alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
234.005-1 Competition.       A contract that is initially awarded from the competitive selection of a proposal resulting from a broad agency announcement (             see 235.016) may contain a contract line item or contract option using funds not limited to those identified in 235.016 for the development and demonstration or initial production of technology developed under the contract, or the delivery of initial or additional items if the item or a prototype thereof is created as the result of work performed under the contract , only when it adheres to the following limitations:          (1) The contract line item or contract option shall be limited to the delivery of the minimal amount of initial or additional items or prototypes  that will allow for timely competitive solicitation and award of a follow-on development or production contract for those items.          (2) The term of the contract line item or contract option shall be for not more than 2 years.          (3) The dollar value of the work to be performed pursuant to the contract line item or contract option shall not exceed $100 million in fiscal year 2017 constant dollars. (10 U.S.C. 4004)          (4) See PGI 234.005-1 for guidance on providing, upon request, the benefits derived from use of this competitive selection method.    **Parent topic:** 234.005 General requirements.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jorge Branas, Appellant.

[816 NYS2d 398]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ohlig, J.), imposed December 16, 2004, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BARRY SNEED,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1354

[July 19, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 98-4592 CF10A.

Barry Sneed, Zephyrhills, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### In the Matter of Abraham Vergara, Appellant, v. Criminal Court of the City of New York, Youth Offenses Part III, et al., Respondents.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 20, 1969, affirmed, without costs, on the opinion of the learned Justice at Criminal Term. We agree that the acts of the 16-year-old junior high school student in assaulting a teacher do not constitute mere school delinquency which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court pursuant to sections 3214 and 3232 of the Education Law. Jurisdiction for the disposition of the assault in the third degree charge lies properly in the Criminal Court of the City of New York. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
1527.409 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.       The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause in 1552.227-76 in all Superfund solicitations and contracts in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold and, as appropriate, in simplified acquisitions for Superfund work. The clause may be used in other contracts if considered necessary by the Contracting Officer. Contracts for other than Superfund work shall include Alternate I in this clause in lieu of paragraph (d).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1527.4 - Rights in Data and Copyrights
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2013

t1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2013

147846 & (18)(19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147846

COA: 312444

Calhoun CC: 2004-000943-FC

LLOYD ROBERT BRIDGES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 10, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand and motion for payment of expert fees are DENIED.
§ 983.74 Accounting. ( a ) If, at the end of a production year, the assessments collected are in excess of expenses incurred, such excess shall be accounted for in accordance with one of the following: ( 1 ) If such excess is not retained in a reserve, as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, it shall be refunded proportionately to the persons from whom it was collected in accordance with § 983.71: *Provided,* That any sum paid by a person in excess of his/her *pro rata* share of the expenses during any production year may be applied by the committee at the end of such production year as credit for such person, toward the committee's fiscal operations of the following production year;
( 2 ) The committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may carry over such excess into subsequent production years as a reserve: *Provided,* That funds already in the reserve do not exceed approximately two production years' budgeted expenses. In the event that funds exceed two production years' budgeted expenses, future assessments will be reduced to bring the reserves to an amount that is less than or equal to two production years' budgeted expenses. Such reserve funds may be used: ( i ) To defray expenses, during any production year, prior to the time assessment income is sufficient to cover such expenses;
( ii ) To cover deficits incurred during any production year when assessment income is less than expenses;
( iii ) To defray expenses incurred during any period when any or all provisions of this part are suspended; and
( iv ) To cover necessary expenses of liquidation in the event of termination of this part. Upon such termination, any funds not required to defray the necessary expenses of liquidation shall be disposed of in such manner as the Secretary may determine to be appropriate: *Provided,* That to the extent practical, such funds shall be returned *pro rata* to the persons from whom such funds were collected.
( b ) All funds received by the committee pursuant to the provisions of this part shall be used solely for the purpose specified in this part and shall be accounted for in the manner provided in this part. The Secretary may at any time require the committee and its members to account for all receipts and disbursements.
( c ) Upon the removal or expiration of the term of office of any member of the committee, such member shall account for all receipts and disbursements for which that member was personally responsible, deliver all committee property and funds in the possession of such member to the committee, and execute such assignments and other instruments as may be necessary or appropriate to vest in the committee full title to all of the committee property, funds, and claims vested in such member pursuant to this part.
[69 FR 17850, Apr. 4, 2004. Redesignated and amended at 74 FR 56540, Nov. 2, 2009]
```

[109th Congress Public Law 368]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ368.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 2641]]

Public Law 109-368
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
        To clarify the provision of nutrition services to older 
            Americans. <<NOTE: Nov. 17 2006 -  [H.R. 6326]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NUTRITION ASSISTANCE.

     Notwithstanding section 311 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 
U.S.C. 3030a), as amended by Public Law 109-365, the Secretary of 
Agriculture shall fulfill, and accept reimbursement from the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services for, commodity procurement requests for 
fiscal year 2007 submitted by the States (as defined in section 102 of 
the Older Americans Act of 1965) and tribal organizations (as defined in 
section 102 of such Act) before November 14, 2006, in support of the 
operation of the nutrition services incentive program authorized by 
section 311 of such Act as in effect on October 16, 2006.

    Approved November 17, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6326:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Nov. 15, considered and passed House and Senate.

                                  <all>
```
| (1)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and                                                                        |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| (2)    | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. |

| Date: April 14, 2010        |   |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                       |   |   |   |   |
| /s/ Stephen D. Ferrone           |   |   |   |   |
| Stephen D. Ferrone Chief Executive Officer |   |   |   |   |
SUBCHAPTER B—ACQUISITION PLANNING

PART 1605—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

PART 1606—COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

PART 1609—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

PART 1605—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

1605.000 Applicability.

PART 1606—COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

1606.001 Applicability.

PART 1609—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

Subpart 1609.4—Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility

1609.470 Notification of Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility.

1609.471 Contractor certification.

Subpart 1609.70—Minimum Standards for Health Benefits Carriers

1609.7001 Minimum standards for health benefits carriers.

1609.7002 Minimum standards for Postal Service Health Benefits Carriers.
Subpart 1446.1 - General    **Parent topic:** PART 1446 - QUALITY ASSURANCE1446.170 Government-Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP).       (a) COs shall encourage contractors and subcontractors to participate in the GIDEP, a cooperative program managed and funded by the U.S. Government to exchange engineering, failure experience, metrology, product information, and reliability-maintain ability data on products, components (including construction materials), manufacturing processes, environmental issues associated with those manufacturing processes, recycling and waste prevention.          (b) The GIDEP is managed for the U.S. Government by the Department of the Navy. GIDEP participants are not subject to any fees or assessments other than the costs associated with dissemination of information by other than electronic means.          (c) An application to participate in the GIDEP may be obtained at *http://www.gidep.org.* COs shall include information on GIDEP in solicitation documents and during discussions at preaward and postaward conferences.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed May 8, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0310

Lower Tribunal No. 20-12242 CC

________________

Christopher F. Zacarias,

Appellant,

vs.

Alaym Aguilar, et al.,

Appellees.

An appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence 

D. King, Judge.

Neil Rose, for appellant.

Xander Law Group, P.A., and Wayne R. Atkins, for appellee Alaym 

Aguilar.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See § 471.003(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“Employees of a firm, 

corporation, or partnership who are the subordinates of a person in 

responsible charge, licensed under this chapter [are not required to be

licensed as a licensed engineer].”); § 471.031(1)(b)(3), Fla. Stat. (“Any 

person who is exempt from licensure under s[ection] 471.003(2)[(e)] may use 

the title or personnel classification of ‘engineer’ in the scope of his or her 

work under that exemption if the title does not include or connote the term 

‘professional engineer,’ ‘registered engineer,’ ‘licensed engineer,’ ‘registered 

professional engineer,’ or ‘licensed professional engineer’ and if that person 

is a graduate from an approved engineering curriculum of [four] years or 

more in a school, college, or university which has been approved by the 

board.”); see also Vision Palm Springs, LLLP v. Michael Anthony Co., 272 

So. 3d 441, 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Preliminary negotiations do not 

establish a sufficient manifestation of mutual assent to create an enforceable 

settlement agreement.”) (citing Jaffe v. Jaffe, 147 So. 3d 578, 581 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2014)); Williams v. Ingram, 605 So. 2d 890, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)

(noting settlement agreement “must be sufficiently specific and mutually 

agreeable as to every essential element” to be judicially enforceable); 

Cheverie v. Geisser, 783 So. 2d 1115, 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“Where 

the language of a release is disputed and the parties fail to reach an 
3

agreement as to the character, nature, or type of release to be used, an 

essential element of the agreement is not established.”).
Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### RIX v. ALDRICH.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1914.)

Action by Theresa II. Rix against Spencer Aldrich.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. Order filed.
§ 1004.3 Public inspection in an electronic format and policy on contractor records. ( a ) DOE will maintain, for public inspection in an electronic format, the materials which are required by 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) to be made available for public inspection and copying. An electronic public reading room can be accessed via *www.energy.gov* and *nnsa.energy.gov.*
( b ) *Contractor records.* ( 1 ) When a contract with DOE provides that any records acquired or generated by the contractor in its performance of the contract shall be the property of the Government, DOE will make available to the public such records that are in the possession of the Government or the contractor, unless the records are exempt from public disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
( 2 ) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, records owned by the Government under contract that contain information or technical data having commercial value as defined in paragraph (b)(4) of this section or information for which the contractor claims a privilege recognized under Federal or State law shall be made available only when they are in the possession of the Government and not otherwise exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
( 3 ) The policies stated in this paragraph: ( i ) Do not affect or alter contractors' obligations to provide to DOE upon request any records that DOE owns under contract, or DOE's rights under contract to obtain any contractor records and to determine their disposition, including public dissemination; and
( ii ) Will be applied by DOE to maximize public disclosure of records that pertain to concerns about the environment, public health or safety, or employee grievances.
( 4 ) For purposes of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, “technical data and information having commercial value” means technical data and related commercial or financial information which is generated or acquired by a contractor and possessed by that contractor, and whose disclosure the contractor certifies to DOE would cause competitive harm to the commercial value or use of the information or data.
[53 FR 15661, May 3, 1988, as amended at 59 FR 63884, Dec. 12, 1994; 79 FR 22858, Apr. 25, 2014; 81 FR 94919, Dec. 27, 2016]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Oliver Snipe, Appellant.

Appeal from judgment of conviction, Supreme Court, *751Bronx County, rendered July 6, 1978, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty to the crime of attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of from 3 to 9 years, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded for a hearing to determine whether the sentence imposed departed from the sentence promised. The question presented for our determination centers on the term of imprisonment pledged by the pleading court. Defendant argues the court promised a term of 0 to 3 years. Respondent asserts the promise was a minimum of 0 to 3 years. In pleading, the following colloquy transpired: "The court: Has anyone forced you to take this plea? The defendant: No, your Honor. The court: Do you understand, I’m sure your counsel has explained that the promise of this plea is a sentence of [a mandatory minimum] from zero to three years, do you understand that? The defendant: Yes.” However, at sentencing the court imposed a term of from 3 to 9 years. The words in parenthesis above are omitted from the typed minutes of the plea proceeding. Respondent maintains that, after reading the microfilm of the stenographic minutes, the words "a mandatory minimum” form the complete understanding among the parties and are part of the record. Defendant disagrees and urges that the plea minutes are complete in their present format. Due to this substantial conflict in the record, we cannot render a knowing determination on the merits *(People v Jiminez,*73 AD2d 897). The present state of the record is unclear and ambiguous. Our recent guidelines in *People v Carney*(73 AD2d 9) are instructive. In *Carney,*we held (p 12) that where recollections as to the record differ "the final arbiter of the record should be the Judge who presided at the original proceeding sought to be reviewed, if he is available.” Although *Carney*addressed the situation where the record was unavailable, the record before us presents a similar dilemma. Thus, this matter should be remitted to Justice Loguen for him to resettle the record of the original plea proceedings. Nor can we accept respondent’s proffered affidavit attesting to the incomplete nature of the record. This affidavit wholly disregards statutory dictates. (CPLR 5525.) Concur—Ross, J. P., Markewich, Lupiano, Bloom and Carro, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

 

RALPH BROWN, * 

 * 

 Plaintiff, * 

 * 

v. * Case Number: 2:06-CV642-MEF 

 * 

CHAMPION ENTERPRISES, INC., et al. * 

 * Unopposed 

 Defendants. * 

 

MOTION TO STAY-PENDING SETTLEMENT

COMES NOW the Defendant, Champion Home Builders Co., improperly named 

in the Complaint as Champion Home Builders Company, Inc., the remaining Defendant 

in the above matter and with consent of all parties, moves for a stay of this action pending 

the settlement, and as grounds therefore states as follows: 

1. This case is one of several similar cases filed in this state and other states 

with regard to wallboard issues in manufactured housing. 

2. A tentative settlement agreement has been reached in this and over 100 

similar such matters. 

3. The parties request a stay of ninety (90) days in order to consummate the 

settlement and obtain signatures on the settlement documentation and releases. 

4. The parties represent to the Court that should this case not settle, counsel 

will provide to the Court on or before the expiration of the ninety (90) day period a joint 

proposed scheduling order, resetting all existing deadlines previously set by this Court. 

5. No party will be prejudiced by the stay of this case and all deadlines, 

including a continuation of the trial setting if the case does not settle. 

Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 50 Filed 04/07/2008 Page 1 of 3
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Champion Home Builders Co., 

improperly named in the Complaint as Champion Home Builders Company, Inc., prays 

that this case will be stayed for ninety (90) days, pending settlement, and for such and 

other different relief as is just.

Respectfully submitted, 

 

RITCHEY & SIMPSON, PLLC 

/s Gregory S. Ritchey

Gregory S. Ritchey, Esquire {ASB-8193-H68G 

Richard S. Walker, Esquire {ASB-8719-L70R}

Counsel for Champion Home Builders Co., 

improperly named in the Complaint as 

Champion Home Builders Company, Inc. 

OF COUNSEL:

RITCHEY & SIMPSON, PLLC 

3288 Morgan Drive, Suite 100 

Birmingham, AL 35216-3084 

Phone: 205.876.1600 

Facsimile 205.876.1616 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that on the 7th day of April 2008, I 

electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system 

which will send notification of the foregoing upon the following: 

Jere L. Beasley, Esquire 

W. Daniel Miles, III, Esquire 

C. Gibson Vance, Esquire 

C. Lance Gould, Esquire 

Roman A. Shaul 

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, 

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 

Post Office Box 4160 

Montgomery, AL 36103 

 /s Gregory S. Ritchey 

 OF COUNSEL 

Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 50 Filed 04/07/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 50 Filed 04/07/2008 Page 3 of 3
§ 1049.2 Scope. These guidelines apply to the exercise of arrest authority and the use of force, as authorized by section 661 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7101 *et seq.,* by employees of DOE and employees of DOE's SPR security contractor and subcontractor. These policies and procedures apply with respect to the protection of: ( a ) The SPR and its storage or related facilities; and
( b ) Persons upon the SPR or its storage or related facilities.
O pinion filed January 6, 2022



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 242

- CR

__________

PAUL WAYNE PALMER , Appellant

V.

THE S TATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Taylor County, Texas

Tri al Court Cause No. 2

- 285

- 20

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant has filed in this court a motion to dismiss his appeal. Appellant

asserts in his motion t hat he wishes to withdraw his notice of appeal and dismiss this

appeal. The motion to dismiss is signed by both Appellant and Appellant’s counsel

in compliance with Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Th e motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

January 6, 2022 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
§ 990.27 Non-compliant cannabis plants. ( a ) Cannabis plants exceeding the acceptable hemp THC level constitute marijuana, a schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.,* and producers must either use a DEA-registered reverse distributor or law enforcement to dispose of non-compliant plants or ensure the disposal of such cannabis plant on site at the farm or hemp production facility.
( b ) Producers must notify USDA of their intent to dispose of or remediate non-conforming plants and verify disposal or remediation by submitting required documentation.
( c ) If a producer elects to perform remediation activities, an additional sampling and testing of the post-remediated crop must occur to determine THC concentration levels.