alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# SUBPART 15.2 — SOLICITATION AND RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS AND INFORMATION

**Parent topic:**PART 15 –– CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

## 15.201 Exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals.

(S-90) Except as limited by FAR 6.303-1(a), a Draft RFP may be released prior to final approval of the acquisition strategy and acquisition plan.

## 15.204 Contract format.

(e) The HCA is the designee.
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 5 Filed 07/24/2003 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MAI Systems Corporation (the Company) for theperiod ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William B. Kretzmer, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U. S. C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that :

 

1.               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: November 6, 2003 | By:    |   | /s/ William B. Kretzmer  |
|------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|                   |   |   | William B.  Kretzmer     |
|                   |   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

1

----
#### Charles McAllister, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

Submitted August 20, 2007;

decided September 11, 2007

Motion to vacate this Court’s July 18, 2007 dismissal order denied *[see*9 NY3d 862],
162 So.2d 13

#### Eldred J. PATERNOSTRO v. NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT.

No. 47168.

March 31, 1964.

Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit.

159 So.2d 714.

*964■ It is ordered .that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### § 920.112 Late payments.

Pursuant to § 920.41(a), interest will be charged at a 1.5 percent monthly simple interest rate. Assessments for kiwifruit shall be deemed late if not received within 30 days of invoice, or such other later time period as specified by the committee. A 10 percent late charge will be assessed when payment becomes 30 days late. Interest and late payment charges shall be applied only to the overdue assessment.

[62 FR 45295, Aug. 27, 1997]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KENNETH J. DAVIS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv670-WC

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, )

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL )

SECURITY, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER ON MOTION

On April 2, 2008, Plaintiff Kenneth Davis (Davis) moved the Court for Entry of

Final Judgment (Doc. #23). This Court previously reversed the Commissioner’s decision 

and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the

Court’s Memorandum Opinion (Doc. #18). On February 1, 2008, the presiding

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined Davis was disabled under the definition of

the Social Security Act. Based on these facts, the undersigned entered Judgment in

Davis’s favor. On April 22, 2008, the Commissioner moved the Court for relief from

Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Doc. #25). Davis then filed

a Reply Brief in Opposition to the Commissioner’s Motion (Doc. #31). 

The Court held a telephone conference on the motion on May 15, 2008. During

the conference, the Court learned on remand the ALJ consolidated Davis’s original

application with a second, subsequent application. The consolidation combined the two

Case 1:06-cv-00670-WC Document 34 Filed 05/15/2008 Page 1 of 2
applications into one, single case, from which the ALJ entered a partial favorable

determination of disability benefits. In other words, Davis prevailed before the ALJ. 

Consequently, Davis is entitled to a judgment in his favor from this Court. Accordingly,

it is

ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion for relief from the Judgment (Doc.

#25) is DENIED.

DONE this 15th day of May, 2008.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00670-WC Document 34 Filed 05/15/2008 Page 2 of 2
Consumer Product Safety Alert

FROM THE U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207

Prevent Burn Injuries

Don’t Let Children Put Caps fo r

Toy Guns in Their Po ck e t s

009611

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

(CPSC) recommends that parents warn children

not to put ring caps, paper roll caps, or strip caps

for toy guns in their pockets because friction can

ignite the caps and cause burns. Toy caps contain

a small amount of pyrotechnic material that ignites

when struck and creates a loud noise accompanied by sparks. Some manufacturers label their

packages cautioning users not to carry caps in

pockets.

CPSC urges parents to explain the hazards of ignition of toy caps to children and to make sure that

children not put caps in their pockets.

CPSC reminds parents that caps may also pose a

noise hazard. A current CPSC regulation limits the

decibel level of caps to no more that 158 decibels.

A warning label is mandatory on caps in the 138 to

158 decibel level, as follows:

“WARNING – Do not fire closer that 1 foot to 

the ear. Do not use indoors.”
Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134445 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134446 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, ERIC A. BRAVERMAN, Successor Justices 

Personal Representative of the

Estate of Patricia Swann, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134445, 134446 

 COA: 264029, 264091 

Wayne CC: 05-502345-NH

GARDEN CITY HOSPITAL, a/k/a

GARDEN CITY HOSPITAL,

OSTEOPATHIC, 

 Defendant, 

and 

JOHN R. SCHAIRER, D.O., GARY 

YASHINSKY, M.D., ABHINA V. 

RAINA, M.D., and PROVIDENCE 

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL 

CENTERS, INC.,

 Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties are 

directed to include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether there are any 

circumstances, other than the expiration of the three-year ceiling in MCL 600.5852, 

under which the appointment of a successor personal representative would not trigger the 

start of a new two-year savings period, despite Eggleston v Bio-Medical Applications of 

Detroit, Inc, 468 Mich 29 (2003), and (2) whether a successor personal representative 

may rely on a notice of intent filed by a predecessor personal representative. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to place this case on the January 2008 session 

calendar for argument and submission. Appellants' brief and appendix must be filed no 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

later than November 16, 2007, and appellee's brief and appendix, if appellee chooses to 

submit an appendix, must be filed no later than December 17, 2007. 

The Michigan Association for Justice and the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, 

Inc., are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the 

determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to 

file briefs amicus curiae. 

l0919 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 26, 2007 

 Clerk
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.

§ 800.145 Maintenance and retention of records—general requirements. ( a ) *Preparing and maintaining records.* The records specified in §§ 800.146-800.159 shall be prepared and maintained in a manner that will facilitate ( 1 ) the daily use of records and
( 2 ) the review and audit of the records to determine compliance with the Act, the regulations, the standards, and the instructions.
( b ) *Retaining records.* Records shall be retained for a period not less than that specified in §§ 800.146-800.159. In specific instances, the Administrator may require that records be retained for a period of not more than 3 years in addition to the specified retention period. In addition, records may be kept for a longer time than the specified retention period at the option of the agency, the contractor, the approved scale testing organization, or the individual maintaining the records.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0580-0011)
§ 955.60 Reports and recordkeeping. Upon request of the committee, made with the approval of the Secretary, each handler shall furnish to the committee, in such manner and at such time as it may prescribe, such reports and other information as may be necessary for the committee to perform its duties under this part. ( a ) Such reports may include, but are not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) The quantities of Vidalia onions received by a handler;
( 2 ) The quantities disposed of by the handler;
( 3 ) The date of each such disposition; and
( 4 ) The identification of the carrier transporting such Vidalia onions.
( b ) All such reports shall be held under appropriate protective classification and custody by duly appointed employees of the committee, so that the information contained therein which may adversely affect the competitive position of any handler in relation to other handlers will not be disclosed. Compilations of general reports from data submitted by handlers is authorized, subject to the prohibition of disclosure of an individual handler's identity or operations.
( c ) Each handler shall maintain for at least two succeeding years such records of the Vidalia onions received and disposed of by such handler as may be necessary to verify reports submitted to the committee pursuant to this section.
Case 2:06-cv-00648-MHT-VPM Document 14 Filed 07/26/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00648-MHT-VPM Document 14 Filed 07/26/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 930.120 Board membership.

When the production level from a district falls below the thresholds stated in § 930.20(b)(5), members of the specific district will make a recommendation to the Board as to who should be removed from the Board and the Board shall submit a recommendation to the Secretary for approval. If the recommendation is not made by the Board within a reasonable time, the Secretary may select the member and alternate to be removed.

[71 FR 16985, Apr. 5, 2006]
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Matter of the Marriage of Amy

Elizabeth Collins and Charles Vernon

Collins and In the Interest of H. C. and C.C.,

Children

No. 06

- 18

- 00036

- CV Appeal from the 433rd Dist rict Court of Comal County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. C2015

- 1800D ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of thi s date, we find that the motion of the appellant to

dismi ss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Amy Elizabeth Collins , pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 31, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) 2:06cr169-WKW

) 

WILLIAM EARL ULMER )

ORDER

Upon consideration of defendant's motion to have defendant present at the pretrial

conference (Doc. # 317), filed September 24, 2007, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED. The United States Marshal is

DIRECTED to produce defendant for the pretrial conference scheduled for September 28, 2007 at

3:00 p.m. in courtroom 5-B.

DONE, this 25th day of September, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 326 Filed 09/25/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isabel VALENZUELA-MEOROYOQUI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-10156.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.*

Filed Aug. 22, 2007.

*445Irene C. Feldman, Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. DeConcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brian I. Rademacher, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Isabel Valenzuela-Moroyoqui appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(vni), and 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and (b)(1)(H). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Valenzuela-Moroyoqui contends that the district court failed to consider the aberrant nature of her conduct and gave undue weight to the need for the sentence imposed to afford general deterrence, disregarding specific deterrence. Valenzuela-Moroyoqui further contends that the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court considered the parties’ arguments, and set forth a reasoned basis for the sentence, as required by the circumstances. *See Rita v. United States,*— U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); *United States v. Mohamed,*459 F.3d 979, 985 (9th Cir.2006). We conclude that Valenzuela-Moroyoqui’s sentence, at the low end of the applicable Guidelines range, was not unreasonable. *See Rita,*127 S.Ct. at 2470.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
§ 771.15 Loan servicing. ( a ) *Advances.* FSA may make advances to protect its financial interests and charge the borrower's account for the amount of any such advances.
( b ) *Payments.* Payments will be made to FSA as set forth in loan agreements and debt instruments. The funds from extra payments will be applied entirely to loan principal.
( c ) *Restructuring.* The provisions of 7 CFR part 766 are not applicable to loans made under this section. However, FSA may restructure loan debts; provided: ( 1 ) The Government's interest will be protected;
( 2 ) The restructuring will be performed within FSA budgetary restrictions; and
( 3 ) The loan objectives cannot be met unless the loan is restructured.
( d ) *Default.* In the event of default, FSA will take all appropriate actions to protect its interest.
[67 FR 59771, Sept. 24, 2002, as amended at 72 FR 64121, Nov. 15, 2007]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                         178,754
<SECURITIES>                                   969,171
<RECEIVABLES>                                  231,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (36,798)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,274
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,551,467
<PP&E>                                         760,014
<DEPRECIATION>                               (412,390)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,007,634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          355,474
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,371
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,599,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,007,634
<SALES>                                        786,308
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               786,308
<CGS>                                          172,999
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  172,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               563,943
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 83,274
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,317
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             59,957
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    59,957
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000761236
<NAME>                        NATIONAL PROPERTIES INVESTMENT TRUST


<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              12/31/1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 4/1/1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  6/30/1999
<CASH>                                         65,482
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                          6,545
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,951
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 68,076
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          12,931
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                 11,790,407
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   68,076
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                (20,822)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,822)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)



</TABLE>
§ 789.24 Instances in which assistance must not be provided. ( a ) Special priorities assistance is provided at the discretion of USDA when it is determined that such assistance is warranted to meet the objectives of this part. Examples in which assistance must not be provided include situations in which a person is attempting to: ( 1 ) Secure a price advantage;
( 2 ) Obtain delivery prior to the time required to fill a rated order;
( 3 ) Gain competitive advantage;
( 4 ) Disrupt an industry apportionment program in a manner designed to provide a person with an unwarranted share of scarce items; or
( 5 ) Overcome a supplier's regularly established terms of sale or conditions of doing business.
( b ) [Reserved]
§ 612.4 Eligible individuals or groups. ( a ) Any individual or group who is a significant water user and who would benefit from a water supply forecast may obtain forecasts from NRCS on a regular basis provided data are available to NRCS to develop a forecast at the desired location.
( b ) The program collects and interprets data as a service and an aid to agricultural interests, particularly those served by or affiliated with soil, water, and other conservation districts. Information collected by NRCS for these agricutural users is also made available to other Federal, State, and private agencies and to the general public without charge. Cooperator financial contribution is usually required for special measurements or interpretations beyond the scope of the regular program.
Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 13 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 13 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 13 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 13 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 13 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00626-WHA-DRB Document 13 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 6 of 6