alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ACTIO N 

### lO-llO l 

### 13-00 7 CONTRO L N O 

# ICICL E Januar y 12,201 1 •S-.rj^ . -f- ' Th e Honorabl e Ra

y LaHoo d—'-~d3~p Secretar y n 55^-*^; ? U.S . Dept . o f

Transportatio n zzi^ ^ 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . ~ ^ 5:2r~ n Washington . D.C . 2059 0 ^ C O Re : Continuatio n o f

Alask aAirlines ' Essential Ai r Servic e t o Cordova , Gustavus , Petersburg , Wrangell , an dYalcutat , Docke t

OST-1998-489 9 Dea r Secretar y LaHood , I a mwritin g i n support

o f th e continuatio n o f

Alask aAirlines ' essential ai r servic e t o Petersburg , Alaska . A s th e lai^es t

employe r andai r freight customer i n Petersburg , w e ar e criticall y awar e o f th e continue d nee dfo r th e je t servic e Alask aAirline s ha s provide dt o ou r community for

well over thirty years . Seafoo di s th e economi c engin e o f ou r community . Movin g product s t o markets , transportin g employee s andconnectin g fisherme n wit h neede dpart s i s crucial t o di e economi c well bein g o f ou r company and communit y a s it allow s u s to b e competitiv e wit h other ports . Alask aAirline s provide s servic e that allow s u s t o easil y cotmec t wit h othe r flight s throughou t

Alask aan dt o th e othe r

4 9 states . Thei r investment

i n navigatio n technolog y ha s resulte di n improve dreliabilit

y durin g inclemen t

weather . Reducin g flight

diversion s an dcancellation s help s Petersburg' s businesse s andpassengers . Th e 737-40 0 "combi* * aircraf

t use dby Alask aAirline s allow s fo r passenger , mail , freight

an dcarg o servic e tha

t i s very dependable , A non-je t

carrie r woul dsimpl y b e unabl e t o provid e tlii s sam e leve l o f service . W e respectfull y encourag e yo u t o continu e Alask aAirline' s essential ai r servic e i n Southeas t

Alaska . Thank you for you r consideration . Sincerely , Kri s Noros z Government

Affair s cc : Ms . Susa

n Kurland , Assistan t

Secretar y fo r Aviatio n an

dInternationa l Affair s Mr . Denni s DeVany . Chief , EA S an dDomesti c Analysi s Th e Honorabl e Sea

n Parnell , Governor , Stat e o f Alask a Mar c A . Luiken , Commissioner , Alask aState Departmen t o f Transportatio n an dPubli c Facilitie s PETERSBUR G FISHERIE S A DIVISIO N O F ICICLE SEAFOODS , INC . P.O . Bo x 114 7 • Petersburg , A K9983 3 • Tel : 907-772429 4 • Fax : 907-772447 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DA’VHON YOUNG,

#150898,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv359-MW/MAF

WALT McNEIL,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 9. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This action is DISMISSED for 

failure to comply with court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 

and Local Rule 41.1 and for want of prosecution.” The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on November 20, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00359-MW-MAF Document 10 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.692 Examination fees. ( a ) *General.* The Agency will assess fees for examinations in accordance with this § 4290.692. Unless the Agency determines otherwise on a case by case basis, it will not assess fees for special examinations to obtain specific information.
( b ) *Base fee.* A base fee of $9,200 + 0.015 percent of your assets will be assessed, subject to adjustment in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Adjustments to base fee.* The base fee will be decreased based on the following criteria: ( 1 ) If you have no outstanding regulatory violations at the time of the commencement of the examination or the Agency did not identify any violations as a result of the most recent prior examination, you will receive a 15% discount on your base fee; and
( 2 ) If you were fully responsive to the letter of notification of examination (that is, you provided all requested documents and information within the time period stipulated in the notification letter in a complete and accurate manner, and you prepared and had available all information requested by the examiner for on-site review), you will receive a 10% discount on your base fee.
( d ) *Examination delay fee.* If, in the sole discretion of the Agency, the time required to complete your examination is delayed due to your lack of cooperation or the condition of your records, the Agency may assess an additional examination fee of up to $500 per day.
[69 FR 32204, June 8, 2004, as amended at 76 FR 80224, Dec. 23, 2011]
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09019]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Parts 226 and 252

RIN 0750-AH85

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Encouragement 
of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Programs 
(DFARS Case 2012-D027); Withdrawal

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule, withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: DoD hereby provides notice of the cancellation of a proposed 
rule without further action. DoD has determined that the proposed 
amendment to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 
(DFARS) is not a necessary part of the Department's plan to implement a 
section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
that requires DoD to encourage contractors to develop science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dustin Pitsch: telephone 571-372-
6090; email: dustin.pitsch@osd.mil; or Defense Acquisition Regulations 
System, Attn: Mr. Dustin Pitsch, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B855, 3060 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    DoD published a proposed rule to amend the DFARS to implement 
section 862 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, which requires DoD to encourage contractors to develop science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs. The purpose 
of this Notice is to advise that the proposed rule is cancelled without 
further action. At this time, DoD is in the process of reassessing the 
most effective and efficient methods by which it can encourage 
contractors to develop science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) programs.
    The cancelled proposed rule is identified by RIN 0750-AH85, 
Encouragement of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 
(STEM) Programs. It was published in the Federal Register at 78 FR 
13604-13606.

Manuel Quinones,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
[FR Doc. 2013-09019 Filed 4-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
#### In the Matter of Ruperto Lindsay, Petitioner, v The People of the State of New York, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 545]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent to respond to the petitioner’s request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6). Application by the petitioner for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

Ordered that the application to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that the Appellate Division does not have subject matter jurisdiction *(see*CPLR 506 [b]; 7804 [b]). Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Dillon, JJ, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Quipp, Inc.,
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-K.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            822,573
<SECURITIES>                                   12,845,884
<RECEIVABLES>                                   5,096,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (715,275)
<INVENTORY>                                     3,530,609
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               22,882,228
<PP&E>                                          3,791,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,965,797)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 25,303,067
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           5,693,223
<BONDS>                                         1,050,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           16,365
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,543,479
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   25,303,067
<SALES>                                        27,018,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               27,038,147
<CGS>                                         (17,248,863)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (22,521,259)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (61,704)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 4,931,614
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,850,310)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             3,081,304
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    3,081,304
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        1.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        1.89



</TABLE>
#### §§ 4279.268-4279.277 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:02-CR-045-SPM

KENO THOMPSON,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER PERMITTING LATE OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the “Motion for Extension of

Time to File Notice of Appeal” (doc. 275) filed June 29, 2006, in which Defendant

requests to file his objections to the magistrate’s report and recommendation

(doc. 272) past the July 9, 2006 deadline. As grounds, Defendant states that he

learned via a phone conversation with the clerk’s office that the report had been

issued, although he never received a copy.

While the Court finds an extension to be reasonable, the 60 days

requested by Defendant is more than the fifteen days allotted by the report and

recommendation. It is therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The motion for extension of time (doc. 275 is hereby granted in

Case 4:02-cr-00045-SPM-AK Document 276 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

part.

2. The clerk shall attach a copy of the magistrate’s report and

recommendation (doc. 272) to Defendant’s copy of this order.

3. Defendant shall have up to and including July 24, 2006 to file

objections to the report and recommendation.

DONE AND ORDERED this fifth day of July, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00045-SPM-AK Document 276 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 2
#### THORSEN, GRAY & SMITH v. ISMAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Sales (§ 178*)—Performance of Contract—Delivery and Acceptance of - Goods.

Where, after fittings and alterations occupying six months, during which defendant made frequent and vigorous expressions of dissatisfaction, the five suits ordered by him were given a final alteration and delivered to him, after which nothing was heard from him, nor did he pay the bills, his action was an acceptance, and he could not complain of their fit, as he should either have sent them back or notified plaintiffs of his rejection if they did not fit.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 451, 455; Dec. Dig. § 178.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, .Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.

Action by Thor sen, Gray & Smith against Felix Isman. From a judgment for defendant, after a trial by the judge without a jury, plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and PAGE, JJ.

Daly, Hoyt & Mason, of New York City (Joseph V. Gallagher, of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

August Dreyer, of New York City, for respondent.

*255PER CURIAM.

Defendant ordered five suits of clothes to be made for him by plaintiffs. The fittings and alterations in these clothes occupied some six months, during which there were frequent and vigorous expressions of dissatisfaction by the defendant. At the end of June, however, the suits were taken back by plaintiffs and altered to the best of their ability, to accord with the suggestions and criticisms of defendant. They were then delivered to defendant in the middle of July, after which nothing further was heard from him, nor did he pay the bills, which were repeatedly sent to him by the plaintiffs, who then sued for the purchase price.

It is difficult to understand how anything but an acceptance by the defendant can be spelled out of this state of facts. It may well be, as the learned trial judge pointed out, that the clothes did not and do not now fit as they should; but in that event defendant should have either sent them back or notified plaintiffs of his rejection, when they were finally delivered to him. In the absence of such notification, expressed or even implied, a delivery was established, and plaintiffs should have ' had judgment.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event.
Editorial Note on Part 3404
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3404 appear at 76 FR 4808, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3404.4 Multitrack processing. ( a ) When NIFA has a significant number of requests, the nature of which precludes a determination within 20 working days, the requests may be processed in a multitrack processing system, based on the date of receipt, the amount of work and time involved in processing the request, and whether the request qualifies for expedited processing.
( b ) NIFA may establish as many processing tracks as appropriate; processing within each track shall be based on a first-in, first-out concept, and rank-ordered by the date of receipt of the request.
( c ) A requester whose request does not qualify for the fastest track may be given an opportunity to limit the scope of the request in order to qualify for the fastest track. This multitrack processing system does not lessen agency responsibility to exercise due diligence in processing requests in the most expeditious manner possible.
( d ) NIFA shall process requests in each track on a “first-in, first-out” basis, unless there are unusual circumstances as set forth in § 1.16 of this title, or the requester is entitled to expedited processing as set forth in § 1.9 of this title.
§ 5001.523 Property acquired by the lender. ( a ) *Collateral preservation.* When a lender acquires title to the collateral and the final loss claim is not paid until final disposition, the lender must proceed as quickly as possible to develop a plan to fully protect the collateral from deterioration (weather, vandalism, etc.). Hazard insurance in an amount necessary to cover the market value of the collateral must be maintained.
( b ) *Collateral sale.* ( 1 ) Upon acquiring the collateral, the lender must prepare and submit without delay to the Agency a plan on the best method for the sale of the collateral, keeping in mind any prospective purchasers. The Agency must approve the plan in writing. If an existing approved liquidation plan addresses the disposition of acquired property, no further review is required unless modification of the plan is needed.
( 2 ) Whenever the conversion of collateral to cash can reasonably be expected to result in a negative net recovery amount, the lender should consider abandonment of the collateral. If the lender seeks to abandon the collateral, the lender must obtain written Agency approval before abandoning the collateral.
( c ) *Re-title collateral.* Any collateral accepted by the lender must not be titled in the Agency's name in whole or in part.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 material, and  personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel Initial Scientific Peer Review and Merit Evaluation of Grant Applications for NIGMS MIDAS Initiative.                    

*Date:*                         December 14, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         C. Craig Hyde, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3AN18, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-435-3825,                         *ch2v@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 18, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee  Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-29649 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2490 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for a real estate stock 

index investment option under the Thrift Savings Plan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 3, 2006 

Mr. COLEMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for a 

real estate stock index investment option under the 

Thrift Savings Plan. 

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 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Real Estate Investment Thrift Savings Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAL ESTATE STOCK INDEX INVESTMENT FUND. 

7 (a) DEFINITION.—Section 8438(a) of title 5, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (9), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

10 end; 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 2490 IS

1 (2) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at 

2 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

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

4 ‘‘(11) the term ‘Real Estate Stock Index Invest5 ment Fund’ means the Real Estate Stock Index In6 vestment Fund established under subsection 

7 (b)(1)(F).’’. 

8 (b) ESTABLISHMENT.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 8438(b)(1) of title 

10 5, United States Code, is amended— 

11 (A) in subparagraph (D), by striking 

12 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

13 (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the 

14 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

15 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(F) a Real Estate Stock Index Investment 

17 Fund as provided in paragraph (5).’’. 

18 (2) FUND REQUIREMENTS.—Section 8438(b) of 

19 title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding 

20 at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(5)(A) The Board shall select an index which is a 

22 commonly recognized index comprised of common stock 

23 the aggregate market value of which is a reasonably com24 plete representation of the United States real estate equity 

25 markets. 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•S 2490 IS

1 ‘‘(B) The Real Estate Stock Index Investment Fund 

2 shall be invested in a portfolio designed to replicate the 

3 performance of the index selected under subparagraph 

4 (A). The portfolio shall be designed such that, to the ex5 tent practicable, the percentage of the Real Estate Stock 

6 Index Investment Fund that is invested in each stock is 

7 the same as the percentage determined by dividing the ag8 gregate market value of all shares of that stock by the 

9 aggregate market value of all shares of all stocks included 

10 in such index.’’. 

11 (c) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RISK.—Section 8439(d) 

12 of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

13 (1) by striking ‘‘or the Small Capitalization 

14 Stock Index Investment Fund,’’ and inserting ‘‘the 

15 Small Capitalization Stock Index Investment Fund, 

16 or the Real Estate Stock Index Investment Fund,’’; 

17 and 

18 (2) by striking ‘‘and (10),’’ and inserting ‘‘(10), 

19 and (11),’’. 

Æ 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3.808 Solicitation provision and contract clause.       (a)                    						            Insert the provision at 52.203-11, Certification and Disclosure Regarding Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions, in solicitations expected to exceed $150,000.                                          (b)                    						            Insert the clause at 52.203-12, Limitation on Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions, in solicitations and contracts expected to exceed $150,000.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 3.8 - Limitations on the Payment of Funds to Influence Federal Transactions