alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
919.7014 Solicitation provision.

The cognizant contracting officer must insert the provision at 952.219-70, DOE Mentor-Protege

Program, in all solicitations with an estimated value in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold.

Parent topic: Subpart 919.70 - The Department of Energy Mentor-Protege Program
#### KELTON, Appellant, v. KELTON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 22, 1906.)

Action by Chauncey Kelton against Mary L. Kelton.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### § 966.48 Research and promotion.

The committee may, with the approval of the Secretary, establish, or provide for the establishment of projects including production research, marketing research and development projects, and marketing promotion including paid advertising, designed to assist, improve or promote the marketing, distribution and consumption or efficient production of tomatoes. The expenses of such projects shall be paid by funds collected pursuant to §§ 966.42 and 966.45. Upon conclusion of each project, but at least annually, the committee shall summarize the program status and accomplishments, to its members and the Secretary. A similar report to the committee shall be required of any contracting party on any project carried out under this section. Also, for each project the contracting party shall be required to maintain records of money received and expenditures and such shall be available to the committee and the Secretary.

[51 FR 30474, Aug. 27, 1986]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40043

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS ALBERTO AREVALO-DE LEON, also known as Carlos Arevalo-De

Leon, 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-1452-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Alberto

Arevalo-De Leon (Arevalo) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Arevalo has not filed a response. We

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 13-40043 Document: 00512347817 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2013
No. 13-40043

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-40043 Document: 00512347817 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2013
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3505 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3505

                 For the relief of Konstantinos Ritos.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 13, 2006

  Mr. Coleman introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 For the relief of Konstantinos Ritos.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR KONSTANTINOS RITOS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), 
Konstantinos Ritos shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa 
or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Konstantinos Ritos enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall 
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and, if otherwise 
eligible, shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Konstantinos Ritos, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number 
of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Konstantinos 
Ritos shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, 
privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
                                 <all>
```
#### Anna Goldstein Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

In a wrongful death claim against the State of New York, defendant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims, dated March 1, 1979, which granted claimant’s motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to subdivision 6 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied with leave to renew upon proper papers which shall include a physician’s affidavit or hospital record showing that claimant was either hospitalized or convalescing for the entire period during which she could have timely filed the claim, and which shall set forth the causal relationship between the defendant’s alleged negligence and the accident. Subdivision 6 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act directs the court, in determining whether to permit late filing of a claim, to consider, among other factors, the following: whether the delay in filing the claim was excusable; whether the State had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim; whether the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim; whether the claim appears to be meritorious; whether the failure to file a timely claim resulted in substantial prejudice to the State; and whether the claimant has any other available remedy. The Court of Claims erred when, in weighing the prescribed factors, it did not adequately consider claimant’s failure to set forth a meritorious cause of action and her lack of a satisfactory excuse for not *614timely filing the claim. The vague and general allegations of negligence in the proposed claim do not set forth a meritorious claim where the automobile in which claimant was a passenger left the highway and collided with an exit sign for no apparent reason (see *Matter of Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92*Misc 2d 1). Although claimant alleged she was either hospitalized or convalescing for the entire period during which she could have timely filed the claim, such alleged incapacity is inadequate as an excuse for late filing without either a physician’s affidavit or hospital records (see *Rios v State of New York,*67 AD2d 744). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Margett, JJ., concur.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2626 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 50 percent amine neutralized 

phosphated polyester polymer, 50 percent solvesso 100. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 24, 2006 

Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DEWINE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 50 percent 

amine neutralized phosphated polyester polymer, 50 percent solvesso 100. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 50 PERCENT AMINE NEUTRALIZED 

4 PHOSPHATED POLYESTER POLYMER, 50 PER5 CENT SOLVESSO 100. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.03.25 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 50 percent amine neutralized phosphated polyester poly9 mer, 50 percent solvesso 100) is amended by striking ‘‘12/ 

10 31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 2626 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
EXHIBIT 32.1 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gallery of History, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Todd Axelrod, Chief Executive Office of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

1.	 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ Todd Axelrod
----------------
Todd Axelrod
Chief Executive Officer

August 13, 2004




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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3282 

To suspend temporarily the duty on metal halide lamp. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2006 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on metal halide lamp. 

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

3 SECTION 1. METAL HALIDE LAMP. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.85.39 Metal halide lamp, DC-powered super 

high pressure designed for specific LCD 

projector’s ballast circuit (provided for in 

subheading 8539.32.80) .......................... 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 3282 IS 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
# 5112.7001 Procedures.

(a)(1)  The head of the contracting activity has the authority to make the determination under DFARS 212.7001(a)(1).  See Appendix GG for further delegation.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 5112.70 - Limitation on Conversion of Procurement from Commercial Acquisition Procedures
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Planning update [electronicresource]**
 
2000:WinterSpringSummerFall
2001:WinterSummer
2002:WinterSpringSummer
2003:Winter
2006:Fall
2007:SpringFall
2008:WinterSpringSummerFall
2009:WinterSpringFall
2010:SpringSummerFall
2011:Winter
 
SuDoc Number:I 53.60:
Item Number:0629-E-13 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000823032
 
February 4, 2020
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1


FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE
GLOBAL WATER RESOURCES, INC.
DEFERRED PHANTOM STOCK UNIT PLAN
Global Water Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), previously established the Global Water Resources, Inc. Deferred Phantom Stock Unit Plan dated as of January 1, 2011 (the “Plan”).  The Plan has been amended on three prior occasions.  By adoption of this Fourth Amendment, the Corporation now desires to further amend the Plan as set forth below.  
1.This Fourth Amendment shall be effective as of the date on which it is executed. 
2.The following definitions in Section 1.1 (Definitions) are hereby amended and restated or inserted (as applicable) as follows: 
“Non-U.S. Taxpayer Director” means a Participant who has represented to the Corporation that the Participant is not a United States taxpayer and is not subject to taxes in the United States including any taxes imposed due to a violation of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). If the Participant represents to the Corporation that he/she is not a United States taxpayer and the Participant subsequently becomes subject to United States taxes, including but not limited to taxes resulting from a violation of Section 409A of the Code, the Participant shall be solely responsible for such taxes as well as similar amounts imposed by any other jurisdiction.
“Redemption Date” with respect to a Participant who had a Separation Date, means such date as the Corporation determines which shall be (i) for a Participant (other than a Non-U.S. Taxpayer Director), no later than 60 days after the Separation Date, and (ii) for a Participant who is a Non-U.S. Taxpayer Director, no later than the end of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the Participant’s Separation Date occurred.
3.This Fourth Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this Fourth Amendment.


1







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Fourth Amendment to be executed as of this 7th day of March, 2018.
Global Water Resources, Inc.
/s/ Ron L. Fleming        
By:Ron L. Fleming                    
Its: CEO and President        






25127083.2


2
Part 5243 - CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS       Subpart 5243.2 - CHANGE ORDERS                                                         5243.201 General.                                                            5243.204 Administration.                                                                           5243.204-70 Definitization of change orders.                                                                                             5243.204-70-1 Scope.                                                                                                5243.204-70-7 Plans and Reports.    Subpart 5243.2 - CHANGE ORDERS     5243.201 General.    (S-90) (a) Each undefinitized change order shall include a not-to-exceed price unless the CCO waives this requirement.       (b) The policies and procedures of DFARS 217.74 shall be applied to change orders (except value engineering change proposals (VECPs)) to the maximum extent practicable.       (c) The use of VECPs are encouraged due to the potential savings and system improvements that may be realized.       (1) Prompt action shall be taken to implement those VECPs deemed to be technically sound.       (2) When considering VECPs, contracting officers shall consider the impact on the projected savings that the normal negotiation and definitization process would have versus use of an unpriced change order. Unpriced contract modifications that implement VECPs shall:       (i) Define minimum unit cost savings, and       (ii) Define maximum development/implementation costs5243.204 Administration.     5243.204-70 Definitization of change orders.     5243.204-70-1 Scope.    (b) Submit the required contracting          officer notice to DASN(P) by email at usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with          the subject “[Activity Name] Contracting Officer Notice pursuant to DFARS          243.204-70-1—FMS/SAP Unpriced Change Orders.”5243.204-70-7 Plans and Reports.    See 5217.7405 for reporting requirements.
#### Alice Levenson, by Her Parent and Natural Guardian Abraham Levenson, et al., Respondents, v. Benjamin Miller, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Kurt J. Osborne, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Caroll J. Osborne, an Infant, et al., Respondents, v. Benjamin Miller, Appellant, and General Motors Corporation, Respondent. (Action No. 2.)

— Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 3, 1966, reversed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements payable by appellant to respondents Osborne; and actions consolidated and shall proceed in the Supreme Court, New York County. Plaintiffs in each action have agreed to a consolidation in New York County. Therefore, the fact that suit was first commenced in Westchester County is of little importance in the decision as to venue. Under the facts herein, the prejudice which would be sustained by plaintiffs in Action No. 2 in subjecting them to the longer calendar delay in Westchester County outweighs any con*660siderations in favor of trial in that county. The interposition by defendant Miller of cross claims against General Motors Corporation in Action No. 2 has the effect of presenting the same issues of law and fact in both Actions No. 1 and No. *2,*thereby making this a proper case for consolidation in the interest of avoidance of a multiplicity of actions. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,414,345
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,885,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                    49,437
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      87,639,381
<DEPRECIATION>                              56,314,282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,936,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,569,508
<BONDS>                                     22,171,517
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,195,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,936,356
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,908,128
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,312,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (57,710)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             407,771
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,246,001
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,246,001
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,246,001
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    11.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    11.86
        

</TABLE>
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3504 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2006 

Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. BROWNBACK) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the 

solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated 

for research purposes, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fetus Farming Prohi5 bition Act of 2006’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
2 

•S 3504 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF THE SOLICITATION OR ACCEPT2 ANCE OF TISSUE FROM FETUSES GESTATED 

3 FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES. 

4 Section 498B of the Public Health Service Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 289g–2) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as 

7 subsections (d) and (e), respectively; 

8 (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(c) SOLICITATION OR ACCEPTANCE OF TISSUE

11 FROM FETUSES GESTATED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES.— 

12 It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or 

13 engaged in interstate commerce to— 

14 ‘‘(1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or ac15 cept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that 

16 a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to pro17 vide such tissue; or 

18 ‘‘(2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue 

19 or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that 

20 was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.’’; 

21 (3) in paragraph (1) of subsection (d), as so re22 designated, by striking ‘‘(a) or (b)’’ and inserting 

23 ‘‘(a), (b), or (c)’’; and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
3 

•S 3504 IS

1 (4) in paragraph (1) of subsection (e), as so re2 designated, by striking ‘‘section 498A(f)’’ and insert3 ing ‘‘section 498A(g)’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
1316.603-3 Limitations.       The designee authorized to determine that a letter contract is suitable so that work can begin immediately is set forth in CAM 1301.70.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1316.6 - Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts