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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5458

To authorize investor-owned electric utilities in California to purchase electric

power directly from the Bonneville Power Administration at specified

rates, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 12, 2000

Mr. BILBRAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To authorize investor-owned electric utilities in California

to purchase electric power directly from the Bonneville

Power Administration at specified rates, and for other

purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Electricity Consumer

5 Relief Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC POWER FROM BPA.

7 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall

8 issue such orders as may be necessary to permit investor-
2

•HR 5458 IH

1 owed electric utilities selling electric power at retail in the

2 State of California that have divested their generation ca3 pacity assets, as mandated by the State of California, to

4 purchase electric power directly from the Bonneville Power

5 Administration at the average rates that wholesale electric

6 power was sold by the Bonneville Power Administration

7 to purchasers in the State of California during June, July,

8 and August of 1999. Such orders shall remain in effect

9 until December 31, 2002.

Æ
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”)on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas L. Hefner,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 
|   | /s/  Thomas  L. Hefner |   |
|--------|----------------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas L.  Hefner                |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer         |
|   |  of the  General Partner    |
|   | March 9,  2004                   |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Matthew A.Cohoat, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the GeneralPartner, and will be retained by Mr. Cohoat and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission upon request.

 

----
<Page>

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY




       KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints Donald E. Steen, Mark A. Kopser and John J. Wellik and each of
them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution
and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his
behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of United
Surgical Partners International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2001, and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K,
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting
unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or without the others, full
power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents
and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact or their substitute or
substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.







                                            /s/ William H. Wilcox
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            William H. Wilcox
§ 601.107 Initial disagreement resolution. ( a ) *Definitions.* ( 1 ) *Days.* Calendar days; however, any time period will run until a day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
( 2 ) *Disagreements.* All disputes, protests, claims, disagreements, or demands of whatsoever nature arising in connection with the acquisition of property and services within the scope of § 601.103 of this chapter, except those: ( i ) That arise pursuant to a contract under the Contract Disputes Act under § 601.109;
( ii ) That concern debarment, suspension, or ineligibility under § 601.113; or
( iii ) That arise out of the nonrenewal of transportation contracts containing other provisions for the review of such decisions.
( 3 ) *Interested parties.* Actual or prospective offerors whose direct economic interests would be affected by the award of, or failure to award, the contract.
( 4 ) *Lodge.* A disagreement is lodged on the date it is received by the contracting officer or the Supplier Disagreement Resolution Official, as appropriate.
( 5 ) *SDR Official.* The Supplier Disagreement Resolution Official, a contracting officer designated by the Postal Service to perform the functions established under § 601.108.
( b ) *Policy.* It is the policy of the Postal Service and in the interest of its suppliers to resolve disagreements by mutual agreement between the supplier and the responsible contracting officer. All disagreements must be lodged with the responsible contracting office in writing via facsimile, e-mail, hand delivery, or U.S. Mail. For disagreements that concern the award of a contract, the disagreement shall be lodged within 10 days of the date the supplier received notification of award or 10 days from the date the supplier received a debriefing, whichever is later. For disagreements that concern alleged improprieties in a solicitation, the contracting officer must receive the disagreement before the time set for the receipt of proposals, unless the disagreement concerns an alleged impropriety that does not exist in the initial solicitation but which is subsequently incorporated into the solicitation, in which event the contracting officer must receive the disagreement no later than the next closing time for the receipt of proposals following the incorporation. The resolution period shall last 10 days from the date when the disagreement is lodged with the contracting officer. During the supplier-contracting officer 10-day resolution period, the responsible contracting officer's management may help to resolve the disagreement. At the conclusion of the 10-day resolution period, the contracting officer must communicate, in writing, to the supplier his or her resolution of the disagreement.
( c ) *Alternative dispute resolution.* Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures may be used to resolve a disagreement. If the use of ADR is agreed upon, the 10-day limitation is suspended. If agreement cannot be reached, the supplier has 10 days to lodge its disagreement with the SDR Official.
[75 FR 1542, Jan. 12, 2010]
[Civ. No. 10701.

First Appellate District, Division Two.

June 29, 1938.]

#### KIMINORI NOZAWA, a Minor, etc., et al., Appellants, v. JOHN GORDON COLE, Respondent.

Jesse A. Mueller and Russell C. Westover, Jr., for Appellants.

Hutchinson & Green and J. Albert Hutchinson for Respondent.

NOURSE, P. J.

In an action for damages for personal injuries, brought by a minor and his guardian, the cause was tried by the court without a jury. Findings of fact were made that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, and that the proximate cause of the injuries was the contributory negligence of the minor plaintiff. In his appeal from the judgment this plaintiff indirectly attacks these *359findings, though conceding that the evidence on both issues is conflicting. He states three questions as those involved in the appeal—whether the conduct of the defendant is negligence “as a matter of law”, whether the conduct of the plaintiff is contributory negligence “as a matter of law”, and whether a minor of seven and one-half years of age can be guilty of contributory negligence “as a matter of law”. Bach of the three questions raises a false issue. We are not concerned with whether any of these circumstances constitute negligence “as a matter of law”. Bach presents a simple question of fact which the trial court determined adversely to appellant. On this appeal our only concern can be whether there is substantial competent evidence supporting the findings.

The respondent’s evidence, supported by competent testimony, is that he was driving his automobile in a careful and prudent manner, and that the appellant suddenly ran from behind a building and into the highway directly within the path of the automobile. On the issue of contributory negligence, the respondent showed that the appellant did not stop at the curb and did not look for approaching traffic. Two other cars were close to respondent’s, running in the same direction. Occupants of these cars confirmed the respondent’s version of the accident in every essential detail. There was scarcely any conflict but, such as there was, related to immaterial details and was resolved in favor of respondent. This leaves nothing to be argued here upon these issues of negligence.

The question of the capacity of youth to appreciate dangers of this character is one left primarily to the trial court. No facts are asserted here to show error on the part of the court. As we have said, it is not a question whether a child of a given age is guilty of contributory negligence “as a matter of law”. It is a question of fact to be determined in the light of all the facts and circumstances of each case. No error is claimed and we find none.

The judgment is affirmed.

■Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.
§ 101-26.701 Purchase of products and services from the blind and other severely handicapped persons. ( a ) Purchases by executive agencies of products produced by workshops of the blind or other severely handicapped persons which are carried in GSA supply distribution facilities must be made as provided in subpart 101-26.3.
( b ) Purchases by all Federal agencies of products and services offered for sale by workshops of the blind or other severely handicapped persons which are not carried in GSA supply distribution facilities, and purchases by executive agencies under exceptions set forth in § 101-26.301, must be made in accordance with the Procurement List published by the Committee for Purchase of Products and Services of the Blind and Other Severely Handicapped. Products and services offered by the blind shall be given precedence over those offered by other severely handicapped persons. (See § 101-26.702(d) for priority accorded to products manufactured by Federal Prison Industries, Inc.)
( c ) Products produced by workshops for the blind or other severely handicapped persons which are available from GSA supply distribution facilities are designated by an asterisk(*) preceding the national stock number in the Procurement List identified in paragraph (b) of this section.
[39 FR 20599, June 12, 1974, as amended at 40 FR 7619, Feb. 21, 1975]
ww

ï .

f

.1:

-#

UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO .22-CR-20340-W ILL1AM S

UNITED STATESOFAM ERICA,

VS.

M A SPHA L K R Y,

D efendant.

/

VERDICT FORM

COUNT ONE

AstoCOUNT ONE ofthelndictment(conspiracy),how doyoufindthe

defendantM ASPHAL KRY ?

Guilty NotGuilty

IfyoufindthedefendantM ASPHAL KRY guiltyastoCOUNT ONE,pleasecheckall

objectsoftheconspiracywhichyouhaveunanimouslyfoundtohavebeenproven:

lmport,expol't,transpol't,sell,receive, Yes / s.

acquireandpurchaseanywildlife,thatis,

long-tailedmacaques(Macaca

Fancicularisj,knowingthatsaidwildlife

wastaken,pojsessed,transported,andsold

inviolationofanylaw,treaty,and

regulationoftheUnitedStates.

M akeandsubmitanyfalserecord,

account,andlabelfor,andanyfalse

identificationof,anywildlife,thatis,longtailedmacaques(MacacaFascicularis),

whichhasbeen,andisintendcdtobe,

imported,exported,transported,sold,

purchased,andreceivedfrom anyforeign

country;andtransportedininterstateor

foreigncommerce.

Yes

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 331 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2024 Page 1 of 2
a . -

'j

Fraudulentlyandknowinglyimportand

bringintotheUnitedStatesany

m erchandiseçontrarytoanylaw and

regulationoftheUnitedStates.

Yes A s.

COUNT TH REE

2.AstoCOUNT THREE ofthelndictment(chargingsmugglingonoraboutAugust

24,20l8),how doyoufindthedefendantM ASPHAL KRY?

Guilty NotGuilty

lfyoufindthedefendantM ASPHAT,KRY guiltyastoCOUNT THREE,pleasecheck

allofthepredicateregulayionsorlawswhichyouhaveunanimouslyfoundtohavebe'en

Pr0Ven:

Title16,UnitedStatesCode,Section

1538(e),whichrequiresanyoneimporting

wildlifetodeclarethewildlifeona

completed,signed,andcertified

DeclaratiopforlmportationorExportation

ofFish& WildlifetFon'n3-177),and

requirethatthesourceofthewildlife,

includinginformationastothecaptivebredorwild-caughtstatusofthewildlife

befurnishedandthattheimporterortheir

agentscertifytheinformationsuppliedis

trueandcomplete.

Title16,UnitedStatesCode,Section

3372((9,whichstatesthatitisunlawfulfor

anypersontömakeorsubmitanyfalse

record,account,orlabelfor,oranyfalse

identificationofanywildlifewhichhas

beenorisintendedtobeimported,

exported,transported,sold,purchased,and

receivedfrom anyforeigncountry;and

tranjportedininterstateorforeign

Com m erce.

Yes uz''x

o

Yes No

Theforegoingconstitptestheunanimousverdictofthejury.

77 o

TE FOREPERSON

Case 1:22-cr-20340-KMW Document 331 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2024 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5491 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5491

      To suspend until June 30, 2003, the duty on certain R-core 
                             transformers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 18, 2000

  Mr. Markey (for himself, Mr. Spence, and Mr. Neal of Massachusetts) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend until June 30, 2003, the duty on certain R-core 
                             transformers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CERTAIN R-CORE TRANSFORMERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.85.04    120 volt/60Hz     Free              No change         No change         On or before 6/
                     electrical                                                              30/2003          ''
                     transformers                                                                              .
                     (the foregoing
                     and parts
                     thereof
                     provided for in
                     subheadings
                     8504.31.40 and
                     8504.90.95),
                     with dimensions
                     not exceeding
                     85mm by 72mm by
                     45.7mm but at
                     least 76mm by
                     50mm by 25mm
                     and each
                     containing a
                     layered and
                     uncut round
                     core with two
                     balanced
                     bobbins, the
                     foregoing rated
                     at less than 40
                     VA but greater
                     than 33.2 VA
                     with a rating
                     number of R25..

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
V

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5480

For the relief of Michael and Julie Schindler.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 17, 2000

Mr. CHABOT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Michael and Julie Schindler.

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

3 SECTION 1. PRIVATE RELIEF.

4 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, from any

5 funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum

6 of $1,500,000 to Michael and Julie Schindler of St. Ber7 nard, Ohio, as compensation for the wrongful death of

8 their son, Airman Basic Micha J. Schindler, on September

9 12, 1999, during a military training activity.

10 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS FEES.

11 The representative of an individual may not receive,

12 for services rendered in connection with a claim under sec-
2

•HR 5480 IH

1 tion 1, more than 10 percent of the amount appropriated

2 under that section. Whoever violates this section shall be

3 fined not more than $5,000.

Æ
§ 83.01 Application (Rule 1). ( a ) These Rules apply to all vessels upon the inland waters of the United States, and to vessels of the United States on the Canadian waters of the Great Lakes to the extent that there is no conflict with Canadian law.
( b ) ( i ) These Rules constitute special rules made by an appropriate authority within the meaning of Rule 1(b) of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, including annexes currently in force for the United States (“International Regulations”).
( ii ) All vessels complying with the construction and equipment requirements of the International Regulations are considered to be in compliance with these Rules.
( c ) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of any special rules made by the Secretary of the Navy with respect to additional station or signal lights and shapes or whistle signals for ships of war and vessels proceeding under convoy, or by the Secretary with respect to additional station or signal lights and shapes for fishing vessels engaged in fishing as a fleet. These additional station or signal lights and shapes or whistle signals shall, so far as possible, be such that they cannot be mistaken for any light, shape, or signal authorized elsewhere under these Rules. Notice of such special rules shall be published in the Federal Register and, after the effective date specified in such notice, they shall have effect as if they were a part of these Rules.
( d ) Traffic separation schemes may be established for the purpose of these Rules. Vessel traffic service regulations may be in effect in certain areas.
( e ) Whenever the Secretary determines that a vessel or class of vessels of special construction or purpose cannot comply fully with the provisions of any of these Rules with respect to the number, position, range, or arc of visibility of lights or shapes, as well as to the disposition and characteristics of sound-signaling appliances, the vessel shall comply with such other provisions in regard to the number, position, range, or arc of visibility of lights or shapes, as well as to the disposition and characteristics of sound-signaling appliances, as the Secretary shall have determined to be the closest possible compliance with these Rules. The Secretary may issue a certificate of alternative compliance for a vessel or class of vessels specifying the closest possible compliance with these Rules. The Secretary of the Navy shall make these determinations and issue certificates of alternative compliance for vessels of the Navy.
( f ) The Secretary may accept a certificate of alternative compliance issued by a contracting party to the International Regulations if it determines that the alternative compliance standards of the contracting party are substantially the same as those of the United States.
( g ) The operator of each self-propelled vessel 12 meters or more in length shall carry, on board and maintain for ready reference, a copy of these Rules.
[USCG-2012-0102, 79 FR 37912, July 2, 2014, as amended by USCG-2022-0071, 87 FR 54390, Sept. 6, 2022]
250 E Street SW

Washington, D.C. 20525

202-606-5000/ 800-942-2677

TO: AmeriCorps Seniors 

FROM: Danielle Melfi, Chief Program Officer

RE: Use of offsets for AmeriCorps Seniors grants

DATE: December 18, 2023

For all AmeriCorps Seniors fiscal year 2024 continuation grants, AmeriCorps will continue to 

allow the use of unexpended funds for carryforward into FY 2024 as outlined in the unexpended 

funds letter issued to grantees; however, AmeriCorps will offset the unexpended funds in the 

amount awarded in FY 2024 only for Senior Companion and Foster Grandparent grants. The 

purpose of this memo is to document a change in practice for offsets in FY 2024 for RSVP 

grants. Note, The FY 2024 offset process does not impact the annual baseline funding levels 

available to AmeriCorps Seniors awards.

Offsets is a process that AmeriCorps selectively utilizes to manage grant funds, using 

information about the amount of funds grantees spent in the previous fiscal year to inform the 

amount of new funds awarded for the next fiscal year. For example, if a grantee has expended 80

percent of its awarded funds at the end of the fiscal year, leaving 20 percent of that fiscal year’s 

funds unexpended, then AmeriCorps may “offset” (i.e., reduce) the amount of funding it 

provides to that grantee in the next fiscal year by 20 percent. AmeriCorps Seniors began utilizing 

offsets in 2020. The purpose of this memo is to document a change in practice for offsets in FY

2024 for RSVP grants.

In FY 2024, AmeriCorps Seniors will continue to utilize offsets for Foster Grandparent and 

Senior Companion grants but will not utilize offsets for RSVP grants. In practical terms, this 

means that AmeriCorps will not reduce the amount of new grant dollars given to an RSVP 

grantee based on the amount of the prior year’s unexpended funds as reported to AmeriCorps’ 

Office of Grants Administration.

This decision has been made to reflect the reality of the pending reduction of AmeriCorps staff,

resulting from the conclusion of American Rescue Plan funding at the end of this fiscal year. 

This reduction of staff will significantly affect the Office of Regional Operations and the Office 

of Grants Administration, which will experience a 20 percent and 50 percent reduction in staff 

respectively, by Monday, Sept. 30, 2024. These staff play a critical role in executing AmeriCorps 

grants management processes, including processing additional amendments for an offsets 

process.

AmeriCorps is also seeking to reduce the administrative burden for both staff and grantees. This 

includes minimizing the number of processed transactions, particularly those (i.e., RSVP) that 

require a higher degree of manual effort and making it easier for grantees to understand the 

amount of funds they will receive. Given that AmeriCorps will continue to allow use of 

unexpended funds for carryforward into FY 2024, RSVP grants will have FY 2023 unexpended 

funds and the full FY 2024 funds to expend in FY 2024. This change also reduces complexity for 

RSVP grantees in making the amount of new funding they will receive more transparent and 

predictable.
#### § 102-118.550 How does a TSP file an administrative claim using EDI or other electronic means?

A TSP should file a claim using GSA Transportation Audits Management System (TAMS) *https://tams.gsa.gov.*

[87 FR 32326, May 31, 2022]