alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
52.227-9 Refund of Royalties.

As prescribed in 27.202-5(c), insert the following clause:

Refund of Royalties (Apr 1984)

(a) The contract price includes certain amounts for royalties payable by the Contractor or

subcontractors or both, which amounts have been reported to the Contracting Officer.

(b) The term "royalties" as used in this clause refers to any costs or charges in the nature of

royalties, license fees, patent or license amortization costs, or the like, for the use of or for rights in

patents and patent applications in connection with performing this contract or any subcontract

hereunder.

(c) The Contractor shall furnish to the Contracting Officer, before final payment under this contract,

a statement of royalties paid or required to be paid in connection with performing this contract and

subcontracts hereunder together with the reasons.

(d) The Contractor will be compensated for royalties reported under paragraph (c) of this clause,

only to the extent that such royalties were included in the contract price and are determined by the

Contracting Officer to be properly chargeable to the Government and allocable to the contract. To

the extent that any royalties that are included in the contract price are not in fact paid by the

Contractor or are determined by the Contracting Officer not to be properly chargeable to the

Government and allocable to the contract, the contract price shall be reduced. Repayment or credit

to the Government shall be made as the Contracting Officer directs.

(e) If, at any time within 3 years after final payment under this contract, the Contractor for any

reason is relieved in whole or in part from the payment of the royalties included in the final contract

price as adjusted pursuant to paragraph (d) of this clause, the Contractor shall promptly notify the

Contracting Officer of that fact and shall reimburse the Government in a corresponding amount.

(f) The substance of this clause, including this paragraph (f), shall be included in any subcontract in

which the amount of royalties reported during negotiation of the subcontract exceeds $250.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.227 [Reserved]
52.241-5 Contractor’s Facilities.       As prescribed in 41.501(c)(4), insert a clause substantially the same as the following:          Contractor’s Facilities (Feb 1995)                                       (a) 						            The Contractor, at its expense, unless otherwise provided for in this contract, shall furnish, install, operate, and maintain all facilities required to furnish service hereunder, and measure such service at the point of delivery specified in the Service Specifications. Titleto all such facilities shall remain with the Contractor and the Contractor shall be responsible for loss or damage to such facilities, except that the Government shall be responsible to the extent that loss or damage has been caused by the Government’s negligent acts or omissions.                                          (b) 						            Notwithstanding any terms expressed in this clause, the Contractor shall obtain approval from the Contracting Officer prior to any equipment installation, construction, or removal. The Government hereby grants to the Contractor, free of any rental or similar charge, but subject to the limitations specified in this contract, a revocable permit or license to enter the service location for any proper purpose under this contract. This permit or license includes use of the site or sites agreed upon by the parties hereto for the installation, operation, maintenance, and repair of the facilities of the Contractor required to be located upon Government premises. All applicable taxes and other charges in connection therewith, together with all liability of the Contractor in construction, operation, maintenance and repair of such facilities, shall be the obligation of the Contractor.                                          (c) 						            Authorized representatives of the Contractor will be allowed access to the facilities on Government premises at reasonable times to perform the obligations of the Contractor regarding such facilities. It is expressly understood that the Government may limit or restrict the right of access herein granted in any manner considered necessary (*e.g.,* national security, public safety).                                          (d) 						            Unless otherwise specified in this contract, the Contractor shall, at its expense, remove such facilities and restore Government premises to their original condition as near as practicable within a reasonable time after the Government terminates this contract. In the event such termination of this contract is due to the fault of the Contractor, such facilities may be retained in place at the option of the Government for a reasonable time while the Government attempts to obtain service elsewhere comparable to that provided for hereunder.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.241 Utility Services Provisions and Clauses.
#### Douglas ROBERTSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. State of LOUISIANA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-31301

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 23, 2007.

*268Douglas Robertson, Angola, LA, pro se.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Douglas Robertson, currently Louisiana prisoner # 91333, attempted to remove his state-court criminal bank robbery proceedings to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443. He appeals the district court’s remand of the case to state court. Because Robertson did not file a state habeas petition, his motion for a certificate of appealability is DENIED as unnecessary. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).

Robertson also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He is effectively challenging the district court’s certification that he should not be granted IFP status because his appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a).

In state court, Robertson was convicted of bank robbery, and his conviction had been affirmed on direct appeal. His notice of removal was untimely. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1). Moreover, as Robertson did not allege that a specific federal law protects the criminal conduct with which he was charged, he has not shown that removal of the criminal action was appropriate under § 1443. *See City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock,*384 U.S. 808, 824-28, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 16 L.Ed.2d 944 (1966).

Because Robertson has failed to show that his case presented nonfrivolous issues for appeal, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Robertson’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 74678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30195]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / 
Notices

[[Page 74678]]



AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance; 
Office of Food for Peace Announcement of Request for Applications for 
Title II Non-Emergency Food Aid Programs; Notice

    Pursuant to the Food for Peace Act of 2008, notice is hereby given 
that the Request for Applications for Title II Non-Emergency Food Aid 
Programs will be available to interested parties for general viewing.
    For individuals who wish to review, the Request for Applications 
for Title II Non-Emergency Food Aid Programs will be available via the 
Food for Peace Web site: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/progpolicy.html on or about December 6, 2010. Interested 
parties can also receive a copy of the Request for Applications for 
Title II Non-Emergency Food Aid Programs by contacting the Office of 
Food for Peace, U.S. Agency for International Development, RRB 7.06-
152, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20523-7600.

Juli Majernik,
Grants Manager, Policy and Technical Division, Office of Food for 
Peace, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-30195 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 3, 2018

No. 04

- 16

- 00630

- CR & 04

- 16

- 00631

- CR

Cody Lon SMITH

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr C ounty, Texas

Trial Court No. B

- 07

- 057 & B

- 15

- 631 Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant Cody Lon Smith has filed a motion to disqual ify and recuse all seven members of this court from further participation in these appeals. In ruling on both the motion to disqualify and for recusal, the justices of the court followed the procedure set forth in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 16.3(b)

. 1

Before any further proceeding in these appeals, each of the seven challenged justices

considered the motion in chambers. Each of them found no ground to disqualify or recuse herself

and certified the matter to the entire court. The court then decided the motion with respect to each justice by a vote of the remaining justices sitting en banc. The challenged justice did not sit

with the remainder of the court to consider the motion as to her.

As to each of the seven challenged justices who certified th e issue of her disqualification

and recusal to the entire court, a majority of the remaining justices voted to deny the motion to disqualify and for recus al of the justice under consideration.

The Defendant’s Motion for Recusal and to Disqualify the Four th Court of Appeals is

therefore DENIED.

1 The appellate rules do not specify a proce dure for deciding a motion for disqualification, and the court has determined to follow the procedure for motions to recuse found in Rule 16.3(b). See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 16.1, 16.3.It is so ORDERED on August 3, 2018.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___ _______________________

K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

VIRGIL WAYNE BARLOW,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5805-LC-HTC

OKALOOSA COUNTY COMMISSIONER GRAHAM FOUNTAIN,

CHIEF CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ERIC ESMOND,

CORIZON HEALTH CORE ADMINISTRATOR SUSAN PRIDDY,

Defendants.

______________________/

ORDER

The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on December 7,

2020 (ECF No. 8). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of

the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections

thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Case No. 3:20cv5805-LC-HTC

Case 3:20-cv-05805-LC-HTC Document 12 Filed 01/25/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and to comply with

Court orders.

3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th

 day of January, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:20cv5805-LC-HTC

Case 3:20-cv-05805-LC-HTC Document 12 Filed 01/25/21 Page 2 of 2
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2745 

To suspend temporarily the duty on phosphinic acid, 

diethyl-, aluminum salt. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 4, 2006 

Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. CHAFEE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on phosphinic acid, 

diethyl-, aluminum salt. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PHOSPHINIC ACID, DIETHYL-, ALUMINUM SALT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.09.02 Phosphinic acid, diethyl-, 

aluminum salt (CAS No. 

225789–38–8) (provided for 

in subheading 2931.00.90) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 

’’. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 2745 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
#### § 58.42 Travel expenses and other charges.

Charges shall be made to cover the cost of travel and other expenses incurred by AMS in connection with the performance of any inspection or grading service.

[53 FR 20278, June 3, 1988]
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 14-0198 

Focus Ready Draft 1/23/2014

PV (kg/yr): 

ENGINEER: Avcin \ AH 

SUBMITTER: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

14/2014):

Same as . Analogs: .

Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: 

Migration to groundwater: Anion moderate; Cation moderate 

PBT rating: P1B1T1 P1B1T1 for anion, cation.

Health: 1-2 Drinking Water, Inhalation 

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 4 ppb), XB Testing (Testing 

desired) 
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: 

Generated by the 09/30/2013 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

None.

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No 
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 14-0198 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide 

with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 14-0198 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide 

with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
CALL BY: Ariel Hou

CALL TO: 

Organization: 

Date: 

Time: 

PMN: 14-0198 

Organization: ERG for CEB

Phone: 

Concerning what TSCA CBI?

MEMORANDUM of CBI TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES CLIFTON BRADLEY,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv590–WS/MAF

THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

STATE ATTORNEY, et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

No. 7) docketed February 1, 2021. The magistrate judge recommends that the

plaintiff's case be dismissed pursuant to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). The plaintiff has filed no objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. 

As did the magistrate judge, the undersigned finds that the plaintiff—whose

complaint fails to make a colorable showing that he is in imminent danger of

Case 4:20-cv-00590-WS-MAF Document 8 Filed 03/04/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

serious physical injury—is barred under § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma

pauperis in this case. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 7) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. The plaintiff’s complaint and this action are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to the plaintiff’s initiating a new cause of action accompanied by the

$402.00 filing fee.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: “This case is dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” 

4. The clerk shall close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of March , 2021.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00590-WS-MAF Document 8 Filed 03/04/21 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:98-cr-00007-MP

HAROLD MITCHELL DEEDRICK,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 174, Motion for Timely Notice of Preservation of

Blakley/Booker Claim by Harold Mitchell Deedrick. In his motion, defendant notifies the court

of his intention to seek retroactive relief pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005), should the Supreme Court eventually hold that such relief is retroactively available. 

With regards to this issue, the Eleventh Circuit has determined that Booker is not retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review, as “Booker’s constitutional rule falls squarely under the

category of new rules of criminal procedure that do not apply retroactively to § 2255 cases on

collateral review.” Varela v. United States, 400 F.3d 864, 868 (11th Cir. 2005); see also In re

Anderson, 396 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2005). Therefore, there is no issue for this court to

"preserve." If the rule of law on this issue later changes, defendant would need to seek redress at

that time. Accordingly, defendant's motion is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of January, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:98-cr-00007-WTH-GRJ Document 175 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         218,949
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,357
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    433,736
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               737,692
<PP&E>                                         715,133
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,307,803)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,514,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,848,897
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,185
<OTHER-SE>                                   (363,232)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,514,274
<SALES>                                          1,492
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,706
<CGS>                                           83,962
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,962
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,898
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (278,784)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (278,784)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (278,784)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
December 5, 2014

Mr. Michael Bradshaw Bowhead Mission Solutions, LLC 777 North Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 380 Las Vegas, NV 89107

Dear Mr. Bradshaw:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from part 21; §§ 45.23(b); 61.113(a) and (b); 91.7(a); 91.9 (b)(2); 91.103(b); 91.109; 91.119; 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a) and (b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); and 91.409(a)(2); and 91.417(a) and (b ) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request We entered your September 12, 2014, exemption request on behalf of Bowhead Mission Solutions, LLC into the public docket (Docket No. FAA-2014-0916), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider your request any further, you must send us the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.2

Supplemental Guidance on the Submission of Petitions For Exemption Submitted under

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

On September 25, 2014 the FAA released Public Guidance for Petitions for Exemption Filed under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95),

available at http://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_progr ams/section_333/how_to_file_a_petition/.

The FAA recommends that you review the guidance and, if you would like to submit additional information to support your petition, please submit it to your specific docket at http://www.regulations.gov. This additional information will assist the FAA in making an effective evaluation of the requested relief.

Additionally, the FAA granted an exemption to Astraeus Aerial on September 25, 2014, which you may wish to review. This grant of exemption is available at http://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_program s/section_333/media/Astraeus_Aerial-11062.pdf.

You may send supplemental information to your docket at any time providing further information supporting your request for exemption.

Sincerely,

/s/ Katrina Holiday Acting Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### § 61.38 Suspended license to be returned to Division.

In case a license issued to a sampler is suspended or revoked such license shall be returned to the Division. At the expiration of any period of suspension of such license, unless in the meantime it be revoked, the dates of beginning and termination of such suspension shall be endorsed thereon, it shall be returned to the person to whom it was originally issued, and its shall be posted as prescribed in § 61.31.