alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 418.205 Professional and technical services. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 418.100 (a), does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or an extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement if payment is for professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid, proposal, or application for that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, “professional and technical services” shall be limited to advice and analysis directly applying any professional or technical discipline. For example, drafting of a legal document accompanying a bid or proposal by a lawyer is allowable. Similarly, technical advice provided by an engineer on the performance or operational capability of a piece of equipment rendered directly in the negotiation of a contract is allowable. However, communications with the intent to influence made by a professional (such as a licensed lawyer) or a technical person (such as a licensed accountant) are not allowable under this section unless they provide advice and analysis directly applying their professional or technical expertise and unless the advice or analysis is rendered directly and solely in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action. Thus, for example, communications with the intent to influence made by a lawyer that do not provide legal advice or analysis directly and solely related to the legal aspects of his or her client's proposal, but generally advocate one proposal over another are not allowable under this section because the lawyer is not providing professional legal services. Similarly, communications with the intent to influence made by an engineer providing an engineering analysis prior to the preparation or submission of a bid or proposal are not allowable under this section since the engineer is providing technical services but not directly in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action.
( c ) Requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving a covered Federal award include those required by law or regulation, or reasonably expected to be required by law or regulation, and any other requirements in the actual award documents.
( d ) Only those services expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
[4910-13-Pj

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration "rulUlEl<<;E.') Oun"" "'•• oo~ RIN 2120-AA64

listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory LontinUing airworthiness information (MeAl) originated byan aviation authority

# if another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe '"'l'IAW,,G 

### (-(~ Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300, A300-600. and A310 Airplanes ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM). 14CFR Part 39 

# .:z0

# iD~OLiilS (Docket No. FAA-W99-*****; Directorate Identifier 008-NM-090-AD)
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), D0T. SUMMARY: We propose to adopt anew airworthiness directive (AD) forthe products

condition as: Two cases ofcomplete nose landing gear (NLf) shock absorber bolts failure were re~orted

# to the manufacturer. In bot cases, the crew was unable to retrac~the gear and was forced to anlln Flight Turn Back. In one case, the aircra~t experienced a low speed runfa excursion. The root cause ofthe bo~tsfailure has been identified beil g due to abolt(s) overtorque. The investigation has highlighted that

# th design ofthe NLG shock absorber was not tolerant to the over-torque, ahd an inspection plan has

, , been developed! to track any NLG shock abSOrber-to-mam barrel altadunent bolts status. 

## ** * * 

## * * * * 

### * 

## * The proposed AD would reqUlre actions that are intendetl to address the unsafe conditio described in the MeAl. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed by [insert date 30 days after {<7

date ofpublication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].
§ 111.255 What is the requirement to establish a batch production record? ( a ) You must prepare a batch production record every time you manufacture a batch of a dietary supplement;
( b ) Your batch production record must include complete information relating to the production and control of each batch;
( c ) Your batch production record must accurately follow the appropriate master manufacturing record and you must perform each step in the production of the batch; and
( d ) You must make and keep batch production records in accordance with subpart P of this part.
#### § 111.103 What are the requirements under this subpart F for written procedures?

You must establish and follow written procedures for the responsibilities of the quality control operations, including written procedures for conducting a material review and making a disposition decision, and for approving or rejecting any reprocessing.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 77938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31179]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Intent To Release Certain Properties From Federal 
Obligations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release certain 
airport properties 2.71 acres at the Orlando Executive Airport, 
Orlando, FL from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as 
contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the FAA and the City of 
Orlando, dated September 30, 1955. The release of property will allow 
the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority to dispose of the property for 
other than aeronautical purposes. The property is located adjacent to 
Crystal Lake Drive in Orange County, Florida. The parcel is currently 
designated as non-aeronautical use. The property will be released of 
its federal obligations to swap the land for another City-owned parcel. 
The 1.71 acre parcels to be acquired is also located adjacent to 
Crystal Lake Drive in Orange County, Florida. This parcel is adjacent 
to airport property. The fair market value of the airport-obligated 
parcels has been determined by appraisal to be 1,843,400. The fair 
market value of the non-obligated parcels has been determined by 
appraisal to be 2,155,110.
    Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by 
appointment only, for inspection at the offices of the Greater Orlando 
Aviation Authority at Orlando International Airport, and the FAA 
Airports District Office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the 
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to 
the ``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to 
use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the the offices of the 
Greater Orlando Aviation Authority at Orlando International Airport, 
and the FAA Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, 
Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822. Written comments on the Sponsor's request 
must be delivered or mailed to: Rebecca R. Henry, Program Manager, 
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 
400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca R. Henry, Program Manager, 
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 
400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida on December 2, 2010.
W. Dean Stringer,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region. Revision 
Date 11/22/00
[FR Doc. 2010-31179 Filed 12-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BLACK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 22, 1915.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Allen Black.

PER CURIAM.

Order of the city magistrate, and order and judgment of conviction of the County Court of Kings County, reversed, and proceedings dismissed, upon the ground that no legal abandonment of defendant’s child appeared, or proof that such child was likely to become a public charge. This disposition, however, is without prejudice to any future proceedings under the statute, should the defendant stop providing for his child, and if it should appear that the child was in danger of becoming a public charge.
§ 1.345 What information must nontransporters establish and maintain to identify the nontransporter and transporter immediate subsequent recipients of food? ( a ) If you are a nontransporter, you must establish and maintain the following records for food you release: ( 1 ) The name of the firm, address, telephone number, and, if available, the fax number and e-mail address of the nontransporter immediate subsequent recipient, whether domestic or foreign;
( 2 ) An adequate description of the type of food released, to include brand name and specific variety (e.g., brand x cheddar cheese, not just cheese; or romaine lettuce, not just lettuce);
( 3 ) The date you released the food;
( 4 ) For persons who manufacture, process, or pack food, the lot or code number or other identifier of the food (to the extent this information exists);
( 5 ) The quantity and how the food is packaged (e.g., 6 count bunches, 25 lb carton, 12 oz bottle, 100 gal tank);
( 6 ) The name of the firm, address, telephone number, and, if available, the fax number and e-mail address of the transporter immediate subsequent recipient (the transporter who transported the food from you); and
( b ) Your records must include information reasonably available to you to identify the specific source of each ingredient used to make every lot of finished product.
#### § 3187.10 Rejection for technical deficiency—appeal.

An applicant whose application is rejected because of technical deficiency may appeal such rejection in writing to the Director within 10 business days of electronic or postmarked notice of rejection, whichever is earlier.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6448
WILLIAM RAY VAWTER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN FREEMAN; LYNN PHILLIPS; JUANITA BAKER; HAZEL KEITH; JOHN DOE, various John and/or Jane Does, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-96-121-5-CT-BO) Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Ray Vawter, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Vawter v. Freeman , No. CA96-121-5-CT-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 27, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
38485.

#### SMITH v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY *et al.*

Decided October 10, 1960.

*Richard W. Best, James I. Parker,*for plaintiff in error.

*Gambrell, Harlan, Bussell, Moye & Richardson, James C. Hill, Edward W. Killorin,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

In this compensation case the following facts appeared without dispute: that the claimant for a long time before the alleged accidental injury, for which compensation was sought, suffered from a bad back ailment, totally unrelated to his employment, causing him pain in his back and legs; that prior to March 31, 1959 (the date of the alleged ac*560cident) the claimant requested and obtained a leave of absence from his work because of the pain in his back and legs; that after being out on the leave of absence, he returned and attempted to resume his work but worked only two days; that on the third day he went to bis immediate superior and stated that “My legs and back was hurting me so bad I couldn’t go. I went as far as I could go,” and that his superior asked him if he would like to try to do some less strenuous work and claimant said that he did not feel that he could do it; that his superior gave him permission to< go home; that when the claimant’s attorney sought to go into the merits of the case the hearing director called upon the claimant’s attorney for additional evidence on the question of notice to the employer of the accident and that no additional evidence was offered in the way of testimony by the claimant or by deposition. Under such circumstances it was not error for the director to stop the proceedings and enter an award denying compensation on the ground of lack of notice of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and on appeal to the full board it was not error for the board to deny compensation on the ground of lack of notice and it was not error for the superior court to affirm the award of the board. *Royal Indem. Co. v. Coulter,*213 Ga. 277 (98 S. E. 2d 899); *Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Holloway,*98 Ga. App. 265 (105 S. E. 2d 370); *Fountain v. Georgia Marble Co.,*95 Ga. App. 21 (96 S. E. 2d 656). *Davison-Paxon Co. v. Ford,*88 Ga. App. 890 (78 S. E. 2d 257) is distinguishable on its facts and is not authority for a contrary conclusion.

Although a doctor’s depositions are a part of the file sent to this court where they were not introduced in evidence they will not be considered. *Sizer & Co. v. Melton & Sons,*129 Ga. 143, 149 (58 S. E. 1055); *Bowie v. Findly,*55 Ga. 604.

The court did not err in affirming the award of the full board.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.*
#### Gem Drywall Corporation, Respondent, v. C. Scialdo & Sons, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal from an order of the Supreme -Court at Special Term, entered November 25, 1969 in Saratoga County, which granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff, and from an amended judgment entered thereon February 26, 1970. Upon the original *1064motion for summary judgment, Special Term, in denying the motion, found *inter alia*that defendants had shown a meritorious defense of accord and satisfaction. Subsequently, and as the basis of this appeal, Special Term found that since the defendants had not sought to plead the defense of accord and satisfaction, they did not intend to assert it as a defense. The defendants submitted an affidavit in opposition to the present motion in which it is specifically alleged that a particular representative of the plaintiff had orally admitted to the deponent that the defendants owed nothing to the plaintiff. While the record does not establish the authority of the alleged representative of the plaintiff, an affidavit submitted by that person does establish that he had sufficient authority to participate in negotiating the contract at issue upon this appeal and was the representative of the plaintiff in carrying out the performance of the contract. Upon the present record it does not appear that the defendants would be entitled to the claimed setoff of $7,900, but the alleged admission of no debt creates a question of fact as to whether or not the defendants are presently indebted to the plaintiff. In the ease of *Furlo*v. *Cheek*(20 A D 2d 939, 940) this court stated: *“*summary judgment must he denied to a plaintiff if the motion papers disclose a meritorious defense, although unpleaded ”. Judgment and order reversed, on the law, and motion for summary judgment denied, with costs. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 893 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 893

     Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that any 
 reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act of 1990 should not impose 
 catastrophic losses in funding for States with the highest prevalence 
                  of HIV/AIDS, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2006

Mr. Towns submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that any 
 reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act of 1990 should not impose 
 catastrophic losses in funding for States with the highest prevalence 
                  of HIV/AIDS, and for other purposes.

Whereas full Federal funding should be authorized and appropriated to meet the 
        needs of all persons living with AIDS and those persons living with HIV 
        to ensure full access to a continuum of care;
Whereas good Federal fiscal principles and policies should not create 
        disincentives for States to contribute their own resources to maintain 
        the health, safety, and welfare of their populations; and
Whereas States with the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS should not incur serious 
        losses in funding in any reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act of 
        1990: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) full Federal funding should be authorized and 
        appropriated for all States to continue the battle against the 
        HIV/AIDS epidemic; and
            (2) any reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act of 1990 
        should not impose catastrophic losses in funding for States 
        with the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned officer of The First Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), thiscertification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

Date: August 7, 2009

 

/s/ F. Stephen Ward

F. Stephen Ward

Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

The First Bancorp, Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 18-0487

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

RAYMOND VANDENBOS,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Counsel for Appellant has filed a motion for an extension of time to file the 

opening brief in the referenced matter. 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for extension is GRANTED. Appellant has until 

July 15, 2020, within which to file the opening brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 10 2020

06/10/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0487
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                      25,761,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,063,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,708,000
<PP&E>                                       5,614,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,007,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,375,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,617,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,688,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,375,000
<SALES>                                     17,648,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,094,000
<CGS>                                          788,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,647,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,100,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,820,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   100,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,920,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,920,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.27)
        

</TABLE>