alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ASTOR CAPITAL, INC.
                         9595 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 700
                             BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212


As of September 22, 2004


Mr. Jacques Tizabi
Chief Executive Officer
Universal Detection Technologies, Inc.
9595 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

    RE:  AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR INVESTMENT BANKING AND ADVISORY SERVICES

Reference is made to the certain Agreement for Investment Banking and Advisory
Services, between ASTOR CAPITAL, INC. ("Astor") and UNIVERSAL DETECTION
TECHNOLOGY, INC. ("UDTT"), dated June 1, 2003, as amended on April 15, 2004 (the
"Agreement").

In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, as well
as, other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is acknowledged, the parties agree that effective September 30, 2004 the
Agreement shall be terminated with no further obligation by either party.

Except as set forth above, all other terms and conditions contained in the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless and until modified in
writing and signed by the parties.

If the aforementioned is accepted and agreed to, please indicate same by
affixing your signature below, and together with ours shall represent the entire
agreement.

Sincerely,

ASTOR CAPITAL, INC.


By: /s/ Ali Moussavi
------------------------------------
Its:  MANAGING PARTNER



Accepted, Understood & Agreed:
UNIVERSAL DETECTION TECHNOLOGY, INC.



By: /s/ Jacques Tizabi
------------------------------------
Its:  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
#### § 50.20 Two classes of licenses.

Licenses will be issued to named persons applying to the Commission therefor, and will be either class 104 or class 103.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,540
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,303
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,843
<PP&E>                                       5,132,052
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,437,436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,856,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          145,163
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,856,733
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               117,003
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               152,073
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              85,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (120,106)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 743 

To repeal the wage rate requirements commonly known as the Davis-Bacon 

Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2017 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. SANFORD, Mr. 

HARPER, Mr. AMASH, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, 

and Ms. JENKINS of Kansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To repeal the wage rate requirements commonly known as 

the Davis-Bacon Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Davis-Bacon Repeal 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DAVIS-BACON WAGE REQUIREMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter IV of chapter 31 of 

8 title 40, United States Code, is repealed. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 743 IH

1 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law to a 

2 wage requirement of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 

3 40, United States Code, shall after the date of the enact4 ment of this Act be null and void. 

5 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND LIMITATION. 

6 The amendment made by section 2 shall take effect 

7 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act but 

8 shall not affect any contract in existence on such date of 

9 enactment or made pursuant to invitation for bids out10 standing on such date of enactment. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Donald E. Archer, Appellant, v. Everett F. McNab et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of Suffolk County, Respondents.

In a proceeding to validate petitions designating appellant as a candidate in the Democratic Party Primary Election to be held on June 17, 1969 for nomination for the public office of Councilman of the Town of Huntington, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 6, 1969, which dismissed the petition in the proceeding. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., and Rabin, J., concur; Benjamin, J., concurs, with additional reliance on the views set forth in his memorandum in *Matter of Costantini*v. *Board of Elections of Suffolk County*(32 A D 2d 794). Hopkins and Martuseello, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the order and declare the designating petitions valid.
| **Home Improvement:    Tools You Can Use**
**Tips for Hiring a Contractor**- Ask friends, neighbors, and co-workers for        contractor referrals. 
- Contact local trade organizations, such as the        local Builder Association or Remodelors Council for the names of members in your area. 
- Check out the contractor with your local or        state consumer protection officials. 
- Ask the contractor for customer references who        have projects similar to yours. 
- Ask for a copy of the contractor's current        insurance certificates and licenses, if required. 
- Get written estimates from several firms. Make        sure bids are based on identical project specifications. 
- Get all guarantees, warranties and promises in        writing. 
- Agree on start and completion dates, and have        them written into the contract. 

For More Information

**Facts For Consumers: Home Sweet Home Improvement**

**Consumer Quiz: Test Your Skills    at Hiring a Home Improvement Contractor**

**Consumer Quiz: Test Your Skills    at Avoiding a Home Repair Nightmare**

You can file a complaint online, by    telephone 202-FTC-HELP, or by mail, Consumer Response Center, Federal Trade Commission,    Washington, D.C. 20580.

 
*Produced in cooperation with the National Association of Consumer Agency    Administrators.* |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Editorial Note on Part 26
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear at 87 FR 71455, Nov. 22, 2022.

§ 26.717 Fitness-for-duty program performance data. ( a ) Licensees and other entities shall collect and compile FFD program performance data for each FFD program that is subject to this subpart.
( b ) The FFD program performance data must include the following information: ( 1 ) The random testing rate;
( 2 ) Drugs for which testing is conducted and cutoff levels, including results of tests using lower cutoff levels, tests for drugs not included in the HHS panel, and any special analyses of dilute specimens permitted under § 26.163(a)(2);
( 3 ) Populations tested (*i.e.,* licensee or other entity employees, C/Vs);
( 4 ) Number of tests administered and results of those tests sorted by population tested (*i.e.,* licensee or other entity employees, C/Vs);
( 5 ) Conditions under which the tests were performed, as defined in § 26.31(c);
( 6 ) Substances identified;
( 7 ) Number of subversion attempts by type;
( 8 ) Summary of management actions; and
( 9 ) The information required under § 26.203(e)(1) and (e)(2).
( c ) Licensees and other entities who have a licensee-approved FFD program shall analyze the data at least annually and take appropriate actions to correct any identified program weaknesses. Records of the data, analyses, and corrective actions taken must be retained for at least 3 years or until the completion of any related legal proceedings, whichever is later.
( d ) Any licensee or other entity who terminates an individual's authorization or takes administrative action on the basis of the results of a positive initial drug test for marijuana or cocaine shall also report these test results in the annual summary by processing stage (*i.e.*, initial testing at the licensee testing facility, testing at the HHS-certified laboratory, and MRO determinations). The report must also include the number of terminations and administrative actions taken against individuals for the reporting period.
( e ) Licensees and other entities shall submit the FFD program performance data (for January through December) to the NRC annually, before March 1 of the following year.
( f ) Licensees and other entities may submit the FFD program performance data in a consolidated report, as long as the report presents the data separately for each site.
( g ) Each C/V who maintains a licensee-approved drug and alcohol testing program is subject to the reporting requirements of this section and shall submit the required information either directly to the NRC or through the licensees or other entities to whom the C/V provided services during the year. Licensees, other entities, and C/Vs shall share information to ensure that the information is reported completely and is not duplicated in reports submitted to the NRC.
[73 FR 17176, Mar. 31, 2008, as amended at 79 FR 66603, Nov. 10, 2014; 87 FR 71463, Nov. 22, 2022]
#### § 501.131 Filing a request for interpretation.

A proceeding to request an interpretation is commenced by the filing of a “Request for Interpretation (FUA).” The request must be in writing and must also comply with the general filing requirements stated in § 501.7. Any claims for confidential treatment for any information contained in the request or other related documents must be made pursuant to § 501.7(a)(11). A request for interpretation should be filed with the Assistant General Counsel for Interpretations and Rulings at the address provided in § 501.11.
§ 150.30 Violations. ( a ) The Commission may obtain an injunction or other court order to prevent a violation of the provisions of— ( 1 ) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
( 2 ) Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; or
( 3 ) A regulation or order issued pursuant to those Acts.
( b ) The Commission may obtain a court order for the payment of a civil penalty imposed under section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act: ( 1 ) For violations of— ( i ) Sections 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 82, 101, 103, 104, 107, or 109 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
( ii ) Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act;
( iii ) Any rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant to the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;
( iv ) Any term, condition, or limitation of any license issued under the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
( 2 ) For any violation for which a license may be revoked under section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
[57 FR 55081, Nov. 24, 1992]
Subpart 1542.7 - Indirect Cost Rates    **Parent topic:** PART 1542 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION1542.703-2 Certificate of indirect costs.       The Head of the Contracting Activity may waive the certification requirement set forth in FAR 42.703-2.1542.705 Final indirect cost rates.       (a) The EPA shall use the Contracting Officer determination procedure for all business units for which it shall be required to negotiate final indirect cost rates.          (b) Contracting officers shall insert the clause at 1552.242-72, Financial Administrative Contracting officers (FACO), in cost-reimbursement contracts when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the cognizant federal agency and a FACO will be assigned.1542.705-70 Solicitation and contract clause.       The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause in 1552.242-70, Indirect Costs, in solicitations and contracts where indirect costs apply, unless contracting with an educational institution where there are approved predetermined final indirect cost rates.
#### McGOEY, Respondent, v. NEW YORK, W. & B. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by .Henry L. McGoey, as administrator, etc., of Harry L. McGoey, deceased, against the New York, Westchester & Boston Railway Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
# Subparts 815.4 - 815.6 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**PART 815 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

*

Complainant, *

*

vs. * CASE NUMBER 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC

*

SEBASTION K. SMITH, JR, and *

COURTNEY D. FLOWERS, *

*

Defendant. *

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW, Everett M. Urech, Counsel of Record for Defendant, Courtney D.

Flowers, and enters his appearance in this cause.

Respectfully submitted this, the 25th day of August, 2006.

s/Everett M. Urech

 

EVERETT M. URECH (ASB-6693-E44E)

URECH & LIVAUDAIS, P.C.

Attorney for Defendant

Post Office Drawer 70

Daleville, Alabama 36322

(334) 598-4455 / 598-2076 fax

daleatty@snowhill.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have this date delivered a copy of the foregoing to

the United States Attorney, Middle District of Alabama, by electronically filing this the 25th day of

August, 2006.

 s/Everett M. Urech 

 

Of Counsel

Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 16 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

RICARDO WRIGHT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv785-MHT

) 

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., )

and U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC.- )

Montgomery Division, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to withdraw (Doc. No.

68) is denied as moot.

DONE, this the 7th day of February, 2008.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 71 Filed 02/07/2008 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

DONNA DORSEY DAVIS, as an )

individual and derivatively )

upon behalf of I-65 )

PROPERTIES, INC. )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv766-MHT

) 

RICHARD M. DORSEY, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED as follows:

(1) The joint motion for extension of time to file

trial briefs (doc. no. 60) is granted.

(2) Trial briefs are due July 16, 2007.

DONE, this the 10th day of July, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 79 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 1
1416.405 Contract clauses.

The BPC, without the power of redelegation, is authorized to approve an award fee clause to use in a

solicitation when a cost-plus-award-fee contract is contemplated.

Parent topic: Subpart 1416.4 - Incentive Contracts
Editorial Note on Part 35
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 35.604 Surveys of patients and human research subjects treated with a remote afterloader unit. ( a ) Before releasing a patient or a human research subject from licensee control, a licensee shall survey the patient or the human research subject and the remote afterloader unit with a portable radiation detection survey instrument to confirm that the source(s) has been removed from the patient or human research subject and returned to the safe shielded position.
( b ) A licensee shall retain a record of these surveys in accordance with § 35.2404.
#### Melvin Sloan et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Pinafore Homes, Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, brought by the purchasers against the seller, the parties cross-appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated July 28, 1969 and made after a non jury triaf, which *inter alia*granted plaintiffs specific performance. Judgment modified, on. the law and the facts, (1) by striking therefrom all the decretal paragrapls, except the second (which dismissed defendant’s counterclaim for damages); (2) ny substituting therefor a provision (a) dismissing all claims of plaintiffs made in their complaint, except a claim for return of the payment made by them under the contract and for the net cost of examination of title without title insurance, recovery upon which plaintiffs are entitled, and (t) severing said excepted claim from the remainder of the action, for further proceedings. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs to defendant. The case is remanded to the trial court to take proofs in ord-jr to determine the amounts to which plaintiffs are entitled upon said excepted _ claim, and for entry of judgment, upon such determination. In April, 1967, ■ plaintiffs and defendant entered into a contract whereunder plaintiffs undertook to purchase from defendant a parcel of land improved with a one-family dwelling to *be*built by defendant. On the adjourned law day in February, -1968, plaintiffs- rejected defendant’s proffer of title on the ground that the building inspector of the Town of Rapaapo had refused to issue a certificate of o'Hcupaney for the property. The proof before Special Term showed that the certifisate was denied because the natural slops behind the dwelling, extant at the time of the making of the contract, created a hazardous condition in the absence of grading of the slope or construction of retaining walls, work for which the contract did not provide. Paragraph 18 of the contract provides, *inter alia,*that *“*if the building shall not be ready for occupancy at the date hereinafter set forth for the closing of title, then the said title closing shall be adjourned to a date to be set by the Seller which date shall not be beyond one month after said dwelling shall be ready for "occupancy ”. A dwelling for which a certificate of occupancy will not issue is a building unready for occupancy. By force of paragraph 18 the absence of such a cer*682tificate is an objection to the passing of title. However, the objection is not one which imposes upon defendant the affirmative duty to secure the certificate by performing work for which the parties did not contract. At most, the contract required defendant to apply for the certificate and deliver it at the closing to the lending institution requesting it. Hence, plaintiffs are limited to a recovery of their deposit and the net cost of title examination as described in paragraph 16 of the contract. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
# Subpart 2003.1 - Safeguards

**Parent topic:**PART 2003 - IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

## 2003.101-3 Agency regulations.

Standards of conduct for Federal employees are published in 5 CFR parts 2635 and 5801. Requirements for financial disclosure are published in 5 CFR part 2634.
ROY BLUNT 

MISSOURI


VICE CHAIR, SENATE REPURLICAN CONFERENCE 

260 RUSSELL SENATE [I FFICE BUILDING


WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2508 

202-224-5721 .

`United ^5tates ^6enate 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510

COMMITTEES: 

APPROPRIATIONS 

ARMED SERVICES 

COMMERCE, SCIENCE 

AND TRANSPORTATION 

RULES AND ADMINISTRATION 

March 1 i;`h , 2014 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building, Mail Code: 1001 A 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator McCarthy, 

I am writing in regard to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA.) recently proposed New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for residential wood stoves, announced on January 3`a, 

2014. 1 have serious concerns this rule will hurt small wood stove manufacturers and could make 

the burning of wood in households prohibitively expensive. 

"fhis rule will primarily fall on the backs of small businesses. Of the wood stove rnanufacturers, 

only a minority in the industry currently produce wood stoves which meet the proposed standard. 

Your agency's own estimates have found the rule will result in an annual inerease ot $127,000 in 

new costs for these businesses. It would also affect the many others that participate in the 

industry such as building supply stores, hardware stores, fire wood suppliers, electric 

cooperatives and insurance companies. 

Most importantly, this rule will directly affect the nearly 12 million U.S. households that use 

wood heaters as a way to keep their homes warm. Many homeowners find the burning of wood 

to heat homes to be a reliable and atfordable source of fuel. 

This Administration has spent considerable effort to promoting renewable sources of energy. 

Because of this I am surprised the EPA appears to be hampering the wood stove industry, which 

provides access to an abundant renewable fuel. 

As the EPA continues to evaluate and receive feedback for its proposed NSPS for residential 

wood stoves, I hope you will keep these concerns in mind and listen to those most directly 

impacted by these regulations. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. 

Sincere ret;ards,

...,	

.^	..	. 

Senato Rey Blunt 

www.facebook.com/senatorblunt	www.blunt.senate.gov	www.twitter.com/royblunt
###### Editorial Note on Part 35

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 35.2310 Records of safety instruction.

A licensee shall maintain a record of safety instructions required by §§ 35.310 and 35.410 and the operational and safety instructions required by § 35.610 for 3 years. The record must include a list of the topics covered, the date of the instruction, the name(s) of the attendee(s), and the name(s) of the individual(s) who provided the instruction.

[83 FR 33111, July 16, 2018]