; *People v Davis,*72 AD2d 749). The defendant argues that prejudicial error occurred in the trial court’s *604exclusion of a hospital record containing allegedly exculpatory evidence, in its permitting testimony regarding the defendant’s familiarity with karate, and in the charge on resistance. While we agree that a portion, at least, of the hospital record was admissible for the purpose of impeaching the complainant’s testimony that she was scratched by the defendant, we do not find the error to have been prejudicial in light of the complainant’s testimony that she feared the defendant and her testimony, corroborated by hospital personnel, that she had been "grabbed” or "choked” by the defendant, and scratched on the neck. Whether the challenged testimony regarding defendant’s knowledge of karate was admissible is questionable, but it was limited and of no significance in the trial. Finally, while we find the jury charge on the issue of resistance to have been minimal, we find it to have been sufficient, on the facts of this case, to have instructed the jury properly on the applicable law. Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Rabin, JJ., concur.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-3984 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-119-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 12.0 $1,020.0

0

$0 $1,020.00 89 $90,780.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $90,780

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Replacement 24.0 $2,040.00 $78 $2,118.00

Reporting 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
§ 3.23 CCC assignment of payment. ( a ) No amounts payable to a debtor by CCC will be paid to an assignee of the debt until amounts owed by the debtor have been collected and applied to the debt.
( b ) A payment that is assigned as specified in part 1404 of this title by execution of any CCC assignment form will be subject to offset for any debt owed to CCC, or any USDA agency, or any other Federal agency, any IRS notice of levy, or any judgment in favor of the United States, without regard to the date notice of assignment was accepted by CCC.
( c ) Except as provided in 7 CFR 1404.6(b), any indebtedness owed by the assignor to CCC will be offset from any payment which is owed by CCC if such indebtedness was entered on the debt record of the applicable USDA office prior to the date of the filing Forms CCC-251 (Notice of Assignment) and CCC-252 (Instrument of Assignment).