alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
22.1002-3 Wage determinations based on collective bargaining agreements.       (a) 						            Successor contractors performing on contracts in excess of $2,500 for substantially the same services performed in the same locality must pay wages and fringe benefits (including accrued wages and benefits and prospective increases) at least equal to those contained in any bona fide collective bargaining agreement entered into under the predecessor contract. This requirement is self-executing and is not contingent upon incorporating a wage determination or the wage and fringe benefit terms of the predecessor contractor’s collective bargaining agreement in the successor contract. This requirement will not apply if the Secretary of Labor determines-                                                         (1) 								                After a hearing, that the wages and fringe benefits are substantially at variance with those which prevail for services of a similar character in the locality; or                                                            (2) 								                That the wages and fringe benefits are not the result of arm’s length negotiations.                                                                             (b) 						            Paragraphs in this subpart  22.10 which deal with this statutory requirement and the Department of Labor’s implementing regulations are 22.1010, concerning notification to contractors and bargaining representatives of procurement dates; 22.1012-2, explaining when a collective bargaining agreement will not apply due to late receipt by the contracting officer; and 22.1013 and 22.1021, explaining when the application of a collective bargaining agreement can be challenged due to a variance with prevailing rates or lack of arm’s length bargaining.    **Parent topic:** 22.1002 Statutory and Executive order requirements.
# L_2021317EN.01000701.xml

| 8.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 317/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 317/7

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/1457

of 1 September 2021

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Szegedi tükörponty’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Szegedi tükörponty’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Szegedi tükörponty’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Szegedi tükörponty’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Szegedi tükörponty’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Szegedi tükörponty’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.7. Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 1 September 2021.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 194, 21.5.2021, p. 17.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
Addendum to Inventory Management and Product Purchase Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 ADDENDUM TO THE 
 INVENTORY MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCT PURCHASE AGREEMENT 

(PRICE LIST REVISIONS) 
 This Addendum, dated
March 30, 2009 (the “Effective Date”), is being made to the Inventory Management and Product Purchase Agreement dated May 17, 2002 (VMware Contract #1322) (the “Agreement”) by and between Ingram Micro Inc.
(“Ingram”) and VMware, Inc. (“VMware”). 
 This Addendum shall become part of and subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement
which, except as modified herein, remains unchanged and in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Addendum and the Agreement, the terms of this Addendum shall govern. All terms not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, the parties agree to amend the Agreement by a mutual written agreement as noted herein;

 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, intending to be legally bound hereby, the undersigned parties agree as follows: 
 PRICE LIST REVISIONS. The parties hereby remove and
replace in its entirety Section 6.4 of the Distribution Agreement, which is incorporated by reference into the Agreement with the following language. Attachment II and all references thereto are deleted. 
  

	 	6.4	Ingram’s purchase price of each Product shall be stated in the then-current price list provided by VMware. VMware may revise the price list upon thirty (30) days prior
written notice to Ingram. Any revision will apply to orders accepted by VMware upon thirty (30) days after the Effective Date of the revision. Ingram’s Product resale price shall be solely within its discretion. 


 

	 	(a)	VMware may change the terms or form of the price list, including, but not limited to: (1) pricing, including offering applicable localized pricing; (2) offering pricing in
local currencies; and (3) titling or naming of the price list (for example, Professional Distributor Price List to Enterprise Distributor Price List). Notwithstanding the forgoing, the price list shall not supersede Sections 11 or 12 of the
Distribution Agreement. 

  

	 	(b)	Ship-To Pricing. The price list for Ingram may include pricing terms that are contingent on specific countries or regions where Products are shipped, as those countries or regions
are defined within said price list (“Ship-To Pricing”). If Ship-To Pricing is provided, Ingram’s applicable pricing from VMware on the price list shall be determined by the ship-to address of the third party reseller purchasing
Products from Ingram. 

 By execution hereof, the signers certify they have read and agree to be bound by this Addendum and are duly authorized
to execute this Addendum on behalf of the parties. 
  

									
	INGRAM MICRO INC.	 		 	VMWARE, INC.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Jodi Honore
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Jennifer A. Parks

	Name:	 	Jodi Honore	 		 	Name:	 	Jennifer A. Parks
	Title:	 	VP, Vendor Management	 		 	Title:	 	Sr. Corporate Counsel
	Date:	 	March 27, 2009	 		 	Date:	 	March 30, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         157,585
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,404,661
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,413,621
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,176,529
<PP&E>                                       2,841,306
<DEPRECIATION>                                 729,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,753,574
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,820,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           330
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,696,942
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,753,574
<SALES>                                     12,578,420
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,578,420
<CGS>                                        6,381,795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,377,644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (57,924)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             347,760
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                413,297
<INCOME-TAX>                                   165,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            248,297
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   248,297
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Angel Rios, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 6, 1979, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment against him, based upon the People’s failure to instruct the Grand Jury that it had the option to remove the case to the Family Court. Order reversed, on the law, motion denied and indictment reinstated. CPL 190.71 (subd [b]) clearly limits the removal power of the Grand Jury to situations where three enumerated conditions are met. Since one of the requisites for Grand Jury removal of a charge against an accused juvenile offender to the Family Court is that the criminal act committed is one for which it may *not*indict (CPL 190.71, subd [b], par [1]), and since CPL 190.71 (subd [a]) expressly declares that robbery in the first degree (for which the defendant was indicted) is a crime for which a Grand Jury *may*indict, it is evident that the Grand Jury in the case at bar did not possess the option to remove the matter to the Family Court. Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6717

OLIVER JESSE SHAW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-3384-DKC) Submitted: August 31, 1999 Decided: September 14, 1999 Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Oliver Jesse Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s memorandum and order are marked as “filed” April 13, 1999, the district court’s records show that they were entered on the docket sheet on April 21, 1999. Pursuant to rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the memorandum and order were entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Oliver Jesse Shaw seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Shaw v. Corcoran , No. CA-98- 3384-DKC (D. Md. Apr. 21, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
4.403 Responsibilities of contracting officers.

(a) Presolicitation phase. Contracting officers shall review all proposed solicitations to determine

whether access to classified information may be required by offerors, or by a contractor during

contract performance.

(1) If access to classified information of another agency may be required, the contracting officer

shall-

(i) Determine if the agency is covered by the NISP; and

(ii) Follow that agency’s procedures for determining the security clearances of firms to be solicited.

(2) If the classified information required is from the contracting officer’s agency, the contracting

officer shall follow agency procedures.

(b) Solicitation phase. Contracting officers shall-

(1) Ensure that the classified acquisition is conducted as required by the NISP or agency

procedures, as appropriate; and

(2) Include-

(i) An appropriate Security Requirements clause in the solicitation (see 4.404); and

(ii) As appropriate, in solicitations and contracts when the contract may require access to classified

information, a requirement for security safeguards in addition to those provided in the clause

(52.204-2, Security Requirements).

(c) Award phase. Contracting officers shall inform contractors and subcontractors of the security

classifications and requirements assigned to the various documents, materials, tasks, subcontracts,

and components of the classified contract as identified in the requirement documentation as follows:

(1) Nondefense agencies that have industrial security services agreements with DoD, and DoD

components, shall use the Contract Security Classification Specification, DD Form 254. The

contracting officer, or authorized agency representative, is the approving official for the DD Form

254 associated with the prime contract and shall ensure the DD Form 254 is properly prepared,

distributed by and coordinated with requirements and security personnel in accordance with agency

procedures, see 4.402(d)(1).

(2) Contracting officers in agencies not covered by the NISP shall follow agency procedures.

Parent topic: Subpart 4.4 - Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry
#### Lynette Gaffney, Respondent, v Doreatha Gaffney, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 259]

In an action pursuant to RPAPL 1501 (4) to cancel and discharge a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), dated June 9, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and directed that the subject mortgage be canceled and discharged.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal *(see Fernald v Vinci,*13 AD3d 333 [2004]; *Gerhardt v New York City Tr. Auth.,*8 AD3d 427 [2004]; *Garnerville Holding Co. v IMC Mgt.,*299 AD2d 450 [2002]; *Matison v County of Nassau,*290 AD2d 494 [2002]; *Desmarat v Basile,*288 AD2d 336 [2001]; *Singh v Getty Petroleum Corp.,*275 AD2d 740 [2000]). An appellant’s record on appeal must contain all of the relevant papers before the Supreme Court *(see*CPLR 5526; *Fernald v Vinci, supra; Riverso v Allstate Ins. Co.,*282 AD2d 663 [2001]). The appellant did not fulfill this obligation.

The plaintiffs motion for summary judgment consisted of an attorney affirmation and two exhibits: papers filed by her in February 2005 supporting a motion for summary judgment and a filing receipt for the note of issue. The attorney affirmation stated only that the plaintiff was resubmitting the February 2005 motion for summary judgment and explained that the Supreme Court had declined to consider that motion because the note of issue had not been filed when it was submitted. However, the record on appeal does not contain the exhibit consisting of the February 2005 motion papers.

Since the appellant failed to submit a record that would enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits, the appeal must be dismissed *(see Fernald v Vinci, supra;*
      *858
      *Garnerville Holding Co. v IMC Mgt., supra; Desmarat v Basile, supra; Riverso v Allstate Ins. Co., supra).*Miller, J.P., Ritter, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Subpart 3.6 - Contracts with Government

Employees or Organizations Owned or

Controlled by Them

Parent topic: Part 3 - Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest

3.601 Policy.

(a) Except as specified in 3.602, a contracting officer shall not knowingly award a contract to a

Government employee or to a business concern or other organization owned or substantially owned

or controlled by one or more Government employees. This policy is intended to avoid any conflict of

interest that might arise between the employees’ interests and their Government duties, and to

avoid the appearance of favoritism or preferential treatment by the Government toward its

employees.

(b) For purposes of this subpart, special Government employees (as defined in 18 U.S.C.202)

performing services as experts, advisors, or consultants, or as members of advisory committees, are

not considered Government employees unless-

(1) The contract arises directly out of the individual’s activity as a special Government employee;

(2) In the individual’s capacity as a special Government employee, the individual is in a position to

influence the award of the contract; or

(3) Another conflict of interest is determined to exist.

3.602 Exceptions.

The agency head, or a designee not below the level of the head of the contracting activity, may

authorize an exception to the policy in 3.601 only if there is a most compelling reason to do so, such

as when the Government’s needs cannot reasonably be otherwise met.

3.603 Responsibilities of the contracting officer.

(a) Before awarding a contract, the contracting officer shall obtain an authorization under 3.602 if-

(1) The contracting officer knows, or has reason to believe, that a prospective contractor is one to

which award is otherwise prohibited under 3.601; and

(2) There is a most compelling reason to make an award to that prospective contractor.

(b) The contracting officer shall comply with the requirements and guidance in subpart 9.5 before

awarding a contract to an organization owned or substantially owned or controlled by Government

employees.
11.107 Solicitation provision.

(a) Insert the provision at 52.211-6, Brand Name or Equal, when brand name or equal purchase

descriptions are included in a solicitation.

(b) Insert the provision at 52.211-7, Alternatives to Government-Unique Standards, in solicitations

that use Government-unique standards when the agency uses the transaction-based reporting

method to report its use of voluntary consensus standards to the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (see OMB Circular A-119, "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of

Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities"). Use of the provision is

optional for agencies that report their use of voluntary consensus standards to the National Institute

of Standards and Technology using the categorical reporting method. Agencies that manage their

specifications on a contract-by-contract basis use the transaction-based method of reporting.

Agencies that manage their specifications centrally use the categorical method of reporting. Agency

regulations regarding specification management describe which method is used.

Parent topic: Subpart 11.1 - Selecting and Developing Requirements Documents
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 18

- 00632

- CV
Andrea PEREZ , Appellant

v.
Santos SPARKMAN , Appellee From the County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018

- CV

- 0246 Honorable Robin V. Dwyer, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 27, 2019
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSEC UT ION Appellant Andrea Perez filed a pro se notice of appeal from a judgment of eviction signed on August 16, 2018 . Appella nt ’ s brief was originally due January 14, 2019 . Neither the brief nor
a motion for extension of time was filed. On January 24, 2019 , we ordered appellant to file, not
later than February 4, 2019 , her appellant ’ s brief and a written response reasonably ex plaining her failure to timely file the brief. We advised appellant that if s he failed to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 38.8(a). Appellant ha s not filed a brief or the written response as ordered by th is court.04

- 18

- 00632

- CV

- 2

- We therefore order this appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. We further order that no costs be assessed against appellant because she is indigent.
PER CURIAM