alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
29.402-2 Foreign cost-reimbursement

contracts.

(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.229-8, Taxes-Foreign Cost-Reimbursement

Contracts, in solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated and

the contract is to be performed wholly or partly in a foreign country, unless it is contemplated that

the contract will be with a foreign government.

(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.229-9, Taxes-Cost-Reimbursement Contracts

with Foreign Governments, in solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement contract with a

foreign government is contemplated.

Parent topic: 29.402 Foreign contracts.
25.002 Applicability of subparts.       The following table shows the applicability of the subparts. subpart  25.5 provides comprehensive procedures for offer evaluation and examples.          Subpart                      Supplies For Use                      Construction                      Services PerformedInside U.S.                      Outside U.S.                      Inside U.S.                      Outside U.S.                      Inside U.S.                      Outside U.S.25.1 Buy American- Supplies                      X                      -                      -                      -                      -                      -25.2 Buy American- Construction Materials                      -                      -                      X                      -                      -                      -25.3 Contracts Performed Outside the United States                      -                      X                      -                      X                      -                      X25.4 Trade Agreements                      X                      X                      X                      X                      X                      X25.5 Evaluating Foreign Offers- Supply Contracts                      X                      X                      -                      -                      -                      -25.6 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-Buy American statute-Construction Materials                                                                  X25.7 Prohibited Sources                      X                      X                      X                      X                      X                      X25.8 Other International Agreements and Coordination                      X                      X                      -                      X                      -                      X25.9 Customs and Duties                      X                      -                      -                      -                      -                      -25.10 Additional Foreign Acquisition Regulations                      X                      X                      X                      X                      X                      X25.11 Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses                      X                      X                      X                      X                      X                      X    **Parent topic:** Part 25 - Foreign Acquisition
#### In the Matter of Yolanda McCombs, Appellant, v Alice Sachs et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents, and Ethel Curtis, Respondent. In the Matter of Ethel Curtis, Respondent, v Yolanda McCombs, Appellant, and Frank X. Gargiulo et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on April 3, 1980 and April 9, 1980, respectively, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Ross, J. P., Markewich, Lupiano, Bloom and Carro, JJ.
§ 407.3 Premium rates, amounts of protection, and coverage levels. ( a ) The Manager of FCIC shall establish premium rates, amounts of protection, and coverage levels for the insured crop that will be included in the actuarial documents on file in the agent's office. Premium rates, amounts of protection, and coverage levels may be changed from year to year in accordance with the terms of the policy.
( b ) At the time the application for insurance is made, the person must elect an amount of protection and a coverage level from among those contained in the actuarial documents for the crop year.
Exhibit 22. List of Subsidiaries of NTN Canada, Inc. as at August 31, 1997

Name of Subsidiary (1)                             Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----------------------                             -----------------------------

B.C. Learning Connection, Inc. (2)..............................British Columbia
Magic Lantern Communications Ltd (3)......................................Canada
NTN Interactive Network Inc...............................................Canada
1113659 Ontario Ltd. (4).................................................Ontario
745695 Ontario Ltd. (5)..................................................Ontario
Sonoptic Technologies Inc. (6)............................................Canada

----------

(1)   Unless otherwise indicated, all named entities are wholly-owned
      subsidiaries of NTN Canada, Inc.
(2)   Wholly-owned subsidiary of 745695 Ontario Ltd.
(3)   Wholly-owned subsidiary of NTN Interactive Network Inc.
(4)   Partially-owned (50%) equity investment of Magic Lantern Communications
      Ltd.
(5)   Wholly-owned subsidiary of Magic Lantern Communications Ltd. 

(6)   Majority owned (75%) subsidiary of Magic Lantern Communications Ltd.


                                       38
#### Harry I. Phillips et al., Individually and as Stockholders, Officers and Directors of K.P.B. Construction Corp. and Others, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, et al., Respondents, v. Bernard Blasenheim et al., Appellants. Marjeff Realty Corp. et al., Respondents, v. Bar*661donia Construction Corp. et al., Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, dated June 26, 1968, made in Westchester County and entered in Rockland County, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for an additional allowance of $3,000 in each of the two actions herein. Order reversed, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements; and motion denied, with leave to renew in accordance with the views stated herein. The findings of fact below have not been affirmed. Under the terms of the interlocutory judgment, defendants were ordered to effect retransfers of certain realty. The judgment further directed accountings by virtually all the parties as to the complex transactions involved. An award of additional allowances pursuant to CPLR 8303 (subd. [a], par. 2) was improper under these circumstances and should have awaited the final resolution of all the issues between the parties *(Clarke*v. *Gilmore,*149 App. Div. 445, 451). Unlike cases such as *Maggi*v. *Sabatini*(250 N. Y. 296), we may not treat the interlocutory judgment as final as to certain items. The accounting which remains relates to the very same properties involved in the transfers and not to other unrelated issues. Further, there remains the possibility that the accountings will demonstrate equities in favor of defendants which may militate against the discretionary award of additional allowances to plaintiffs. The motion for the award of additional allowances pursuant to CPLR 8303 should have been made before the court in Rockland County as “The court before which the trial was had” and “in which judgment was entered”, rather than in Westchester County. The specific provision of CPLR 8303 would dominate over the more general one set forth in CPLR 2212 (subd. [a]) which permits motions on notice to be made in an adjoining county (see 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 2212.04, p. 22-26). In any event, such a motion should be passed upon, in the first instance, by the trier of the facts, in this case, the referee (cf. *Bent Steel Co.*v. *Western Elec. Co.,*274 App. Div. 888). This is of particular importance when, as here, the Referee in making his determination denied costs to both sides. We observe that it was improper to make two awards of additional allowances to plaintiffs. Although the caption indicates that these are two separate actions, the hearing had herein was held pursuant to a stipulation which, in effect, allowed the Referee to decide all the outstanding issues between the parties without regard to the form of the pleadings. Hopkins, P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000757545
<NAME> 84A
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         177,621
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  295,448
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               473,069
<PP&E>                                      18,257,368
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,340,923
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,389,514
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,244
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,329,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,389,514
<SALES>                                      1,082,369
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,089,361
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  557,731
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                531,630
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            531,630
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   531,630
<EPS-BASIC>                                      20.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# L_2013235EN.01000801.xml

| 4.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 235/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 235/8

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 852/2013

of 3 September 2013

amending for the 200th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

| (2) | On 26 August 2013 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decided to remove one natural person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 26 August 2013 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decided to remove one natural person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.

| (3) | Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 September 2013.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments

---

(1)  
  OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.

1

---

ANNEX

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended as follows:

The following entry under the heading ‘Natural persons’ is deleted:

‘Said Youssef Ali Abu Aziza (alias (a) Abdul Hamid, (b) Abu Therab). Date of birth: 1958. Place of birth: Tripoli, Libya. Nationality: Libyan. Passport number: (a) 87/437555 (Libyan passport), (b) 274381 (Libyan passport). Libyan national identification number: 145126. Other information: (a) Mother’s name is Fatima Isa, (b) Member of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Al-Qaida. Date of designation referred to in Article 2a (4) (b): 8.6.2007.’

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-40233

____________________

RICHARD G. PAINTER, PH.D, ET AL.,

 Plaintiffs,

RICHARD PAINTER, PH.D. and 

MARTHA LOUISE AIKEN, PH.D.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

GEORGE A. HURST, ET AL.,

 Defendants,

GEORGE A. HURST, RONALD F. DODSON, 

MARK ATKINSON, and THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 

HEALTH CENTER AT TYLER,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division

(6:94CV653)

_________________________________________________

March 26, 1997

Before REAVLEY, KING, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
- 2 -

Drs. Richard Painter and Martha Louise Aiken appeal the

district court’s denial of their motions for judgment as a matter

of law and for new trial, after a jury verdict denying their claim

for retaliatory dismissal in violation of their First Amendment

right to free speech.

Some witnesses testified that the appellants were poor

performers who were discharged on account of their lack of

productivity, while other witnesses testified that appellants were

performing well in their positions. The jury found that the

appellants had not lost their jobs because of retaliation for

engaging in protected speech. Needless to say, we cannot upset a

jury finding where, as here, there was sufficient evidence in the

record such that a reasonable juror could have reached the verdict

in question. Texas Farm Bureau v. United States, 53 F.3d 120, 123

(5th Cir. 1995). 

In the light of the fact that the district court found for the

appellants on whether a First Amendment interest was implicated,

and therefore sent this fact issue to the jury, we need not reach

whether the First Amendment was implicated. As noted, the jury

reasonably found that it was not infringed upon.

And, for the above-stated reasons, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. 

AFFIRMED
#### FAULKNER et al., Respondents, v. AEX, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Action by John H. Faulkner and others against Paul Aex.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
EGU MACT RIA - Interagency comments on Ch 2 and 3 

 12/14/2011 05:32 PM 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

 

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Hi Bob, 

Attached are interagency comments on the redline versions of Chapters 2 

and 3 of the RIA. 

 

Regards, 

Cortney 

Chapter 3_CostEconomicEnergy_1209_InteragencyCommentsunderEO13563.docx 

Chapter 2_ElectricPowerSectorProfile_1209_InteragencycommentsunderEO13563.doc
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unitil Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned Robert G. Schoenberger, Chief Executive Officer and President, Mark H. Collin, Chief Financial
Officer and Laurence M. Brock, Chief Accounting Officer, certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                           |  |                                       |  |                 
|-------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------- |  | ----------------
|Signature                  |  | Capacity                              |  | Date            
|/s/ Robert G. Schoenberger |  |                                       |  |                 
|Robert G. Schoenberger     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President |  | October 24, 2008
|                           |  |                                      
|/s/ Mark H. Collin         |  |                                       |  |                 
|Mark H. Collin             |  | Chief Financial Officer               |  | October 24, 2008
|                           |  |                                      
|/s/ Laurence M. Brock      |  |                                       |  |                 
|Laurence M. Brock          |  | Chief Accounting Officer              |  | October 24, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         774,026
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,692,609
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,228,619
<INVENTORY>                                 56,555,085
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            79,290,700
<PP&E>                                      32,523,245
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,043,852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             112,064,151
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       45,726,750
<BONDS>                                      4,250,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,751
<OTHER-SE>                                  56,232,523
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               112,064,151
<SALES>                                    115,070,374
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           125,653,476
<CGS>                                       92,494,947
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               92,494,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            25,936,432
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,249,867
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,868,045
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,104,185
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,048,256
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,055,929
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,055,929
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60
        

</TABLE>
#### James E. Johnson, Jr., Appellant, v Flatbush Presbyterian Church, Also Known as Flatbush Church of the Redeemer, Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 260]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the *863plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated August 17, 2005, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

At the time of the subject accident, the plaintiff was standing at or near the top of an extension ladder plastering the walls and windows at the defendant Flatbush Presbyterian Church, also known as Flatbush Church of the Redeemer. It is undisputed that he was engaged in an activity specifically protected by Labor Law § 240 (1) *(see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City,*1 NY3d 280, 285 [2003]; *Turisse v Dominick Milone, Inc.,*262 AD2d 305 [1999]). The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. He demonstrated through his own sworn statement and that of a coworker that he was injured when he fell to the floor after the unsecured ladder on which he was working slid backwards *(see Chlap v 43rd St.-Second Ave. Corp.,*18 AD3d 598 [2005]; *Pineda v Kechek Realty Corp.,*285 AD2d 496 [2001]). In opposition to the motion, the defendant raised an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident *(see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, supra*at 290). The defendant submitted both the FDNY Ambulance Call Report in the certified hospital record containing a purported statement by the plaintiff that the accident occurred because his leg fell asleep, and excerpts from the plaintiffs deposition that he suffered from chronic left leg numbness.

Finally, the plaintiff alleged violations of Industrial Code regulations sufficient to support his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action *(see*12 NYCRR 23-1.21 [b], [d]; *Aarons v 401 Hotel, L.P.,*12 AD3d 293 [2004]). The Supreme Court, however, properly denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on that cause of action because there is a triable issue of fact with respect to proximate causation *(see Biafora v City of New York,*27 AD3d 506 [2006]). Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur.
# 16.206 Fixed-ceiling-price contracts with retroactive price redetermination.

- 16.206-1 Description. 
- 16.206-2 Application. 
- 16.206-3 Limitations. 
- 16.206-4 Contract clause. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 16.2 - Fixed-Price Contracts