alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
52.232-28 Invitation to Propose

Performance-Based Payments.

As prescribed in 32.1005(b)(1), insert the following provision:

Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments (Mar 2000)

(a) The Government invites the offeror to propose terms under which the Government will make

performance-based contract financing payments during contract performance. The Government will

consider performance-based payment financing terms proposed by the offeror in the evaluation of

the offeror’s proposal. The Contracting Officer will incorporate the financing terms of the successful

offeror and the FARclause, Performance-Based Payments, at FAR 52.232-32, in any resulting

contract.

(b) In the event of any conflict between the terms proposed by the offeror and the terms in the

clause at FAR 52.232-32, Performance-Based Payments, the terms of the clause at FAR 52.232-32

shall govern.

(c) The Contracting Officer will not accept the offeror’s proposed performance-based payment

financing if the financing does not conform to the following limitations:

(1) The Government will make delivery payments only for supplies delivered and accepted, or

services rendered and accepted in accordance with the payment terms of this contract.

(2) The terms and conditions of the performance-based payments must-

(i) Comply with FAR 32.1004;

(ii) Be reasonable and consistent with all other technical and cost information included in the

offeror’s proposal; and

(iii) Their total shall not exceed 90 percent of the contract price if on a whole contract basis, or 90

percent of the delivery item price if on a delivery item basis.

(3) The terms and conditions of the performance-based financing must be in the best interests of the

Government.

(d) The offeror’s proposal of performance-based payment financing shall include the following:

(1) The proposed contractual language describing the performance-based payments (see FAR

32.1004 for appropriate criteria for establishing performance bases and performance-based finance

payment amounts).

(2) A listing of-

(i) The projected performance-based payment dates and the projected payment amounts; and

(ii) The projected delivery date and the projected payment amount.

(3) Information addressing the Contractor’s investment in the contract.
(e) Evaluation of the offeror’s proposed prices and financing terms will include whether the offeror’s

proposed performance-based payment events and payment amounts are reasonable and consistent

with all other terms and conditions of the offeror’s proposal.

(End of Provision)

Alternate I (Mar 2000). As prescribed in FAR 32.1005 (b)(2), add the following paragraph (f) to the

basic provision:

(f) The Government will adjust each proposed price to reflect the cost of providing the proposed

performance-based payments to determine the total cost to the Government of that particular

combination of price and performance-based financing. The Government will make the adjustment

using the procedure described in FAR 32.205(c).

Parent topic: 52.232 [Reserved]
§ 1304.112 Notification of systems of Privacy Act records. ( a ) *Public notice.* On November 22, 1996, the Board published a notice of its systems of records in the Federal Register (Vol. 61, Number 227, pages 59472-69473). It is updating and republishing the notice in this issue of the Federal Register. The Board periodically reviews its systems of records and will publish information about any significant additions or changes to those systems. Information about systems of records maintained by other agencies that are in the temporary custody of the Board will not be published. In addition, the Office of the Federal Register biennially compiles and publishes all systems of records maintained by all federal agencies, including the Board.
( b ) At least 30 days before publishing additions or changes to the Board's systems of records, the Board will publish a notice of intent to amend, providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to its systems of records.
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 32 Filed 12/27/2006 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2924 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2924

    To suspend temporarily the duty on brominated polystyrene flame 
                               retardant.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on brominated polystyrene flame 
                               retardant.

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

SECTION 1. BROMINATED POLYSTYRENE FLAME RETARDANT.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.39.03        Brominated polystyrene  Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           flame retardant (CAS                                              31/2009          ''
                           No. 88497-56-7)                                                                     .
                           (provided for in
                           subheading
                           3903.90.50)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 1:06CR201-WHA

)

OSCAR MARTINEZ-RAMIREZ )

ORDER

Now pending before the court are defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty

(doc. #36) and Motion to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Attorney James R. Cooper, Jr.

(doc. #37) filed on January 29, 2007, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that a hearing on the motions be and is hereby set for hearing at 9:00

a.m. on February 8, 2007, in courtroom 4-B, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States

Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama.

The Clerk is directed to provide an interpreter for this proceeding If the defendant

is in custody, the United States Marshal or the person having custody of the defendant

shall produce the defendant for the proceeding.

Done this 2 day of February, 2007. nd

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 38 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
1231.205-3270 Precontract costs—incurrence

of costs.

(a) The decision to incur precontract costs is the responsibility of the contractor. DOT officials shall

not authorize, demand, or require a contractor to incur precontract costs. The contracting officer

may advise the prospective contractor that any costs incurred before contract award are at the

contractor's sole risk and that if negotiations fail to result in a binding contract, payment of these

costs may not be made by the Government.

(b) When the contracting officer determines that incurring precontract costs was necessary to meet

the proposed contract delivery schedule of a cost-reimbursement contract, the clause at

1252.231–70, Date of Incurrence of Costs, may be inserted in the resultant contract.

Parent topic: Subpart 1231.2—Contracts With Commercial Organizations
MEDIATION REFERRALS

The following case has been returned to the regular docket pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XTV(6)(E):

2007-2189.

#### State ex rel. Shelly Co. v. Steigerwald.

Franklin App. No. 06AP-596, 2007-Ohio-5343.
#### NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent, v. SWEETING et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

December 4, 1914.)

Action by the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company against Lillian Sweeting and another.

No opinion. Judgment and orders affirmed, with costs. See, also, 162 App. Div. 931, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1129.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

TOMMY LEE WILSON, #225500, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06-CV-751-WKW

)

RALPH HOOKS, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

O R D E R

Upon review of the answer filed by the respondents on October 6, 2006 (Court Doc.

No. 9), and as this response fails to address each of the directives of the order entered on

August 25, 2006 (Court Doc. No. 4), it is

ORDERED that on or before October 25, 2006, the respondents shall file a

supplemental answer which addresses whether the petitioner filed an application for

rehearing and petition for writ of certiorari upon entry of the memorandum opinion by the

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on the Rule 32 petition. If the petitioner undertook such

actions, the respondents shall file copies of all documents relevant to these proceedings as

exhibits to the supplemental answer. If, however, the petitioner failed to seek rehearing

and/or did not file a petition for writ of certiorari on appeal from the denial of his Rule 32

petition, the respondents shall address the impact, if any, that these failures have on his

ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence claims. See O’Sullivan v.

Case 3:06-cv-00751-WKW-TFM Document 10 Filed 10/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999); Smith v. Jones, 256 F.3d

1135, 1140-1146 (11 Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1136, 122 S.Ct. 1081, 151 L.Ed.2d th

982 (2002). 

Done this 11th day of October, 2006.

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-00751-WKW-TFM Document 10 Filed 10/11/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 20.2302 Additional requirements.

The Commission may, by rule, regulation, or order, impose requirements on a licensee, in addition to those established in the regulations in this part, as it deems appropriate or necessary to protect health or to minimize danger to life or property.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Century
Pension Income Fund XXIII 1999 First Quarter 10-Q and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000764543
<NAME> CENTURY PENSION INCOME FUND XXIII
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          10,884
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          79,451
<DEPRECIATION>                                (25,424)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  69,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         48,153
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (26,943)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    69,681
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,007
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,581
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,423
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (649)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.64)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### § 16.23 Interest, penalties, and administrative charges.

Charges may be assessed for interest, penalties, and administrative charges in accordance with the FCCS, 31 CFR Chapter IX, 901.9.

[67 FR 57509, Sept. 11, 2002]
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.703 Examination by experts. ( a ) A party may request the presiding officer to permit a qualified individual who has scientific or technical training or experience to participate on behalf of that party in the examination and cross-examination of expert witnesses. The presiding officer may permit the individual to participate on behalf of the party in the examination and cross-examination of expert witnesses, upon finding: ( 1 ) That cross-examination by that individual would serve the purpose of furthering the conduct of the proceeding;
( 2 ) That the individual is qualified by scientific or technical training or experience to contribute to the development of an adequate decisional record in the proceeding by the conduct of such examination or cross-examination;
( 3 ) That the individual has read any written testimony on which they intend to examine or cross-examine and any documents to be used or referred to in the course of the examination or cross-examination; and
( 4 ) That the individual has prepared themselves to conduct a meaningful and expeditious examination or cross-examination, and has submitted a cross-examination plan in accordance with § 2.711(c).
( b ) Examination or cross-examination conducted under this section must be limited to areas within the expertise of the individual conducting the examination or cross-examination. The party on behalf of whom this examination or cross-examination is conducted and their attorney is responsible for the conduct of examination or cross-examination by such individuals.
[69 FR 2256, Jan. 14, 2004, as amended at 88 FR 57877, Aug. 24, 2023]
§ 209.32 Initiation of meetings. ( a ) Except for meetings of bodies created by the International Energy Agency, any meeting among participants in a voluntary agreement pursuant to this subpart, for the purpose of carrying out such voluntary agreement or developing or carrying out a plan of action pursuant thereto, shall be initiated and chaired by a full-time Federal employee designated by the Administrator.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the Administrator shall provide notice of meetings held pursuant to this subpart, in writing, to the Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission, and to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate for delivery to the appropriate committees of Congress. Except during an international energy supply emergency, notice shall also be provided to the public through publication in the Federal Register. Such notice shall identify the time, place, and agenda of the meeting. Notice in the Federal Register shall be published at least seven days prior to the date of the meeting unless emergency circumstances, IEP requirements or other unanticipated circumstances require the period to be shortened.
( c ) During an international energy supply emergency, advance notice shall be given to the Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission and to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate for delivery to the appropriate committees of Congress. Such notice may be telephonic or by such other means as practicable, and shall be confirmed in writing.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

DONNA DORSEY DAVIS, etc., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv766-MHT

) 

RICHARD M. DORSEY, etc., )

and CD&O, L.L.C., etc., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment

(Doc. No. 22) is set for submission, without oral

argument, on April 10, 2007, with any opposing brief and

evidentiary materials due by said date.

DONE, this the 22nd day of March, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 24 Filed 03/22/2007 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

November 28, 2006

 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

To: All Counsel of Record

Re: Price v. Roanoke City Board of Education

Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-00742-VPM

The above-styled case has been reassigned to Judge Wallace Capel, Jr.

Please note that the case number is now 3:06-cv-00742-WC. 

This new case number should be used on all future correspondence and pleadings in this

action.

 

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 6 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99.3

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,  As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Granite Real Estate Investment Trust

In
connection with the annual report of Granite Real Estate Investment Trust (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the "Report") to
which this certification is an exhibit, I, Ilias Konstantopoulos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

Date:
March 1, 2017

By:

/s/ ILIAS KONSTANTOPOULOS Name: Ilias Konstantopoulos
Title: Chief Financial Officer


---





EXHIBIT 99.3

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,  As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Granite REIT Inc.

In
connection with the annual report of Granite REIT Inc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the "Report") to which this
certification is an exhibit, I, Ilias Konstantopoulos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

Date:
March 1, 2017

By:

/s/ ILIAS KONSTANTOPOULOS Name: Ilias Konstantopoulos
Title: Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
2453.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes Agency forms for use in acquisition and contains requirements and information

generally applicable to the forms.

Parent topic: PART 2453 - FORMS
#### § 1703.110 Requests for classified records.

The Board may at any time be in possession of classified records and Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information (UCNI) received from the Department of Energy or other federal agencies. The Board shall refer requests under § 1703.105 for such records or information to the Department of Energy or other originating agency without making an independent determination as to the releasability of such documents. The Board shall refer requests for classified records in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12356, “National Security Information,” 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166, or any superseding Executive Order. The Board shall refer requests for UCNI in a manner consistent with 42 U.S.C. 2168 and the Department of Energy's implementing regulations in 10 CFR part 1017 or any successor regulations.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **6 77**  **4**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,
v. DEMORRIS ALEXANDER JAMES , Defendant

– Appell ant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eas tern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Jerome B. Friedman , District Judge. ( 2 : 0 5

- c r - 00 161

- JBF

- JEB

- 1 )

Submitted : October 1 4 , 2010 Decided: November 3, 2010

Before WILKINSON and AGEE , Circuit Judge s , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.

D emorris Alexander James , Appellant Pro Se . Sherrie Scott Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
De morris Alexander James appeals the district court ’ s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion and reducing his sentence from 180 months’ to 150 months’ imprisonment based on a two

- level reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reve rsible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
James , No. 2 : 05

- cr - 00 161

- JBF

- JEB

- 1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 6, 2010) ; see also Dillon v. United States , 130 S. Ct. 2683, 269 3

- 9 4 (2010) (clarifying that § 3582(c)(2 ) does not authorize a resentencing, but rather permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by the Commission, and concluding that United States v. Booker , 543 U.S
. 220 (2005), does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
#### Commissioners of State Insurance Fund, Respondent, v Nobre, Inc., Appellant.

[816 NYS2d 493]

In an action to recover unpaid premiums for a worker’s compensation insurance policy, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated March 4, 2005, which denied its motion to vacate a judgment entered September 19, 2003, upon its failure to appear or answer, which was in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $128,293.08.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint since it failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default *(see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co.,*67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; *Taylor v Saal,*4 AD3d 467 [2004]). The plaintiff established that it effected service upon the defendant by delivering a copy of the summons and verified complaint to the Secretary of State *(see*CPLR 311 [a] [1]; Business Corporation Law § 306; *Nichols v Richmond Ambulance Serv.,*259 AD2d 741 [1999]). The defendant did not contend that the address on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect, and the mere denial of receipt of the summons and complaint was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the affidavit of service *(see Carrenard v Mass,*11 AD3d 501 [2004]; *Truscello v Olympia Constr.,*294 AD2d 350, 351 [2002]; *Wieck v Halpern,*255 AD2d 438 [1998]).

Furthermore, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate the default judgment pursuant to CPLR 317 was also properly denied since the defendant failed to demonstrate that it did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend the action *(see General Motors Acceptance Corp. v*
      *512
      *Grade A Auto Body, Inc.,*21 AD3d 447 [2005]; *96 Pierrepont v Mauro,*304 AD2d 631 [2003]; *Waldon v Plotkin,*303 AD2d 581 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.