alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 08/14/15 Time: 12:06 PM Page: 04/06 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON,D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

Spirit Avionics, Ltd. 

FAA DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0119 

DMS NO. 2012-GL-07-0056 

FAA CASE NO. 2012-GL-07-0056 

ANSWER OF .RESPONDENT 

Now comes Respondent, by and through counsel, and for its Answer to the Amended 

Complaint filed by Complainant on August 12,2015, restates and avers as follows: 

1. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 

2. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 

3. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 

4. Respondent admits that its sub-contracted portions of the work referred to in paragraph 3 

---------------.ornfntlfri~erlC~oo,mnprmnt~tffo~Lrao""'e'A~v~JarltJ~o~n•.--------------------------------------------------

5. Respondent admits that sometime prior to February 24,2011 an employee of Respondent 

fabricated certain brackets and lanyards that would eventual! y be used on the FAA 

aircraft. 

6. Respondent admits that the brackets and lanyards were to be used on the subject FAA 

airc;aft. 

7. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 ofthe Complaint. 
To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 08/14/15 Time: 12:06 PM Page: 05/06 

8. Respondent denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint not herein 

admitted specifically to be true. 

OTHER DEFENSES 

9. Respondent denies that the transactions between it and Lane Aviation constituted a sale 

or sales of any fabricated brackets and/or fabricated lanyards as alleged in the Complaint. 

10. Respondent did not violate any provisions of any section of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully demands that the Complaint herein be dismissed at the 

cost of the agency. 

· kJ.Moro 

J .. A Eichenberger 

ICBENBEROER .& ASSOCIATES 

603 7 Frantz Road, Suite 1 07 

Dublin, Ohio 43017 

Phone: 614"798-1600 

Fax: 614-798-1620 

Attorneys for Respondent 
To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 

• LlC.:HEt-.:DERCiEiR &:_t\.SSOC!ATES (\ 1(1.;)111 ::'""""''·'"':';',;;,' <i"'jr~i~"JW,)t 

Notes 

Date: 08/14/15 Time: 12:06 PM Page: 01/06 

llll111111111 

&~j\\\\\\11• 

ll'li 

Date: 

TO 

Fax Number: 

Name: 

FROM 

Fax Number. 

Name: 

Company: 

Subject: 

Pages: 

Fri Aug 1415:05 EDT2015 

12022671293 

FAA Hearing Docket 

16147981620 

Patrick Mom 

FAA-2014-0119 

6 

Please find the attached Answer to Complainant's AmendOO Complaint and the Supplemental Affida\<\t of Eric ()chs attachEd. 

<(;!";(, ;i.<,';) (~{ r~?, -~~111·--•(;H!F' 

,11 !"r':>fi'>--Ei<:•n·li "'"" ;;:-.ii)ii<>n i" r·;v!l.;!: frCi:•r'>d. ('~"; 'l -; 0 "' 

i);,lt)lW. {• -b ;DD'i i'
45.201 Solicitation.

(S-90) When GFP is anticipated, include enclosure 18b, GFP Attachment (

https://www.ditco.disa.mil/contracts/SampleDocTemplates.asp ) or the downloaded GFP attachment

from the GFP module ( https://piee.eb.mil /), in all solicitations.

For letter solicitations, or any solicitation not using a standard 13 digit solicitation number, the GFP

Attachment Excel document at 18b is the preferred format.

When the amount of GFP could vary in performance based acquisitions or other similar acquisition

types, the GFP Attachment Excel document may list a reasonable range for the quantity of GFP to be

provided in the solicitation. This will allow the offeror to propose the exact number of GFP items

within the listed range.

Parent topic: SUBPART 45.2 — SOLICITATION AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES
## ELECTRONIC RECORD 

# Itoyts

COA # 12-14-00229-CR 

## STYLE: gee, blakecarrington COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM 

### ENGAGING IN ORGANIZED 

### OFFENSE: CRIMINAL ACTIVITY 

### COUNTY: Smith TRIAL COURT: 241st District Court DATE: 07/22/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 241-1861-13



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS STYLE: GEE, BLAKE CARRINGTON v. 

## PRO se Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: ifaUlHS JUDGE: 

# -P&\. CuAAA^—• CCADisposition: DATE: 

### JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONICRECORD
#### Betty Torres, an Infant, by Her Guardian ad Litem, Jesus Torres, et al., Respondents, v. Frank Vizzare, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 6, 1969, as (1) set aside a jury’s special verdict that the infant plaintiff was eontributorily negligent and (2) granted a new trial to determine that issue. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, motion to set aside said verdict denied; and verdict reinstated. In this personal injury negligence action, the infant plaintiff was seven years of age when she was struck by defendant’s automobile while playing ball on the street. The question of whether she was free from contributory negligence was submitted to the jury which returned a special verdict finding her guilty of such negligence. The trial court thereafter set aside this verdict and ordered a new trial solely on this issue. In our opinion, it was an abuse of discretion to do so. The evidence adduced at the trial was not so heavily weighted in favor of the infant plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence as to warrant the court’s setting aside of the jury’s verdict. As a matter of law, it cannot be said that the infant plaintiff was *non sui juris.*Therefore, the question of whether she acted as a reasonably prudent person of her age and experience was one properly submitted to the jury *(Camardo*v. *New York State Rys.,*247 N. Y. 111; *La Mont*v. Anderson, 1 A D 2d 729) and there is no basis on which to set aside its verdict. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
## In the C ourt of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00375

- CV

___________________________

Original Proceedi ng County Court at Law of Cooke County, Tex as Trial Co urt No. CV21019 71

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Walker, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS 

### , Relator2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
The court has considered (1) relator the State of Texas’s petition for writ of
mandam us, (2) the real party in interest Kamy Rea l P roperty Trust’s respo ns e, and (3) the State of Texas’s reply

. Kamy Real Property Trus t’s response and the State of Texas’s reply address arguments not raised in the trial court , and both require resolution of factual issues

— from whom Kamy Real Pr operty T rust r eceived actual notice that the special
commissioners ’ award had been filed in the trial court, when Kamy Real Pr operty T rust r eceived actual notice , whether the trial court clerk complied with Se ct ion
21.0 49 of the Texas Property Code , and, if the trial court clerk did so, when

. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 21.049

. “It i s well established Texas law that an appellate court may not deal with disputed areas of fact in an original mandamus proceeding.” Brady v. Fourteenth C t

. of App

. , 795 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding) (op. on reh’g); In re Wilson , 421 S. W.3d 6 86, 690 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2 014, orig. proceeding) (op. on reconsideration). Accordingly, the State of Texas’s petition for writ of man damus is den ie d.

Per Curiam

Delivered: November 8, 2022
1346.710 Contract clauses.

The warranty clauses and alternates under FAR Subpart 46.710 may be used in solicitations and

contracts.

Parent topic: Subpart 1346.7 - Warranties
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8115-8116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3085]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 8, 2010, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers (``IEEE'') has filed written notifications

[[Page 8116]]

simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Acts provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 31 new 
standards have been initiated and 21 existing standards are being 
revised. More detail regarding these changes can be found at http://standards.ieee.org/standardswire/ sba/ll-2009.html and http://standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/l2-09-09.html.
    On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 28, 
2009. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on January 19, 2010 (75 FR 2890).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-3085 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

#### § 982.11 Pack.

*Pack* means a specific commercial classification according to size, internal quality, and external appearance and condition of hazelnuts packed in accordance with any of the pack specifications prescribed pursuant to § 982.45.
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.

§ 868.30 Methods and order of performing inspection service. ( a ) *Methods* — ( 1 ) *General.* All sampling and inspection services performed by official personnel shall be made in accordance with the regulations, standards, and the instructions.
( 2 ) *Lot inspection service.* A lot inspection service shall be based on official personnel obtaining representative samples, examining the commodity in the entire lot, and making an accurate analysis of the commodity on the basis of the samples.
( 3 ) *Submitted sample inspection service.* A submitted sample inspection service shall be based on a submitted sample of sufficient size to enable official personnel to perform an accurate, complete analysis. The sample size will be prescribed in the instructions. If a complete analysis cannot be performed because of an inadequate sample size or other conditions, the request shall be dismissed or a factor only inspection may be performed upon request.
( b ) *Order of service.* Inspection services shall be performed, to the extent practicable, in the order in which requests for service are received.
( c ) *Recording receipt of documents.* Each document submitted by or on behalf of an applicant for inspection service shall be promptly stamped or similarly marked by official personnel to show the date of receipt.
( d ) *Conflicts of interest.* ( 1 ) Official personnel shall not perform or participate in performing an inspection service on a commodity or a carrier or container in which the official personnel have a direct or indirect financial interest.
( 2 ) Official personnel shall not perform, participate in performing, or issue a certificate if the official personnel participated in a previous inspection or certification of the lot unless there is only one authorized person available at the time and place of the requested inspection service.
**EXHIBIT 31.1** **CERTIFICATION**     I, John J. Lipinski, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on    Form 10-K/A    of CVR Energy, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any    untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material    fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the    circumstances under which such statements were made, not    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and    other financial information included in this report, fairly    present in all material respects the financial condition,    results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,    and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are    responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls    and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(e)    and    15d-15(e))    for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or    caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed    under our supervision, to ensure that material information    relating to the registrant, including its consolidated    subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those    entities, particularly during the period in which this report is    being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report    our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure    controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by    this report based on such evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably    likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal    control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I    have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s    auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation of internal control over financial    reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the    registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: May 8, 2008     By: /s/  John    J. Lipinski
MOORE & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND ADVISORS PCAOB REGISTERED      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM    We consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10K of Mariposa Resources, Ltd., of our report dated August 22, 2008 on our audit of the financial statements of Mariposa Resources, Ltd. as of June 30, 2008 and 2007, and the related statements of operations, stockholders equity and cash flows for the years ended June 30, 2008, 2007 and inception on May 31, 2006 through June 30, 2008, and the reference to us under the caption Experts.          /s/ Moore & Associates, Chartered Moore & Associates Chartered Las Vegas, Nevada September 9, 2008                     2675 S. Jones Blvd. Suite 109, Las Vegas, NV 89146 (702)253-7499 Fax (702)253-7501
#### § 948.216 Assessment rate.

On and after September 1, 2018, an assessment rate of $0.006 per hundredweight is established for Colorado Area No. 2 potatoes.

[83 FR 43503, Aug. 27, 2018]
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of First Community Financial Corporation, (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard R. Leitzel, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to§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; and

2. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                   |  |     |  |                                            
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard R. Leitzel                     
|                   |  |     |  | Richard R. Leitzel, Chief Financial Officer
|                   |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

#### § 982.64 Creditable promotion and advertising reports.

Each handler shall file such reports of creditable promotion including paid advertising conducted pursuant to § 982.58 as recommended by the Board and approved by the Secretary.

[51 FR 29550, Aug. 19, 1986]
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

Target Construction, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912EE-10-C-0028 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 58812, 58813 

S. Leo Arnold, Esq. 

Matthew W. Willis, Esq. 

Ashley, Ashley & Arnold 

Dyersburg, TN 

Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

John M. Breland, Esq. 

Walker D. Moller, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Vicksburg 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice stating that the matters 

in dispute have been resolved. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 8 July 2016 

/t'~C;L J.y\OC,vl 1 

MICHAEL . O'CONNELL 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 58812, 58813, Appeals of Target 

Construction, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting.

# DATE AND TIME:

Friday, December 17, 2010; 11:30 a.m. EST.

# PLACE:

Via Teleconference, Public Dial In: 1-800-597-7623, Conference ID#: 31039129.

## Meeting Agenda

This meeting is open to the public.

I. Approval of Agenda

II. Welcome New Commissioners

III. Management and Operations:
      - Review of transition, order of succession, continuity of operations.
      - Review of 2011 meeting calendar.
      - Staff Director's report.

IV. Program Planning: Update and discussion of projects.
      - Cy Pres.
      - Disparate Impact in School Discipline Policies.
      - Gender and the Wage Gap.
      - Title IX—Sex Discrimination in Liberal Arts College Admissions.
      - Eminent Domain Project.
      - NBPP.

V. State Advisory Committee Issues:
      - Update on status of North Dakota, Illinois and Minnesota SACs.
      - Update on Vermont SAC.

VI. Approval of Minutes of December 3, 2010 Meeting

VII. Announcements

VIII. Adjourn

# CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

                        Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.                         *TDD:*                         (202) 376-8116.                    

                        Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Pamela Dunston at least seven days prior to the meeting at 202-376-8105.                         *TDD:*                         (202) 376-8116.                    

Dated: December 9, 2010.

David Blackwood,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2010-31347 Filed 12-9-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 4 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 1 of 1
June 22, 2009 

OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) 

EPA East Building, Room 6428 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 

Attention: EPA Docket ID Number OPPT-2003-0071 

VIA COURIER 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

On behalf of the companies identified below, I am submitting six paper copies and a PDF copy on disk of 

Interim Report No. 8 required by the terms of the Enforceable Consent Agreement (ECA) for the 

Laboratory-Scale Incineration Testing of Fluoropolymers (EPA Docket No. OPPT-2003-0071). The due 

date for this submission is June 22, 2009. 

This submission is being made on behalf of the following companies: 

AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc. 

55 E. Uwchlan Avenue, Suite 201 

Exton, PA 19341 

Daikin America, Inc. 

20 Olympic Drive 

Orangeburg, NY 10962 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company 

1007 Market Street 

Wilmington, DE 19898 

Dyneon, LLC 

6744 33rd Street 

Oakdale, MN 55128 

If you have any questions on this submission, please contact me at 202-974-5217. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lynne R. Harris 

Vice President, Science and Technology 

ATCH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

ELIZABETH LYNN HUTCHINSON, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv700-WHA

 )

PHENIX CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, )

et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Due to a conflict which has arisen in the court’s calendar, the pretrial hearing in this case,

presently scheduled for July 23, 2007, is RESCHEDULED for July 16, 2007, at a time and place

to be set by later order. All deadlines determined by the pretrial date shall be governed by this

new date. All other deadlines set out in the Uniform Scheduling Order shall remain in full force

and effect.

DONE this 30th day of November, 2006.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 19 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 1 of 1
52.214-29 Order of Precedence-Sealed Bidding.       As prescribed in 14.201-7(d), insert the following clause:          Order of Precedence-Sealed Bidding (Jan 1986)          Any inconsistency in this solicitation or contract shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order:                                       (a) 						            The Schedule (excluding the specifications);                                          (b) 						            Representations and other instructions;                                          (c) 						            Contract clauses;                                          (d) 						            Other documents, exhibits, and attachments; and                                          (e) 						            The specifications.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.214 [Reserved]