alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ANNEX 12 - Waiver Request for Appointing a

Non-DON Employee as a Contracting Officer

In accordance with 5201.603, HCAs or their authorized designees shall notify DASN(P) of a planned

issuance of a contracting officer appointment and warrant to a non-DON employee, except when a

DON activity is designated HCA for a joint-contracting operation. The notification and/or waiver

request must address the following information:

I. Identify Non-DON Employee to be Delegated Contracting Authority

a. Name of Nominee (as it will appear on the SF 1402, Certificate of Contracting Officer

Appointment)

b. Grade/Series or Military Rank

c. Position/Title

d. Description of Duties

e. Activity Name/DODAAC

II. Describe How the Qualifications of the Nominee Meet the Requirements for the

Recommended Level of Delegation

a. Education*

b. Specialized Experience

c. Relevant Training*

d. Other Qualifications (e.g. DAWIA Career Field Certifications, Defense Acquisition Corps

Membership)*

*Note: Submit documentation to substantiate credentials/education completed.

III. Describe Extent of Contracting Authority to be Delegated

a. Type of Appointment (e.g. PCO, ACO, Ordering Officer)

b. Dollar Threshold (e.g. Unlimited, Limited to Specific Dollar Value)

c. Type of work/products/services nominee will be authorized to procure or administer

d. Limitations (e.g. Contract Type; Competitive or Non-Competitive Actions, etc.)

e. Appointment Term

IV. Provide Rationale to Support Delegation of Contracting Authority

a. Explain why this delegation is necessary and how it results in a more efficient execution and
administration of the HCAs contracting operations.

b. Identify the anticipated workload to support the type of appointment, including the available

resources at the Nominee’s Organization.

c. Describe the internal controls that are or will be in place at the Nominee’s Organization and at the

HCA/delegating office to ensure efficient and effective execution and management oversight of

delegated authority.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT R.S., Respondent

v. T.T., Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 262 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 4th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

VFS LEASING CO., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv638-SRW

)

G. F. KELLY, INC. d/b/a KELLY )

TRUCKING, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motions to strike filed by defendants on May 2, 2007 (Doc.

## 31, 32), it is

ORDERED that defendants may respond to the motions on or before May 7, 2007.

Done, this 2nd day of May, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 33 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### § 945.89 Personal liability.

No member or alternate of the committee, nor any employee or agent thereof, shall be held personally responsible, either individually or jointly with others, in any way whatsoever, to any handler or to any person for errors in judgment, mistakes, or other acts, either of commission or omission, as such member, alternate, or employee, except for acts of dishonesty.
5150.103-5 Processing cases.    Within five working days of receipt of a request for contract adjustment, regardless of dollar amount,the contracting officer shall submit the contractor’s request, through procurement channels, as described below.       (1) For contract adjustment on existing firm-fixed-price contracts to account for inflationary conditions (See https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA001773-22-DPC.pdf for Defense Pricing and Contracting guidance)—       (a) Contracting officers shall send all FAR Part 50 contract adjustment requests to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Procurement (ODASA(P)) via usarmy.pentagon.hqda-asa-alt.list.saal-ps-staff@army.mil, within 5-business days of receipt. Subject line should state “FAR Part 50 Extraordinary Contractual Actions_Inflation Impacts_Vendor Name”.       (b) The ODASA(P) will submit the contractor’s request to DPC within 5-business days of receipt from the contracting officer via osd.pentagon.ousd-a-s.mbx.asda-dp-c-contractpolicy@mail.mil to satisfy DPC reporting guidance of 10-business days.       (2) For processing and disposition of an approved contractor’s adjustment request, contracting officers shall—       (a) Submit the Preliminary Record of Request for Adjustment, through their local headquarters office, to the ODASA(P) via the Enterprise Task Management System 2.0 (ETMS2 ) within 30 days after the close of the month in which the record is prepared.       (b) Follow the procedures at DFARS PGI 250.103-5 and DFARS PGI 250.101-3(2) to prepare the preliminary and final record and coordinate with their local Senior Contracting Official and legal counsel prior to submitting to the ODASA(P).       (3) The ODASA(P) will staff the request with the Office of the General Counsel/Acquisition Law Practice Group and the Army Contract Adjustment Board (ACAB).       (4) The ACAB is convened by the ASA(ALT) on an as-needed basis. he ACAB will approve or disapprove the request. The Contracting Officer will be notified of the ACAB’s decision and shall prepare the final record as described in DFARS PGI 250.103-6. **Parent topic:** 5150.103 Contract adjustments.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Joseph Andre Davis

Appellate case number: 01-14-00838-CV

Trial court case number: 1997-09681

Trial court: 245th District Court of Harris County

On November 13, 2014, the Court dismissed relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus 

for lack of jurisdiction. On the same day, relator filed an addendum to his petition and requested 

an emergency stay. Because relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus has been dismissed, 

relator’s request for a stay is dismissed as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 18, 2014
Case 2:06-cv-00674-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00674-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00674-WKW-TFM Document 1 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 3 of 3
#### § 925.7 Producer.

*Producer* is synonymous with *grower* and means any person who produces grapes for the fresh market and who has a proprietary interest therein.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet dated March 31, 2000 and its
Consolidated Statement of Operations covering the period from October 1,
1999 to March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statement and notes thereof.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           26742
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    17588
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    6969290
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         2732582
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1469731
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9043897
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        2809660
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          5918
<OTHER-SE>                                     5847350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9043897
<SALES>                                         995610
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                995610
<CGS>                                           434511
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   434511
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                745515
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              121852
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (270828)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (270828)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (270828)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.05)



</TABLE>
# Subpart 427.1 - General

**Parent topic:**PART 427 - PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS

## 427.104 General guidance.

As used in FAR part 27, the agency head or agency head designee is the Senior Procurement Executive, except under FAR 27.306(a) and (b). Under FAR 27.306(a) and (b), the agency head is the Secretary without power of redelegation.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-139476 on Form S-8
of our reports dated March 31, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Heelys, Inc. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of
Heelys, Inc. and subsidiaries' internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Heelys, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year
ended December 31, 2008.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas,
Texas
March 31, 2009

---



QuickLinks
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 31 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 31 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 2 of 2
Subpart 628.1—Bonds and Other Financial

Protections

Source: 59 FR 66763, Dec. 28, 1994, unless otherwise noted.

Parent topic: PART 628—BONDS AND INSURANCE

628.101 Bid guarantees.

628.101-1 Policy on use.

(c) The Procurement Executive is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 28.101–1(c).

628.106-6 Furnishing information.

(c) The head of the contracting activity is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR

28.106–6(c).
2916.603-2 Application.

The HCA is authorized to extend the period for definitization of a letter contract required by FAR

16.603-2(c) in extreme cases where it is determined in writing that such action is in the best interest

of the Government.

Parent topic: Subpart 2916.6 - Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts
#### § 966.87 Duration of immunities.

The benefits, privileges, and immunities conferred upon any person by virtue of this subpart shall cease upon the termination of this subpart, except with respect to acts done under and during the existence of this subpart.
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 982.83 Derogation.

Nothing contained in this subpart is, or shall be construed to be, in derogation or in modification of the rights of the Secretary or of the United States to exercise any powers granted by the act or otherwise, or, in accordance with such powers, to act in the premises whenever such action is deemed advisable.
Relator notes that although plaintiffs’ suit was filed and is currently pending in the 404th District 1

Court of Cameron County, the Honorable Benjamin Euresti, Jr., judge of the 107th District Court, presided

over relator’s Motion to Recuse. 

NUMBER 13-08-136-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI- EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

IN RE: COLUMBIA VALLEY HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, L.P.

D/B/A VALLEY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

_____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

_____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 

Relator, Columbia Valley Healthcare System, L.P. d/b/a Valley Regional Medical

Center, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge, the Honorable Benjamin

Euresti, Jr., presiding judge of the 107th Judicial District Court of Cameron County, Texas,

and/or the presiding judge of the 404th District Court of Cameron County, to vacate his 1

February 7, 2008 order denying relator’s Motion to Disqualify and Recuse counsel for real
Real parties-in-interest (plaintiffs below) are Yvonne T. Leal and Alberto B. Leal, Individually and 2

as next friends of Markus T. Leal, a minor.

See In re Amer. Home Prod. Corp., 985 S.W .2d 68, 75 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); Phoenix 3

Founders, Inc. v. Marshall, 887 S.W .2d 831, 835 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding); Grant v. Thirteenth Court

of Appeals, 888 S.W .2d 466, 467 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding).

parties-in-interest, Magallanes & Hinojosa, P.C. (“the firm”), in trial court cause number

2006-06-2741-G in the 404th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. The trial court

denied the relator’s motion to disqualify after a hearing on February 7, 2008. 

On April 8, 2008, real parties-in-interest and the firm filed a response. On April 18, 2

2008, relator filed a Reply Brief in support of its petition for writ of mandamus.

We have reviewed the petition for writ of mandamus, response, reply, and record

of the February 7, 2008 hearing. We conclude that the firm established that it took

sufficient precautions to guard against any disclosure of confidences by its legal assistant,

who was formerly employed by counsel for relator. Accordingly, we conclude that the 3

relator has not shown a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law.

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed March 13, 2008, is DENIED. 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 6th day of November, 2008.
§ 82.11 Compliance with program provisions. If USDA or the CCPA determines that any provision of this part have not been complied with by the grower, the grower will not be entitled to diversion payments in connection with tree removal. If a grower does not comply with all the terms of this part, including the requirement specified in § 82.5(b), the grower must refund any payment made in connection with this program, and will also be liable for any other damages incurred as a result of such failure. The USDA may deny any grower the right to participate in this program or the right to receive payments in connection with any diversion previously made under this program, or both, if the USDA determines that: ( a ) The grower has failed to properly remove the clingstone peach trees from the applicable acreage, regardless of whether such failure was caused directly by the grower or by any other person or persons;
( b ) The grower has not acted in good faith, or has engaged in a scheme, fraud, or device, in connection with any activity under this program; or
( c ) The grower has failed to discharge fully any obligation assumed by him or her under this program.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         201,582
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      44,071,960
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,731,201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,651,526
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,229,029
<BONDS>                                     32,654,174
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (22,608,230)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,651,526
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,656,691
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,423,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,865,986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,048,836)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,048,836)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,048,836)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (98.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1/32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Federal Sports & Entertainment, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
David Rector, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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;
and





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





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/David RectorName:
              David
      RectorTitle:
              Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
              March
      1, 2010
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 11, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00483

- CR

Amber Don CEARLEY

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR1792 Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s second motion for an extension of time to file the appellant’s brief is granted.

We order appellant’s brief due March 25, 2019. Counsel is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a timely motion that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counse l has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circums tance.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 11th day of February, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
§ 927.70 Reports. ( a ) Upon the request of the Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee, and subject to the approval of the Secretary, each handler shall furnish to the aforesaid committee, respectively, in such manner and at such times as it prescribes, such information as will enable it to perform its duties under this subpart.
( b ) All such reports shall be held under appropriate protective classification and custody by the Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee, or duly appointed employees thereof, 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 are authorized subject to the prohibition of disclosure of individual handler's identities or operations.
( c ) Each handler shall maintain for at least two succeeding years such records of the pears received and of pears disposed of, by such handler as may be necessary to verify reports pursuant to this section.
Page 1of 2



### NSPS Fireplace Applicability/Definition Proposal J une 6, 2011

Prepared for HPBA by Bob Ferguson

Supporting Data

As was mentioned in the background information sect ion in the June 3, 2011 proposal, the cut points for the various parameters that are included in the proposal are based on data. The data is quite limited and must be recognized as such but ha ve provided some confirmation for the validity of the proposal. In most cases, available data were gathered and analyzed using the proposed criteria. These data are from the round-r obin test program conducted during the development of ASTM E2558, from testing used for qu alification to the EPA fireplace program or from exemption testing. In one case, new test r uns were conducted for the express purpose of evaluating the “challenge test” validity. The fire -viewing area data was collected by directly surveying eight of the largest producers of firepla ces and/or large heaters in the industry.

This chart shows all of the flue gas data that was available. It should be noted that the last product was tested using EPA Method 28 fuel. This product, although not a fireplace, had an airfuel ratio above 35-to-1, even with the doors close d. Although it was recognized that the E2558 fueling protocol could result in different average CO 2 and CO concentrations, it was felt that this product would still maintain a CO 2 /CO value below 15 due to poor combustion efficienc y and would not, therefore, be considered a fireplace by the challenge test requirements.Page 2of 2

This chart shows the results of a survey of eight l eading manufacturers that produce fireplaces or large fireplace-like built-in heaters or both.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Larry Gordon Carpenter, Jr., * From the 35th District Court

of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CR24337.

Vs. No. 11-18-00277-CR * October 31, 2018

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
§ 989.122 Districts for independent and small cooperative producer representation on the Committee. For the purposes of § 989.26(c) and commencing with the term of office beginning May 1, 1984, independent and small cooperative producer districts are as follows: ( a ) *District No. 1.* All of the counties north of Fresno County.
( b ) *District No. 2.* All of the counties south of Fresno County.
( c ) *District No. 3* All of Fresno County.
[49 FR 18730, May 2, 1984]