alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   |   | General Information on ATP           2004 Competition
Federal Register Notice
Announcement of         Federal Funding Opportunity
         ATP 2004 Proposers' Conferences
Submitting         Proposals-  ATP Proposal           Preparation Kit, Febriary 2004**Supercedes April 2002 Kit**
-  Optional Electronic Proposal Submission                          – ATP Electronic           Submission System (ESS)               – ESS           User's Guide -- **Submission Tool for Proposals**

NIST         Video Highlights ATP Role in Technology Innovation
Helpful         Resources
Requesting         Information An electronic form         for requesting general information from ATP and/or to have your name on         the ATP mailing list. 
Date created:       June 1996      Last updated:       February 13, 2004         ATP website comments: [email protected] • Technical        ATP inquiries: [email protected]Privacy        policy / security notice / accessibility statement •  NIST        Disclaimer  • NIST        Information Quality StandardsNIST is an agency of the U.S.Commerce Department'sTechnologyAdministration. |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 78 FR 34247, June 7, 2013.

#### §§ 1.40-1.41 [Reserved]
Part 5242 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

AND AUDIT SERVICES

Subpart 5242.1 - CONTRACT AUDIT SERVICES

5242.191 Audit resolution and disposition.

Subpart 5242.6 - CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICER

5242.602 Assignment and location.

Subpart 5242.11 - PRODUCTION SURVEILLANCE AND REPORTING

5242.1105 Assignment of criticality designator.

Subpart 5242.1 - CONTRACT AUDIT SERVICES

5242.191 Audit resolution and disposition.

(a) Resolution of findings/recommendations in reportable contract audit reports, as defined in DOD

Instruction 7640.02, other than pre-award audits, is required within six months of report

issuance. When an audit’s findings/recommendations are resolved, they shall be supported, in the

official contract file, by a negotiation memorandum, if applicable; a memorandum for the record; or

other appropriate specific written documentation in the file. Disposition, including fund recovery

actions, shall take place as soon as possible after resolution.

(b) HCAs are responsible for establishing procedures to accomplish audit resolution and disposition

within the required times and to comply with the DOD Instruction 7640.02, Policy for Follow-Up on

Contract Audit Reports. Semiannual (March 31 and September 30 of each year) reporting

requirements shall be conducted through routine and timely entry of resolved, unresolved,

dispositioned, or in litigation or investigation and document forward date within the CAFU DCMA

eTools system at www.dcma.mil . If the resolution and disposition of reportable contract audit

reports become over-age, documentation of actions taken to achieve resolution and disposition shall

be recorded within the CAFU DCMA eTools system monthly. DASN(P) PA&BT is the DON liaison.

Subpart 5242.6 - CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIVE

CONTRACTING OFFICER
5242.602 Assignment and location.

(a) Submit recommendations for assignment of a corporate administrative contracting officer

(CACO) to DASN(P) by email at usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the

subject “[Activity Name] DFARS 242.602 - CACO Assignment Recommendation.”

Subpart 5242.11 - PRODUCTION SURVEILLANCE AND

REPORTING

5242.1105 Assignment of criticality designator.

(1) The contracting officer shall determine the appropriate criticality designator in conjunction with

the program office or requiring activity, for each contract.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Criminal Case No. 2:06-cr-200-CSC

)

ROSA E. RINCON )

MOTION TO PRODUCE CLIENT FOR MOTION HEARING

COMES NOW Defendant, by and through counsel, and prays that this Court will Order

the United States Marshall to produce Defendant in court on November 28, 2006, at 2:00 p.m.,

for the hearing on co-defendant Silva’s motion to suppress, and that the Court make an

interpreter available for the said conference.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this __14th__ day of November, 2006.

/s/ JAY LEWIS

Law Offices of Jay Lewis, L.L.C.

P.O. Box 5059

Montgomery, Alabama 36103

(334) 263-7733 (Voice)

(334) 832-4390 (Fax)

J-Lewis@JayLewisLaw.com

ASB-2014-E66J

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 69 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the _14th_ day of November, 2006, I electronically filed the

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of

such filing to the following parties or counsel:

Terry Moorer

Christopher Snyder

Office of the United States Attorney

Matthew Patrick Teague

Attorney for Silva

/s/ JAY LEWIS

Law Offices of Jay Lewis, L.L.C.

P.O. Box 5059

Montgomery, Alabama 36103

(334) 263-7733 (Voice)

(334) 832-4390 (Fax)

J-Lewis@JayLewisLaw.com

ASB-2014-E66J

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 69 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 2 of 2
----

| 1. | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the company for the quarterly period      ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission      on the date hereof (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. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   |  5/14/08 |   | /s/Thomas K. Derbyshire             |   |
|-------------------|---------------|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|              |          |   | Thomas      K. Derbyshire           |   |
|              |          |   | Vice      President, Treasurer, and |   |
|              |          |   | Principal      Financial Officer    |   |

----
§ 1042.135 Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures. ( a ) *Designation of responsible employee.* Each recipient shall designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carryout its responsibilities under these Title IX regulations, including any investigation of any complaint communicated to such recipient alleging its noncompliance with these Title IX regulations or alleging any actions that would be prohibited by these Title IX regulations. The recipient shall notify all its students and employees of the name, office address, and telephone number of the employee or employees appointed pursuant to this paragraph.
( b ) *Complaint procedure of recipient.* A recipient shall adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any action that would be prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
### Mineral resources of the Southern Inyo Wilderness Study Area, Inyo County, California

By: James E. Conrad**J. E. KilburnR. J. Blakely**Charles SabineE. E. CatherLucia KuizonM. C. Horn

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1705B

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 119 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         March 9, 2005.
Whereas 2005 marks the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima, in which the 
        United States Marine Corps and other units of the United States Armed 
        Forces assaulted and captured the island of Iwo Jima during World War 
        II;
Whereas the United States success in capturing Iwo Jima was a crucial victory 
        that provided a location for necessary airbases to eventually win World 
        War II in the Pacific theatre;
Whereas, in recognition of the particularly hazardous battlefield conditions 
        experienced by the Marines and other members of the United States Armed 
        Forces on Iwo Jima, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, Fleet 
        Admiral Chester W. Nimitz stated that ``Among the men who fought on Iwo 
        Jima, uncommon valor was a common virtue.''; and
Whereas more than 70,000 Marines participated in the Battle of Iwo Jima, of whom 
        17,372 Marines were wounded and 5,931 Marines made the ultimate 
        sacrifice, giving their lives to secure the cause of freedom and the 
        United States victory in the battle: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima; and
            (2) recognizes and commends the members of the United States Marine 
        Corps and all other members of the United States Armed Forces who 
        participated in the Battle of Iwo Jima for their sacrifice and 
        contribution, with particular honor given to those members of the Armed 
        Forces who gave their lives in defense of freedom during the Battle of 
        Iwo Jima.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
162 So.2d 15

#### Dumas CORMIER v. Josephine Allemand BILLEAUDEAU (Beodeaux).

No. 47166.

April 2, 1964.

In re: Josephine Allemand Billeaudeau (Beodeaux) applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 159 So.2d 780.

The application is denied. We find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
#### BUTLER v. ALTER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by John F. Butler against Charles Alter and others.

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed. See, also, 139 N. Y. Supp. 882.
Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 34 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 1 of 1
§ 110.132 Commission action on a petition. ( a ) The Commission may grant or deny the petition in whole or in part.
( b ) If the petition is granted, a notice of proposed rulemaking or a notice of rulemaking will be published in the Federal Register.
( c ) If the petition is denied, the petitioner will be informed of the grounds.
( d ) Commission action on a petition will normally follow, whenever appropriate, receipt and evaluation of Executive Branch views.
( e ) The Commission, in exercising the discretion authorized by section 4(a)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)), will decide what, if any, public rulemaking procedures will be followed.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0631 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-021-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, 

AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and 

AS355NP Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 733 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The proposed actions are intended to prevent failure of the emergency flotation system 

and loss of float stability in the event of a water landing. 

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $1,130 for replacing one bracket 

Labor per Helicopter

(4 x $85/work-hour for the 

inspection)

(1 x $85/work-hour for 

replacing one bracket)

$340 per inspection cycle

$85

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $340 per inspection cycle

$1,215 per bracket replacement

Total US Fleet Cost $249,220 per inspection cycle

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Jim Grigg
MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON, SENIOR U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE, PRESIDING, AT MONTGOMERY, AL

DATE COMMENCED: February 7, 2007 AT: 9:12 a.m. 

DATE COMPLETED: February 7, 2007 AT: 10:24 a.m.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 ) 

vs. ) CR. No. 2:06cr205-WHA

 )

SEBASTIAN K. SMITH, JR. )

____________________________________________________________________________________________

APPEARANCES:

GOVERNMENT DEFENDANT

Christopher Snyder Donnie W. Bethel

____________________________________________________________________________________________

COURT OFFICIALS PRESENT

Risa Entrekin, Court Reporter Jakki Caple, USPO

Elna Behrman, Courtroom Deputy Scott Wright, USPO 

Daniel Harrell, Law Clerk

COURTROOM PROCEEDINGS

 (X) SENTENCING HEARING

 Hearing commences.

Court states it has reviewed the file and the Plea Agreement and will not accept the Plea Agreement due to the

Plea Agreement calling for sentencing at the low end of the guidelines.

Court further states Defendant may withdraw his plea if he wishes to do so.

Government responds.

Defendant’s counsel states Defendant does not wish to withdraw his plea.

Court addresses the Defendant on the issue.

Defendant states he does not wish to withdraw his plea.

Court takes the matter of the Defendant’s objection as to the overstatement of the criminal history in the presentence

report and the Motion for Downward Departure (Doc. #45).

Defendant presents testimony in support of the objection and motion.

Government presents testimony and argues in opposition.

After explanation, the court overrules the objection and DENIES the Motion for Downward Departure (Doc. #45).

Court orally GRANTS the Government’s Motion for Downward Departure as to the acceptance of responsibility

(Doc. #38).

Government argues the motion as to substantial assistance.

Court orally GRANTS the Motion for Downward Departure (Doc. #38) for substantial assistance.

Defendant renews request for variance of one-level to effectuate the terms of the Plea Agreement.

Court denies the request.

Court addresses the Defendant.

Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 49 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
Sentence is stated.

Defendant will be released under the same terms and conditions imposed by the Magistrate Judge on August 24,

2006 until surrender on March 23, 2007.

Defendant’s counsel objects to the sentence as being unreasonable.

Court overrules the objection.

Sentence is ORDERED imposed as stated.

Defendant is advised of his right to appeal.

Government orally moves to dismiss Count 1 of the Indictment.

Court orally GRANTS the motion, and Count 1 of the Indictment is DISMISSED.

Court is adjourned.

Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 49 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

)

vs. ) Case No. 2:06cr205-WHA

)

SEBASTIAN K. SMITH, JR. )

WITNESS LIST

GOVERNMENT DEFENDANT 

Jacquelyn Caple Sebastian K. Smith, Jr.

Sebastian K. Smith, Sr.

Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 49-2 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 1
AAM-10-186-E March 12, 2010 Exemption No. 10020 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0237

Ms. Kathy Blankenship InterState Helicopters, Inc. 5809 Philip J. Rhoads, Hangar #4 Bethany, OK 73008

Dear Ms. Blankenship:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated February 24, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of InterState Helicopters, Inc. (InterState Helicopters), for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. That exemption, if granted, would allow InterState Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to InterState Helicopters.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant of exemption;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant InterState Helicopters, Inc., an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow InterState Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject

to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of InterState Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the InterState Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Dr. Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
#### HALSEY v. H. JEWETT DRAMATIC CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by Harry G. Halsey against the H. Jewett Dramatic Company.

No opinion. Motion granted. Order filed.
622.1503 Procedures for acquiring end

products on the List of Products Requiring

Contractor Certification as to Forced or

Indentured Child Labor.

(e) The contracting officer shall refer to the DOS Inspector General for Investigation any instances

where the contracting officer has reason to believe that forced or indentured child labor was used to

mine, produce, or manufacture an end product furnished pursuant to a contract awarded subject to

the certification required in FAR 22.1503(c).

Parent topic: Subpart 622.15—Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or

Indentured Child Labor
# SUBCHAPTER H—CLAUSES AND FORMS    

- PART 1652—CONTRACT CLAUSES 
- PART 1653—FORMS 
- PART 1699—COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS 

- PART 1652—CONTRACT CLAUSES     - 1652.000   Applicable clauses.
  - Subpart 1652.2—Texts of FEHBP Clauses     - 1652.203-70   Misleading, deceptive, or unfair advertising.
    - 1652.204-70   Contractor records retention.
    - 1652.204-71   Coordination of Benefits.
    - 1652.204-72   Filing health benefit claims/court review of disputed claims.
    - 1652.204-73   Taxpayer Identification Number.
    - 1652.204-74   Large provider agreements.
    - 1652.215-70   Rate Reduction for Defective Pricing or Defective Cost or Pricing Data.
    - 1652.215-71   Investment Income.
    - 1652.216-70   Accounting and price adjustment.
    - 1652.216-71   Accounting and Allowable Cost.
    - 1652.222-70   Notice of significant events.
    - 1652.224-70   Confidentiality of records.
    - 1652.229-70   Taxes—Foreign Negotiated benefits contracts.
    - 1652.232-70   Payments—community-rated contracts.
    - 1652.232-71   Payments—experience-rated contracts.
    - 1652.232-72   Non-commingling of FEHBP funds.
    - 1652.232-73   Approval for the Assignment of Claims.
    - 1652.243-70   Changes—Negotiated benefits contracts.
    - 1652.244-70   Subcontracts.
    - 1652.245-70   Government property (negotiated benefits contracts).
    - 1652.246-70   FEHB Inspection.
    - 1652.249-70   Renewal and withdrawal of approval.
    - 1652.249-71   FEHBP termination for convenience of the government—negotiated benefits contracts.
    - 1652.249-72   FEHBP termination for default—negotiated benefits contracts.
  - Subpart 1652.3—FEHBP Clause Matrix     - 1652.370   Use of the matrix.
- PART 1653—FORMS   - 1653.000   FEHBP forms.
- PART 1699—COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS     - Subpart 1699.7—Cost Accounting Standards     - 1699.70   Cost accounting standards.
#### § 1016.10 Granting, denial, or suspension of security facility approval.

Notification of the DOE's granting, denial, or suspension of security facility approval will be furnished the permittee in writing, or orally with written confirmation. This information may also be furnished to representatives of the DOE, DOE contractors, or other Federal agencies having a need to transmit Restricted Data to the permittee.

[82 FR 41506, Sept. 1, 2017]