alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
28.310 Contract clause for work on a

Government installation.

(a) Insert the clause at 52.228-5, Insurance-Work on a Government Installation, in solicitations and

contracts if a fixed-price contract is contemplated, the contract amount is expected to exceed the

simplified acquisition threshold, and the contract will require work on a Government installation,

unless-

(1) Only a small amount of work is required on the Government installation (e.g.,a few brief visits

permonth); or

(2) All work on the Government installation will be performed outside the United States and its

outlying areas.

(b) The contracting officer may insert the clause at 52.228-5 in solicitations and contracts described

in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section if it is in the Government’s interest to do so.

Parent topic: Subpart 28.3 - Insurance
# CI2021058EN.01000401.xml

| 18.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 58/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 58/4

---

Commission Declaration on the methodology for climate tracking

(2021/C 58 I/04)

The Commission considers that, in order to ensure consistency, the methodology of Annex VI of the Regulation establishing a Recovery and Resilience Facility should be incorporated in the Common Provisions Regulation.

---
S. 2464

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and six

An Act

To revise a provision relating to a repayment obligation of the Fort McDowell

Yavapai Nation under the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fort McDowell Indian Community

Water Rights Settlement Revision Act of 2006’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) FORT MCDOWELL WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT.—The

term ‘‘Fort McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act’’ means

the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement

Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–628; 104 Stat. 4480).

(2) NATION.—The term ‘‘Nation’’ means the Fort McDowell

Yavapai Nation, formerly known as the ‘‘Fort McDowell Indian

Community’’.

(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

of the Interior.

SEC. 3. CANCELLATION OF REPAYMENT OBLIGATION.

(a) CANCELLATION OF OBLIGATION.—The obligation of the

Nation to repay the loan made under section 408(e) of the Fort

McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act (104 Stat. 4489) is cancelled.

(b) EFFECT OF ACT.—

(1) RIGHTS OF NATION UNDER FORT MCDOWELL WATER

RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph

(B), nothing in this Act alters or affects any right of the

Nation under the Fort McDowell Water Rights Settlement

Act.

(B) EXCEPTION.—The cancellation of the repayment

obligation under subsection (a) shall be considered—

(i) to fulfill all conditions required to achieve the

full and final implementation of the Fort McDowell

Water Rights Settlement Act; and

(ii) to relieve the Secretary of any responsibility

or obligation to obtain mitigation property or develop

additional farm acreage under section 410 the Fort

McDowell Water Rights Settlement Act (104 Stat.

4490).
S. 2464—2

(2) ELIGIBILITY FOR SERVICES AND BENEFITS.—Nothing in

this Act alters or affects the eligibility of the Nation or any

member of the Nation for any service or benefit provided by

the Federal Government to federally recognized Indian tribes

or members of such Indian tribes.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
22.400 Scope of subpart.

This subpart implements the statutes which prescribe labor standards requirements for contracts in

excess of $2,000 for construction, alteration, or repair, including painting and decorating, of public

buildings and public works. (See definition of "Construction, alteration, or repair" in section 22.401.)

Labor relations requirements prescribed in other subparts of part 22 may also apply.

Parent topic: Subpart 22.4 - Labor Standards for Contracts Involving Construction
#### §§ 4284.952-4284.959 [Reserved]
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20cv186-MW/GRJ

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

CREATING IMMORALITY,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Omnibus 

Order to Show Cause and Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 4, and has also 

reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 ECF 

No. 6.

Plaintiff filed 33 cases over a four-day period, from August 17 through August 

20, 2020. These cases were assigned to three U. S. District Judges in the Northern 

District of Florida. The cases are frivolous. Understandably, the Magistrate Judge 

1 Plaintiff filed a document in Case No. 1:20cv181-MW/GRJ, ECF No. 6, which this Court has 

construed as an omnibus response to the Order to Show Cause and as objections to the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones, ECF No. 4.

Case 1:20-cv-00186-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 2
2

found this extraordinary volume of frivolous cases merits the imposition of 

restrictions on future filings in order to preserve scarce judicial resources and protect 

the efficient administration of justice. While a close call, this Court will not restrict 

future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the process. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted in part, over 

Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, 

“This case is DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous and/or for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

No restrictions are imposed on future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the 

judicial process.” The Clerk shall also close the file. 

SO ORDERED on September 23, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00186-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 4290

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

#### § 4290.3020 Changes in Ownership, Structure, or Control.

Paragraph (b) in § 4290.440 does not apply to Non-leveraged RBICs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7184

BOBBY DEONTRAY WYCHE,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN LEE PULLEY, Administrator of Nash Correctional Institution, Nashville, 

North Carolina,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01014-LCB-JLW)

Submitted: March 24, 2020 Decided: April 9, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin P. Bradley, I, KEVIN P. BRADLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Deontray Wyche seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Wyche’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2018) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wyche has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wyche’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20cv191-MW/GRJ

NATIONAL SCIENCE

FOUNDATION,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Omnibus 

Order to Show Cause and Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 4, and has also 

reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 ECF 

No. 6.

Plaintiff filed 33 cases over a four-day period, from August 17 through August 

20, 2020. These cases were assigned to three U. S. District Judges in the Northern 

District of Florida. The cases are frivolous. Understandably, the Magistrate Judge 

1 Plaintiff filed a document in Case No. 1:20cv181-MW/GRJ, ECF No. 6, which this Court has 

construed as an omnibus response to the Order to Show Cause and as objections to the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones, ECF No. 4.

Case 1:20-cv-00191-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 2
2

found this extraordinary volume of frivolous cases merits the imposition of 

restrictions on future filings in order to preserve scarce judicial resources and protect 

the efficient administration of justice. While a close call, this Court will not restrict 

future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the process. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted in part, over 

Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, 

“This case is DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous and/or for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

No restrictions are imposed on future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the 

judicial process.” The Clerk shall also close the file. 

SO ORDERED on September 23, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00191-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN RE: REASSIGNMENT OF CIVIL CASES Misc. No. 

/

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

In order to create a pending civil case load for the Honorable Richard Smoak, the

Clerk is hereby ORDERED to reassign the following civil case from the Honorable

Maurice M. Paul to the Honorable Richard Smoak:

5:02cv158 Glenn v. Copeland, et al

DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 5:02-cv-00158-RS-WCS Document 160 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 1
25.604 Preaward determination concerning

the inapplicability of section 1605 of the

Recovery Act or the Buy American statute.

(a) For any acquisition, an offeror may request from the contracting officer a determination

concerning the inapplicability of section 1605 of the Recovery Act or the Buy American statute for

specifically identified construction materials. The time for submitting the request is specified in the

solicitation in paragraph (b) of either 52.225-22 or 52.225-24, whichever applies. The information

and supporting data that must be included in the request are also specified in the solicitation in

paragraphs (c) and (d) of either 52.225-21 or 52.225-23, whichever applies.

(b) Before award, the contracting officer must evaluate all requests based on the information

provided and may supplement this information with other readily available information.

(c) Determination based on unreasonable cost of domestic construction material.

(1) Manufactured construction material. The contracting officer must compare the offered price of

the contract using foreign manufactured construction material (i.e., any construction material not

manufactured in the United States, or construction material consisting predominantly of iron or

steel and the iron or steel is not produced in the United States) to the estimated price if all domestic

manufactured construction material were used. If use of domestic manufactured construction

material would increase the overall offered price of the contract by more than 25 percent, then the

contracting officer shall determine that the cost of the domestic manufactured construction material

is unreasonable

(2) Unmanufactured construction material. The contracting officer must compare the cost of each

foreign unmanufactured construction material to the cost of domestic unmanufactured construction

material. If the cost of the domestic unmanufactured construction material exceeds the cost of the

foreign unmanufactured construction material by more than 20 percent, then the contracting officer

shall determine that the cost of the domestic unmanufactured construction material is unreasonable.

Parent topic: Subpart 25.6 - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-Buy American statuteConstruction Materials
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:98cr46-RH/WCS

CLAUDE LOUIS DUBOC,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR TRANSCRIPTS

Defendant Claude Louis Duboc has filed a motion for the provision of a

transcript of his sentencing hearing under the Criminal Justice Act. Because Mr.

Duboc already has been granted leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the

motion is unnecessary; he may obtain a transcript of the sentencing hearing by

submitting a proper request (on form CJA-24) directly to the court reporter. By

later “notice,” Mr. Duboc also has requested a transcript of the jury instructions

given during the trial. The conviction on which Mr. Duboc was sentenced,

however, already has been affirmed on appeal, and Mr. Duboc has suggested no

respect in which the instructions given during the trial could have any possible

Case 4:98-cr-00046-RH-WCS Document 422 Filed 07/06/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1

 It is possible that Mr. Duboc seeks a transcript for use in preparing a

motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255. He of course is not entitled as of right to a

transcript for use in preparing a §2255 motion, and he has made no showing of

need. Moreover, even if he needed the instructions to prepare a §2255 motion, he

still would not need a transcript; the instructions as given orally to the jury were

read from a written version that is included in the record. The written version was

physically provided to the jury for reference during deliberations. 

Case No: 4:98cr46-RH/WCS

bearing on the pending appeal.1 Mr. Duboc’s request for a transcript of those

instructions will be denied.

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

Defendant Claude Louis Duboc’s motion for a transcript (document 418), as

supplemented by his notice (document 420), is DENIED without prejudice to his

ability to obtain a transcript of his sentencing hearing by proper request directly to

the court reporter.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of July, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:98-cr-00046-RH-WCS Document 422 Filed 07/06/05 Page 2 of 2
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

NICKOLAS WHITE, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

.

No. 4D21

- 2620

[ May 25, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge; L.T. Case No. 95

- 66CF10B

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach , for a ppellant

.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine

Germanowicz , Senior Assistant Attorney G eneral, West Palm Beach, for

a ppellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

L EVINE
, F ORST and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
98-1549.

#### Bocook v. Huffman.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 5:01cr4-RH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 5:01cr4-RH/CAS

TRAVIS WORKS,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER TERMINATING SUPERVISED RELEASE

The defendant Travis Works has submitted a letter—in effect, a motion—

asking for early termination of supervised release. The probation officer has 

advised the court’s staff that the officer does not oppose early termination and that 

the government has said it takes no position on the issue. I have considered the 

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the criteria in Monograph 109 as approved by 

the Judicial Conference of the United States. I find that termination of supervised 

release at this time is warranted by the defendant’s conduct and the interest of 

justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

Case 5:01-cr-00004-RH Document 43 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 5:01cr4-RH

1. Mr. Works’s motion for early termination of supervised release, ECF No. 

42, is granted.

2. Mr. Works’s term of supervised release is terminated as of July 29, 2016, 

at 3:57 p.m.

SO ORDERED on July 29, 2016.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 5:01-cr-00004-RH Document 43 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:92cr4013-WS

MICHAEL MORGAN, 4:04cv382-WS

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc.

1634) docketed July 25, 2005. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

amended motion to vacate sentence (doc. 1626) be summarily dismissed as untimely. 

The defendant has filed objections (doc. 1637) to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record in light of the defendant’s objections, the court has

determined that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 1634) is adopted

and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:92-cr-04013-WS-CAS Document 1642 Filed 08/19/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:04cv382-WS

2. The defendant’s amended motion to vacate sentence (doc. 1626) is hereby

summarily DISMISSED as untimely.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall close Case No.

4:04cv382-WS.

DONE AND ORDERED this August 19, 2005.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:92-cr-04013-WS-CAS Document 1642 Filed 08/19/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Craig J. Kaufmann, Controller and Treasurer of SkyTerra
Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
          June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
          on the date hereof (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.


                                    By:   /s/ CRAIG J. KAUFMANN
                                          ---------------------
                                          Name: Craig J. Kaufmann
                                          Title: Controller and Treasurer
                                                 (Principal Accounting Officer)
                                          Date:  August 15, 2005


     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-20541 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. BILLY JOE SEARS, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CR-757-1

Before JONES, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Billy Joe Sears has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. C a l i f o r n i a , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. F lores , 632 F .3d 229 ( 5th Cir. 2 011). Sears has n ot filed a response. We have reviewed couns e l ’ s brief and the relevant portions of the record r e flected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the a p peal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to wi t h d raw is GRANTED, c ounsel is excused from U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 18, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-20541 Document: 00512277439 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2013No. 12-20541

further responsibilities herein, and the A PPEAL IS DISMISSED. S ee 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-20541 Document: 00512277439 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2013