alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 33.14 Requirements for the issuance of a Type B specific license of broad scope. An application for a Type B specific license of broad scope will be approved if: ( a ) The applicant satisfies the general requirements specified in § 30.33 of this chapter; and
( b ) The applicant has established administrative controls and provisions relating to organization and management, procedures, record keeping, material control and accounting, and management review that are necessary to assure safe operations, including: ( 1 ) The appointment of a radiological safety officer who is qualified by training and experience in radiation protection, and who is available for advice and assistance on radiological safety matters; and
( 2 ) The establishment of appropriate administrative procedures to assure: ( i ) Control of procurement and use of byproduct material;
( ii ) Completion of safety evaluations of proposed uses of byproduct material which take into consideration such matters as the adequacy of facilities and equipment, training and experience of the user, and the operating or handling procedures; and
( iii ) Review, approval, and recording by the radiological safety officer of safety evaluations of proposed uses prepared in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section prior to use of the byproduct material.
Case 1:06-cv-00786-MHT-CSC Document 2 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00786-MHT-CSC Document 2 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
OF OFFICERS


OF SIONIX
CORPORATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 USC § 1350





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) each of the
undersigned officers of Sionix Corporation (the “Company”) does hereby certify,
to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 of the Company
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and





Information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  August
19, 2009





/s/ Rodney AndersonRodney
      Anderson, Interim Chief Executive Officer/s/ Robert HassonRobert
      Hasson, Interim Chief Financial
Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT ROLLEY LEE, # 137162, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv792-ID

) (WO)

JUDGE ROCHESTER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

On September 26, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case

to which no timely objections have been filed. Upon an independent review of the file in this

case and upon CONSIDERATION of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and the same is hereby

ADOPTED, APPROVED and AFFIRMED; and

2. the above-styled cause be and the same is hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to comply with the orders of the court and

his failure to properly prosecute this action.

DONE this 18 day of October, 2006. th

/s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00792-ID-DRB Document 6 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 1
# Subpart 2815.2 - Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Information

**Parent topic:**PART 2815 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

## 2815.204 Contract format.

The HCA or designee is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 15.204(e).
#### In re TILBURY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 20, 1915.)

In the matter of the accounting of Dora C. Stephens Tilbury, as executrix, etc., of Walter A. Stephens, deceased.

No opinion. Decree affirmed, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6217

RICK STEARNSMILLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

P. DOUGLAS TAYLOR; DORIS MIXON; JOHN DOE, 1-

20; WILLIE EAGLETON; GEORGIA YEARWOOD; MICHAEL

W. MOORE; DOUG CATOE; FRANCES L. STROKER;

SAMUEL LATTA; GEORGE BEST, Captain; EICHENBURGER, Captain; BOARD OF CORRECTIONS; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE; REX M. DEVINE; MICHAEL

LOCKE; JAMES FELDER; R. NAJJAR,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District

Judge. (CA-98-2195-3-11-BC)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 6, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rick Stearnsmiller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Rick Stearnsmiller noted an appeal from the district court’s

order denying his appeal of a non-dispositive order entered by the

magistrate judge in his underlying civil action. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here

appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory

or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TIERRA WESTBROOK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1823

[December 19, 2019]

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

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Elizabeth Anne 

Scherer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15-000004CF10A.

Tierra Westbrook, Ocala, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Georgina JimenezOrosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Allan R. Geesey, Assistant 

Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 99.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of WaterChef, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
A. Conway, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (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 presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/  David A. Conway
-------------------------------------
     David A. Conway
     President and Chief Executive Officer
     and Chief Financial Officer


July 10, 2003
#### Ruchama Gamiel, Appellant, v Curtis & Riess-Curtis, P.C., et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Submitted November 26, 2007;

decided January 10, 2008

Reported below, 44 AD3d 327.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          41,785
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  131,518
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,340,657
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          21,843
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,441
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,558,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          948,501
<BONDS>                                      2,196,887
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,398,736
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,558,266
<SALES>                                        320,440
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               320,619
<CGS>                                          118,483
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,483
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               150,170
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,845
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,845
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,845
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
         

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.6


                                 ADDENDUM TO
                 LEASE  BETWEEN BJB ASSOCIATES, LANDLORD and
                     INTELLIGENT CONTROLS, INC., TENANT
                             DATED JUNE 21,1994



The lease is hereby revised as follows.  All other  terms and conditions to 
remain the same.

1.  Lease to expire October 14, 2000

2.  Space leased to total 14,520 square feet

3.  Monthly lease payments to be as follows:


      May 1 through August 14, 1998        $4,970.00*
      August 15, 1998 - August 14, 1999    $5,272.50
      August 15, 1999 - August 14, 2000    $5,580.72
      August 15 - October 14, 2000         $5,908.41

4.  There are no further options to renew

5.  Tenant's share of real estate taxes and insurance is 88%


*    April 15 - May 14, 1998 Prorated as follows:

      4/15 - 4/30     $4,580/30 = 152.67 Diem x 16 days =     $2,442.72
      5/1  - 5/14     $4,970/30 = 165.66 Diem x 14 days =     $2,319.24

                      TOTAL DUE APRIL 15, 1998                $4,761.96

LANDLORD:                              BJB ASSOCIATES:


/s/ Leilani McCabe                     By:  /s/ Glenn Joziatis
Witness                                Its  Partner

April 28, 1998
DATE

TENANT:                                INTELLIGENT CONTROLS, INC.

/s/ Sharon Binette                     By:  /s/ Alan Lukas
Witness                                Its  President

April 17, 1998
DATE

                               BJB Properties
                             158 Greeley Street
                             Hudson, N.H.  03051

April 3, 1998

INCON
P.O. Box 638
Saco, ME  04072

ATTN:  Mr. Stephen Leuth, PLANT MANAGER

Dear Mr. Leuth:

Enclosed are two (2) copies of Addendum to BJB ASSOCIATES-INTELLIGENT 
CONTROLS LEASE dated 6/21/94.

Kindly sign and date both copies and return to us.  Upon receipt, we will 
send you a fully executed copy.

To confirm our discussion, the Lease Agreement Rider is amended as follows:

      Effective May 1, 1998, Landlord is to compensate Tenant $191.47 
      monthly for Landlord's share of utility costs for reduced square 
      footage retained by Landlord.

      AGREED TO:

      /s/ Alan Lukas                   April 17, 1998
      INCON                            DATE

Kindly sign above, retain one copy and return signed copy to us.

If you have any questions, please call Glenn Joziatis at 603-882-2638.

Sincerely,

BJB PROPERTIES

/s/ Lonnie McCabe

Lonnie McCabe

LM/reg
Editorial Note on Part 982
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

§ 982.67 Reports of disposition of restricted hazelnuts. ( a ) Each handler, before he disposes of any quantity of restricted hazelnuts held by him, shall file with the Board a report of his intention to dispose of such quantity of restricted hazelnuts. This report shall be filed not less than five days prior to the date on which the restricted hazelnuts are disposed of, unless the five-day period is expressly waived by the Board.
( b ) Each handler, within 15 days after the disposition of any quantity of restricted hazelnuts, shall file with the Board a report of the actual disposition of such quantity of restricted hazelnuts. Such reports shall be certified to the Board and to the Secretary as to their correctness and accuracy.
( c ) All reports required by this section shall show the quantity, pack, and location of the hazelnuts covered by such reports; the applicable handler's storage lot and inspection certificate numbers; and the disposition of the restricted hazelnuts which is intended or which has been accomplished.
COURTROOM DEPUTY MINUTES DATE : NOVEMBER 13, 2006

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA DIGITAL RECORDED: 4:00 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

PRESIDING MAG. JUDGE: CHARLES S. COODY DEPUTY CLERK: WANDA STINSON 

CASE NUMBER: 3:06CR210-MEF-CSC DEFENDANT NAME: MELISSA WARD 

 APPEARANCES

GOVERNMENT DEFENDANT COUNSEL

ATTY. CHRISTOPHER SNYDER ATTY. CHARLES VERCELLI

/ DISCOVERY STATUS: Complete.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 _________________________________________________________________________________________

/ PENDING MOTION STATUS: NONE.

/ PLEA STATUS: Possible Plea.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

/ TRIAL STATUS: Will take 1-2 days to try case if goes to trial.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

/ REMARKS: Counsel advised to get notice of intent filed as soon as possible or let court know

either way, what client want to do.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 15 Filed 11/13/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### BURTNETT, Respondent, v. ERIE R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 18, 1914.)

Action by Torrence M. Burtnett against the Brie Railroad Company. W. C. Cannon, of New York City, for appellant. T. J. O’Neill, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

CLARKE, J., dissents.

See, also, 159 App. Div. 712, 144 N. Y. Supp. 969.
#### DUFFY v. LINCH.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by Anthony Duffy against George W. Linch, as receiver, etc.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 161 App. Div. 219, 146 N. Y. Supp. 384.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 EASTERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

GREGORY MONTAE FERGERSON, * 

#231 286

Petitioner, *

v. * 3:06-CV-777-MHT

 

WARDEN KENNETH JONES, et al., *

 

Respondents. *

 _______________________________

ORDER ON MOTION

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The undersigned concludes

that the motion is due to be denied.

This case is currently pending on Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief,

Respondents’ answer thereto, and Petitioner’s response. No additional pleadings are

necessary to a determination of the issues presented herein and Petitioner will be informed

of any action undertaken by the court on his petition.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No.

18) be and is hereby DENIED. 

Done, this 5th day of March 2008.

 /s/ Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00777-MHT-TFM Document 19 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 1 of 1
#### William W. Poor, Appellee, v. B. C. Hopper, Appellant.

Gen. No. 9,243.

opinion filed October 15, 1940.

Provine & Williams, for appellant; Flesher & Taylor and Thomas Sweeney, for appellee.

Opinion by

Justice Hayes.

“Not to be published in full.”
PGI 216.1 -SELECTING CONTRACT TYPES

Parent topic: PGI Part 216 - TYPES OF CONTRACTS

PGI 216.104 Factors in selecting contract type.

See the policy tab for Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting memorandum dated April

1, 2016, entitled “Guidance on Using Incentive and Other Contract Types,” when selecting and

negotiating the most appropriate contract type for a given procurement.

PGI 216.104-70 Research and development.

(1) General. There are several categories of research and development (R&D) contracts: research,

exploratory development, advanced development, engineering development, and operational

systems development (see DFARS 235.001 for definitions). Each category has a primary technical or

functional objective. Different parts of a project may fit several categories. The contract type must fit

the work required, not just the classification of the overall program.

(2) Research and exploratory development.

(i) Price is not necessarily the primary factor in determining the contract type.

(ii) The nature of the work to be performed will usually result in a cost-plus award fee, cost-plus

fixed fee term, cost-no-fee, or cost-sharing contract.

(iii) If the Government and the contractor can identify and agree upon the level of contractor effort

required, the contracting officer may select a firm fixed-price level-of-effort contract, except see

DFARS 235.006.

(iv) If the Government and the contractor agree that an incentive arrangement is desirable and

capable of being evaluated after completion of the work, the contracting officer may use an incentive

type contract.

(3) Advanced development.

(i) The nature of the work to be performed often results in a cost-plus fixed fee completion type

contract.

(ii) Contracting officers may select incentive contracts if—

(A) Realistic and measurable targets are identified; and

(B) Achievement of those targets is predictable with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

(iii) Contracting officers should not use contracts with only cost incentives where—

(A) There will be a large number of major technical changes; or

(B) Actions beyond the control of the contractor may influence the contractor's achievement of cost

targets.
(4) Engineering development and operational systems development.

(i) When selecting contract types, also consider—

(A) The degree to which the project is clearly defined, which in turn affects the contractor's ability to

provide accurate cost estimates;

(B) The need for effort that will overlap that of earlier stages;

(C) The need for firm technical direction by the Government; and

(D) The degree of configuration control the Government will exercise.

(ii) For development efforts, particularly for major defense systems, the preferred contract type is

cost reimbursement.

(iii) Contracting officers should use fixed-price type contracts when risk has been reduced to the

extent that realistic pricing can occur; e.g., when a program has reached the final stages of

development and technical risks are minimal, except see DFARS 235.006.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

#### § 4.47 Noncompliance with § 4.21.

If an applicant fails or refuses to furnish an assurance required under § 4.21 or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with a requirement imposed by or pursuant to that section, Federal financial assistance may be refused in accordance with the procedures of § 4.48.

[45 FR 14535, Mar. 6, 1980]
PGI 208.7002-2 Requiring department responsibilities.       The requiring department is responsible for—          (1) Ensuring compliance with the order of priority in FAR 8.001 for use of Government supply sources before submitting a requirement to the acquiring department for contracting action; and          (2) Providing the acquiring department—          (i) The complete and certified documentation required by FAR 6.303-2(b). A requiring department official, equivalent to the appropriate level in FAR 6.304, must approve the documentation before submission of the military interdepartmental purchase request (MIPR) to the acquiring department;          (ii) Any additional supporting data that the acquiring department contracting officer requests (e.g., the results of any market survey or why none was conducted, and actions the requiring department will take to overcome barriers to competition in the future);          (iii) The executed determination and findings required by FAR 6.302-7(c)(1);          (iv) When a requiring department requests an acquiring department to contract for supplies or services using full and open competition after exclusion of sources, all data required by FAR 6.202(b)(2);          (v) When the requiring department specifies a foreign end product, any determinations required by DFARS Part 225 or FAR Part 25;          (vi) A complete definition of the requirements, including a list (or copies) of specifications, drawings, and other data required for the acquisition. The requiring department need not furnish Federal, military, departmental, or other specifications or drawings or data that are available to the acquiring department;          (vii) Justification required by FAR 17.205(a) for any option quantities requested;          (viii) A statement as to whether used or reconditioned material, former Government surplus property, or residual inventory will be acceptable, and if so—          (A) A list of any supplies that need not be new; and          (B) The basis for determining the acceptability of such supplies (see FAR 11.302(b));          (ix) A statement as to whether the acquiring department may exceed the total MIPR estimate and, if so, by what amount; and          (x) Unless otherwise agreed between the departments, an original and six copies of each MIPR and its attachments (except specifications, drawings, and other data).    **Parent topic:** PGI 208.7002 Assignment authority.