alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PGI 239.7407 Type of contract.

When using a basic agreement in conjunction with a communication service authorization—

(1) Use DD Form 428, Communication Service Authorization (CSA), or an electronic data processing

substitute to award, modify, cancel, or terminate telecommunications services. The CSA shall—

(i) Refer to the basic agreement;

(ii) Specify the types and quantities and equipment to be provided as well as the tariff (or other price

if a tariff is not available) of those services and equipment;

(iii) Specify the premises involved;

(iv) Cite the address for billing;

(v) Identify the disbursing office;

(vi) Provide funding information; and

(vii) Include an expiration date.

(2) Before awarding a CSA, comply with the requirements in FAR and DFARS, e.g., for competition,

reviews, approvals, and determinations and findings.

Parent topic: PGI 239.74 -TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
PGI Part 218 - EMERGENCY ACQUISITIONS

PGI 218.2 -EMERGENCY ACQUISITION FLEXIBILITIES

PGI 218.271 Use of electronic business tools.

Parent topic: PGI Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

PGI 218.2 -EMERGENCY ACQUISITION FLEXIBILITIES

PGI 218.271 Use of electronic business tools.

(a) Use of electronic business (e-business) acquisition tools greatly enhances the efficacy of the

contracting process in a contingency business environment (CBE). The CBE involves specific tools,

policies, roles and responsibilities, and processes necessary to streamline delivery of goods and

services to the end user and to implement an e-business program with the capabilities necessary to

support an end-to-end electronic acquisition process in order to quickly obtain goods and services

for the warfighter in an operational area. For information and procedures to effectively utilize CBE

e-business tools, and additional policy references supporting use of the e-business tools, see the DoD

CBE Guidebook at https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/cc/docs/resources/CBE_Guidebook.docx .

(b) Use of the following CBE e-business tools is mandatory when supporting a contingency or

humanitarian or peacekeeping operation as defined in FAR 2.101:

(1) The 3in1 Tool. The 3in1 Tool automates the field order, receipt, and purchase processes

previously executed manually using the paper Standard Form (SF) 44. The 3in1 handheld device

records and transmits cash and carry type purchases and payment data to the prime database for

remote reconciliation and review, when conducting on-the-spot, over-the-counter field purchases

where use of the Government Purchase Card is appropriate, but not feasible. The 3in1 database may

be accessed on the Joint Contingency Contracting Systems (JCCS) website at

https://www.jccs.gov/olvr/.

(2) The Acquisition Cross-Servicing Agreements (ACSA) Global Automated Tracking and Reporting

System (AGATRS). AGATRS is an automated tool that tracks and provides visibility into worldwide

ACSAs that may satisfy a requirement through support from the host nation or other nations

supporting the contingency. ACSA transactions that are used in support of contingency or

humanitarian or peacekeeping operations are required to be documented and tracked in AGATRS as

required by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 2120.01D, Acquisition and Cross

Servicing Agreements (https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Library/Instructions/2120_01.p...).

AGATRS is accessible on the JCCS website at https://www.jccs.gov/olvr.

(c) No other electronic tools may be used to fulfill the same capabilities as 3in1 and AGATRS.

(d) See PGI 225.370 (a)(ii) regarding use of the Theater Business Clearance CBE e-business tool.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5

       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                  2,251,416
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                           5,183,333<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                             7,822,843<F2
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       16,496,521
<PP&E>                                  8,157,009
<DEPRECIATION>                          3,098,912
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         23,059,380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  10,305,438
<BONDS>                                 2,609,407
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                   46,351
<OTHER-SE>                              8,773,941
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           23,059,380
<SALES>                                21,962,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       22,083,148
<CGS>                                  18,904,430
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          18,904,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        2,180,240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        281,772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           716,706
<INCOME-TAX>                              (63,027)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       779,733
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                              779,733
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .14
<FN>
<F1>  ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ARE NET OF ALLOWANCE OF $93,000 AT SEPTEMBER 30,
      1997.
<F2>  INVENTORIES ARE NET OF RESERVE OF $589,000 AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997.
<FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATIONS

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



The undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the foregoing quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed by Fountain Powerboat Industries, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |     |                              
|----------------------- | --- | -----------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2008 | By: | /s/ REGINALD M. FOUNTAIN, JR.
|                        |     | Reginald M. Fountain, Jr.    
|                        |     | Chief Executive Officer      
|                        |     |                              
|Date: November 14, 2008 | By: | /s/ IRVING L. SMITH          
|                        |     | Irving L. Smith              
|                        |     | Chief Financial Officer
#### Georgia Granite Company *v.*Austin.

July ,19, 1913.

Action for damages. Before Judge Bell. Fulton superior court. June 8, 1913.

*Candler, Thomson & Kirsch,*for plaintiff in error.

*Frank L. Karalson*and *Robert J. Jordan,*contra.

Per Curiam.

There was no merit in the objections to the rulings of the court upon the admissibility of evidence. And though it may have been doubtful, under the • allegations of the petition, whether the charge in regard to future pain and suffering was proper, in view of the evidence and the amount found by the jury this will not require the grant of a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the- Justices concur.*
Subpart 2408.4 - Federal Supply Schedules

Source: 81 FR 13750, Mar. 15, 2016, unless otherwise noted.

Parent topic: PART 2408 - REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

2408.404 Pricing.

(d) Supplies offered on the schedule are listed at fixed prices. Services offered on the schedule are

priced either at hourly rates, or at fixed price for performance of a specific task (e.g., installation,

maintenance, and repair). GSA has determined the prices of supplies and fixed-price services, and

rates for services offered at hourly rates, to be fair and reasonable for the purpose of establishing

the schedule contract. GSA's determination does not relieve the ordering activity Contracting Officer

from the responsibility of making a determination of fair and reasonable pricing for individual

orders, BPAs, and orders under BPAs. Contracting Officers shall follow the general principles and

techniques outlined in FAR Section 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques, to ensure that the final

agreed-to price is fair and reasonable, keeping in mind that the complexity and circumstances of

each acquisition should determine the level of detail of the analysis required.

2408.405-6 Limiting sources.

(c)(2) Justifications for limiting sources, under the Federal Supply Schedules when exceeding the

simplified acquisition threshold, must be prepared and approved using the latest version of HUD

Form 24013.

(d)(3) HUD's Chief Procurement Officer, as the Head of Contracting Activity, has delegated the

authority to the Deputy Chief Procurement Officer to approve, in writing, justifications for limited

source considerations for a proposed Federal Supply Schedule order or Blanket Purchase Agreement

(BPA) with an estimated value exceeding $13.5 million, but not exceeding $68 million.
Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 4 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 1 of 1
* Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 93-8239.

Milton O'BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY OF MIDLAND, Defendant-Appellee.

Dec. 22, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD, Circuit Judge, and PARKER, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Milton O'Bryant appeals the summary judgment dismissal of his claims based on a conclusion

by the district court that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is not retroactive.

O'Bryant's complaint is based on actions allegedly taken by the defendant City of Midland in

July 1990 and in July 1991 as a result of a disabling injury O'Bryant sustained in October 1989.

Congress specifically made the ADA effective with respect to s t ate and local governments as of

January 26, 1992. The statute becomes effective as to private employers, depending on the number

of employees, either on July 26, 1992, or July 26, 1994. O'Bryant's complaint was filed on September

28, 1992.

Persuaded that Congress did not intend retroactivity for the ADA and perceiving no basis for

concluding otherwise, we hold that the ADA is not to be given retroactive effect and, accordingly,

AFFIRM.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6568

JAMES R. HEUSS, II,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ELIZABETH A. HILL, Executive Director; CARLOS DEL TORO, Secretary of 

the Navy,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00662-LMB-JFA)

Submitted: June 9, 2023 Decided: September 5, 2023

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James R. Heuss, II, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew James Mezger, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6568 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/05/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

James R. Heuss, II, appeals the district court’s order awarding summary judgment 

to the defendants on his claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

§§ 701-706, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We have reviewed the 

record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

Heuss v. Hill, 1:21-cv-00662-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2022). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6568 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/05/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
## NO. 12

- 16

- 00154

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

EX PARTE:

J AMES IAN HAWKES §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 173R D

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TE XAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant James Ia n Hawkes has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal and has certified

that all other parties to the appeal have been given notice of the filing of this motion. Because

Appellant has met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), the moti on is

granted and his appeal is dismissed

.

Opinion delivered December 30, 2016.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DECEMBER 30 , 2016

NO. 12

- 16

- 00154

- CR

EX PARTE: JAMES IAN HAWKES

Appeal from the 173rd District Court

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR15

- 0376

- 392)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
34.7101 Solicitation provision and contract

clause.

(a)(S-90) Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) requirements apply to sustainment solicitations

and contracts/subcontracts that supports Major Defense Acquisition Programs and Major Automated

Information Systems over $50 million, regardless of contract type, in accordance with DoD Manual

5000.04-M-1, Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Manual, and DoD Instruction 5000.73, Cost

Analysis Guidance and Procedures. If CSDR requirements apply to a DLA acquisition, the

contracting officer shall coordinate the Request for Proposal (RFP) CSDR plan content and

negotiation with the responsible Program Management Office (PMO). Procuring organizations shall

submit their proposed RFP plan, or a request for waiver (see 34.7101(a)(S-91), to DLA Acquisition

Pricing at least 70 days prior to the estimated RFP release date. DLA Acquisition Pricing will review

the proposed RFP plan or request for waiver and forward it to the Deputy Director, Cost Assessment

(DDCA), Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) for final approval within 60 days of the RFP

release date. After negotiations and award, procuring organizations shall forward final CSDR plans

to DLA Acquisition Pricing within 30 days from date for award for submission to OSD. The Cost

Assessment and Program Evaluation (OSD CAPE) Office maintains polices and guidance concerning

CSDR requirements at Cost Assessment Data Enterprise (CADE) Cost and Sortware Data Reporting

(CSDR) Policies ( https://cade.osd.mil/policy/csdr-timeline ).

(S-91) In accordance with DoD Manual 5000.04-M-1, DDCA has the authority to approve waivers for

CSDR requirements. Procuring organizations shall forward requests for waivers to DLA Acquisition

Pricing, accompanied by—

(i) For commercial acquisitions, a copy of the commercial item determination and a memorandum

supporting the rationale for a waiver based on commerciality, both signed by the contracting officer;

or

(ii) For competitive acquisitions, documentation supporting the basis for the contracting officer’s

determination that adequate competition will continue to exist.

Parent topic: SUBPART 34.71 – COST AND SOFTWARE DATA REPORTING
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 485 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 485

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 25, 2005.
Whereas the Governors and Attorneys General of the States, the National Family 
        Partnership, Parent Teacher Associations, Boys and Girls Clubs of 
        America, and more than 100 other organizations throughout the United 
        States annually cosponsor Red Ribbon Week during the week of October 23 
        through October 31;
Whereas a purpose of the Red Ribbon Campaign is to commemorate the service of 
        Enrique ``Kiki'' Camarena, a Drug Enforcement Administration special 
        agent who died in the line of duty in 1985 while engaged in the battle 
        against illicit drugs;
Whereas the Red Ribbon Campaign is nationally recognized and is in its twentieth 
        year of celebration, helping to preserve Special Agent Camarena's memory 
        and further the cause for which he gave his life;
Whereas the objective of Red Ribbon Week is to promote drug-free communities 
        through drug prevention efforts, education, parental involvement, and 
        community wide support;
Whereas drug and alcohol abuse contributes to domestic violence and sexual 
        assaults, and places the lives of children at risk;
Whereas drug abuse is one of the major challenges our Nation faces in securing a 
        safe and healthy future for our families and children;
Whereas emerging drug threats, such as the growing epidemic of methamphetamine 
        abuse, jeopardize the progress made against illegal drug abuse; and
Whereas parents, youth, schools, businesses, law enforcement agencies, religious 
        institutions, service organizations, senior citizens, medical and 
        military personnel, sports teams, and individuals throughout the United 
        States demonstrate their commitment to drug-free, healthy lifestyles by 
        wearing and displaying red ribbons during this weeklong celebration: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals of Red Ribbon Week;
            (2) encourages children and teens to choose to live a drug-free 
        life; and
            (3) encourages all people of the United States to promote drug-free 
        communities and to participate in drug prevention activities to show 
        support for healthy, productive, drug-free lifestyles.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### LUTHER et a1. v. VILLAGE OF BATAVIA.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 6, 1915.)

Action by Mary Luther and another, as executors, etc., against the Village of Batavia.

No opinion. Order entered, substituting George W. Watson as attorney for plaintiff, upon stipulation filed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Sionix Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
McCray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1) 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.

/s/ Robert McCray
------------------------------------------
    Robert McCray, Chief Financial Officer

May 20, 2004
###### Editorial Note on Part 51

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

#### § 51.120 Availability of environmental documents for public inspection.

Copies of environmental reports, draft and final environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, and findings of no significant impact, together with any related comments and environmental documents, will be made available at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov,* and/or at the NRC Public Document Room.

[64 FR 48952, Sept. 9, 1999]
### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (Mailcode 7101 M) Washington, D.C. 20460

OPPTS-RCS-OMB-7f (revised 11/15/2010) If you have any questions about this regulatory action or this documentation, please call the contact:
Name: eMail: Phone: 

### Title of Action: 

## Documentation of Changes Made During Review Under Executive Order 12866

Docket #: EPA-HQ- FRL#: RIN: 2070-

This action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). According to section 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order, whenever the Agency makes publicly available an action that was reviewed under Executive Order 12866, the Agency is also required to:

(1) Make available to the public a copy of the information that was provided to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review under the Executive Order, i.e., the text of the draft action and, if applicable, an assessment of the potential costs and benefits; as well as additional information required for those actions that are determined to be economically significant under section 3(f) of the Executive Order (see section 6(a)(3)(B) & (C)); (2) Identify for the public any substantive changes made to the draft submitted to OMB, using a method that is complete, clear and simple; and (3) Identify for the public those substantive changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA/OMB. 

### For this action, were substantive changes made during the review? [Check the appropriate answer.]

Yes. [The information identified in items 1-3 below is included in the docket, as applicable.] No. [Only the information identified in item 1 below is included in the docket.]


### Accordingly, the Agency has included the following information in the public docket for this action: [Check the appropriate box(es).]

(2) Documentation of any substantive changes that were made to the draft document that was submitted to OIRA/OMB for review, when compared with what completed review, using one of the following methods (select one): (1) A copy of the information that was submitted to OIRA for review under the Executive Order.

(3) Documentation of those substantive changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OMB , if any, are identified in the document using one of the following methods (select one): (a) A copy of the draft document submitted, with redline and strikeout to show all the substantive changes that were made during the review. (b) A document that identifies the substantive changes that were made during the review, with page and paragraph references to the draft document that was submitted.

(a) Through attributions to OMB in the redline and strikeout version or other document identifying the changes made at OMB's recommendation. (c) Other (please describe):

(b) Other (please describe):
PGI 219.808-1 Sole source.

For requirements processed under the PA cited in DFARS 219.800—

(1) The agency may negotiate directly with the 8(a) contractor. The contracting officer is responsible

for initiating negotiations;

(2) The 8(a) contractor is responsible for negotiating within the time established by the contracting

officer;

(3) If the 8(a) contractor does not negotiate within the established time and the agency cannot allow

additional time, the contracting officer may, after notifying the SBA, proceed with the acquisition

from other sources;

(4) If requested by the 8(a) contractor, the SBA may participate in negotiations; and

(5) SBA approval of the contract is not required.

Parent topic: PGI 219.808 Contract negotiations.