alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subpart 406.2 - Full and Open Competition

After Exclusion of Sources

Parent topic: PART 406 - COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

406.202 Establishing or maintaining alternative sources.

The Senior Procurement Executive is authorized to make determinations pursuant to FAR 6.202(a)

and sign the determination and findings required by FAR 6.202(b).
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 176 ) ll-E-13 6 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:09 AM

Sheet 176 of 264P. 2

RPR-27-199 6 14:2 6

From : Date : Contact : CONLE Y CORPORATIO N 916'29 9 590 ? P.02/0 2

Contac t Repor t Melani e Proctor , Pacific Environmenta l Services , Inc . (PES ) March 26, 1998 Mr . Ji mChee

k Company : Conle y Corporatio n Telephon e Number : (918)299-505 1 Fa x Number : (918 ) 299-590 7 

## ca r

## 2 1 !99 g EP A AI R DOCKE T ":.-

Contac t Summary : Ms . Procto r

explaine d tha

t PE S i s working wit

h th e U.S . EPA o n th e developmen t o f a national emissio n standar

d fo r th e reinforcedplasti c composite s industry . Ms . Procto r adde d tha t Conle y Corporatio n wa s contactedto verif y informatio

n providedi n th e 199 3 EP A screenin g surve y submitte d fo

r thei r facility . Whe n Mr . Chee

k wa s askedabout

th e type s reinforcedplasti c composite s processe s used , he indicate d tha

t Conle y Corporation conduct s filament windin g operations . Mr . Chee k explaine d tha t th e majorit

y o f th e resin s usedar

e non-styren

e containin g resin s (i.e. , epoxy resins) . Accordin g t o Mr . Cheek , th e facilit

y use s 1 5 ton s o f

vinyl este r resin s wit h ahazardou s ai r

pollutan t (HAP ) monomer content betwee n 4 8 an

d5 2 percen

t (Coul dyo u pleas e chec k

i f thi s i s stil l accurate?) . Mr . Chee k indicate d tha

t al l their product s ar

e producedfo

r corrosion-resistant

applications . Ms . Procto r

inquire d i f

Mr . Chee k coulddescrib e Conley Corporation' s mixin g proces s which wa s reporte d to b e coveredi n th e 1993 screenin

g survey . Mr . Chee

k explaine dtha

t lid s wer e use d o n al l mixin g vat s whe n HA P containin

g material s wer

e mixe dAccordin g t o Mr . Cheek , th e lid s extend pas t

th e edg e o f

th e mixing vat s an

dhav e acutout

fo r th e mi x shaft . H e als o indicate d tha t approximately 9 5 percen

t o f the top of eac h mixin g va t i s covered . Mr . Chee

k furthe r explained that th e ai r i n th e mixin g vat s i s no t

activel y evacuated(e.g. , n o forcedventing) . INFORMATIO N I S ACCURAT E foK. /I'MP. 3

HHK-27-199 S 14:2 7 CONLE Y CORPORATIO N 91 6 29 9 590 7 P.01/0 2

91s t an d Oetowar * Tulio , OKIohem o 74137 Date : Apri l 27 , 199 8 TO : Melani e Procto r PES , Inc . FA X # : 919-941-023 4 Ref : 199 3 EP A Surve y Dea r Ms . Proctor , FROM : JI M CHEE K FAX# : (918)299-590 7

I a m sorr y i t too k s o lon g to repl y t o you r fa x o f Marc h 26,1998 . A s fa r a s ou r record s show , tha t informatio n an d th e mixin g processe s I describe d i s accurate . I f yo u nee d an y othe r information , pleas e call . Than h Ji m Chee k

PLEAS E CONTAC T THI S OFFIC E IMMEDIATEL Y A T TH E NUMBE R BELO W I F YO U DI D NO

T RECEIV E AL L PAGE S INVOLVED . Mailin g Address : 279 5 Eas t 91s t St . - Tulsa , Oklahoma7413 7 - (918 ) 299-505 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES KUCZMASKI, etc., )

et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv731-MHT

) 

US FOODSERVICE, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to withdraw (doc. no.

32) is granted. 

DONE, this the 4th day of June, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 33 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
# Subpart 905.5 - Paid Advertisements

**Parent topic:**PART 905 - PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

## 905.502 Authority.

(a) *Newspapers.* When it is deemed necessary to use paid advertisements in newspapers and trade journals, written authority for such publication shall be obtained from the Head of the Contracting Activity or designee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., )

P.C. d/b/a THE PAIN CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv728-MHT

) 

SKILSTAF, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the objection (Doc. No. 66) is set

for submission, without oral argument, on August 17,

2007, with all briefs due by said date.

DONE, this the 13th day of August, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 67 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 1 of 1
608.7003 Acquisitions on behalf of other Federal agencies.       (a) *Acquisition of U.S. manufactured vehicles.*          (1)  			GSA is the mandatory source for official vehicles purchased in the United States for all Federal agencies. Non-DOS agencies must have a waiver from GSA that allows them to acquire official vehicles from sources in the United States other than GSA, in accordance with the Federal Property Management Regulation, 41 CFR 101–38.104.          (2) DOS overseas contracting activities shall not obtain GSA waivers or acquire vehicles through GSA or directly from sources in the United States on behalf of other agencies. Requests to acquire vehicles in this manner shall be returned to the requesting agency without action, and the agency instructed to use its own contracting personnel or GSA for this purpose.          (b) *Acquisition from non-U.S. sources.* No GSA waiver is required for official vehicles purchased outside the United States from non-U.S. sources. Normal acquisition procedures shall be followed. However, contracting officers should be aware that statutory ceilings apply to the acquisition of passenger vehicles (*i.e.,* sedans and station wagons) (see P.L. 103–329), so other agencies shall not request that posts acquire vehicles without providing an analysis of how the price compares with this ceiling.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 608.70—Acquisition of Official Vehicles by Overseas Contracting Activities
§ 966.80 Reports. Upon request of the committee, made with approval of the Secretary, each handler shall furnish to the committee, in such manner and at such time as it may prescribe, such reports and other information as may be necessary for the committee to perform its duties under this part. ( a ) Such reports may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: ( 1 ) The quantities of tomatoes received by a handler;
( 2 ) the quantities disposed of by him, segregated as to the respective quantities subject to regulation and not subject to regulation;
( 3 ) the date of each such disposition and the identification of the carrier transporting such tomatoes; and
( 4 ) identification of the inspection certificates and the exemption certificates, if any, pursuant to which the tomatoes were handled, together with the destination of each exempted disposition, and of all tomatoes handled pursuant to §§ 966.53 and 966.54.
( b ) All such reports shall be held under appropriate protective classification and custody by the 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 is authorized, subject to prohibition of disclosure of individual handlers identities or operations.
( c ) Each handler shall maintain for at least two succeeding years such records of the tomatoes received and disposed of by such handler as may be necessary to verify the reports he submits to the committee pursuant to this section.
161 So.2d 81

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Reven ST. ROMAINE.

No. 47174.

March 10, 1964.

In re: Reven St. Romaine applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writ granted with stay order (see order attached).

ORDER.

The petition of relator in the above entitled and numbered cause having been duly considered,

It is ordered, that the Honorable Frank Shea, Judge of the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, Division “G”, set aside and vacate the order or ruling denying the Motion to Recuse entered on March 9, 1964, in the proceedings entitled State of Louisiana v. Reven St. Romaine, *No. 182-*330, on the docket of Section “G” of the *786Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.

It is further ordered, that the Honorable Frank Shea refer said application for his recusation to another judge of the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, to try and determine whether or not he shall be recused, all within ten (10) days of the date hereof.

It is further ordered, that, in the event the respondent judge fails to comply with the aforesaid orders on or before March 20, 1964, a writ of certiorari issue herein directing said judge to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana the record or a certified copy of the record in the proceeding complained of by relator herein, and that said judge show cause in this Court on March 30, 1964, at 11:00 o’clock, a. m., why the motion for his recusation should not be referred to another judge of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, for a hearing to determine whether respondent judge should be recused.

It is further ordered, that, in the meantime and until the further orders of this court, all proceedings against relator in said Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, shall be stayed and suspended.

Granted at New Orleans, Louisiana, March 10, 1964.

FRANK W. SUMMERS

Associate Justice.
#### Shu-Juan Qi et al., Appellants, v Mohammed A. Rahman, et al., Respondents.

[815 NYS2d 124]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County *567(Weiss, J.), dated March 2, 2005, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence is denied, and that cause of action is reinstated.

The decedent, Yumin Qi (hereinafter the decedent), sustained fatal injuries when he allegedly fell from a ladder while attempting to access the roof of the defendants’ two-family house. The decedent was present for the purpose of providing an estimate to the defendants for the cost of repairs to the roof. The subject ladder belonged to the defendants. The plaintiffs commenced the instant action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death. Thereafter, the defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence. By order dated March 2, 2005, the Supreme Court, inter aha, granted that branch of the motion. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.

In support of that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence, the defendants were required to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The defendants failed to sustain their burden, and we need not consider the sufficiency of the papers submitted in opposition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence. Crane, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.4


 


Opes Acquisition Corp.





c/o Axis Capital Management





Park Plaza Torre I 


Javier Barros Sierra 540, Of. 103





Col. Santa Fe 


01210 México City, México


 


March 13, 2018


 


Axis Management S.A. de C.V.





Park Plaza Torre I





Javier Barros Sierra 540, Of. 103





Col. Santa Fe





01210 México City, México


 





Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing
on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement (the “Registration
Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”) of the securities of Opes Acquisition
Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial
business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier
date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”), Axis Management S.A. de C.V. shall make available
to the Company certain office space and administrative and support services as may be required by the Company from time to time,
situated at Park Plaza Torre I, Javier Barros Sierra 540, Of. 103, Col. Santa Fe, 01210 México City, México (or any
successor location). In exchange therefor, the Company shall pay Axis Management S.A. de C.V. the sum of $10,000 per month on the
Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date. Axis Management S.A. de C.V. hereby agrees that it
does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in the trust account (the
“Trust Account”) that may be established upon the consummation of the IPO as a result of this letter
agreement (the “Claim”) and hereby waives any Claim it may have in the future as a result of, or arising
out of, this letter agreement and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 





	 	Very truly yours,	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	OPES ACQUISITION CORP.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Miguel Angel Villegas	 
	 		Name: Miguel Angel Villegas	 
	 		Title:   CFO	 
	 	 	 	 
	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:	 	 	 










 





	AXIS MANAGEMENT S.A. DE C.V.	 
	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Gonzalo Gil White	 
		Name:  Gonzalo Gil White	 
		Title:    CEO
#### Michael J. FLORES; Lee Flores, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB; James H. Robichaux; James Clancey; Jeffrey Dickersen, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-51719

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 22, 2007.

Michael J. Flores, Floresville, TX, pro se.

Lee Flores, Floresville, TX, pro se.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael and Lee Flores appeal, pro *se,*the dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a private law firm and three of its members as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That dismissal is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *Norton v. Dimazana,*122 F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir.1997). Affording the pleadings and brief the requisite liberal construction, *e.g., Grant v. Cuellar,*59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995), there was no such abuse.

First, the Floreses offer no concrete assertions of a violation of the Constitution or federal law, nor assert any facts to support their conclusory claim that defendants acted under the required color of state law. *See West v. Atkins,*487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988); *Mills v. Criminal Disk Court No. 3,*837 F.2d 677, 678 (5th Cir.1988). In that regard, a state-law claim against the defendant attorneys for professional misconduct is not a basis for § 1983 relief. *See O’Brien v. Colbath,*465 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir.1972); *see also Baker v. McCollan,*443 U.S. 137, 146, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979) (a § 1983 complaint is not a vehicle for vindicating rights arising under state tort law). Finally, the Floreses offer no specific facts to support their claim of a conspiracy between defendants and the state court. *See Young v. Biggers,*938 F.2d 565, 569 (5th Cir.1991).

*AFFIRMED.*

*

 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.
#### CARRAN v. OPPENHEIMER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

Action by Robert I. Garran against August Oppenheimer.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless appellant comply with terms stated in order. Order filed.
Editorial Note on Part 869
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 869 appear at 84 FR 45646, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 869.200 Service licenses. ( a ) AMS may issue to a person a license for: ( 1 ) Inspection of any agricultural product stored or handled in a warehouse subject to the Act;
( 2 ) Sampling of such an agricultural product;
( 3 ) Classification of such an agricultural product according to condition, grade, or other class and certify the condition, grade, or other class of the agricultural product;
( 4 ) Weighing of such an agricultural product and certify the weight of the agricultural product; or
( 5 ) Performing two or more services specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section.
( b ) Each person seeking a license to perform activities described in this section must submit an application on forms furnished by AMS that contain, at a minimum, the following information: ( 1 ) The name, location and license number of the warehouses where the applicant would perform such activities;
( 2 ) A statement from the warehouse operator that the applicant is competent and authorized to perform such activities at specific locations; and
( 3 ) Evidence that the applicant is competent to inspect, sample, classify, according to grade or weigh the agricultural product.
( c ) The warehouse operator will promptly notify AMS in writing of any changes with respect to persons authorized to perform such activities at the licensed warehouse.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN BONNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv715-MHT

) 

NORINCO a/k/a CHINA NORTH )

INDUSTRIES CORP., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion for extension of time

for discovery (Doc. No. 93) is denied. The deadline set

forth in the uniform scheduling order (Doc. No. 46) was

not only accepted by the parties, it was suggested by the

parties in their Rule 26(f) report (Doc. No. 42).

DONE, this the 22nd day of May, 2008.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 94 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 1 of 1
§ 987.38 Handlers of record. Each crop year but no later than October 10 for continuing handlers and prior to handling dates in the case of new handlers, any person desiring to handle dates shall submit a report to the Committee on a form prescribed by it containing the following information with respect to all dates which such person expects to handle: ( a ) The name and address of each producer;
( b ) The location of each date garden; and
( c ) The acreage and estimated current season's production thereon.
Those reports required to be filed by October 10 shall reflect producers who are signed up with the handlers as of October 1 of the then current crop year. The Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may issue rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this section. [43 FR 4252, Feb. 1, 1978]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          67,745
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      43,168,385
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,027,021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,880,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,680,561
<BONDS>                                     33,076,570
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (16,168,185)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,880,515
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,780,146
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,636,467
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,538,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,328,469)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,328,469)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,328,469)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (63.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
§ 1016.8 Request for security facility approval. ( a ) An access permittee who has a need to use, process, store, reproduce, transmit, or handle Restricted Data at any location in connection with its permit shall promptly request a DOE security facility approval.
( b ) The request shall include the following information: The name and address of the permittee; the extent and scope of the classified activity and the highest classification of Restricted Data to be received; a written statement in the form of a security plan which outlines the permittee's proposed security procedures and controls for the protection of Restricted Data, including a floor plan of the areas(s) in which the classified matter is to be used, processed, stored, reproduced, transmitted, and handled.
( c ) The DOE will promptly inform the permittee of the acceptability of the request for further processing and will notify the permittee of its decision in writing.
#### In re VORON & CHAIT, Inc.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 24, 1914.)

In the matter of Voron & Chait, Incorporated.

No opinion. Reargument (of 150 N. Y. Supp. 1116) ordered.
Exhibit
10.1


 


Summer
Infant, Inc.


1275
Park East Drive


Woonsocket,
RI 02895


 


February 5, 2010


 


Steven Gibree

83 Franklin Road


Foster, RI  02825


 


Dear Steve:


 


Reference is made to that
certain Employment Agreement dated on or about September 1, 2006 between
Summer Infant, Inc. (the “Company”) and
you (the “Officer”) (the “Employment
Agreement”).  In consideration
of entering into that certain Change of Control Agreement between the Officer
and the Company on the date hereof, the Officer and Company hereby agree that
effective immediately the Employment Agreement is terminated.


 


This letter agreement may be
executed in two or more counterparts, and by different parties hereto on
separate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  Counterparts executed and exchanged by
facsimile or electronic mail transmission shall be fully enforceable.


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  SUMMER
  INFANT, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Jason Macari

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Jason
  Macari

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  President
  and CEO

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ACKNOWLEDGED
  AND AGREED TO:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/
  Steven Gibree

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Steven
  Gibree

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:  February 5, 2010