alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subpart 2436.6 - Architect-Engineer Services

Parent topic: PART 2436 - CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

2436.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.

2436.602-2 Evaluation boards.

(a) Each architect-engineer evaluation board, whether permanent or ad hoc (which may include

preselection boards), shall consist of at least three voting members who are Federal employees from

the appropriate program area or from Federal offices outside the program area as appropriate. One

member of each board shall be appointed chairperson. Non-voting advisors may also be appointed,

including private practitioners in architecture, engineering and related professions. The members of

a permanent board shall be appointed for a period of two years. Appointment shall be made by the

following authorities with copies of appointment memoranda furnished to the appropriate

contracting activity:

(1) Assistant Secretary or equivalent for boards appointed at the Headquarters level;

(2) The cognizant program office head for boards appointed at the field level.

(c) Conflict of interest. Each board member, whether voting or nonvoting, shall be advised of, and

presumed to be familiar with the regulations at 24 CFR part 0, Standards of Conduct, regarding

conflicts of interest. If at any time during the selection process a board member encounters a

situation with one or more of the firms being considered that might be or might appear to be a

conflict of interest, he or she will disqualify him or herself and call it to the attention of the

chairperson for resolution and proper action. The chairperson will refer the matter to legal counsel.

(d) Confidentiality. The evaluation board is to be insulated from outside pressures, to the extent

practical. No person having knowledge of the activities of the board shall divulge information

concerning the deliberations of the board to any other persons not having a need to know such

information.

2436.602-4 Selection authority.

(a) The final selection decision shall be made by the cognizant Primary Organization Head in

headquarters, or field program office head.

2436.602-5 Short selection processes for contracts not to

exceed the small purchase limitation.

The short selection process described in FAR 36.602-5(a) is authorized for use for contracts not

expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.
§ 140.52 Indemnity agreements. ( a ) The Commission will execute and issue agreements of indemnity with each Federal agency subject to this subpart pursuant to the regulations in this part or such other regulations as may be issued by the Commission. Such agreements, as to any licensee, shall be effective on: ( 1 ) The effective date of the license (issued pursuant to part 50 of this chapter) authorizing the licensee to operate the nuclear reactor involved; or
( 2 ) The effective date of the license (issued pursuant to part 70 of this chapter) authorizing the licensee to possess and store special nuclear material at the site of the nuclear reactor for use as fuel in operation of the nuclear reactor after issuance of an operating license for the reactor, whichever is earlier. No such agreement, however, shall be effective prior to September 26, 1957.
( b ) ( 1 ) The general form of indemnity agreement to be entered into with licensees subject to this subpart is contained in § 140.94 appendix D.
( 2 ) The form of indemnity agreement to be entered into by the Commission with any particular licensee under this subpart shall contain such modifications of the form in § 140.94, as are provided for in applicable licenses, regulations or orders of the Commission.
( 3 ) Each licensee who has executed an indemnity agreement under this subpart shall enter into such agreements amending such indemnity agreement as are required by applicable licenses, regulations or orders of the Commission.
[27 FR 2885, Mar. 29, 1962, as amended at 33 FR 15999, Oct. 31, 1968]
Editorial Note on Part 51
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

§ 51.101 Limitations on actions. ( a ) Until a record of decision is issued in connection with a proposed licensing or regulatory action for which an environmental impact statement is required under § 51.20, or until a final finding of no significant impact is issued in connection with a proposed licensing or regulatory action for which an environmental assessment is required under § 51.21: ( 1 ) No action concerning the proposal may be taken by the Commission which would ( i ) have an adverse environmental impact, or
( ii ) limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.
( 2 ) Any action concerning the proposal taken by an applicant which would ( i ) have an adverse environmental impact, or
( ii ) limit the choice of reasonable alternatives may be grounds for denial of the license. In the case of an application covered by §§ 30.32(f), 40.31(f), 50.10(c), 70.21(f), or §§ 72.16 and 72.34 of this chapter, the provisions of this paragraph will be applied in accordance with §§ 30.33(a)(5), 40.32(e), 50.10 (c) and (e), 70.23(a)(7) or § 72.40(b) of this chapter, as appropriate.
( b ) While work on a required program environmental impact statement is in progress, the Commission will not undertake in the interim any major Federal action covered by the program which may significantly affect the quality of the human environment unless such action: ( 1 ) Is justified independently of the program;
( 2 ) Is itself accompanied by an adequate environmental impact statement; and
( 3 ) Will not prejudice the ultimate decision on the program. Absent any satisfactory explanation to the contrary, interim action which tends to determine subsequent development or limit reasonable alternatives, will be considered prejudicial.
( c ) This section does not preclude any applicant for an NRC permit, license, or other form of permission, or amendment to or renewal of an NRC permit, license, or other form of permission, ( 1 ) from developing any plans or designs necessary to support an application; or
( 2 ) after prior notice and consultation with NRC staff, ( i ) from performing any physical work necessary to support an application, or
( ii ) from performing any other physical work relating to the proposed action if the adverse environmental impact of that work is de minimis.
[49 FR 9381, Mar. 12, 1984, as amended at 53 FR 31682, Aug. 19, 1988]
PGI 246.370 Notification of potential safety

issues.

(1) The objective of this requirement is to ensure that the Government receives timely notification of

potential safety defects so that—

(i) Systems and equipment likely affected by the situation can be identified; and

(ii) An appropriate engineering investigation and follow-on actions can be taken to establish and

mitigate risk.

(2) The notification is intended to be neither an admission of nor a release from liability.

(3) Upon notification of a potential safety nonconformance or deficiency—

(i) The procuring contracting officer must—

(A) Advise the affected program office(s) or integrated materiel manager(s); and

(B) Request a point of contact from the affected program office(s) or materiel management

organization to assess the impact of the situation, address technical concerns, and provide

recommendations;

(ii) The administrative contracting officer must—

(A) Confirm that potentially affected program offices, integrated materiel managers, and other

contract management offices that may be recipients of the suspect items are aware of the situation;

and

(B) Identify a point of contact to provide support and technical assistance to the investigative team;

and

(iii) For replenishment parts, the integrated materiel manager must—

(A) Identify any potentially affected programs or equipment; and

(B) Request engineering assistance from affected engineering support activities, as prescribed by—

(1) DLAI 3200.1/PAM 715.13/NAVSUPINST 4120.30A/AFI 21-408/MCO 4000.18, Engineering

Support Instruction for Items Supplied by Defense Logistics Agency;

(2) SECNAVINST 4140.2/AFI 20-106/DA PAM 95-9/DLAI 3200.4/DCMA INST CSI (AV), Management

of Aviation Critical Safety Items;

(3) DA PAM 738-751, Functional Users Manual for the Army Maintenance Management

System—Aviation (TAMMS-A);

(4) AMCOM REG 702-7, Flight Safety Parts/New Source Testing Program Management; or

(5) Internal agency procedures.
Parent topic: PGI 246.3 -CONTRACT CLAUSES
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FATMATA SESAY OSIAS, AKA Fatmata 

Sesay, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, 

erroneously sued as Santa Clara County 

Valley Medical Center, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-15140 

D.C. No. 5:16-cv-03761-EJD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 10, 2018**

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

Fatmata Sesay Osias, AKA Fatmata Sesay, appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging violations of Title 

VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Zetwick 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 17 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15140

v. County of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Osias’s retaliation 

claim based on her March 2012 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

charge because Osias failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to 

whether defendant’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its adverse actions were 

pretextual. See Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276, 

1284 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining burden-shifting framework for Title VII 

retaliation claims and requirements for establishing pretext); see also Little v. 

Windermere Relocation, Inc., 301 F.3d 958, 969 (9th Cir. 2002) (a plaintiff must 

offer “specific, substantial evidence of pretext” (citation omitted)). 

We reject as unsupported by the record Osias’s contentions regarding the 

authenticity of defendant’s evidence and that the district court failed to consider 

her evidence at summary judgment.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear at 70 FR 30897, May 31, 2005; 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012; 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 10.24 Procedures for hearing and review. ( a ) Upon receipt of a timely filed request for a hearing and answer complying with the requirements set forth in § 10.22, the Director, Office of Administration, shall forthwith appoint a Hearing Examiner, and the General Counsel shall forthwith assign an NRC attorney to act as Hearing Counsel. The Director, Office of Administration, shall promptly notify the individual of the identity of the Hearing Examiner and proposed hearing date, which shall be selected with due regard for the convenience of the parties and their representatives.
( b ) Within 72 hours of being notified of the identity of the Hearing Examiner, the individual may request that the Hearing Examiner be disqualified for cause by filing with the Director, Office of Administration, a written statement of the individual's reasons for seeking disqualification. The time for filing the request may be extended by the Director, Office of Administration, for good cause shown. If the Director, Office of Administration, grants the request the procedures of paragraph (a) of this section and this paragraph shall be followed just as though there had been no prior appointment.
( c ) The individual shall have the right to appear at the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, to be represented by counsel or other representative, to introduce documentary or other evidence, and to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, subject to the provisions and limitations set forth in this part.
[47 FR 38676, Sept. 2, 1982, as amended at 51 FR 35999, Oct. 8, 1986; 52 FR 31609, Aug. 21, 1987; 54 FR 53316, Dec. 28, 1989]
# Subpart 1314.2 - Solicitation of Bids

**Parent topic:**PART 1314 - SEALED BIDDING

## 1314.201 Preparation of invitation for bids.

## 1314.201-7 Contract clauses.

The designee authorized to waive the requirement for inclusion of FAR clause 52.214-27 “Price Reduction for Defective Cost and Pricing Data - Modifications - Sealed Bidding” in a contract with a foreign government or agency of that government is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
#### Judy Flores-King et al., Respondents, v Encompass Insurance Company et al., Appellants.

[818 NYS2d 221]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated February 14, 2005, which denied their motion to dismiss the third, seventh, and eighth causes of action seeking compensatory and punitive damages and the claim to recover an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the third, seventh, and eighth causes of actions, and the claim to recover an attorney’s fee, are dismissed.

“A complaint does not state a claim for compensatory or punitive damages by alleging merely that the insurer engaged in a pattern of bad-faith conduct. The complaint must first state a claim of egregious tortious conduct directed at the insured claimant. Only then does an alleged pattern of bad-faith conduct attain legal significance insofar as it demonstrates that a public wrong would be vindicated by the award of punitive damages” *(Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S.,*83 NY2d 603, 615 [1994]; *see New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co.,*87 NY2d 308, 315, 316 [1995]; *Varveris v Hermitage Ins. Co.,*24 AD3d 537, 538 [2005]). The insureds failed to set forth any facts or allegations to support their contention that the defendant insurers’ conduct was egregious or fraudulent, or that it evidenced wanton dishonesty so as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations directed at the public generally. This case is, in effect, simply a private breach of contract dispute between the insurers and their insureds with no greater implications (see *Varveris v Hermitage Ins. Co., supra; Fulton v Allstate Ins. Co.,*14 AD3d 380 [2005]; *Martin v Group Health, 2*AD3d 414 [2003]).

“It is well established that an insured may not recover the expenses incurred in bringing an affirmative action against an insurer to settle its rights under the policy” *(New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., supra*at 324; *see Mighty Midgets v Centennial Ins. Co.,*47 NY2d 12, 21 [1979]). Thus, the plaintiffs’ request to recover an attorney’s fee is improper. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

BRIAN BONNER, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Case No.: 3:06-cv-00715-MHT 

v. ) 

 ) 

PAWN CITY, INC., et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 DEFENDANT CHINA NORTH INDUSTRIES CORPORATION’S

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant China North Industries Corporation (a.k.a. “Norinco”) answers the 

plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint by adopting and incorporating herein by this 

reference the responses and defenses contained in its Answer filed with this Court on 

August 16, 2006. 

 s/ James C. Barton, Jr.____________ 

 James C. Barton, Jr. (BAR014) 

 Bar Number: ASB-0237-B51J 

 Email: jbartonjr@johnstonbarton.com 

 s/ Alan D. Mathis 

 Alan D. Mathis (MAT052) 

 Bar Number: ASB-8922-A59M 

 Email: adm@johnstonbarton.com 

 

 Attorneys for defendant 

 China North Industries Corporation 

JOHNSTON BARTON PROCTOR & ROSE LLP 

Colonial Brookwood Center 

569 Brookwood Village, Suite 901 

Birmingham, Alabama 35209 

(205) 459-9400 

(205) 4589500 (FAX) 

OF COUNSEL 

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 49 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 1 of 2
 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the above and foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court on August 2, 2007, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification 

of such filing to the following: 

 David J. Hodge, Esq. 

PITTMAN, DUTTON, KIRBY & HELLUMS, P.C. 

2001 Park Place North 

1100 Park Place Tower 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

Nick Wooten, Esq. 

WOOTEN & CARLTON, P.C. 

P.O. Drawer 290 

Lafayette, Alabama 36862 

John D. Gleissner, Esq. 

ROGERS & ASSOCIATES 

3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 650 

Birmingham, Alabama 35244 

Todd M. Higey, Esq. 

 ADAMS and REESE LLP 

 2100 3rd Avenue North, Suite 1100 

 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

 

 

 s/ Alan D. Mathis 

 Of Counsel 

W0611758.DOC

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 49 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 2 of 2
PUBLIC LAW 109–311—OCT. 6, 2006 120 STAT. 1729

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3613:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Aug. 2, considered and passed Senate.

Sept. 28, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 109–311

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2951 New

York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the ‘‘Major George Quamo

Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MAJOR GEORGE QUAMO POST OFFICE BUILDING.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park,

New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Major George

Quamo Post Office Building’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘Major George Quamo Post Office Building’’.

Approved October 6, 2006.

Oct. 6, 2006

[S. 3613]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert McCray, Chief Financial Officer of Sionix Corporation, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sionix
Corporation:

         2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly represent in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

                  a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during this period in which the quarterly report is being prepared;

                  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

                  a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

         6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 Date: February 23, 2004

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6840

DONALD JOSEPH CASEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

D. A. GARRAGHTY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-98-299-AM)

Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Joseph Casey, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Joseph Casey seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Casey v. Garraghty, CA-98-299-AM

(E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 1998; May 13, 1998). 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