alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
3.909-3 Solicitation provision and contract

clause.

When using funding subject to the prohibitions in 3.909-1(a), the contracting officer shall-

(a)

(1) Include the provision at 52.203-18, Prohibition on Contracting with Entities that Require Certain

Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements-Representation, in all solicitations, except as

provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section; and

(2) Do not insert the provision in solicitations for a personal services contract with an individual if

the services are to be performed entirely by the individual, rather than by an employee of the

contractor or a subcontractor.

(b)

(1) Include the clause at 52.203-19, Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality

Agreements or Statements, in all solicitations and resultant contracts, other than personal services

contracts with individuals.

(2) Modify existing contracts, other than personal services contracts with individuals, to include the

clause before obligating FY 2015 or subsequent FY funds that are subject to the same prohibition on

internal confidentiality agreements or statements.

Parent topic: 3.909 Prohibition on providing funds to an entity that requires certain internal

confidentiality agreements or statements.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 1, 2013

t0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

145948

GEORGE R. PAIGE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 145948

COA: 304300

Wayne CC: 10

- 012694

- CH

EVERHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY and

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

ASSOCIATION,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
17.202 Use of options.

(a) Subject to the limitations of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, for both sealed bidding and

contracting by negotiation, the contracting officer may include options in contracts when it is in the

Government’s interest. When using sealed bidding, the contracting officer shall make a written

determination that there is a reasonable likelihood that the options will be exercised before

including the provision at 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options, in the solicitation. (See 17.207(f) with

regard to the exercise of options.)

(b) Inclusion of an option is normally not in the Government’s interest when, in the judgment of the

contracting officer-

(1) The foreseeable requirements involve-

(i) Minimum economic quantities (i.e., quantities large enough to permit the recovery of startup

costs and the production of the required supplies at a reasonable price); and

(ii) Delivery requirements far enough into the future to permit competitive acquisition, production,

and delivery.

(2) An indefinite quantity or requirements contract would be more appropriate than a contract with

options. However, this does not preclude the use of an indefinite quantity contract or requirements

contract with options.

(c) The contracting officer shall not employ options if-

(1) The contractor will incur undue risks; e.g., the price or availability of necessary materials or

labor is not reasonably foreseeable;

(2) Market prices for the supplies or services involved are likely to change substantially; or

(3) The option represents known firm requirements for which funds are available unless-

(i) The basic quantity is a learning or testing quantity; and

(ii) Competition for the option is impracticable once the initial contract is awarded.

(d) In recognition of-

(1) The Government’s need in certain service contracts for continuity of operations; and

(2) The potential cost of disrupted support, options may be included in service contracts if there is

an anticipated need for a similar service beyond the first contract period.

Parent topic: Subpart 17.2 - Options
Exhibit 32.1

Quipp, Inc.

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



I, Michael S. Kady, Chief Executive Officer of Quipp, Inc., a Florida corporation (the Company), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:

(1)

The Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



* * *





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | / s / MICHAEL S. KADY  
| | Michael S. Kady        
| | Chief Executive Officer



Date:

March 31, 2008
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.370 Evaluation criteria. Of those Applicants whose management team is considered qualified for venture capital investing and who have submitted an eligible and complete application, the Administrator of RBS and the Administrator on behalf of SBA, in their sole discretion, will evaluate and select an Applicant for participation in the RBIC program by considering the following criteria: ( a ) Whether the Applicant's management team has the knowledge, experience, and capability necessary to manage a sound, economically viable RBIC and to comply with the Act;
( b ) The quality of the Applicant's comprehensive business plan in terms of meeting the objectives of the RBIC program;
( c ) The likelihood that the Applicant will achieve the goals described in its comprehensive business plan;
( d ) The strength and likelihood for success of the Applicant's operations and investment strategies, including whether the Applicant has projected adequate profitability and financial soundness;
( e ) Whether the Applicant will be able to operate soundly and profitably over the long term;
( f ) Whether the Applicant will be able to operate actively in its identified Rural Areas in accordance with its business plan;
( g ) The need for Developmental Capital investments in the Rural Areas in which the Applicant intends to invest;
( h ) The extent to which the Applicant will concentrate its activities on serving Smaller Enterprises located in the Rural Area in which it intends to invest, including the ratio of resources that it proposes to invest in such Enterprises as compared to other Enterprises;
( i ) The Applicant's demonstrated understanding of the markets in the Rural Areas in which it intends to focus its activities;
( j ) The likelihood that and the time frame within which the Applicant will be able to raise the Regulatory Capital it proposes to raise for its investments;
( k ) The strength of the Applicant's proposal to provide Operational Assistance to Smaller Enterprises in which it plans to invest;
( l ) The extent to which the activities proposed by the Applicant will promote economic development and the creation of wealth and job opportunities in the Rural Areas in which it intends to invest and among individuals living in such Areas; and
( m ) The strength of the Applicant's application compared to applications submitted by other Applicants intending to invest in the same or proximate Rural Areas.
[69 FR 32204, June 8, 2004, as amended at 85 FR 16523, Mar. 24, 2020]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7596

JIMMIE WASHINGTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM DAVIS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 98-6623

JIMMIE WASHINGTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM DAVIS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-97-1801-2-8AJ)
2

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 30, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmie Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Appellant first appeals the

district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider a nonexistent dismissal order. Appellant also filed a notice of appeal

after the court’s order extending the time for the respondents to

reply to Appellant’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998),

petition and noting that the matter could be considered by a magistrate judge with the parties’ consent. We dismiss the appeals for

lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. This

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, see 28

U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen

v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders

here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory

or collateral orders.

We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals

as interlocutory. Appellant’s motion to place these appeals in

abeyance is denied. 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Fischer, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on February 15, 1980, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). No opinion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Lupiano, Silver-man and Bloom, JJ.
4.1105 Solicitation provision and contract

clauses.

(a)

(1) Insert the provision at 52.204-7, System for Award Management, in all solicitations except when

the conditions in 4.1102(a) apply.

(2) Insert the provision at 52.204-7, System for Award Management, with its Alternate I when the

solicitation is anticipated to be awarded in accordance with 4.1102(a)(5).

(b) Insert the clause at 52.204-13, System for Award Management Maintenance, in solicitations that

contain the provision at 52.204-7, and resulting contracts.

Parent topic: Subpart 4.11 - System for Award Management
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*May 23, 2006*

[Cite as *05/23/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-2517.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2005-2084.

#### Knust v. Wilkins.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2004-M-533. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals. Upon consideration of the motion of amici curiae, Rome P. Busa Jr. and Anthony J. Busa, requesting leave to participate in oral argument,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.
Exhibit 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Material Sciences Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Clifford D. Nastas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





January 11, 2010By:

/s/ Clifford D. NastasClifford D. NastasChief Executive Officer


In connection with the Report, I, James M. Froisland, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer, Chief Information Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



January 11, 2010By:

/s/ James M. FroislandJames M. FroislandSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer and Corporate Secretary




41
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the December 1, 1987 
Prospectus (Registration No. 33-07056-A) of our report, dated February 8, 1999, 
on the financial statements of Yager/Kuester Public Fund Limited Partnership, 
which appears on page 6 of this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended 
December 31, 1998 and to the reference to our Firm under the caption "Experts" 
in such Prospectus.


/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina
March 30, 1999
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the December 1, 1987
Prospectus (Registration No. 33-07056-A) of our report, dated February 19, 2002,
on the financial statements of Yager/Kuester Public Fund Limited Partnership,
which appears on page 5 of this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2001 and to the reference of our Firm under the caption "Experts"
in such Prospectus.

/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina
March 28, 2002
4.2100 Scope of part.

This subpart implements paragraphs (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B) of section 889 of the John S. McCain

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232).

Parent topic: Subpart 4.21 Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video

Surveillance Services or Equipment
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM THERMO
TERRATECH  INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 30, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                MAR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-30-1996
<CASH>                                31,182
<SECURITIES>                           7,004
<RECEIVABLES>                         47,258
<ALLOWANCES>                           2,861
<INVENTORY>                            3,883
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     121,577
<PP&E>                               126,129
<DEPRECIATION>                        43,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       333,656
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 55,569
<BONDS>                               82,384
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                               1,760
<OTHER-SE>                            84,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         333,656
<SALES>                               19,670
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     220,484
<CGS>                                 17,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        169,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       6,081
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          85
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    10,730
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        8,314
<INCOME-TAX>                           3,644
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    3,447
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                           3,447
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.18
        

</TABLE>
#### Attilio Di Chiara, Respondent, v. Joseph Calvo et al., Appellants.

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the 'Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 5, 1968, which adjudged that plaintiff is entitled to one third of the total shares of stock of the corporate defendant and directed the issuance of such stock to plaintiff. Judgment affirmed, with costs. In our opinion, the record amply supports the finding of the learned trial court that plaintiff and the individual defendant entered into an oral partnership agreement for the operation of a restaurant, with the intention of establishing ,a corporation thereafter in which plaintiff would be entitled to one third of the corporate stock. The relief afforded was properly shaped in accordance with the equities of the ease (cf. *Weil*v. *Atlantic Beach Holding Corp.,*1 N Y 2d 20, 29). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
# L_2021368EN.01000501.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 368/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 368/5

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2021/1818

of 15 October 2021

launching the European Union Military Training Mission in Mozambique (EUTM Mozambique)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1143 of 12 July 2021 on a European Union Military Training Mission in Mozambique (EUTM Mozambique) (1),

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 12 July 2021, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2021/1143 on a European Union Military Training Mission in Mozambique (EUTM Mozambique). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 12 July 2021, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2021/1143 on a European Union Military Training Mission in Mozambique (EUTM Mozambique).

| (2) | On 28 September 2021, the Political and Security Committee agreed that the Mission Plan, including the Rules of Engagement, for EUTM Mozambique should be approved. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 28 September 2021, the Political and Security Committee agreed that the Mission Plan, including the Rules of Engagement, for EUTM Mozambique should be approved.

| (3) | Following the recommendation of the Mission Commander, EUTM Mozambique should be launched on 15 October 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Following the recommendation of the Mission Commander, EUTM Mozambique should be launched on 15 October 2021.

| (4) | In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union, which have defence implications. Consequently, Denmark is not participating in the adoption of this Decision, is neither bound by it nor subject to its application, and does not participate in the financing of EUTM Mozambique, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union, which have defence implications. Consequently, Denmark is not participating in the adoption of this Decision, is neither bound by it nor subject to its application, and does not participate in the financing of EUTM Mozambique,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Mission Plan, including the Rules of Engagement, for EUTM Mozambique is hereby approved.

Article 2

EUTM Mozambique shall be launched on 15 October 2021.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 15 October 2021.

For the Council

The President

J. CIGLER KRALJ

---

(1)  
  OJ L 247, 13.7.2021, p. 93.

1

---
(115 App. Div. 578)

#### SCHEIB v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second department.

November 16, 1906.)

Negligence—Imputed Negligence.

The negligence of the driver of a team, with which a street car collided! through negligence of the motorman, will not be imputed to an occupant of the team injured by the collision, though he and the driver were engaged in a common employment; he not having done or attempted to do anything to influence the driver.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. Negligence, §§ 147-150.]

Appeal from Trial Term, Westchester County.

Action by Albert Scheib, an infant, by Joseph Scheib, his guardian ad litem, against the New York City Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, GAY-NOR, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.

Charles F. Brown (Bayard H. Ames, on the brief), for appellant.

Thomas J. O’Neill (Joseph A. Shay, on the brief), for respondent.

WOODWARD, J.

The plaintiff in this action was injured in a collision between an electric car of the defendant and a wagon in which the plaintiff was riding, but which was driven by another person. The principal question presented by this appeal is whether the learned trial court erred in charging the jury, as requested in behalf of the plaintiff:

> “That if the plaintiff conducted himself with due care, and the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant’s motorman, the defendant would be liable, even though the driver of the wagon was also concurrently negligent.”

It is contended in behalf of the appellant that, inasmuch as the testimony showed that the plaintiff and the driver of the wagon were engaged in a common employment, this instruction was erroneous as in conflict with the law as laid down in the case of Donnelly v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 109 N. Y. 16, 15 N. E. 733. We are of the opinion, however, that there is a distinction between the Donnelly Case and the case at bar. In the Donnelly Case it distinctly appeared from the evidence that both the plaintiff and the driver were engaged in the management and directing the control of the wagon. Here there is no proof whatever that the plaintiff did anything or attempted to do anything to influence the conduct of the driver. This distinction has heretofore been pointed out by this court in Bailey v. Jourdan, 18 App. Div. 387, 46 N. Y. Supp. 399; and' in McCormack v. Nassau Electric R. R. Co., 18 App. Div. 333, 48 N. Y. Supp. 1108, this court also laid down the rule which it supposed to be applicable to accidents of the same character as that involved in the present case—a rule which still seems to us readily reconcilable with the opinion of Gray, J., in the *987Donnelly Case, when the facts which were under consideration in that case are clearly uriderstood.

There is no other question which calls for discussion, and the judgment and order should be affirmed.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ail concur.