alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 200.337 Access to records. ( a ) *Records of non-Federal entities.* The Federal awarding agency, Inspectors General, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the pass-through entity, or any of their authorized representatives, must have the right of access to any documents, papers, or other records of the non-Federal entity which are pertinent to the Federal award, in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts. The right also includes timely and reasonable access to the non-Federal entity's personnel for the purpose of interview and discussion related to such documents.
( b ) *Extraordinary and rare circumstances.* Only under extraordinary and rare circumstances would such access include review of the true name of victims of a crime. Routine monitoring cannot be considered extraordinary and rare circumstances that would necessitate access to this information. When access to the true name of victims of a crime is necessary, appropriate steps to protect this sensitive information must be taken by both the non-Federal entity and the Federal awarding agency. Any such access, other than under a court order or subpoena pursuant to a bona fide confidential investigation, must be approved by the head of the Federal awarding agency or delegate.
( c ) *Expiration of right of access.* The rights of access in this section are not limited to the required retention period but last as long as the records are retained. Federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities must not impose any other access requirements upon non-Federal entities.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 969 

Urging the Secretary of Defense to immediately institute a zero-tolerance 

policy with regard to racial and ethnic extremism in the military. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2006 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama (for himself, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, 

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. CRAMER, 

Ms. WATSON, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

Mr. LANTOS, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mrs. MALONEY, 

Mr. CONYERS, Mr. FATTAH, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. FARR, Mr. 

RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. BISHOP of New 

York, Ms. ESHOO, and Ms. BALDWIN) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Urging the Secretary of Defense to immediately institute 

a zero-tolerance policy with regard to racial and ethnic 

extremism in the military. 

Whereas the United States has the best trained, best 

equipped fighting force in the world; 

Whereas those Armed Forces are a reflection of the rich and 

diverse makeup of the Nation; 

Whereas racial animus and ethnic hatred are contrary to the 

spirit of the United States military; 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 969 IH 

Whereas military investigators report that the number of individuals joining the Armed Forces who are connected 

with organizations that espouse racial or ethnic extremism is increasing; and 

Whereas such individuals pose a major domestic security 

threat to the Nation and undermine the cohesiveness of 

its fighting force: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges 

2 the Secretary of Defense to immediately institute a zero3 tolerance policy with regard to individuals who are mem4 bers of, participate in the activities of, or further the ob5 jectives of organizations that espouse racial or ethnic ex6 tremism. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a**-14(a) AND 15d-14(a)

** **

I, John G. Murray, certifythat:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis Amendment No. 3 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of HospitalityProperties Trust;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 
| Date:  July 25, 2008 | /s/ John G.  Murray                    |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                      | John G.  Murray                        |
|                      | President  and Chief Operating Officer |

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 51266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19631]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8419]

International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) Meeting Notice

Closed Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App Sec.  10(a)(2), the Department of State 
announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) 
to take place on September 19, 2013, at the Department of State, 
Washington, DC.
    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. App Sec.  10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined 
that this Board meeting will be closed to the public because the Board 
will be reviewing and discussing matters properly classified in 
accordance with Executive Order 13526. The purpose of the ISAB is to 
provide the Department with a continuing source of independent advice 
on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, political-military 
affairs, international security and related aspects of public 
diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting will include classified 
discussions related to the Board's studies on current U.S. policy and 
issues regarding arms control, international security, nuclear 
proliferation, and diplomacy.
    For more information, contact Richard W. Hartman II, Executive 
Director of the International Security Advisory Board, U.S. Department 
of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 736-4290.

    Dated: August 7, 2013.
Richard W. Hartman, II,
Executive Director, International Security Advisory Board, U.S. 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-19631 Filed 8-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
```
H. Res. 25 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 5, 2017. 

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is 

hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS: Ms. Sa ́nchez. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2009-1210

Directorate Identifier: 2009NM165AD

D6-38278-CMR --- 5/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. Sw.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/0512008
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-14843) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Inference
Corporation 1993 Stock Option Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-01416 pertaining to the
Amended and Restated Inference Corporation 1993 Stock Option Plan, Fourth
Amended and Restated Inference Corporation Incentive Stock Option Plan and
Inference Corporation Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan and Stock Option
Agreements, and (Form S-8 No. 333-08451) pertaining to the Inference Corporation
Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated February 17, 1997, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Inference Corporation included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 1997.



                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Sacramento, California
April 21, 1997
§ 418.300 Professional and technical services. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 418.100 (a), does not apply in the case of any reasonable payment to a person, other than an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a covered Federal action, if the 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 ) The reporting requirements in § 418.110 (a) and (b) regarding filing a disclosure form by each person, if required, shall not apply with respect to professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan.
( c ) 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.
( d ) 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.
( e ) Persons other than officers or employees of a person requesting or receiving a covered Federal action include consultants and trade associations.
( f ) Only those services expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Quality Trust, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62576

)

Under Contract No. FA2517-19-P-A083 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Lawrence M. Ruiz

 President

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.

 Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney

Jason R. Smith, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

On October 29, 2020, the government filed a motion for partial dismissal. 

Appellant’s notice of appeal of a termination for cause included a “total amount in 

dispute” of approximately $323,000. Appellant had not filed a certified claim for the 

$323,000. On January 12, 2021, appellant responded to the motion agreeing to the 

partial dismissal. Accordingly, that portion of the appeal relating to the $323,000 is

dismissed without prejudice. The government’s termination for cause remains before 

the Board. 

Date: February 18, 2021

CRAIG S. CLARKE

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals
2

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Partial Dismissal of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62576, Appeal of Quality 

Trust, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: February 18, 2021

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
§ 1136.205 Records retention period. ( a ) *OMB guidance.* OMB guidance in: ( 1 ) The lead-in paragraph of 2 CFR 200.333 sets a standard retention period that is generally applicable to recipient records pertinent to grants and cooperative agreements.
( 2 ) 2 CFR 200.333(c) and (f) provide different standard retention periods specifically for records that are related either to real property and equipment acquired with Federal funds or indirect cost rate proposals and cost allocation plans.
( b ) *DoD implementation.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must specify the standard retention periods described in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Award terms and conditions* — ( 1 ) *General.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must use the wording appendix B to this part provides for Section A of OAR Article II.
( 2 ) *Exception.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions may substitute alternative wording for paragraph A.3 of OAR Article II if the awards using those terms and conditions will be renewed quarterly or annually. The alternative wording for awards that will be renewed quarterly or annually would replace the words “final financial report” in paragraph A.3 with “quarterly financial report” or “annual financial report,” respectively.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 897 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 897

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 16, 2018.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
     Committee on Appropriations: Mr. Rutherford.
     Committee on Education and the Workforce: Mr. Banks of Indiana.
     Committee on Homeland Security: Mrs. Lesko.
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Mr. Palmer, to rank 
immediately after Mr. Abraham; and Mrs. Lesko.
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Mr. Gallagher.
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Mast.
     Committee on Ways and Means: Mr. Wenstrup.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Chang Wei YU, Petitioner, v. THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS Respondent.

No. 03-40681-AG.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 4, 2005.

*102Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner.

Lisa Godbey Wood, United States Attorney of the Southern District of Georgia (Kyle G.A. Wallace, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Respondent.

PRESENT: MESKILL, CABRANES, and SACK, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition for review be DENIED.

Petitioner Chang Wei Yu, a citizen and national of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) entered on September 15, 2003, denying his motion to reopen the BIA’s June 10, 2002 order affirming a November 19, 1997 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) on order his deportation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider for abuse of discretion. *See Kaur v. BIA,*413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam). An abuse of discretion may be found where the BIA’s decision “provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” *Id.*at 233-34; *see also Ke Zhen Zhao v. DOJ,*265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir.2001).

Under this deferential standard, we find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yu’s motion to reopen. Based upon the record, the BIA properly found that Yu did not establish a *prima facie*case for the underlying substantive relief sought. The evidence, upon which Yu relied to rebut the denial of his underlying application for relief, actually bolstered the adverse credibility determination. Contrary to Yu’s contention on appeal, the inconsistencies between his application and submissions, regarding the number of his wife’s pregnancies, were not “minor,” but, rather, material to the motion to reopen. *See Kaur,*413 F.3d at 234 (finding that, where a petitioner’s underlying application was denied on the basis of adverse credibility, evidence in support of a motion to reopen is material only where it rebuts that adverse credibility finding). Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the evidence sought to be admitted “was not available *103and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2005); *Kaur,*413 F.3d at 234.

We have considered all of the petitioners’ claims and find them to be without merit. The petition for review is therefore DENIED.
# L_2009145EN.01004901.xml

| 10.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 145/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 145/49

---

Corrigendum to Council Directive 92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 introducing general Community measures for the control of certain animal diseases and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 62 of 15 March 1993
  )

On page 69, Article 2, point 3:

for:

‘3.   vector: any wild vertebrate or invertebrate animal which, by mechanical or biological means, is liable to transmit and spread the agent of the disease in question;’,

read:

‘3.   vector: any vertebrate or invertebrate animal which, by mechanical or biological means, is liable to transmit and spread the agent of the disease in question;’.

---
# Map            Central and southern Iraq.
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION
.. "

# :J"Jt~~~i~~t~Ji;i OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

### 10
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant, Docket No. FAA-2012-0781
vs. Case No. 2011 SO 700298 BRAILLE BATTERY, INC., Judge J. E. Sullivan Respondent.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Respondent, BRAILLE BATTERY, INC., hereby gives notice that W. Campbell McLean,riV, Esq., ofthe law firm ofGrayRobinson, P.A. will be appearing as counsel ofrecord in reference to the above-styled cause ofaction. Copies ofall future pleadings and papers filed in this action should be served upon him at the address listed below.

W. CAMi>BEL1MCLEAN, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 0141402 campbell.mclean@gray-robinson.com GrayRobinson, P.A. 401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone 813-273-5000 Facsimile 813-273-5145 Attorneys for Respondent 

# RECEIVED DEC- 32012 

# HEARING DOCKETCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing has been furnished**~** v1a facsimile transmission and U.S. Mail to the following this on this 

### 2£_ <fay of November, 2012:
Gerald A. Ellis, Esq. Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 Fax: (404) 305-5223
Hon. J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E-11-310) Washington, DC 20590 Fax: (202) 366-7536

\372607\20- # 3588204 vi

2
#### § 1308.45 Final order.

As soon as practicable after the presiding officer has certified the record to the Administrator, the Administrator shall cause to be published in the Federal Register his order in the proceeding, which shall set forth the final rule and the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the rule is based. This order shall specify the date on which it shall take effect, which shall not be less than 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register unless the Administrator finds that conditions of public health or safety necessitate an earlier effective date, in which event the Administrator shall specify in the order his findings as to such conditions.

[38 FR 8254, Mar. 30, 1973. Redesignated at 38 FR 26609, Sept. 24, 1973, and further redesignated at 62 FR 13968, Mar. 24, 1997]
#### WYLLYS CO. v. NIXON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 29, 1915.)

Action by the Wyllys Company against Lewis Nixon.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 944.
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 886 Reported in House (RH)]







                                                 House Calendar No. 201
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 886

                          [Report No. 109-518]

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4890) to amend the 
 Congressional and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide for the 
   expedited consideration of certain proposed rescissions of budget 
                               authority.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 21, 2006

    Mr. Putnam, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4890) to amend the 
 Congressional and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide for the 
   expedited consideration of certain proposed rescissions of budget 
                               authority.

    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the bill (H.R. 4890) to amend the Congressional and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 to provide for the expedited consideration of 
certain proposed rescissions of budget authority. The bill shall be 
considered as read. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on the Budget now printed in the bill, 
modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. All 
points of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Budget; and (2) one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
                                                 House Calendar No. 201

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 886

                          [Report No. 109-518]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4890) to amend the 
 Congressional and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide for the 
   expedited consideration of certain proposed rescissions of budget 
                               authority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 21, 2006

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`