alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7029-7030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3010]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-72,231]


Lonza, Inc., Riverside Plant, Lonza Exclusive Synthesis Section, 
Custom Manufacturing Division Including On-Site Leased Workers of Lab 
Support, Aerotek, Job Exchange, and Synerfac; Conshohocken, PA; Notice 
of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated December 5, 2009, the United Steel Workers, 
Local 6816-18, requested administrative reconsideration of the negative 
determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers

[[Page 7030]]

and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on 
November 5, 2009. The Notice of Determination will soon be published in 
the Federal Register.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the findings that imports of Trityl Losartan did not 
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no 
shift of production to a foreign source occurred.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided 
additional information regarding customers of the subject firm.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of December, 2009.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-3010 Filed 2-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
28.101-3 Authority of an attorney-in-fact for a bid bond.       (a) 						            Any person signing a bid bond as an attorney-in-fact shall include with the bid bond evidence of authority to bind the surety.                                          (b) 						            An original, or a photocopy or facsimile of an original, power of attorney is sufficient evidence of such authority.                                          (c) 						            For purposes of this section, electronic, mechanically-applied and printed signatures, seals and dates on the power of attorney shall be considered original signatures, seals and dates, without regard to the order in which they were affixed.                                          (d) 						            The contracting officer shall-                                                         (1) 								                Treat the failure to provide a signed and dated power of attorney at the time of bid opening as a matter of responsiveness; and                                                            (2) 								                Treat questions regarding the authenticity and enforceability of the power of attorney at the time of bid opening as a matter of responsibility. These questions are handled after bid opening.                                                                             (e)                                                         (1) 								                If the contracting officer contacts the surety to validate the power of attorney, the contracting officer shall document the file providing, at a minimum, the following information:                                                                           (i) 										                    Name of person contacted.                                                                              (ii) 										                    Date and time of contact.                                                                              (iii) 										                    Response of the surety.                                                                                                           (2) 								                If, upon investigation, the surety declares the power of attorney to have been valid at the time of bid opening, the contracting officer may require correction of any technical error.                                                            (3) 								                If the surety declares the power of attorney to have been invalid, the contracting officer shall not allow the bidder to substitute a replacement power of attorney or a replacement surety.                                                                             (f) 						            Determinations of non-responsibility based on the unacceptability of a power of attorney are not subject to the Certificate of Competency process of subpart 19.6 if the surety has disavowed the validity of the power of attorney.    **Parent topic:** 28.101 Bid guarantees.
32.101 Authority.       The basic authority for the contract financing described in this part is contained in 41 U.S.C. chapter 45, Contract Financing, 10 U.S.C. chapter 277, and TitleIII of the Defense Production Act of l950 (50 U.S.C. App.2091).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 32.1 - Financing for Other Than a Commercial Purchase
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
 <CIK>                        0000755465
<NAME>                        Sandata, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     $
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.0
<CASH>                                         1,389,497
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,323,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                   236,400
<INVENTORY>                                    83,518
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,054,703
<PP&E>                                         11,367,165
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,867,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,119,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,942,860
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,560
<OTHER-SE>                                     7,384,385
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,119,618
<SALES>                                        3,155,692
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,231,934
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,153,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             10,294
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                68,163
<INCOME-TAX>                                   30,285
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   37,878
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.02
        


</TABLE>
36.609 Contract clauses.

36.609-1 Design within funding limitations.

36.609-2 Redesign responsibility for design errors or deficiencies.

36.609-3 Work oversight in architect-engineer contracts.

36.609-4 Requirements for registration of designers.

Parent topic: Subpart 36.6 - Architect-Engineer Services
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Agrillo, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as plimited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed December 14, 1978, upon his conviction of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a term of imprisonment of two to four years, as a second felony offender. Sentence affirmed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). After entry of his plea of guilty and prior to sentencing, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of a prior felony conviction which had been rendered, upon his plea of guilty, on November 27, 1970, by an application to vacate that prior conviction pursuant to CPL article 440. That application was denied. The defendant then sought to obtain a second review thereof at *673sentencing by requesting a hearing pursuant to CPL 400.21. The sentencing court refused to accord the defendant a hearing and proceeded to sentence him as a second felony offender to the minimum permissible term (see Penal Law, § 70.06, subds 2, 3). We affirm. Defendant having once unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of his earlier felony conviction, no error occurred in the sentencing court’s refusal to conduct a second inquiry into the identical issue. Under these facts, a sentence of imprisonment was mandatory (see Penal Law, § 70.06). O’Connor, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.
19.1306 HUBZone sole-source awards.

(a) A contracting officer shall consider a contract award to a HUBZone small business concern on a

sole-source basis (see 6.302-5(b)(5)) before considering a small business set-aside (see 19.203 and

subpart 19.5), provided none of the exclusions at 19.1304 apply; and-

(1) The contracting officer does not have a reasonable expectation that offers would be received

from two or more HUBZone small business concerns;

(2) The anticipated price of the contract, including options, will not exceed-

(i) $7 million for a requirement within the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

codes for manufacturing; or

(ii) $4.5 million for a requirement within all other NAICS codes;

(3) The requirement is not currently being performed by an 8(a) participant under the provisions of

subpart 19.8 or has been accepted as a requirement by SBA under subpart 19.8;

(4) The HUBZone small business concern has been determined to be a responsible contractor with

respect to performance; and

(5) Award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.

(b) The SBA has the right to appeal the contracting officer’s decision not to make a HUBZone solesource award (see 13 CFR 126.610).

Parent topic: Subpart 19.13 - Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:97-cr-00016-MP-2

GILFORD ROBSON,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 212, Motion to Dismiss filed by the United

States. The government moved to dismiss the charges against Mr. Robson because of the age of

the case and the unlikelihood of a successful prosecution at this late date. Upon consideration,

the motion is granted.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Doc. 212, the motion to dismiss, is granted, and Doc. 14, the superseding indictment

against Mr. Robson, is dismissed. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of October, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:97-cr-00016-MP Document 213 Filed 10/12/11 Page 1 of 1
REG.
S PRIVATE PLACEMENT – FEBRUARY 23, 2007

    Subscription:
$3.00 per Unit: 1 Unit = 1 common share and 1⁄2 warrant exercisable at $4.50 for
24 months, callable if stock trades at $6.50 for 20 consecutive trading
days

    


    
      
        
          
            	 
      	 	
                    $

                  	 	 	
                    SHARES

                  	 	 	
                    WARRANTS

                  	 
	
                    SUBSCRIBER

                  	 	
                    INVESTED

                  	 	 	
                    ISSUED

                  	 	 	
                    ISSUED

                  	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
                    Seneca
      Holdings Limited

                  	 	$	300,000	 	 	 	100,000	 	 	 	50,000	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
                    Precious
      Capital Global Mining & Metals Fund

                  	 	$	300,000	 	 	 	100,000	 	 	 	50,000	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
                    Christoph
      Richter

                  	 	$	30,000	 	 	 	10,000	 	 	 	5,000	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
                    Synergy
      Asset Management Ltd.

                  	 	$	120,000	 	 	 	40,000	 	 	 	20,000	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
                    Schroder
      & Co Bank AG

                  	 	$	60,000	 	 	 	20,000	 	 	 	10,000	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
                    EFG
      Eurofinanciere d’Investissements

                  	 	$	90,000	 	 	 	30,000	 	 	 	15,000	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
                    Gaia
      Resources Fund

                  	 	$	300,000	 	 	 	100,000	 	 	 	50,000	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
                    Giso
      Finance SA

                  	 	$	30,000	 	 	 	10,000	 	 	 	5,000	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
                    Hebrides
      II Offshore Fund Ltd

                  	 	$	120,000	 	 	 	40,000	 	 	 	20,000	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
                    Iroquois
      Master Fund Ltd.

                  	 	$	375,000	 	 	 	125,000	 	 	 	62,500	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
                    TOTAL

                  	 	$	1,725,000	 	 	 	575,000	 	 	 	287,500
(January 10, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank S. Tamulewicz, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Fulton County, rendered December 28, 1977, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of grand larceny in the second degree and burglary in the second degree. On the night of September 1, 1976, the home of Gordon Beech in the City of Johnstown, County of Fulton, was burglarized, and a coin collection was taken. Three men, Paul Caruso, Jeff Wall and Robert Hardy, subsequently admitted that they were responsible for the actual break-in and theft. They implicated Jack Dubray, Roy Hamlin and the defendant Frank Tamulewicz in the planning and direction of the crime. All six were indicted and charged with conspiracy in the third degree. Caruso, Wall, Hardy and the defendant were also charged with burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the second degree. At the defendant’s trial for the crimes of burglary and grand larceny, Caruso, Wall and Hardy testified for the prosecution to the effect that they had participated in the crime, and implicated defendant as having actively participated in the preparation and execution of the burglary, and in the sharing of the proceeds thereof. Defendant raises several assertions of error, including the *985submission by the trial court to the jury as an issue of fact, the question of whether Caruso, Wall and Hardy were accomplices. Under the facts in this case, there is no question but that they were accomplices as a matter of law (CPL 60.22, subd 2). No other inference was possible on the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial. The failure of the trial court to charge that Caruso, Wall and Hardy were accomplices as a matter of law constituted harmful error requiring reversal of the judgment of conviction *(People v Minarich,*46 NY2d 970; *People v Beaudet,*32 NY2d 371; *People v Jenner,*29 NY2d 695). The failure of defense counsel to object to the charge does not preclude consideration on appeal of an error such as this which, in the interest of justice, requires consideraton *(People v Greenwaldt,*72 AD2d 836). Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion and in the interest of justice, and matter remitted for a new trial. Greenblott, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 1:20cv213-RH-GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:20cv213-RH-GRJ

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

Defendant.

____________________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 4. No objections have been filed.

The report and recommendation addresses multiple lawsuits all filed by the 

plaintiff and all lacking an arguable basis in law or fact. The report and 

recommendation concludes this case and others should be dismissed. This order 

accepts the report and recommendation and adopts it as the court’s opinion on the 

issue of dismissal.

The report and recommendation also concludes that, as a sanction, 

conditions should be imposed on the plaintiff’s ability to file further lawsuits. This 

Case 1:20-cv-00213-RH-GRJ Document 7 Filed 09/22/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 1:20cv213-RH-GRJ

order does not impose a sanction but instead leaves the issue of sanctions to the 

district judge presiding over the first-filed case, No. 1:20cv181. 

IT IS ORDERED:

The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The complaint is dismissed under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on September 22, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00213-RH-GRJ Document 7 Filed 09/22/20 Page 2 of 2
#### Deedan Construction Corp., Appellant, v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 12, 1979, dismissed (see *Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment of the same court dated October 25, 1979, affirmed. No opinion. Defendant is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
36.204 Disclosure of the magnitude of

construction projects.

Advance notices and solicitations shall state the magnitude of the requirement in terms of physical

characteristics and estimated price range. In no event shall the statement of magnitude disclose the

Government’s estimate. Therefore, the estimated price should be described in terms of one of the

following price ranges:

(a) Less than $25,000.

(b) Between $25,000 and $100,000.

(c) Between $100,000 and $250,000.

(d) Between $250,000 and $500,000.

(e) Between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

(f) Between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.

(g) Between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000.

(h) More than $10,000,000.

Parent topic: Subpart 36.2 - Special Aspects of Contracting for Construction
###### Editorial Note on Part 4290

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 4290.380 Selection.

From among the Applicants that have submitted eligible and complete applications, the Administrator of RBS and the Administrator on behalf of SBA, in their sole discretion, will select some, all, or none of such Applicants to participate in the RBIC program. Selection will entitle the Applicant to proceed with obtaining a license as a RBIC but only if the Applicant also meets the conditions set forth in § 4290.390.

[69 FR 32204, June 8, 2004, as amended at 85 FR 16523, Mar. 24, 2020]
#### § 4284.901 Purpose.

This subpart implements the Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development grant program (Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG)) administered by the Rural Business-Cooperative Service whereby grants are made to enable viable Agricultural Producers (those who are prepared to progress to the next business level of planning for, or engaging in, Value-Added Agricultural Production) to develop businesses that produce and market Value-Added Agricultural Products and to create marketing opportunities for such businesses. The provisions of this subpart constitute the entire provisions applicable to this Program; the provisions of subpart A of this part do not apply to this subpart.
§ 4284.927 Funding limitations. ( a ) Grant funds may be used to pay up to 50 percent of the Total Project Costs, subject to the limitations established for maximum total grant amount.
( b ) The maximum total grant amount provided to a grantee in any one year shall not exceed the amount announced in an annual notice issued pursuant to § 4284.915, but in no event may the total amount of grant funds provided to a grant recipient exceed $500,000.
( c ) A grant shall have a term that does not exceed 3 years, and a project start date within 90 days of the date of award, unless otherwise specified in a notice pursuant to § 4284.915. Grant project periods should be scaled to the complexity of the objectives for the project. The Agency may extend the term of the grant period, not to exceed the 3-year maximum.
( d ) The aggregate amount of awards to Majority-Controlled Producer-Based Business Ventures may not exceed 10 percent of the total funds obligated under this subpart during any Fiscal Year.
( e ) Not more than 5 percent of funds appropriated each year may be used to fund the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, to support electronic capabilities to provide information regarding research, business, legal, financial, or logistical assistance to Independent Producers and processors.
( f ) Each Fiscal Year, the following amounts of reserved funds will be made available: ( 1 ) 10 percent of total program funding to fund projects that benefit Beginning Farmers or Ranchers or Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers; and
( 2 ) 10 percent of total program funding to fund projects that propose development of Mid-tier Value Chains.
( 3 ) Funds not obligated by June 30 of each Fiscal Year shall be available to the Secretary to make grants under this subpart to eligible applicants in the general funds competition.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS 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 Annual Report of Animal Health International, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, James C. Robison, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and William F.
Lacey, Chief Financial 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 our 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                                                
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|/s/ James C. Robison
|Name:                |  | James C. Robison                               
|Title:               |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                |  | September 18, 2007                             



|                     |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|/s/ William F. Lacey
|Name:                |  | William F. Lacey                                 
|Title:               |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                |  | September 18, 2007                               

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 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.