alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1998, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,592,500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,200
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      10,111,900
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,264,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,042,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          516,800
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,072,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,004,700
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,485,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (87,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                32,300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                600,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            600,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   600,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    19.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
43.9000 Policy.

(S-90) When issuing a modification to an existing contract, order, or task order that requires a

change to the scope of work to be performed, the contracting officer shall complete the

Memorandum for the Record (MFR) Scope Determination located at DARS PGI 43.9000(S-90).

Further guidance on determining when a modification is within scope of an existing contract is

contained within the Scope Determination Guide at DARS PGI 43.9000(S-90).

(S-91) Scope determinations are not required for:

(i) Administrative changes issued as modifications that do not impact the substantive rights of the

parties (e.g., a change in the paying office or the appropriation data (FAR 43.101)

(ii) Unilateral modifications that are authorized by clauses other than the Changes clause (e.g.,

Property clause, Options clause, or Suspension of Work clause (FAR 43.103(b)(3)).

(S-92) General Counsel shall be consulted in cases where the contracting officer cannot make a clear

determination whether the proposed modification is within scope of the existing contract or task

order.

(S-93) In-scope changes to an existing contract shall be issued in accordance with FAR 43.2. When a

proposed change requires a modification outside of the general scope of a contract the contracting

officer must either:

(i) Competitively solicit the requirement; or,

(ii) Issue the modification in accordance with the non-competitive procedures at FAR 6.303, 8.405-6,

or 16.505(b)(2).

Parent topic: SUBPART 43.9000 – SCOPE DETERMINATION
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/24/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 2 Filed 07/24/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 959.103 Registered handler.

For purposes of this part any person who operates an established packing house within the production area with commonly accepted adequate facilities for grading and packing onions for market, and who customarily buys onions from producers for grading, packing, and marketing shall be recorded by the committee as a registered handler. Any other person who wishes to be listed as a registered handler may make application for registration on forms furnished by the committee. If such applicant has facilities available to him that are determined by the committee to be adequate for grading and packing onions for market, and he assumes responsibility for inspection of onions handled by him, and for assessments thereon, he may be approved and recorded as a registered handler. If the committee determines from the available information that the applicant is not entitled to be registered with the committee, he shall be so informed by written notice stating the reason for denial of his application. Any registration of a handler pursuant to this section may be canceled by the committee under circumstances which would have justified denial of his application. Any handler whose registration has been canceled shall be so informed by written notice thereof stating the reason therefor. The committee shall also notify producers of each such cancellation of handler registration through committee bulletins or published notice in local newspapers of general distribution, or both.
# NOT DESIGNATED 

# 1. PU3LICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA
RE: Docket Number 2022 - CA -1148 In Re: Medical Review Panel George Abrams ( D) 19th Judicial District Court Case #: 665084 East Baton Rouge Parish



### 4n Application for Rehearing filed on 06/01/2023 by Thomas Abrams Rehearing 

# D e-A f

# zzL Mitchell R. Theriot 

# fit,- 

# Ck" r, 

# 4 z 

# C9/j Wayne Ra hutz 17 Chris Hester

Date 

# 1UA1 4 2023 Rodd Naquin,
§ 930.83 Termination. ( a ) The Secretary may, at any time, terminate any or all of the provisions of this part by giving at least 1 day's notice by means of a press notice or in any other manner in which the Secretary may determine.
( b ) The Secretary shall terminate or suspend the operation of any or all of the provisions of this part whenever the Secretary finds that such provisions do not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
( c ) The Secretary shall terminate the provisions of this part whenever the Secretary finds by referendum or otherwise that such termination is favored by a majority of the growers and processors: *Provided,* That such majority has, during the current fiscal year, produced or canned and frozen more than 50 percent of the volume of the cherries which were produced or processed within the production area. Such termination shall become effective on the last day of June subsequent to the announcement thereof by the Secretary.
( d ) The Secretary shall conduct a referendum within the month of March of every sixth year after the effective date of this part to ascertain whether continuation of this part is favored by the growers and processors. The Secretary may terminate the provisions of this part at the end of any fiscal period in which the Secretary has found that continuance is not favored by a majority of growers and processors who, during a representative period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in the production or processing of tart cherries in the production area. Such termination shall be announced on or before the end of the fiscal period.
( e ) The provisions of this part shall, in any event, terminate whenever the provisions of the Act authorizing them cease to be in effect.
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 6 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1817V

UNPUBLISHED

DEBRA FALK,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: June 16, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.

Robert Paul Coleman, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On November 27, 2018, Debra Falk filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that that she suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome

as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination that she received on November 2, 2017. 

Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of 

Special Masters.

On June 15, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “[P]etitioner suffered GBS following the 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

administration of an influenza vaccine, and that the onset occurred within the time 

period specified in the Table.” Id. at 2. Respondent further agrees that “[P]etitioner 

suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months.” Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
#### Board of Education of Rushford Central School, Appellant, v Civil Service Employees Association, Respondent.

Order unanimously modified, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The collective bargaining agreement between the parties provides for a four-step procedure for the resolution of grievances, the last step of which is binding arbitration. A grievance is defined as “any claimed violation, misinterpretation or inequitable application of this Contract.” Petitioner moved to stay arbitration of a grievance filed on behalf of one Michael Fox, who claimed that he had been “passed over for a full-time custodial position” in violation of article 16 of the agreement which provides, *inter alia:*“In the event of two or more employees applying for a vacancy, that employee with the most seniority shall be granted the position if qualified.” Although respondent appeared by counsel on the return date of the application, it did not file an answer (CPLR 402). Nevertheless, Special Term properly refused to stay arbitration. While the petition presents facts which may result in issues to be resolved in arbitration, it fails to demonstrate, as required by statute, that “a valid agreement [to arbitrate] was not made or has not been complied with” (CPLR 7503, subd [b]). The arbitration clause is unambiguous and encompasses the grievance at issue *(Board of Educ. v Barni,*49 NY2d 311). The arbitrator will interpret the agreement *(Matter of Wyandanch Union Free School Dist. v Wyandanch Teachers Assn.,*48 NY2d 669; *Matter of Depew Union Free School Dist. v Depew Teachers Organization,*77 AD2d 798) and although the school board claims that the facts will not support a violation of substantive provisions of the contract, *1000that claim “is irrelevant on the threshold question of arbitrability” *(Matter of Board of Educ. v Deer Park Teachers Assn.,*50 NY2d 1011,1012). We will not presume in advance of arbitration that the arbitrator will exceed his powers (see *Board of Educ. v Barni, supra,*p 315; cf. *Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn.,*41 NY2d 578) or fashion a remedy which will violate public policy (see *Matter of Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn.,*45 NY2d 746). In denying the application for a stay, however, Special Term made findings of fact upon which it framed the issue to be submitted to the arbitrator. It was improper for the court thus to encroach upon the arbitrator’s function. (Appeal from order of Cattaraugus Supreme Court — arbitration.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MAI Systems Corporation
(the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James D. Dolan,
Chief Financial and Operating Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.
S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

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

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


      Date: August 14, 2003        By: /s/ James W. Dolan
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                           James W. Dolan
                                           Chief Financial and Operating Officer
# Subpart 406.2 - Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources

**Parent topic:**PART 406 - COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

## 406.202 Establishing or maintaining alternative sources.

The Senior Procurement Executive is authorized to make determinations pursuant to FAR 6.202(a) and sign the determination and findings required by FAR 6.202(b).
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 76699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30988]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


The University of Texas at Austin, et al.; Notice of Decision on 
Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). 
Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 
3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave, NW., 
Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 10-064. Applicant: The University of Texas at 
Austin, Center for Electromechanics, Pickle Research Campus, 10100 
Burnet Road, Building 133, Austin, Texas 78758-4497. Instrument: 
Hexapod Actuators. Manufacturer: ADS International, S.r.l., Italy. 
Intended Use: See notice at 75 FR 67949, November 4, 2010. Comments: 
None received. Decision: Approved. We know of no instruments of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, 
for such purposes as this is intended to be used, that was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time of its order. Reasons: 
The instrument is unique because of its ability to achieve the desired 
accuracy of +/-2 microns, the stiffness of 400 N/micron, the end mounts 
ability to rotate up to +/-20 degrees in two axes and a stiffness of 
250 N/micron, is actively cooled, and is able to generate 30kN of 
continuous force for extended periods of time. We know of no 
instrument, suited to these purposes that was being manufactured in the 
United States at the time of order of this instrument.

    Dated: December 3, 2010.
Gregory W. Campbell,
Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-30988 Filed 12-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DUE PROCESS, LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:03cv580/MCR/MD

ALTERNATIVE DEBT SERVICES,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's reportand

recommendation dated October 10, 2006. The plaintiff has been furnished a copy

of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), and I have

made a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been

made.

Having considered the report andrecommendation and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the report and recommendation should be

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The Stipulated Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (doc. 105) is GRANTED,

and plaintiffs’ claims against defendant Patrick Olive are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of November, 2006.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-00580-MCR-MD Document 109 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30889

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LAWRENCE CLYDE BRINGIER, JR., also known as Junior, also known as

Bread,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:01-CR-172-4

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lawrence Clyde

Bringier, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Bringier has filed a response. We have reviewed

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well

as Bringier’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 9, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-30889 Document: 00512202461 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2013
No. 12-30889

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-30889 Document: 00512202461 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2013
#### § 760.1602 Definitions.

The definitions in this section apply for all purposes of program administration. Terms defined in §§ 760.1502 and 760.1421 of this chapter also apply, except where they conflict with the definitions in this section.

*Administrative County Office* is the FSA County Office where a producer's FSA records are maintained.

*CCC* means the Commodity Credit Corporation.

*COC* means the FSA county committee.

*Covered commodity* means wheat, oats, and barley (including wheat, oats, and barley used for haying), corn, grain sorghum, long grain rice, medium grain rice, seed cotton, pulse crops, soybeans, other oilseeds, and peanuts as specified in 7 CFR 1412 and produced and mechanically harvested in the United States.

*Crop* means with respect to a year, commodities harvested in that year. Therefore, the referenced crop year of a commodity means commodities that when planted were intended for harvest in that calendar year.

*Crop year* means the relevant contract or application year. For example, the 2014 crop year is the year that runs from October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014, and references to payments for that year refer to payments made under contracts or applications with the compliance year that runs during those dates.

*FSA* means the Farm Service Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture.

*Oilseeds* means any crop of sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe, sesame seed, and other oilseeds as designated by CCC or the Secretary.

*Qualifying disaster* event means a hurricane, flood, tornado, typhoon, volcanic activity, snowstorm, or wildfire or related condition that occurred in the 2018 or 2019 calendar year.

*Recording FSA County Office* is the FSA County Office that records eligibility data for producers designated as multi-county producers.

*Related condition* means damaging weather or an adverse natural occurrence that occurred as a direct result of a hurricane or wildfire qualifying disaster event, such as excessive rain, high winds, flooding, mudslides, and heavy smoke.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, or the Secretary's delegate.

*STC* means the FSA State committee.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:90-cr-01036-MP-GRJ-1

ROBERT REE SMITH,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 444, Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma

Pauperis and Motion for Certificate of Appealability, filed by Defendant Robert Ree Smith with

regard to the Notice of Appeal at Doc. 441. In the order being appealed, Doc. 438, the Court

noted that the case Mr. Smith is relying upon – United States v. O'Brien, 130 S.Ct. 2169 (2010) –

has not been made retroactively applicable by the Supreme Court. Likewise, in a recent order in

this case from the Eleventh Circuit, that court stated, "Smith’s claims do not meet the 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(h) criteria because, as he concedes, O’Brien has not been made retroactive by the

Supreme Court." Order from USCA, Doc. 440 p. 2. 

Under Fed. R. App. P. 24(1), a party seeking to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

must file a motion with the district court, and the Court, under Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4) may

certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith and for that reason deny the motion to proceed in

forma pauperis. Because the Eleventh Circuit has already indicated that O’Brien has not been

made retroactively applicable, the Court hereby certifies that the appeal is not taken in good

faith. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is therefore denied. For the reasons

Case 1:90-cr-01036-MP-GRJ Document 445 Filed 06/24/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

stated above, the Court also finds that Petitioner fails to make a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right, and the issues are not adequate enough to deserve encouragement to

proceed further. Accordingly, no certificate of appealability is appropriate in this case. It is

hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Doc. 444, the motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and for a certificate of

appealability, is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of June, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:90-cr-01036-MP-GRJ-1

Case 1:90-cr-01036-MP-GRJ Document 445 Filed 06/24/11 Page 2 of 2