alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# AGENCY:

 Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

# ACTION:

 Proposed Additions to Procurement List.

# SUMMARY:

 The Committee has received proposals to add to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. 

# COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE:

 February 23, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

                         Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Crystal Gateway 3, Suite 310, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4302.                         Start Printed Page 3416

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Leon A. Wilson, Jr. (703) 603-7740.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions. 

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, all entities of the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. 

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government. 

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government. 

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. 

The following services have been proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed: 

Grounds Maintenance: U.S. Army Reserve Center, 682 Main Street, Keene, New Hampshire. 

*NPA:*                    Wyman Way Cooperative, Inc., Keene, New Hampshire.                

Grounds Maintenance at the following locations: U.S. Army Reserve Center 70 Rochester Hill Road, Rochester, New Hampshire; U.S. Army Reserve Center, 125 Cottage Street, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

*NPA:*                    Goodwill Industries of Northern New England, Portland, Maine.                

Impressions Custom Printed Products Services for General Services Administration: 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York.

*NPA:*                    The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc., Seattle, Washington.                 

Library Services, Building 405, Shaw AFB, South Carolina.

*NPA:*                    The Genesis Center, Sumter, South Carolina.                

Louis R. Bartalot, 

Deputy Director (Operations).

[FR Doc. 00-1487 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
§ 962.15 Sanctions. ( a ) The Presiding Officer may sanction a person, including any party or representative, for ( 1 ) Failing to comply with a lawful order or prescribed procedure;
( 2 ) Failing to prosecute or defend an action; or
( 3 ) Engaging in other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly, or fair conduct of the hearing.
( b ) Any such sanction, including but not limited to those listed in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section, shall reasonably relate to the severity and nature of the failure or misconduct.
( c ) Failure to comply with an order. When a party fails to comply with an order, including an order for taking a deposition, the production of evidence within the party's control, or a request for admission, the Presiding Officer may: ( 1 ) Draw an inference in favor of the requesting party with regard to the information sought;
( 2 ) Prohibit such party from introducing evidence concerning, or otherwise relying upon, testimony relating to the information sought;
( 3 ) Permit the requesting party to introduce secondary evidence concerning the information sought; and
( 4 ) Strike any part of the pleadings or other submissions of the party failing to comply with such request.
( d ) Failure to prosecute or defend. If a party fails to prosecute or defend an action under this part commenced by service of a Complaint, the Presiding Officer may dismiss the action or enter an order of default.
( e ) Failure to make timely filing. The Presiding Officer may refuse to consider any motion or other pleading, report, or response which is not filed in a timely fashion.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 116 (Thursday, June 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 37536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15250]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2735-000]


New England Power Pool; Notice of Filings

June 12, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 6, 2000, New England Power Pool 
Participants Committee tendered for filing revisions to Appendix 5-E of 
Market Rule 5. On June 8, 2000, the New England Power Pool Participants 
Committee tendered for filing corrections to its June 6, 2000 filing in 
the above-referenced docket.
    The NEPOOL Participants Committee states that copies of these 
materials were sent to the New England state governors and regulatory 
commissions and the Participants in the New England Power Pool.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before June 19, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15250 Filed 6-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-U
§ 20.804 Objections and offers of proof. ( a ) Any party objecting to the admission or exclusion of evidence shall concisely state the grounds. A ruling on every objection must appear in the record. No party may raise an objection to the admission or exclusion of evidence on appeal unless he or she raised it before the ALJ.
( b ) Whenever evidence is objected to, the party offering it may make an offer of proof, which must appear in the record.
§ 23.12 Coast Guard identifying insignia. ( a ) The distinctive identification insignia of the Coast Guard consists of a broad diagonal red stripe followed to the right or left by two narrow stripes, first a white stripe and then a blue stripe. The Coast Guard emblem, as described in § 23.10(b), is centered within the confines of the broad red diagonal stripe.
( b ) The Coast Guard identifying insignia is intended primarily for the identification of Coast Guard vessels, aircraft, vehicles, and shore units. It may also be reproduced for use on Coast Guard publications, stationery, jewelry, and similar items.
( c ) Any person who desires to reproduce the Coast Guard identifying insignia for non-Coast Guard use must first obtain approval from the Commandant (CG-092), Attn: Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7103, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7103.
(Sec. 6(b)(1), 80 Stat. 937; 49 U.S.C. 1655(b)(1); 49 CFR 1.46(b))
[CGFR 70-95, 35 FR 12541, Aug. 6, 1970, as amended by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36278, June 25, 2010; USCG-2014-0410, 79 FR 38428, July 7, 2014]
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5251

To provide for Medicare payment for medically unsupervised certified registered nurse anesthetists at the same level as nurse anesthetists who

are medically supervised if the Medicare regulations permit certified

registered nurse anesthetists to provide anesthesia services in hospitals

and ambulatory surgical centers without medical supervision.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 21, 2000

Mr. BURR of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for Medicare payment for medically unsupervised

certified registered nurse anesthetists at the same level

as nurse anesthetists who are medically supervised if

the Medicare regulations permit certified registered nurse

anesthetists to provide anesthesia services in hospitals

and ambulatory surgical centers without medical supervision.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 5251 IH

1 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF INCENTIVE TO INCREASE

2 MEDICARE PAYMENT LEVEL FOR UNSUPER3 VISED CERTIFIED REGISTERED NURSE ANES4 THETISTS.

5 If the Secretary of Health and Human Services

6 changes medicare regulations under title XVIII of the So7 cial Security Act to permit certified registered nurse anes8 thetists to furnish anesthesia services in hospitals and am9 bulatory surgical centers without medical supervision,

10 then, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the level

11 of payment for anesthesia services furnished by a certified

12 registered nurse anesthetist who is not medically super13 vised in such a hospital or center shall be the same as

14 the level of payment for such services furnished by the

15 anesthetist in such a facility when the anesthetist is medi16 cally supervised.

Æ
#### § 954.5 Application.

A publisher may file an application for Periodicals mailing privileges. (See § E213 of the Domestic Mail Manual.) An authorized administrative official of the Postal Service (hereinafter called “the authorized official”) rules upon all applications. If he or she denies the application he or she shall notify the publisher specifying the reasons for his or her denial and attaching a copy of these rules. Before taking action on an application, the authorized official may call upon the publisher for additional information or evidence to support or clarify the application. Failure of the publisher to furnish such information or evidence may be cause for the authorized official to deny the application as incomplete or, on its face, not fulfilling the requirements for entry.

[36 FR 11567, June 16, 1971, as amended at 38 FR 17217, June 29, 1973; 42 FR 30504, June 15, 1977; 62 FR 66998, Dec. 23, 1997]
Exhibit 10.19.1
                                    AMENDMENT
                                     to the
                                ALBERTSON'S, INC.
                      EXECUTIVE DEFERED COMPENSATION TRUST

         This  Amendment is made by  Albertson's,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation
(the "Corporation" or the "Employer").

                                    RECITALS:

     A. The Corporation has established the Albertson's, Inc. Executive Deferred
Compensation Trust, effective February 1, 1989 (the "Trust");

         B. The Corporation,  pursuant to Section 6.01 of the Trust, retains the
right to amend  the Trust at any time  prior to the time  when the  Trust  shall
become irrevocable pursuant to Section 6.02 thereof; and

         C. The Corporation  certifies that the Trust has not become irrevocable
pursuant to Section 6.02 thereof; and

         D. The  Corporation  has  determined  that it is advisable to amend the
Trust in the manner hereinafter set forth.

                                    AMENDMENT

         The  Trust is  hereby  amended,  as of  December  1,  1998,  to add the
following  language  at the end of the  definition  of  "Change in  Control"  in
Article 1:

         Notwithstanding  the foregoing,  the occurrence of any of the foregoing
         events or transactions shall not be deemed to be a Change in Control of
         the  Employer,  if prior to the  consummation  of any of the  foregoing
         events  or  transactions,  the  Continuing  Directors  (as  defined  in
         paragraph 1 of Article TWELFTH of the Employer's  Restated  Certificate
         of Incorporation,  dated May 27, 1998) adopt a resolution to the effect
         that a Change in Control  for the  purposes  of this Trust shall not be
         deemed to have  occurred  upon the  consummation  of any such  event or
         transaction.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  this  instrument  has been duly  executed  by the
undersigned  on this  1st  day of  December,  1998  and has  been  delivered  by
facsimile  to the Trustee (as that term is defined in the Trust) of the Trust on
this 1st day of December, 1998.

                                         ALBERTSON'S, INC.


                                         By: /s/  Thomas R. Saldin
                                             Thomas R. Saldin
                                             Executive Vice President and
                                             General Counsel

<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ALLEN
TELECOM'S JUNE 30, 2000 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          22,388
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,541)
<INVENTORY>                                     91,976
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               201,632
<PP&E>                                         100,724
<DEPRECIATION>                                (60,472)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 445,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,389
<BONDS>                                        129,460
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,026
<OTHER-SE>                                     202,430
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   445,017
<SALES>                                        176,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,396
<CGS>                                        (123,430)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (123,430)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (43,033)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (204)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (5,096)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,837
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,025)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,812
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,300
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,112
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .15<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15<F1>
<FN>
<F1>The Earnings per Share amounts have been calculated in accordance with the
provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, "Earnings
per Share". The above captions for primary and fully diluted include the
basic and diluted EPS amounts, respectively.
</FN>


</TABLE>
### ECONOMIC AND REGULATORY EVALUATION

Regulatory Evaluation Form , Revision 2 .0 Page 1 of 1 7/27/2011 

### AD Title: LP T Stage 2/3 Disks Docket No. FAA

- 2007

- 0037 Directorate Identifier: 2007

- NE
- 41

- AD Costs: Costs per Product (e.g., engine, propeller) Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

h ours Labor cost ( @ $80/hour) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

U.S. Registered Products Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet Corrosion inspection. 1.00 $ 80.00 $0 $ 80.00 2 $ 160 Replacement of the disk 2.0 $ 160.00 $40,000 $ 40,160.00 2 $ 80,320 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0



### Total Cost s of compliance for U

. S

. fleet: $ 80,48 0



### Costs covered under warranty $ Special considerations for Econom ic Analysis : 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES explain below NO DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES explain below NO Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES explain below NO
Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES explain below NO 

### Explanation:
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 12.1
                       AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORPORATION
          COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                              (Dollars in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                  Six Months Ended
                                       June 30,                              Years Ended December 31,
                              -----------------------    -------------------------------------------------------
                                   2005        2004            2004       2003       2002       2001        2000
                              -----------------------    -------------------------------------------------------
<S>                           <C>        <C>             <C>          <C>        <C>        <C>          <C>
Earnings:
Net income                    $     199  $      123      $      234   $    260   $    228   $    277     $   286
Income tax provision                 44          63              75        135        118        140         150
Interest expense                    533         406             863        852        916      1,458       1,459
                              -----------------------    -------------------------------------------------------

Total earnings (a)            $     776  $      592      $    1,172   $  1,247   $  1,262   $  1,875     $ 1,895
                              =======================    =======================================================

Fixed charges -
   interest expense (b)       $     533  $      406      $      863   $    852   $    916   $  1,458     $ 1,459
                              =======================    =======================================================

Ratio of earnings
   to fixed charges (a/b)          1.46        1.46            1.36       1.46       1.38       1.29        1.30
</TABLE>

     Note:  Gross rentals on long-term leases were minimal in amount in each
of the periods shown.
#### WILLIAM R. MARTIN, Respondent, *v.*THE WINDSOR HOTEL COMPANY, Appellant.

*Action by cm attorney for services*— *defense that charges are exorbitant a/nd oppres*sive— *reference not usually ordered in such cases.*

Appeal from an order made at the Special Term, directing a referee to hear, try and determine the issues in the action.

This action is brought to recover for services of the plaintiff, as an attorney and counselor, for a period running from September, 1873, to the close of the year 1874.

The court at General Term said: “We think there is no doubt that the court below had 'power to order the reference, in its discretion. This court is, however, at liberty to review the order, notwithstanding it was discretionary. It is apparent from the affidavits and pleadings that the principal questions on the trial will be, whether' the plaintiff performed the services on the retainer of the ,defendants or of John T. Daly, and the fair value of such services. The issues ought not to be long in the trial, and the account is not complicated nor embarrassing. An expert is not necessary, except upon the question of values, and as to that, the experts are more properly to be the witnesses. There is no fixed rule which prevents the reference of an attorney’s account for services to another attorney, and yet courts should be careful to avoid referring such cases to members of the same profession, where there appears upon the face of the claim good reason to suppose that the client’s resistance, on the ground of exorbitance and oppression, may prove to be well founded. It is not because such referees will not do equal and full justice to the parties, but because of a general impression that, on questions of compensation for legal services, lawyers may not be, and sometimes are not, unprejudiced in determining values. A physician is not chosen as a referee on physician’s accounts, nor are clergymen when a pastor sues for the value of his services, and so, also, as to all other trades and professions; and in the popular mind it is, not without some show of reason, thought invidious that lawyers only should be selected to determine the claims of lawyers. It is better for the profession and for the courts that this should *305not be so; and tbe honor and well-being of the profession requires that lawyers should not be thought to shrink from an examination of their charges by a jury, enlightened by the opinions of other lawyers as witnesses, and by the instructions of the courts.”

*ImIw A. loehmood,*for the appellant. *Jamies Emott,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Davis, P. J.;

Daniels, J., concurred.

Present — -Davis, P. J., Daniels andBbady, JJ.

Order reversed and motion denied, without costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81646-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

KAYLA RICHMOND,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXCLUSIVE JETS, LLC, 

Defendant.

/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RESCHEDULE MEDIATION

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Proposed Motion to 

Change Mediation Location [ECF No. 28], filed on March 9, 2023. The Joint Motion 

[ECF No. 28] is GRANTED. 

The mediation in this case shall be held before Cathleen Scott on June 15, 2023, 9:00 A.M., 

at 2001 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 410, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409. The parties 

are reminded that a report of their mediation must be filed by the parties within five (5) days of 

mediation. A mediation report filed by the mediator is insufficient to comply with this Order. The 

mediation report shall indicate when and where the mediation was conducted; the name of 

the mediator; who attended the mediation; whether the case settled (in full or in part); 

whether it was adjourned; or whether the mediator declared an impasse. No changes to any 

aspect of this Order may be made absent a properly filed motion for such relief and Court 

approval.

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 1 of 2
 CASE NO. 21-81646-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

 

2

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 10th day of March 2023.

 _________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:22-cv-81646-AMC Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 2 of 2