alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
226 So.2d 523

#### SUBURBAN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, Inc. v. WATERWORKS DISTRICT NUMBER THREE OF RAPIDES PARISH et al.

No. 49957.

Oct. 1, 1969.

In re: Surburban Natural Gas Company, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 223 So.2d 417.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.

SUMMERS, Justice,

dissents from the refusal to grant a writ. See Article VI, Section 4 of the Louisiana Constitution; Greater Livingston Water Co. v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm., 246 La. 273, 164 So.2d 325 (1946). Original jurisdiction in these matters is vested in the Louisiana Public Service Commission.

*765BARHAM, J.,

concurs, however, only because the correct forum for original jurisdiction is the Louisiana Public Service Commission.
2014.407-4 Mistakes after award.       The cognizant contracting officer is delegated the authority to make determinations concerning mistakes disclosed after award in accordance with FAR 14.407-4. These determinations will be concurred in by legal counsel prior to notification of the contractor.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2014.4 - Opening of Bids and Award of Contract
§ 140.6 Reports. ( a ) In the event of bodily injury or property damage arising out of or in connection with the possession or use of the radioactive material at the location or in the course of transportation, or in the event any claim is made therefor, written notice containing particulars sufficient to identify the licensee and reasonably obtainable information with respect to the time, place, and circumstances thereof, or to the nature of the claim, shall be furnished by or for the licensee to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, using an appropriate method listed in § 140.5, but in any case as promptly as practicable. The terms the radioactive material, the location, and in the course of transportation as used in this section shall have the meanings defined in the applicable indemnity agreement between the licensee and the Commission.
( b ) The Commission may require any person subject to this part to keep such records and furnish such reports to the Commission as the Commission deems necessary for the administration of the regulations in this part.
[25 FR 2944, Apr. 7, 1960, as amended at 41 FR 16447, Apr. 19, 1976; 42 FR 49, Jan. 3, 1977; 68 FR 58824, Oct. 10, 2003; 73 FR 5726, Jan. 31, 2008; 79 FR 75742, Dec. 19, 2014; 84 FR 65646, Nov. 29, 2019]
42.1503 Procedures.

(a)(1) Contracting officers are responsible for coordination with the technical office, quality

assurance, DCMA counterparts, and other end users of the product or service, as necessary, to

complete their assessment and input past performance information into CPARS. The DLA Acquisition

Procurement Process and Systems Division will track compliance on a monthly basis and report to

the DLA Acquisition Director.

(h)(3) The DLA Acquisition Procurement Process and Systems Division is the CPARS focal point.

Each procuring organization shall designate a FAPIIS point of contact (POC) to input information

provided by the contracting officer into FAPIIS. FAPIIS POCs shall notify the contracting officer

when the record has been submitted. The contracting officer shall document the contract file to

show that the action was reported to FAPIIS. The procuring organization FAPIIS POC shall report

contract terminations to the DLA Acquisition Procurement Process and System Division FAPIIS POC

via email to FAPIISInbox@dla.mil and include the contract number, date and type of termination,

any change, and when data was reported to FAPIIS.

Parent topic: SUBPART 42.15 – CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
EXHIBIT 10.2


 


SEALED AIR CORPORATION


 


POLICY ON RECOUPMENT OF INCENTIVE COMPENSATION


FROM EXECUTIVES IN THE EVENT OF CERTAIN RESTATEMENTS


As amended for performance periods beginning on or after January 1,
2010


 


The
Organization and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has approved
the policy that the Company will, to the extent permitted by governing law,
require reimbursement to the Company of all or a portion of any annual
incentive compensation (whether payable in cash or by an award under the 2005
Contingent Stock Plan) and any Performance Share Units awards under the 2005
Contingent Stock Plan awarded to any executive officer of the Company or to the
leader of any business unit or function of the Company for performance periods
beginning on or after January 1, 2010, where:


 


(a)          the payment or award was
predicated upon the achievement of certain financial results that were
subsequently the subject of a restatement due to error or misconduct
(regardless of the executive officer’s or leader’s responsibility for such
error or misconduct), and


 


(b)         either no payment or award,
or a lower payment or award, would have been made to the officer or leader
based upon the restated results.


 


In
each case, upon a determination to seek recovery by the Board of Directors, the
Company will, to the extent practicable, seek to recover the amount by which
the officer’s or leader’s annual incentive compensation and/or Performance
Share Units award for the relevant period exceeded the lower amount that would
have been paid or awarded (or the entire amount, if nothing would have been
paid or awarded).  This may include the
cancellation of all or a portion of unvested awards or unpaid awards (or a
delay in payment of any such awards while financial results are under review by
the Company).


 


In
addition, any person who is subject to forfeiture of compensation or profits
from the sale of the Company’s securities under Section 304 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 shall reimburse the Company the amount of such
compensation and profits.


 


In
addition to these reimbursements, the Company may take any other actions that
it deems appropriate to remedy any fraud or misconduct related to the
restatement based on a consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances.  These remedies would be in addition to any
actions imposed by law enforcement agencies, regulators, or other authorities.


 


2/18/2010
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 422 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 422

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     September 6, 2005.
    Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the 
Honorable William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States.
    Resolved, That the House tenders its deep sympathy to the members of the 
family of the late Chief Justice in their bereavement.
    Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to the Senate and to 
the Supreme Court and transmit a copy of the same to the family of the late 
Chief Justice.
    Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark 
of respect to the memory of the late Chief Justice.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# Subpart 1953.3 - Illustrations of Forms

**Parent topic:**PART 1953 - FORMS

## 1953.300 Scope of subpart.

This subpart contains illustrations of some forms referenced in this IAAR.   

## 1953.370 The Broadcasting Board of Governors forms.

This section contains illustrations of The Broadcasting Board of Governors forms references in this IAAR.
#### Marianne Gray et al., Doing Business as The Cobbler Shop, Appellant, v City of Buffalo et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioners appeal from the denial without a hearing of their CPLR article 78 motion to annul respondents’ decision revoking their amusement license and denying them a restricted use permit. Petitioners operate a restaurant known as The Cobbler Shop in Buffalo. The' applicable zoning ordinance, adopted in 1977, permits establishment or extension of eating and drinking places only upon issuance of a restricted use permit. Because petitioners’ predecessors had maintained an eating and drinking place at the location for several years prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance, no permit was required for continuation of such use. As *997to any extension of the use, however, such a permit would be required. Petitioners, who wished to add entertainment by topless dancers, obtained an amusement license from the Buffalo Director of Licenses. Subsequently, the director notified them that the license was issued in violation of the zoning law and scheduled a hearing to determine its validity. Petitioners applied for a restricted use permit and after several adjournments of the amusement license hearing and the failure by petitioners to appear at the Buffalo Common Council’s Legislative Committee hearing on the restricted use permit, the Buffalo Common Council voted to deny the restricted use permit and revoke the amusement license. Petitioners argue that a threshold issue, not decided by Special Term, was presented, viz., whether petitioners were required under the ordinance to obtain a restricted use permit in order to add topless dancing. If, as petitioners assert, they had provided live entertainment prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance, the addition of entertainment by dancing girls might be found to be a continuation, not an extension, of the use and the requirement for a restricted use permit thus obviated (see *Incorporated Vil. of Williston Park v 280 Hillside Ave. Rest. Corp.,*55 AD2d 927, mot for lv to app granted in part, dsmd in part 41 NY2d 901). The court decided the motion without a hearing and without reaching the issue. This was error. We reject respondents’ contention that the question was not properly before Special Term. We do not decide the other contentions raised on appeal. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court — art 78.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
§ 455.144 Grant awards for State programs to provide technical assistance, program assistance, and marketing. ( a ) For the purpose of defraying State expenses in the administration of special programs to provide technical assistance and program assistance pursuant to § 455.121, DOE may make a grant award to a State for up to 100 percent of the funds allocated to the State for the grant program cycle, provided that the State meets the requirements described in § 455.121(b). In addition: ( 1 ) Funds for individual technical assistance programs provided by the State pursuant to this section shall not exceed 50 percent of the cost of the technical assistance program;
( 2 ) Grants for program assistance may be made for up to 100 percent of a State's projected program assistance expenses; and
( 3 ) Grants for State technical assistance, and program assistance programs may be awarded by DOE upon approval of an application from the State.
( b ) For the purpose of defraying State expenses in the administration of a marketing program pursuant to § 455.121, DOE may make a grant award to a State for up to 50 percent of the funds allocated to the State for the grant program cycle, provided that the State meets the requirements described in § 455.121(b). In addition: ( 1 ) Grants for marketing may be made for up to 100 percent of a State's projected marketing expenses; and
( 2 ) Such grants may be awarded by DOE upon approval of an application from the State.
( c ) If a State provides a certification under section 455.121(b) and is unable to document that the required non-Federal funding levels for energy conservation measures were achieved substantially for the previous fiscal year for which a similar certification was submitted, DOE may deny the application, accept it after the percentage of allocated funds is reduced in light of past performance, or take other appropriate action.
( d ) In the event that a State, after receiving a grant under this section, cannot or decides not to use all or part of the amount available to it for technical assistance, program assistance, and marketing, these funds may, at the discretion of the State and after appropriate application to and approval of DOE, be used for technical assistance and energy conservation grants to eligible institutions within that State in accordance with this part.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 107 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 107

   Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Veterans' 
             Affairs in the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2017

Mr. Roe of Tennessee (for himself and Mr. Walz) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Veterans' 
             Affairs in the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs (hereafter 
in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $7,958,062 for the One Hundred 
Fifteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $3,979,031 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2017, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2018; and
            (2) not more than $3,979,031 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2018, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2019.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
•.^rMMENTOh 

,,.-. , - , :.'ASPORTATION 

lliilill l :?DIC S :?iiiJit-E T OPERATIONS 

Janui,rvll.20ll 'H M ' 3 A Ih 00 

Mr. Ray LdMDod 

Secretary 

I'nitcd States Dcpattmem ol Tniiisporiatjott 

!2U0 New Jersey Aveimt', Sl{ 

Washington. DC 205% 

Dear Secretary l.M Umd: 

i arn writing to express my support tbnhc recomnicnctiuion suhmiticd by !l;c HaJl t'ounty 

Airpprt Aulhcirily tbrCcniral Nebraska Regional Airport Essential Air Service funding tor direct 

air Jicr^'ice to Dallas. 

Central Nebraska Regional Airport, recipient of the 20(W. 2007. and 2006 Nebraska 

Department of Aeronautics Airport of the Year award, isasi important central Nebraska 

imnspcfrtation hub that serves more than 30 rural communities within a '>0-miie radius, and . 

others beyond, lliese ciiimiiunitie& will heneHt ilircv;lly Imm expanded direct air service options, 

including a direct tl3y;h! to DaHiuv. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sinccreh'. 

Mike .(ohanns ^ 

L'lUted States Senator
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 22, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-15003

Non-Argument Calendar

D. C. Docket No. 05-00380-CR-03-RWS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADOLFO BADILLO,

a.k.a. Guerro,

a.k.a. Sobrino,

a.k.a. La Guera,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

No. 08-15138

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00033-CR-1-RWS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADOLFO PADILLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(June 22, 2009)

Before: DUBINA, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

E. Vaughn Dunnigan, appointed counsel for Adolfo Badillo in these

consolidated direct criminal appeals, has moved to withdraw from further

representation of the appellant, because, in her opinion, the appeals are without

merit. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87

S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record

reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeals is correct.

Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of

merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Badillo’s convictions and

sentences are AFFIRMED.

2
Subpart 2128.3 - Insurance    **Parent topic:** PART 2128 - BONDS AND INSURANCE2128.370 Contract clause.       The contract clause at FAR 52.228-7 is a mandatory clause in FEGLI Program contracts, except paragraph (d) is modified as follows:          (d) The Government's liability under paragraph (c) of this clause is limited to the amount available in the Employee's Life Insurance Fund. Nothing in this contract shall be construed as implying that the Government will make additional funds available later or that Congress will appropriate funds later sufficient to meet deficiencies.
NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 12a0609n.06 No. 10-2465 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT
KEVEN A . FORTH, P laintif f-App ellant,
v. THE KROGER COMPANY, Defendan t-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COU R T FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN
O P I N I O N

BEFORE: BOGG S, NORRIS, an d KETHLE DG E, Circuit Judges. P ER CURIAM . Plaintiff K even For th w as terminated from his job as g roce ry manag er at
a Krog er store in L ake Orion, Michig an. He was fired for theft at the conclusion of a brief i n v es t i g ation into his purcha se of marke d-down meat and elec tronics from the store at which h e worke d. The propriety of For th’s termination is not at issue here
. Instead, For th claims that Krog er defa med him by disseminating the basis of his termination to his former cowor kers and the g ener al public. T h e d i s t rict court g rante d the defe ndant’s motion for summary judgme nt, holding that plaintiff failed to specific ally plead fac ts reg arding Krog er’ s publication of a defa matory statement,
as require d by Michig an law. On appea l, For th claims that he prese nted sufficie nt specific evidenc e to support his claims for def amation and “ compelled se lf-def amation.” We ha ve revie wed the rec ord on appea l and have car efully considere d the arguments made by the parties in their briefs. Having done so, we conclude that the di strict court properly g rante dNo. 10-2465

judgme nt to defe ndant and aff irm based upon the re asoning set forth in its Order filed on October 5, 2010. The judg ment of the district cour t is aff irm ed
.

- 2 -
### SERVED: OCTOBER 26, 2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC


### MOU:N"TAIN AVIATION FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) DMS FAA-2012-0875 

### AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING DATE
TheNotice ofHearing Dates ("Notice"); served September 5, 2012, is hereby amendedto change the·date ofthe hearing to November 27, 2012. In all other respects the Notice is unchanged.

# (!L~C-~ Richard C. Goodwin ·

## pQ U.S. Administrative LawJudge Attachment

- Service List

### . SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk,**AGC~430** Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1

Kent S. Jackson, 

### Respondent's Counsel Jackson 

### & Wade, LLC 2168 Midland Drive Shawnee, KS 66218 TEL: 913-338-1700 FAJ(: 913-338-1755 

### ONE COPY

·KyleE. Lomazow, 

### Complainant's Counsel

Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, WA 98057 · TEL: 425-227-1847 FAJ(: 425-227-1007 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, 

### Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAJ(: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2011-0875 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service wasby U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington. DC 2059l;Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. -2-
120 STAT. 2664 PUBLIC LAW 109–378—DEC. 1, 2006

Public Law 109–378

109th Congress

An Act

To amend the National Trails System Act to update the feasibility and suitability

study originally prepared for the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail and

provide for the inclusion of new trail segments, land components, and campgrounds

associated with that trail, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REVISION OF FEASIBILITY AND SUITABILITY STUDY OF

TRAIL OF TEARS NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL.

Section 5(a)(16) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.

1244(a)(16)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘subsections’’ and

inserting ‘‘sections’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:

‘‘(C) Not later than 6 months after the date of the

enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall

complete the remaining criteria and submit to Congress

a study regarding the feasibility and suitability of designating, as additional components of the Trail of Tears

National Historic Trail, the following routes and land

components by which the Cherokee Nation was removed

to Oklahoma:

‘‘(i) The Benge and Bell routes.

‘‘(ii) The land components of the designated water

routes in Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

‘‘(iii) The routes from the collection forts in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee to the

emigration depots.

‘‘(iv) The related campgrounds located along the

routes and land components described in clauses (i)

through (iii).

‘‘(D) No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out subparagraph (C). The Secretary may

State listing.

State listing.

Deadline.

Conservation.

Dec. 1, 2006

[H.R. 3085]

PUBLIC LAW 109–378—DEC. 1, 2006 120 STAT. 2665

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3085 (S. 1970):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 109–549 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 109–239 accompanying S. 1970 (Comm. on Energy and

Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

July 17, considered and passed House.

Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate, amended.

Nov. 13, House concurred in Senate amendment.

Æ

accept donations for the Trail from private, nonprofit, or

tribal organizations.’’.

Approved December 1, 2006.