alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1309.507-2 Contract clauses.       (a) In accordance with FAR 9.507-2, insert clause 1352.209-71, *Limitation of Future Contracting,* substantially as written, when the contractor's eligibility for future prime contract or subcontract awards shall be restricted because of services being provided as stated in FAR 9.505-1 through 9.505-4.          (1) Insert the basic clause when the contractor will be providing systems engineering and/or technical direction. (*See* FAR 9.505-1)          (2) Insert the clause with its Alternate I when the contractor will be preparing specifications or work statements. (*See* FAR 9.505-2)          (3) Insert the clause with its Alternate II when the contractor will be providing technical evaluation or advisory and assistance services. (*See* FAR 9.505-3)          (4) Insert the clause with its Alternate III when the contractor will be obtaining access to proprietary information. (*See* FAR 9.505-4)          (5) Insert the clause with its Alternate IV when the contract is a task order contract. The contracting officer may modify Alternate IV to include a list of systems for which task orders may be issued and indicate which organizational conflict of interest provision in paragraph (a)(2) of this clause shall apply.          (6) Insert the clause with its Alternate V when the contract provides for delivery orders. The contracting officer shall indicate in each delivery order which organizational conflict of interest provision in paragraph (a)(2) of this clause shall apply.          (7) Insert the language in Alternate VI when it is necessary to have the restrictions of this clause included in all or some subcontracts, teaming arrangements, and other agreements calling for performance of work related to the contract.          (b) Insert clause 1352.209-72, *Restrictions against Disclosure,* in service contracts, including architect-engineer contracts, and supply and construction contracts requiring a restriction on the release of information developed or obtained in connection with performance of the contract.          (c) Insert the clause 1352.209-73, *Compliance with the Laws,* in all solicitations and contracts.          (d) Insert the clause 1352.209-74, *Organizational Conflict of Interest,* in all solicitations and contracts.          (e) Insert clause 1352.209-75, *Title 13 and Non-Disclosure Requirements,* in all solicitations and contracts for services where the contractor will have access to Title 13 data.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1309.5 - Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3099 

To suspend temporarily the duty on seal assemblies, rear spar. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Mr. BROWNBACK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on seal assemblies, rear 

spar. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SEAL ASSEMBLIES, REAR SPAR. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.59.11 Seal assemblies, rear spar (provided for 

in subheading 5911.90.00) ...................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

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


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3099 IS 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
1405.502 Authority.       (a) The CO shall obtain written authorization of the HCA before placing an advertisement in a newspaper to advertise a contracting opportunity.          (b) Advertisements placed in media other than newspapers do not require advance authorization.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1405.5 - Paid Advertisements
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3429 

To reduce temporarily the duty on sulfentrazone technical. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 6, 2006 

Mr. DURBIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on sulfentrazone technical. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SULFENTRAZONE TECHNICAL. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.94 N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4- 

(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4- 

triazol-1- 

yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide (Sulfentrazone) (CAS 

No. 122836–35–5) (provided 

for in subheading 

2935.00.75) ......................... 1.2% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 3429 IS 

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

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

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

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
SCPW

- 19

- 0000377

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

DAVID L. MOORE, Petitioner,

vs.

JANICE T. FUTA, DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT (By: McKenna, Acting C.J., Pollack and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Eddins, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge Nakasone, in place of Nakayama, J., recused)

Upon consideration of David L. Moore’s petition for an

extraordinary writ, filed on May 7, 2019, we conclude, on the

merits of the petition, 1 that petitioner Moore fails to

demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the

requested relief or that he lacks alternative means to seek

relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested

1 This court reaches the merits of the petition because there is no statute , court rule , or statutorily prescribed order prohibiting Moore from filing the instant petition with this court

. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-19-0000377 22-MAY-2019 10:49 AM2

extraordinary writ. See Kema v. Gaddis , 91 Hawai  i 200, 204, 982

P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary

remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a

clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative

means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or ob tain the

requested action). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i , May 22, 2019.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
**Resume : GLEN C. GUSTAFSON** 

**CONTACT INFORMATION :**  P.O. Box 422, 100 Banning Drive , Unit G

- 42 Avalon, CA 90704 Cell: (310) 612

- 3505 eMail: GlenGus@iCloud.c om

**EDUCATION:**

Ph.D. 1973 Geo graphy: Remote Sensing in Quantitative Geomorphology , University of Munich, Germany

. M.Sc. 1971 Geomorphological Mapping from Aerial Photography , International Inst. for Aerial Survey and Earth Sciences. (ITC), Delft (later Enschede) , The Netherlands

. B.A. 1969 Geography (Major) and Geology (Minor) University of California, Santa Barbara, CA

.

**PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:**
1983 to present **: Aerial I magery Consultant**  for photographic intelligence, and environmental litigation.

1978

- 2005 : **PROFESSOR and Applied GIS Coordinator ,**  Dept. of Integrated Science and Technology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA

.
1977

- 78: **VISITING ASSISTANT PROFESSOR**  , Geography Department State University of New York, Binghamton, NY

1973

- 77: **ASSISTANT PROFESSOR** , Geology and Geography Department. City University of New York, Lehman College, New York

1971

- 73: **SCIENTIFIC COOPERATOR** , Geograp hy Department, University of Munich, Munich, Germany

1969

- 71: **LABORATORY INSTRUCTOR** , Department of Natural Resources , In ternational Institute for Aerial Survey and Earth Sciences (ITC) , Delft, The Netherlands

**MILITARY SERVI CE:** 

1962

- 66: U.S. Air Force: Abilene, Texas, and Wiesbaden, Germany : **Image Analyst** (Air Force Specialty Code R20650). Five months technical training followed by extensive experience withearly reconnaissance satellites, long

- focal

- length obli que cameras and other systems. Primary duties included writing photo intelligence reports on military, transportation and industrial targets abroad.

**PUBLICATIONS:**

A l ist of public ations is available . Major places of publication ha ve included: a chapter in a Prentice

- Hall textbook ( Applied Geography , 1982) , research papers in "Photogrammetric Engineering", "Surveying and Mapping", the ASPRS and ACSM "Proceedings", the “ Society of Photo

- Optical Instrum entation Engineers Proceedings" (SPIE), and elsewhere.

**PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS:** Member Since:
American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) 1963 Sigma Xi, Scientific Research Society 1976
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0270

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOR-EL RUBEN QUIROZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 21, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 16 2020

09/16/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0270
§ 927.51 Issuance of regulations; and modification, suspension, or termination thereof. ( a ) Whenever the Secretary finds, from the recommendations and information submitted by the Fresh Pear Committee, or from other available information, that regulation, in the manner specified in this section, of the shipment of fresh pears would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act, he or she shall so limit the shipment of such pears during a specified period or periods. Such regulation may: ( 1 ) Limit the total quantity of any grade, size, quality, or combinations thereof, of any variety or subvariety of pears grown in any district and may prescribe different requirements applicable to shipments to different export markets;
( 2 ) Limit, during any period or periods, the shipment of any particular grade, size, quality, or any combination thereof, of any variety or subvariety, of pears grown in any district or districts of the production area; and
( 3 ) Provide a method, through rules and regulation issued pursuant to this part, for fixing markings on the container or containers, which may be used in the packaging or handling of pears, including appropriate logo or other container markings to identify the contents thereof.
( b ) Whenever the Secretary finds, from the recommendations and information submitted by the Fresh Pear Committee, or from other available information, that a regulation should be modified, suspended, or terminated with respect to any or all shipments of fresh pears grown in any district in order to effectuate the declared policy of the act, he or she shall so modify, suspend, or terminate such regulation. If the Secretary finds, from the recommendations and information submitted by the Fresh Pear Committee, or from other available information, that a regulation obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act, he or she shall suspend or terminate such regulation. On the same basis and in like manner, the Secretary may terminate any such modification or suspension.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6979** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. KEVIN LAMONT WALKER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United S tates District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News
. Rebecca Beach Smith , District Judge. ( 4:05

- cr - 00005

- RBS

- JEB

- 1 )

Submitted : November 15 , 2011 Decided: November 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMI LTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kevin Lamont Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding prece dent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kevin Lamont Walker appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion to expedite decision on his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion , which the court previously struck from its docket due to deficiency in for m . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny Walker’s motion to assign counsel and affirm the district co urt’s order
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Income Properties Ltd., IV 1999 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000763049
<NAME> ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES LTD. IV
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,356
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          23,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         15,008
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (535)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,703
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   991
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,188
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 376
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (197)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.47)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
1480.904 Challenge not timely.

If a CO receives an untimely filed challenge of a representation, the CO must notify the challenger

that the challenge cannot be considered on the instant acquisition but will be considered in any

future actions. However, the CO may question at any time, before or after award, the representation

of an IEE.

Parent topic: Subpart 1480.9 - Challenges to Representation
Opinion issued November 9, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-17-00312-CR

———————————

RONALD WAYNE EARLS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1466294

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ronald Wayne Earls, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of 

aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court found appellant guilty and, 

in accordance with the terms of appellant’s plea bargain agreement with the State, 
2

sentenced appellant to 10 years’ incarceration. Appellant filed a notice of appeal. 

We dismiss the appeal.

In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were 

raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s 

permission to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed 

if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made 

part of the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

The trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id. The 

trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the defendant 

has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports the trial 

court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See 

Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, 

while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea-bargained is 

permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without 

further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3302 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Nitrocellulose. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2006 

Mr. SPECTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Nitrocellulose. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NITROCELLULOSE. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.10.03 Cellulose Nitrate (nitrocellulose) (CAS No. 9004–70–0) 

(provided for in subheading 

3912.20.00) ......................... 4.4% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

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


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3302 IS 

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

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
§ 1003.14 Evaluation of petitions. ( a ) The OHA will acknowledge receipt of all petitions filed pursuant to this part.
( b ) The OHA may request information of a petitioner, including, but not limited to, financial documents, responses to interrogatories, copies of communications, and such other information the OHA determines may inform its evaluation of the petition. ( 1 ) The OHA will provide a petitioner with a period of time within which to provide any information requested by the OHA pursuant to this paragraph and instructions on how to deliver the information to the OHA.
( 2 ) The OHA may extend the period of time for a petitioner to provide information requested by the OHA upon a showing of good cause by the petitioner. Such extensions will generally be for a period of no more than 30 days, and in no case will the OHA grant an extension that would result in the undue delay of its evaluation of a petition.
( c ) In evaluating a petition, the OHA may consider relevant information from any source, including information received from a third party, provided that the petitioner is afforded an opportunity to respond to all third-party submissions.
( d ) The OHA will complete its evaluation of a petition within 180 days of receipt of the petition. However, the Director may extend the period for the OHA's review for good cause, the reasoning for which must be set forth in the order extending the review period.
( e ) In its evaluations, the OHA will use as a guide, but will not be bound by, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence.
( f ) The Director has all of the judicial powers necessary to conduct the proceeding, including, but not limited to, grants or denials of motions and entry of interlocutory orders.
( g ) The OHA may conduct a hearing with regard to the petition if, in its discretion, it considers that such hearing will materially advance the proceeding. In deciding whether to conduct a hearing, the OHA may consider various factors, including, but not limited to, the number of persons potentially aggrieved by a petition, the extent to which witness testimony will assist the OHA in developing a complete factual record, and the estimated costs of conducting a hearing at a venue reasonably convenient to all parties.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

October 17, 2006

NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE

To: ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case Style: Toole et al v. Chupp et al

Case Number: 2:06-cv-00652-MHT

Referenced Pleading: Witness List

Docket Entry Number: 16

The referenced pleading was electronically filed on ***October 16, 2006***in this case and is

not in compliance with the local rules and/or administrative procedures of this court. This

pleading was incorrectly docketed as a witness list but is Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures.

******This pleading is discovery and is not allowed pursuant to Local Rule 5.1 NON-FILING

OF CIVIL DISCOVERY.

The pleading is hereby STRICKEN from the record and the parties are instructed to disregard

the entry of this pleading on the court’s docket. Parties should be aware that the striking of

this entry does not affect their responsibilities as to the discovery process.

Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 17 Filed 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 1
(April 11, 1967)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph Davis, Appellant, v. Henry J. Noble, as Warden of New York City Penitentiary, Respondent.

Order entered November 24, 1965 unanimously affirmed on the authority of *People ex rel. Williams*v. *La Vallee*(19 N Y 2d 707). This is a “ baseless ” petition. Concur—Steuer, J. P., Tilzer, Rabin, McNally and Staley, Jr., JJ.