alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Rita L. Verdecchia, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 791]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 8, 2005, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

Claimant is the vice-president and a 50% shareholder of a closely held corporation operated by her husband, a professional musician, engaged in the business of arranging music composition and performances. After claimant lost her job at a music *1143store specializing in the sale and repair of rare stringed instruments, she filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits. She was found ineligible to receive benefits by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on the ground that, due to her activities in connection with her husband’s business, she was not totally unemployed. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. It is well established that a principal who stands to reap a financial benefit from the continued existence of a corporation will not be considered totally unemployed even if the activities he or she performs on its behalf are minimal *(see Matter of Sichel [Commissioner of Labor],*301 AD2d 771, 772 [2003]; *Matter of Brooke [Commissioner of Labor],*250 AD2d 910, 911 [1998]). Here, it is undisputed that claimant held a beneficial interest in the corporation by virtue of her status as a corporate officer and shareholder, was a signatory to the corporate bank account and paid bills on behalf of the corporation when her husband was on tour. In addition, while she was working for the music store, she periodically deposited her paycheck into the corporate bank account and sometimes paid personal expenses therefrom. Insofar as claimant stood to gain financially from her affiliation with the corporation, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision *(see Matter of Ours [Commissioner of Labor],*268 AD2d 669 [2000]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### Yvonne Arakelyan et al., Appellants, v. Oscar Fiallo et al., Respondents.

Order entered August 7, 1968, denying plaintiffs-appellants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants, the motion granted, and the case remanded to the Supreme Court for appropriate proceedings for assessment of damages. The defendant Fiallo, the operator of the truck, although admittedly tired and sleepy, having started work at 4 o’clock in the morning, decided to push on home rather than stop his vehicle. Then, at 11:50 A.M., in the middle of the Queensboro Bridge, he fell asleep at the wheel and his truck left the westbound lane and struck the plaintiffs’ ear in the eastbound lane. Upon these facts, and upon the failure of the defendants to meet their burden, plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *(Vignola*v. *Britts,*11 A D 2d 801; *Butler*v. *Albert,*1 A D 2d 43; *Stanley*v. *Burnside,*20 Misc 2d 932, affd. 10 A D 2d 652.) Concur—Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Markewich and Bastow, JJ.
#### Louis F. Jacob, Appellant, v. Montgomery Ward & Company et al., Respondents.

In a negligence and breach of warranty action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 16, 1969, in favor of defendants upon the trial court’s dismissal of the supplemental complaint at the end of plaintiff’s case upon a jury trial of the issue of liability only. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The questions of fact have not been considered. In our opinion, at the end of plaintiff’s proof triable issues existed concerning whether defendant Norge was negligent, whether plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence was a legal contributing cause of his injury, and whether both defendants had breached their implied warranties of merchantability. Brennan, Acting P. J., Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Munder, J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the supplemental complaint was properly dismissed at the close of plaintiff’s case. The evidence adduced at the trial discloses that plaintiff was unable to perceive what was inside the washing machine because the front panel had not been removed by him in accordance with the explicit installation instructions. Nevertheless, he reached into the machine, the interior of which was dark, and was injured when his finger was caught on a suspension leaf. Under the circumstances, I cannot find any reasonable basis for imposing liability upon the manufacturer or retailer. Plaintiff failed to establish negligence on the part of defendants, his own freedom from contributory negligence, or the breach of any warranty, express or implied. (Beldock, P. J., deceased.) .
216.405-2 Cost-plus-award-fee contracts.

(1) Award-fee pool. The award-fee pool is the total available award fee for each evaluation period for

the life of the contract. The contracting officer shall perform an analysis of appropriate fee

distribution to ensure at least 40 per cent of the award fee is available for the final evaluation so that

the award fee is appropriately distributed over all evaluation periods to incentivize the contractor

throughout performance of the contract. The percentage of award fee available for the final

evaluation may be set below 40 per cent if the contracting officer determines that a lower

percentage is appropriate, and this determination is approved by the head of the contracting activity

(HCA). The HCA may not delegate this approval authority.

(2) Award-fee evaluation and payments. Award-fee payments other than payments resulting from the

evaluation at the end of an award-fee period are prohibited. (This prohibition does not apply to basefee payments.) The fee-determining official’s rating for award-fee evaluations will be provided to the

contractor within 45 calendar days of the end of the period being evaluated. The final award-fee

payment will be consistent with the fee-determining official’s final evaluation of the contractor’s

overall performance against the cost, schedule, and performance outcomes specified in the awardfee plan.

(3) Limitations.

(i) The cost-plus-award-fee contract shall not be used—

(A) To avoid—

(1) Establishing cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts when the criteria for cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts apply;

or

(2) Developing objective targets so a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract can be used; or

(B) For either engineering development or operational system development acquisitions that have

specifications suitable for simultaneous research and development and production, except a costplus-award-fee contract may be used for individual engineering development or operational system

development acquisitions ancillary to the development of a major weapon system or equipment,

where—

(1) It is more advantageous; and

(2) The purpose of the acquisition is clearly to determine or solve specific problems associated with

the major weapon system or equipment.

(ii) Do not apply the weighted guidelines method to cost-plus-award-fee contracts for either the base

(fixed) fee or the award fee.

(iii) The base fee shall not exceed three percent of the estimated cost of the contract exclusive of the

fee.

(4) See PGI 216.405-2 for guidance on the use of cost-plus-award-fee contracts.

216.405-2-70 Award fee reduction or denial for jeopardizing the health or safety of
Government personnel.

216.405-2-71 Award fee reduction or denial for failure to comply with requirements

relating to performance of private security functions.

Parent topic: 216.405 Cost-reimbursement incentive contracts.
#### In the Matter of Luz R., Respondent, v Thomas S., Appellant.

In a paternity proceeding, the appeal, upon permission, is from an order of filiation of the Family Court, Kings County, dated February 28, 1979, which after a hearing, found appellant to be the father of the child in question. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. This case presented close questions of credibility which were appropriately determined by the Trial Judge. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
52.216-29           Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour Proposal Requirements—Other Than Commercial Acquisition With Adequate Price Competition.       As prescribed in 16.601(f)(1), insert the following provision:          Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour Proposal Requirements—Other Than Commercial Acquisition With Adequate Price Competition (Nov 2021)                                       (a) The Government contemplates award of a Time-and-Materials or Labor-Hour type of contract resulting from this solicitation.                                          (b) The offeror must specify fixed hourly rates in its offer that include wages, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and profit. The offeror must specify whether the fixed hourly rate for each labor category applies to labor performed by-                                                         (1) The offeror;                                                            (2) Subcontractors; and/or                                                            (3) Divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the offeror under a common control;                                                                             (c) The offeror must establish fixed hourly rates using-                                                         (1) Separate rates for each category of labor to be performed by each subcontractor and for each category of labor to be performed by the offeror, and for each category of labor to be transferred between divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the offeror under a common control;                                                            (2) Blended rates for each category of labor to be performed by the offeror, including labor transferred between divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the offeror under a common control, and all subcontractors; or                                                            (3) Any combination of separate and blended rates for each category of labor to be performed by the offeror, affiliates of the offeror under a common control, and subcontractors.                                                                    (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.216 [Reserved]
5142.7100 General.

(4) Voluntary refunds must be approved by the head of the contracting activity as described in

DFARS PGI 242.7100(4). See Appendix GG for further delegation.

Parent topic: Subpart 5142.71 - Voluntary Refunds
#### Charles G. Hill, Respondent, *v.*William H. Van Schoonhoven et al., Executors, etc., Appellants.

(Argued June 18, 1884;

decided June 27, 1884.)

*Cha/rles E. Patterson*for appellants.

*Esek Cowen*for respondent.

Agree, to dismiss appeal ; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Agency for International Development

# AGENCY:

U.S. Agency for International Development.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Information Security Oversight Offices Classified National Security Information Directive No. 1, this notice provides the U.S. Agency for International Developments address to which Mandatory Declassification Review requests may be sent. This notice benefits the public in advising them where to send such requests for declassification review.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Sylvia Lankford, 202-712-0879.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The following identifies the office to which mandatory declassification review requests should be addressed: Acting Chief, Information and Records Division (M/MS/IRD), Office of Management Services, U.S. Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagan Building, Room 207C, Washington, DC 20523-2700.

Dated: November 29, 2010.

Lynn P. Winston, 

Acting Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of Management Services, Bureau for Management.

[FR Doc. 2010-30521 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
252.217-7028 Over and Above Work.

As prescribed in 217.7702 , use a clause substantially as follows:

OVER AND ABOVE WORK (DEC 1991)

(a) Definitions. As used in this clause—

(1) “Over and above work” means work discovered during the course of performing overhaul,

maintenance, and repair efforts that is—

(i) Within the general scope of the contract;

(ii) Not covered by the line item(s) for the basic work under the contract; and

(iii) Necessary in order to satisfactorily complete the contract.

(2) “Work request” means a document prepared by the Contractor which describes over and above

work being proposed.

(b) The Contractor and Administrative Contracting Officer shall mutually agree to procedures for

Government administration and Contractor performance of over and above work requests. If the

parties cannot agree upon the procedures, the Administrative Contracting Officer has the unilateral

right to direct the over and above work procedures to be followed. These procedures shall, as a

minimum, cover—

(1) The format, content, and submission of work requests by the Contractor. Work requests shall

contain data on the type of discrepancy disclosed, the specific location of the discrepancy, and the

estimated labor hours and material required to correct the discrepancy. Data shall be sufficient to

satisfy contract requirements and obtain the authorization of the Contracting Officer to perform the

proposed work;

(2) Government review, verification, and authorization of the work; and

(3) Proposal pricing, submission, negotiation, and definitization.

(c) Upon discovery of the need for over and above work, the Contractor shall prepare and furnish to

the Government a work request in accordance with the agreed-to procedures.

(d) The Government shall—

(1) Promptly review the work request;

(2) Verify that the proposed work is required and not covered under the basic contract line item(s);

(3) Verify that the proposed corrective action is appropriate; and

(4) Authorize over and above work as necessary.

(e) The Contractor shall promptly submit to the Contracting Officer, a proposal for the over and

above work. The Government and Contractor will then negotiate a settlement for the over and above

work. Contract modifications will be executed to definitize all over and above work.
(f) Failure to agree on the price of over and above work shall be a dispute within the meaning of the

Disputes clause of this contract.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 252.217 RESERVED
Subpart 5642.2 - CONTRACT

ADMINISTRATION SERVICES

Parent topic: Part 5642 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES

5642.202 Assignment of Contract Administration.

(Revised June 2021)

(a) USSOCOM Directorate of Procurement policy is to transfer all contract administrative

responsibility to the servicing DCMA on all contracts over $350,000 not purchased in accordance

with FAR Part 12 , except where required by statute or excluded from DCMA responsibility.

Exception may be granted by:

(1) Contracting Officer determination to be in the best interest of the organization to retain ACO

responsibilities at the local office.

(2) Determination that it is most effective to transfer only partial responsibility to the DCMA.

The decision should be based on providing the best service to the customer and the capabilities of

the contracting office. Both determinations should be made in writing and maintained in the

contract file.

(b) The transmittal of the contract shall be accomplished in a manner that will provide

documentation of confirmation of receipt by the DCMA office.

(c) (Removed 2017)
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0806 Directorate Identifier: 2012

-NM

- 022

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet

7.0 $ 595.00 $ 595.00 83 $49,385.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in co mpliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $49,385 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condi** **tion Costs:** Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 

### $0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexib ility Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appr opriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

College FacultyGradingHigher EducationStudent EvaluationTeacher Student RelationshipWriting AbilityWriting AchievementWriting (Composition)Writing EvaluationWriting ImprovementWriting InstructionWriting SkillsWriting Teachers

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 868.32 Who shall inspect commodities.

Official commodity inspections shall be performed only by official personnel.
#### § 457.7 The contract.

The insurance contract shall become effective upon the acceptance by the Corporation or the reinsured company of a duly executed application for insurance on a form prescribed by the Corporation. Changes made in the contract shall not affect its continuity from year to year. No indemnity shall be paid unless the insured complies with all terms and conditions of the contract, except as provided in the policy. The forms referred to in the contract are available at the offices of the crop insurance agent.

[56 FR 1351, Jan. 14, 1991, as amended at 69 FR 48739, Aug. 10, 2004]
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 2962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00762]

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

 CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: Vol. 78, No. 7, 
Thursday, January 10, 2013, page 2257.

Change in Announced Time and Date of Open Meeting: 10 a.m.-11 a.m., 
Wednesday January 16, 2013.

Changes To Open Meeting Agenda

Matters to be Considered: Decisional Matter: Fiscal Year 2013 Operating 
Plan.

Item Removed from the Agenda: Decisional Matter: Section 1110 
Certification of Compliance--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person For Additional Information: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of 
the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-
7923.

    Dated: January 10, 2013.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00762 Filed 1-11-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```