alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
13.302-5 Clauses.

(a) Each purchase order (and each purchase order modification (see 13.302-3)) shall incorporate all

clauses prescribed for the particular acquisition.

(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.213-2, Invoices, in purchase orders that

authorize advance payments (see 31 U.S.C.3324(d)(2)) for subscriptions or other charges for

newspapers, magazines, periodicals, or other publications (i.e., any publication printed, microfilmed,

photocopied, or magnetically or otherwise recorded for auditory or visual usage).

(c) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.213-3, Notice to Supplier, in unpriced

purchase orders.

(d)

(1) The contracting officer may use the clause at 52.213-4, Terms and Conditions-Simplified

Acquisitions (Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services;), in simplified acquisitions

exceeding the micro-purchase threshold that are for other than commercial products or commercial

services (see 12.301).

(2) The clause-

(i) Is a compilation of the most commonly used clauses that apply to simplified acquisitions; and

(ii) May be modified to fit the individual acquisition to add other needed clauses, or those clauses

may be added separately. Modifications (i.e., additions, deletions, or substitutions) must not create a

void or internal contradiction in the clause. For example, do not add an inspection and acceptance or

termination for convenience requirement unless the existing requirement is deleted. Also, do not

delete a paragraph without providing for an appropriate substitute.

(3)

(i) When an acquisition for supplies for use within the United States cannot be set aside for small

business concerns and trade agreements apply (see subpart 25.4), substitute the clause at 52.225-3,

Buy American-Free Trade Agreements-Israeli Trade Act, used with the appropriate Alternate (see

25.1101(b)(1)), instead of the clause at 52.225-1, Buy American-Supplies.

(ii) When acquiring supplies for use outside the United States, delete clause 52.225-1 from the

clause list at 52.213-4(b).

(4) When the senior procurement executive allows for application of an alternate domestic content

test for the contract in accordance with 25.101(d), so that the initial domestic content threshold will

apply to the entire period of performance, the contracting officer shall fill in the

52.213-4(b)(1)(xvii)(B) for 52.225-1 Alternate I as follows: For contracts that the contracting officer

estimates will be awarded in calendar year 2022 or 2023, the contracting officer shall insert “60” in

paragraph (1)(ii)(A) of the definition of domestic end product. For contracts that the contracting

officer estimates will be awarded in calendar year 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, or 2028, the contracting

officer shall insert “65”. For contracts that the contracting officer estimates will be awarded after

calendar year 2028 the contracting officer shall insert “75”.
Parent topic: 13.302 Purchase orders.
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 4.5(c)

                        STERLING CHEMICALS HOLDINGS, INC.

                             STOCKHOLDERS AGREEMENT

                              Consent To Terminate

              THIS CONSENT TO TERMINATE is executed by the undersigned pursuant
to Section 12 of that certain Sterling Chemicals Holdings, Inc. Stockholders
Agreement dated August 21, 1996 (as amended, the "Stockholders Agreement") among
Sterling Chemicals Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), the undersigned and certain
other stockholders of the Company. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein
shall have the meanings given such terms in the Stockholders Agreement.

              The undersigned hereby consents to and approves the termination of
the Stockholders Agreement, effective as of the date on which holders of at
least the Required Voting Percentage approve such termination.

              IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Consent to
Terminate effective as of September 15, 2001.



                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Printed Name:
                                                       ------------------------
                                         Title:
                                                -------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2527 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2527

             To suspend temporarily the duty on Fenamidone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2006

  Mr. Talent introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To suspend temporarily the duty on Fenamidone.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FENAMIDONE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.10.38      (5S)-3,5-Dihydro-5- Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                          methyl-2-                                                         31/2009
                         (methylthio)- 5-
                         phenyl-3-
                         (phenylamino)- 4H-
                         imidazol-4-one
                         (Fenamidone) (CAS
                         No. 161326-34-7)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2933.29.35)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
37.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policy and procedures that are specific to the acquisition and management of

services by contract. This part applies to all contracts and orders for services regardless of the

contract type or kind of service being acquired. This part requires the use of performance-based

acquisitions for services to the maximum extent practicable and prescribes policies and procedures

for use of performance-based acquisition methods (see subpart 37.6). Additional guidance for

research and development services is in part 35; architect-engineering services is in part 36;

information technology is in part 39; and transportation services is in part 47. parts 35,36,39, and

47 take precedence over this part in the event of inconsistencies. This part includes, but is not

limited to, contracts for services to which 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, Service Contract Labor Standards,

applies (see subpart 22.10).

Parent topic: Part 37 - Service Contracting
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Jones, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 16, 1979, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established. Here, as in *People v Trow-bridge*(305 NY 471, 473), "The verdict is entirely dependent upon the complainant’s testimony that there was a robbery and his identification of defendant as the perpetrator of it.” Thus, it was reversible error for the trial court to have refused to strike the testimony of the arresting officer as to the complainant’s prior out-of-court identification of defendant. This testimony served no purpose other than to bolster the complainant’s identification of defendant. (See *People v Trowbridge, supra; People v Napoletano,*58 AD2d 83.) The violation of *Trowbridge (supra)*cannot be overlooked here since "the evidence of identity is [not] so strong that there is no serious issue upon the point”. (See *People v Caseria,*19 NY2d 18, 21; *People v Napoletano, supra,*p 91.) Damiani, J. P., Margett, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Elementary Secondary EducationHome SchoolingInstructional MaterialsParents as TeachersReference MaterialsResource MaterialsScience ActivitiesScience CurriculumScience EducationScience InstructionScientific ConceptsTeaching MethodsWorld Wide Web

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DAVID CHARLES SUSSMAN,

Petitioner,

v. 4:20cv414–WS/MAF

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF

No. 24) docketed August 23, 2021. The magistrate judge recommends that

Petitioner’s amended § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for lack of merit. Petitioner has filed

objections (ECF No. 33) to the report and recommendation. Respondent has not

filed a response to Petitioner’s objections.

The undersigned has reviewed the record, including Petitioner’s objections,

and has determined that the report and recommendation is due to be adopted. Like

Case 4:20-cv-00414-WS-MAF Document 34 Filed 11/19/21 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

the magistrate judge, the undersigned not only concludes that Petitioner failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies, but also finds that Petitioner’s § 2254 habeas

petition—challenging a prison disciplinary report on First Amendment

grounds—fails on the merits. Whether the language used in Petitioner’s grievance

is construed as threatening or simply disrespectful,1

 Respondent’s issuance of a

disciplinary report based on that language did not violate Petitioner’s constitutional

rights. Petitioner’s objections to the contrary are unpersuasive. See Mathews v.

Paynter, 752 F. Appx. 740, 744 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that an inmate’s

disrespectful speech in a grievance violated Florida Administrative Code, Rule

33–601.314(1), and was not protected speech, thus requiring dismissal of the

inmate’s complaint for failure to state a claim). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 24) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. Respondent’s motion (ECF No. 15) to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies is GRANTED.

1

 Florida Administrative Code, Rule 33–601.314, Section 1–3, prohibits

“[s]poken, written, or gestured threats.” Florida Administrative Code, Rule

33–601.314, Section 1–4, prohibits “[d]isrespect to officials, employees, or other

persons of constituted authority expressed by means of words, gestures, and the

like.”

Case 4:20-cv-00414-WS-MAF Document 34 Filed 11/19/21 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

3. Petitioner’s § 2254 habeas petition is DISMISSED.

4. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: “All claims are DISMISSED.”

5. The clerk shall close the case.

6. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

7. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of November , 2021.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00414-WS-MAF Document 34 Filed 11/19/21 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

COREY CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-427-TKW/MJF

V. KNIGHT,

Defendant.

/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 8) and Plaintiff’s “motion to object” (Doc. 11). The Court 

will treat the “motion to object” as Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and 

Recommendation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The Court has reviewed the 

issues raised in the “motion to object” de novo as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(3), and finds those issues to be without merit, as discussed below.

The “motion to object” appears to raise four issues. The Court rejects the first 

issue (that the magistrate judge improperly “re-directed the focus” of the case) 

because, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument that he “never said [he] was denied access 

to the courts,” the amended complaint specifically alleged that Defendant’s actions 

“hindered [Plaintiff’s] future access to the courts.” Doc. 7, at 8. The Court rejects 

the second issue (that Plaintiff has not been provided an adequate post-deprivation 

Case 4:20-cv-00427-TKW-MJF Document 12 Filed 12/11/20 Page 1 of 3
2

remedy for the alleged destruction of his property) because, under Florida law, 

Plaintiff can file a civil action for conversion in state court. See Case v. Eslinger, 

555 F.3d 1317, 1331 (11th Cir. 2009); Loor v. Bailey, 708 F. App’x 992, 994-95 

(11th Cir. 2017). The Court rejects the third issue (that the magistrate judge failed 

to address Plaintiff’s equal protection claim) because the Court sees no reference to 

“equal protection” in the amended complaint. The Court rejects the fourth issue (that 

the magistrate judge held Plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, to the same standards as a 

“certified lawyer”) because the Report and Recommendation reflects that the 

magistrate judge liberally construed the allegations in the complaint and that he 

dismissed the amended complaint on the merits not based on a legal technicality.

In sum, because the Court finds no merit in the issues raised in the “motion to 

object” and because the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommended 

disposition of this case, it is

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation are overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Plaintiff’s claims under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of 

the United States Constitution are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted.

Case 4:20-cv-00427-TKW-MJF Document 12 Filed 12/11/20 Page 2 of 3
3

3. Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice re-filing 

in state court.

4. The Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of December, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00427-TKW-MJF Document 12 Filed 12/11/20 Page 3 of 3
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13045-13046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05109]

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

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

Sunshine Act Notice

    The Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and 
Community Service gives notice of the following meeting:

DATE AND TIME:  Tuesday, March 11, 2014, 2:30-3:30 p.m. (ET).

PLACE:  Corporation for National and Community Service, 1201 New York 
Avenue NW., Suite 8312, Washington, DC 20525 (Please go to 10th floor 
reception area for escort).

CALL-IN INFORMATION:  This meeting is available to the public through 
the following toll-free call-in number: 888-790-3155 conference call 
access code number 9145451. Any interested member of the public may 
call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur 
charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and CNCS will not 
refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls 
they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone 
number. Replays are generally available one hour after a call ends. The 
toll-free phone number for the replay is 800-677-4660, replay passcode 
5040. The end replay date is March 18, 2014, 10:59 p.m. (CT).

STATUS:  Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

I. Chair's Opening Comments
    a. Call to Order, Welcome, and Preview of Today's Meeting Agenda
    b. Introduction and Acknowledgements
    c. Summary Status of Board interaction
II. Consideration of Previous Meeting's Minutes
III. CEO Report
IV. Program Specific Public Testimony by National Service Member
V. Public Comments
VI. Final Comments and Adjournment

Members of the public who would like to comment on the business of the 
Board may do so in writing or in person. Individuals may submit written 
comments to jmauk@cns.gov subject line: MARCH 2014 CNCS BOARD MEETING 
by 4:00 p.m. (ET) on March 7, 2014. Individuals attending the meeting 
in person who would like to comment will be asked to sign-in upon 
arrival. Comments are requested to be limited to 2 minutes.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS: The Corporation for National and Community 
Service provides reasonable accommodations to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. Anyone who needs an interpreter or 
other accommodation should notify Ida Green

[[Page 13046]]

at igreen@cns.gov or 202-606-6861 by 5 p.m. (ET) on December 13, 2013.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jenny Mauk, Special Assistant to 
the CEO, Corporation for National and Community Service, 1201 New York 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525. Phone: 202-606-6615. Fax: 202-606-
3460. TTY: 800-833-3722. Email: jmauk@cns.gov.

    Dated: March 5, 2014.
Valerie Green,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014-05109 Filed 3-5-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
```
46.317 Reporting Nonconforming Items.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the contracting officer shall insert the clause

at 52.246-26, Reporting Nonconforming Items, in solicitations and contracts - as follows:

(1) For an acquisition by any agency, including the Department of Defense, of–

(i) Any items that are subject to higher-level quality standards in accordance with the clause at

52.246-11, Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement;

(ii) Any items that the contracting officer, in consultation with the requiring activity determines to be

critical items for which use of the clause is appropriate;

(2) In addition (as required by paragraph (c)(4) of section 818 of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81)), for an acquisition that exceeds the simplified acquisition

threshold and is by, or for, the Department of Defense of electronic parts or end items, components,

parts, or materials containing electronic parts, whether or not covered in paragraph (a)(1) of this

section; or

(3) For the acquisition of services, if the contractor will furnish, as part of the service, any items that

meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(2) of this section.

(b) The contracting officer shall not insert the clause at 52.246-26, Reporting Nonconforming Items,

in solicitations and contracts when acquiring—

(1) Commercial products and commercial services using part 12 procedures; or

(2) Medical devices that are subject to the Food and Drug Administration reporting requirements at

21 CFR 803.

(c) If required by agency policy, the contracting officer may modify paragraph (b)(4) of the clause at

52.246-26, but only to change the responsibility for the contractor to submit reports to the agency

rather than to Government-Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP), so that the agency instead of

the contractor submits reports to GIDEP within the mandatory 60 days.

Parent topic: Subpart 46.3 - Contract Clauses
#### §§ 4285.95-4285.99 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 2

1

 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 738 (2005).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs CASE NO.: 5:94cr5036-SPM

JESUS MEJIA,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING RULE 60(b) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s Rule 60(b) Motion for

Relief From Judgment. Doc. 361. Defendant complains about the Court’s denial

of his § 2255 motion, and argues that the Court erred by finding that the motion

was untimely.

Defendant’s § 2255 motion was denied because the new rule of

constitutional law announced in Booker1 does not apply retroactively to cases on

collateral review. Varela v. United States, 400 F.3d. 864, 868 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Therefore, the decision does not begin a one-year time limitation for filing under §

2255. Hicks v. United States, No. 04-15051, 2005 WL 2077736, at *2, 146 Fed.

Appx. 396, 398 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2005). The Court also noted that Defendant

Case 5:94-cr-05036-RS-AK Document 362 Filed 04/21/09 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO.: 5:94cr5036-SPM

could not state a viable ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on his

lawyer’s failure to anticipate and make a Booker-type argument. United States v.

Ardley, 273 F.3d 991, 993 (11th Cir. 2001) (Carnes, J., concurring in the denial of

rehearing en banc). Defendant appealed, but the Eleventh Circuit denied a

certificate of appealability and noted, among other things, that the § 2255 motion

was untimely. Doc. 357. 

Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) will be denied because the ruling that the § 2255

motion was untimely was not an error. Moreover, given the denial of a certificate

of appealability by the Eleventh Circuit, which found that the § 2255 motion was

untimely, reconsideration of the matter by this Court is barred by the law of the

case. Brewer v. United States, No. 08-13188, 2009 WL 567249 (11th Cir. Mar.

6, 2009); Turner v. Howerton, No. 06-16268, 2007 WL 3082138, at*4 (Oct. 3.

2007). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Rule 60(b) Motion for

Relief From Judgment (doc. 361) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of April, 2009.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 5:94-cr-05036-RS-AK Document 362 Filed 04/21/09 Page 2 of 2