alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bennett A. Cohen, Appellant, v Wallace & Minchenberg et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted June 11, 2007;

decided November 20, 2007

Reported below, 39 AD3d 689, 690, 691.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order dismissing the appeal from the November 2004 Supreme Court order insofar as it denied reargument and affirming the Supreme Court order insofar as it denied renewal, dismissed upon the ground that such Appellate Division order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
2912.302 Tailoring of provisions and clauses for the acquisition of commercial items.       In accordance with FAR 12.302(c), a request for waiver to tailor terms inconsistent with customary commercial practice must be documented in a written justification by the contracting officer, and may be approved by the HCA on an individual or class basis.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2912.3 - Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses for the Acquisition of Commercial Items
#### § 915.6 Fiscal year.

*Fiscal year* means the twelve-month period ending March 31 of each year.
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41420

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIA ISABEL PEREA-DE JARA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-03-CR-120-ALL

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maria Isabel Perea-De Jara appeals from her guilty-plea

conviction for attempting to illegally reenter the United States

after being previously deported subsequent to an aggravated

felony conviction. For the first time on appeal, Perea-De Jara

argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional on its face

and as applied in her case because it does not require the fact

of a prior felony or aggravated felony conviction to be charged

in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. She thus

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-41420

-2-

contends that her sentence is invalid and argues that it should

not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed

in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Perea-De Jara acknowledges that her argument is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but

asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). She seeks to preserve her

argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule

Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United

States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Accordingly, as Perea-De Jara’s sole argument on appeal is

foreclosed, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LAZARO R. FERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5531-MCR-EMT

MARCK INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

O R D E R

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on January 

29, 2021. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff was furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

16) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-05531-MCR-EMT Document 17 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5531-MCR-EMT

2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice as time-barred, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 

this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of March 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05531-MCR-EMT Document 17 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 2
27.9001 Trademark rights under government contracts.    The FAR and DFARS do not address trademark or service mark rights, nor is there an official DoD policy on ownership of trademarks or service marks first used in performance of a government contract in connection with goods or services delivered to the Government. Under federal trademark law, trademark rights generally reside with the entity that controls the nature and quality of the goods or services that are identified by the trademark.       However, in certain cases, it may be in the Government’s best interest for DISA to own a trademark or service mark first created under a contract. For example, Government ownership may be desired for a mark that is to be used exclusively in connection with a government-controlled service that the contractor manages for DISA. DISA’s Office of the General Counsel should be consulted to determine if there is a need to negotiate trademark ownership rights with the contractor and seek federal trademark protection on DISA’s behalf by filing an application to register the trademark or service mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. **Parent topic:** SUBPART 27.90 – TRADEMARK RIGHTS UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            1197
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        5
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1202
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               55
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1202
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    29
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    57
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (29)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (29)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (29)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.50)


</TABLE>
# Subpart 1317.1 - Multi-Year Contracting

**Parent topic:**PART 1317 - SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS

## 1317.104 General.

The designee authorized to modify requirements of FAR Subpart 17.1 and FAR 52.217-2 is set forth in CAM 1301.70.   

## 1317.105 Policy.

## 1317.105-1 Uses.

The designee authorized to make the determination to enter into a multi-year contract is set forth in CAM 1301.70.   

## 1317.108 Congressional notification.

Written notification to Congress shall be handled in accordance with the policies and procedures outlined in DAO 218-2.
Part 5208 - REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES       5208.001 General                                          Subpart 5208.4 - FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULES                                                         5208.405 Ordering procedures for Federal Supply Schedules.                                                                           5208.405-6 Limiting Sources.                                                                                                                            Subpart 5208.7 - ACQUISITION FROM NONPROFIT AGENCIES EMPLOYING PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED                                                         5208.790 Policy.                                                                             Subpart 5208.70 - COORDINATED ACQUISITION                                                         5208.7002 Assignment authority.                                                                             Subpart 5208.74 - ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE AGREEMENTS                                                         5208.7403 Acquisition procedures.    5208.001 General    Regardless of the source of supplies or services to be acquired, competitively procured services defined in Annex 22, Seaport Engineering and Program Management Categories, shall comply with requirements in 5237.102 and Annex 23.Subpart 5208.4 - FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULES     5208.405 Ordering procedures for Federal Supply Schedules.     5208.405-6 Limiting Sources.    No solicitation shall be issued earlier than three (3) business days after the HCA forwards a copy of any approved limited sources justification which negates the use of SeaPort. The approved limited sources justification shall be submitted to DASN(P) by email at SeniorServicesManage.fct@navy.mil with the subject “NMCARS 5206.304(a) – Limited Sources Justification Negating the Consideration of SeaPort.” The only exception to this is if the circumstances at FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(A) apply. That justification shall be submitted not later than two (2) business days after its approval.       (d)(1) At a minimum, the advocate for competition of the activity placing the order shall approve the justification.Subpart 5208.7 - ACQUISITION FROM NONPROFIT AGENCIES EMPLOYING PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED     5208.790 Policy.    Pursuant to 5201.601-90(b)(3), NAVSUPSYSCOM has responsibility for providing DON-wide policies, procedures, and guidance for AbilityOne acquisitions.Subpart 5208.70 - COORDINATED ACQUISITION     5208.7002 Assignment authority.    (a) When contracting responsibility has been assigned to the DON under the DOD Coordinated Acquisition Program, the Commander, NAVSUPSYSCOM shall assign contracting responsibilities to a particular contracting activity.Subpart 5208.74 - ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE AGREEMENTS     5208.7403 Acquisition procedures.    (5)(iii) The HCA is the designated management official. The management official shall coordinate any request for waiver with the DON CIO.
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 1 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 2 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 3 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 4 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 5 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 6 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 7 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 8 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 9 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 10 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 11 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 8 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 12 of 12
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77664-77665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31164]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-73,824]


Honeywell International, Inc., Automation and Control Solutions 
Division, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Manpower, Spherion, and 
Securitas, Rock Island, IL; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility 
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment

[[Page 77665]]

Assistance on July 30, 2010, applicable to workers of Honeywell 
International, Inc., Automation and Control Solutions Division, Rock 
Island, Illinois. The notice was published in the Federal Register on 
August 13, 2010 (75 FR 49531).
    At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of rubber boots.
    The company reports that workers leased from Manpower, Spherion and 
Securitas were employed on-site at the Rock Island, Illinois location 
of Honeywell International, Inc., Automation and Control Solutions 
Division. The Department has determined that these workers were 
sufficiently under the control of Honeywell International, Inc., 
Automation and Control Solutions Division to be considered leased 
workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Manpower, Spherion, and 
Securitas working on-site at the Rock Island, Illinois location of 
Honeywell International, Inc., Automation and Control Solutions 
Division.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-73,824 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Honeywell International, Inc., Automation and 
Control Solutions Division, including on-site leased workers from 
Manpower, Spherion and Securitas, Rock Island, Illinois, who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 29, 
2009, through July 30, 2012, and all workers in the group threatened 
with total or partial separation from employment on the date of 
certification through two years from the date of certification, are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title 
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of December 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-31164 Filed 12-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 23.1


           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC 20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

We hereby consent to the incorporation and use in this Form 10-K of Reshoot &
Edit of our audit report dated October 16, 2009, relating to the accompanying
audited financial statements (and related statements included there in) as of
August 31, 2009 and 2008 which appears in such Form 10-K.


/s/ De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC
-----------------------------------
    De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC
    Henderson, NV
    November 16, 2009


<PAGE>
fmi-ex1027_432.htm



Exhibit 10.27

 

***Text Omitted and Filed Separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission 

Confidential Treatment Requested Under 

17 C.F.R. Sections 200.80(b)(4) and 240.24b-2 

 

SIXTH AMENDMENT TO

COLLABORATION AGREEMENT

 

 

This Sixth Amendment (“Sixth Amendment”) to the Collaboration Agreement (the “Agreement”) by and between F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, with an office and place of business at Grenzacherstrasse 124, 4070, Basel, Switzerland, and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., with an office and place of business at 150 Clove Road, Suite 8, Little Falls, New Jersey 07424, U.S.A. (together, “Roche”), on the one hand, and Foundation Medicine, Inc., with an office and place of business at 150 Second Street, Cambridge, MA 02141, U.S.A. (“FMI”), on the other hand (each a “Party,” and collectively, the “Parties”), as such Agreement has been amended from time to time, is entered into by and between the Parties and shall be considered effective as of the 1st of November, 2017 (the “Sixth Amendment Effective Date”).  Capitalized terms used in this Sixth Amendment and not otherwise defined herein are used with the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

 


	
 
	
1.
	
Section 1.27.  Section 1.27 of the Agreement is hereby replaced with the following:





	
“1.27
	
Excepted Activities




The term “Excepted Activities” shall mean [...***...]. 

 

 

 

 

[Signature page follows.]

 

***Confidential Treatment Requested***

 






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Sixth Amendment to be executed and effective as of the Sixth Amendment Effective Date. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in force and effect.  

 


		
	
FOUNDATION MEDICINE, INC.
	
F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD




 

 

Signed: /s/ Melanie NallicheriSigned: /s/ Stefan Arnold

 

Name: Melanie NallicheriName: Stefan Arnold

 

Title: CBO and Head, BiopharmaTitle: Head Legal Pharma

 

 


		
	
 
	
F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD




 

 

Signed: /s/ Joerg Kazenwadel

 

Name: Joerg Kazenwadel

 

Title: GAD

 

 


		
	
 
	
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC.




 

 

Signed: /s/ John P. Parise

 

Name: John P. Parise

 

Title: Authorized Signatory

 

 

***Confidential Treatment Requested***

 

2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
Guidance Software, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |  |  |                                       
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Dated: March 3, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    BARRY J. PLAGA                 
|                     |  |  |  | Barry J. Plaga Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Guidance Software, Inc. and will be retained by Guidance Software, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward Fernandez, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment rendered on October 26, 1967, convicting defendant, after a plea of guilty, of the crime of robbery in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of from 10 to 15 years in State Prison. Trial Term, after explaining to appellant the meaning of robbery in the third degree, stated as follows: “ If you take the plea, it is the same as being convicted after trial. It is a conviction for a felony. If you have had other felony convictions, then this would constitute a second felony conviction, and a certain mandatory minimum sentence must be imposed. If you take the plea, the plea covers all the charges in this indictment. I am sure your lawyer has explained all that to you.” On this appeal appellant argues that this advice did not meet the requirement of section 335-e of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the court shall *“*inform ” him that, if he has been previously convicted, he will be subject to different or additional punishment. Whether or not the warning given by the court below was effective depends upon defendant’s understanding of the language employed by the court when he entered his plea. *(People ex rel. Johnson*v. *La Vallee,*18 N Y 2d 911; *People*v. *Pagliaccetti,*31 A D 2d 150.) Under the circumstances disclosed, this matter is remanded for a hearing at which there shall be determined as a fact the defendant’s comprehension of the admonition given to him by the court at the time of the entry of the plea of guilty to robbery in the third degree. Final determination of this appeal is held in abeyance pending the results of such hearing. Concur—Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, Markewieh, Nunez and McNally, JJ.
§ 7.26 Private business activity and conflicts of interest. ( a ) No county committee member, alternate to any such office, or county office employee, may at any time use such office or employment to promote any private business interest.
( b ) County committee members, alternates, and any person employed in the county office will be subject to the official instructions issued with respect to conflicts of interest and proper conduct.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John R. Best, Also Known as Johnny Ray Best, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered March 2,1979, convicting him of arson in the second degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. We have reviewed-the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious grounds which could be raised on this appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; cf. *People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606.) Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.