alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 2 of 21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 3 of 21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 4 of 21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 5 of 21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 6 of 21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 7 of 21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 8 of 21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 9 of 21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 10 of

21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 11 of

21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 12 of

21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 13 of

21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 14 of

21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 15 of

21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 16 of

21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 17 of

21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 18 of

21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 19 of

21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 20 of

21
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 196-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2024 Page 21 of

21
#### § 102-118.370 Are my agency's prepayment audited transportation documentation subject to periodic postpayment audit oversight from the GSA Transportation Audits Division?

Yes. All your agency's prepayment audited transportation documents are subject to the GSA Transportation Audits Division postpayment audit oversight. Upon request, GSA Transportation Audits Division will provide a report analyzing your agency's prepayment audit program.
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

 

Harry Kletter and Alan L.Schroering, being the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,respectively, of Industrial Services of America, Inc., hereby certify as of this14th day of August, 2009, that the Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended June 30,2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Industrial Services of America, Inc.

 

 

|  
/s/ Harry Kletter
 
Harry Kletter, Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 
 
/s/ Alan L. Schroering
 
Alan L. Schroering, Chief Financial Officer
  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
§ 102-75.880 When may Executive agencies conduct negotiated sales? Executive agencies may conduct negotiated sales only when— ( a ) The estimated fair market value of the property does not exceed $15,000;
( b ) Bid prices after advertising are unreasonable (for all or part of the property) or were not independently arrived at in open competition;
( c ) The character or condition of the property or unusual circumstances make it impractical to advertise for competitive bids and the fair market value of the property and other satisfactory terms of disposal are obtainable by negotiation;
( d ) The disposals will be to States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, possessions, political subdivisions, or tax-supported agencies therein, and the estimated fair market value of the property and other satisfactory terms of disposal are obtainable by negotiation. Negotiated sales to public bodies can only be conducted if a public benefit, which would not be realized from a competitive sale, will result from the negotiated sale; or
( e ) Negotiation is otherwise authorized by Chapter 5 of Subtitle I of Title 40 of the United States Code or other law, such as disposals of power transmission lines for public or cooperative power projects.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 858

AN ACT

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Code, to

sonnel of the courts of the District of Columbia.prehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to pertion provisions of the District of Columbia Comextend coverage under the whistleblower protec-
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 858

AN ACT

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Code, to extend

coverage under the whistleblower protection provisions

of the District of Columbia Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to personnel of the courts of the District

of Columbia.
2

•HR 858 EH

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 ‘‘District of Columbia

5 Court Employees Whistleblower Protection Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION FOR PERSONNEL

7 OF THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF CO8 LUMBIA.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 17 of

10 title 11, District of Columbia Code, is amended by adding

11 at the end the following new section:

12 ‘‘§ 11–1733. Whistleblower protection for court per13 sonnel

14 ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law, section

15 1503 of the District of Columbia Comprehensive Merit

16 Personnel Act of 1978 (DC Code, sec. 1–616.3) shall

17 apply to court personnel, except that court personnel may

18 institute a civil action pursuant to subsection (c) of such

19 section in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

20 or the United States District Court for the District of Co21 lumbia.’’.

22 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

23 for subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 11, District of Co24 lumbia Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow25 ing new item:

‘‘11–1733. Whistleblower protection for court personnel.’’.
3

•HR 858 EH

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect

3 as if included in the enactment of title XI of the Balanced

4 Budget Act of 1997.

Passed the House of Representatives March 16,

1999.

Attest:

Clerk.
§ 102-76.95 What recordkeeping responsibilities do Federal agencies have? ( a ) The head of each Federal agency must ensure that documentation is maintained on each contract, grant or loan for the design, construction or alteration of a facility and on each lease for a facility subject to the standards in § 102-76.65(a) containing one of the following statements: ( 1 ) The standards have been or will be incorporated in the design, the construction or the alteration.
( 2 ) The grant or loan has been or will be made subject to a requirement that the standards will be incorporated in the design, the construction or the alteration.
( 3 ) The leased facility meets the standards, or has been or will be altered to meet the standards.
( 4 ) The standards have been waived or modified by the Administrator of General Services, and a copy of the waiver or modification is included with the statement.
( b ) If a determination is made that a facility is not subject to the standards in § 102-76.65(a) because the Architectural Barriers Act does not apply to the facility, the head of the Federal agency must ensure that documentation is maintained to justify the determination.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 686

To designate a United States courthouse in Brownsville, Texas, as the

‘‘Garza-Vela United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 10, 1999

Mr. ORTIZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate a United States courthouse in Brownsville,

Texas, as the ‘‘Garza-Vela United States Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States courthouse located at the corner

5 of Seventh Street and East Jackson Street in Brownsville,

6 Texas, shall be designated and known as the ‘‘Garza-Vela

7 United States Courthouse’’.

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

9 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

10 paper, or other record of the United States to the United
2

HR 686 IH

1 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

2 to be a reference to the ‘‘Garza-Vela United States Court3 house’’.

Æ
{"id":26867,"date":"2022-02-04T08:19:57","date_gmt":"2022-02-04T13:19:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/?page_id=26867"},"modified":"2022-02-04T10:26:49","modified_gmt":"2022-02-04T15:26:49","slug":"interagency-adr-working-group-resource-center","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/interagency-adr-working-group-resource-center\/","title":{"rendered":"Interagency ADR Working Group Resource Center"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":true},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":true},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"parent":26530,"menu_order":5,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"side-navigation.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/26867"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26867"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/26867\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/26530"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/adr.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26867"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**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 ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas L. Hefner,President 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 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Partnership.

 
|   | /s/ Thomas  L. Hefner                                         |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas L.  Hefner                                             |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer  of the General Partner |
|   | March 25,  2003                                               |

 

----
§ 101-39.102 Determinations. Each determination to establish a fleet management system will include: ( a ) A description of the proposed operation (including Government-owned vehicles operated by contractors) covering the types of service and the geographic area (including the defined mandatory and optional use service areas) and executive agencies or parts of agencies to be served;
( b ) The name of the executive agency designated to be responsible for operating the fleet management system and the reason for such designation;
( c ) A statement indicating the motor vehicles and related equipment and supplies to be transferred and the amount of reimbursement, if any, to be made; and
( d ) An analytical justification to accompany each determination, including a comparison of estimated costs of the present and proposed methods of operation, an estimate of the savings to be realized through the establishment of the proposed fleet management system, a description of the alternatives considered in making the determination, a statement concerning the availability of privately owned facilities and equipment, and the feasibility and estimated cost (immediate and long-term) of using such facilities and equipment.
[51 FR 11023, Apr. 1, 1986, as amended at 56 FR 59887, Nov. 26, 1991]
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 22, 2011

p0419 

# Order

April 22, 2011

141691 & (65)

CANDICE BINNO, Pers onal Representative of the Estate of RY AN BINNO, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee,

v SC: 141691 COA: 291437 Oakland CC: 2007-086216-NO FREDERICK BINNO, Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant,

and

GIAN BENCIVENGA and JEFFREY DABISH, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 15, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE only that portion of th e judgment of the Court of Appeals holding
that two of the defendants owed the decedent a statutory duty of care under the Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Act, MCL 324.101 et seq . As the trial court correctly concluded, these defe ndants were not “operating” a vessel within the meaning of MCL 324.80103(g), (h), in these circum stances. We AFFIRM the judgment of the Court of Appeals in all other respects.
§ 102-75.80 What are an Executive agency's responsibilities before requesting a transfer of excess real property? Before requesting a transfer of excess real property, an Executive agency must— ( a ) Screen its own property holdings to determine whether the new requirement can be met through improved utilization of existing real property; however, the utilization must be for purposes that are consistent with the highest and best use of the property under consideration;
( b ) Review all real property under its accountability that has been permitted or outleased and terminate the permit or lease for any property, or portion thereof, suitable for the proposed need, if termination is not prohibited by the terms of the permit or lease;
( c ) Utilize property that is or can be made available under § 102-75.80(a) or (b) for the proposed need in lieu of requesting a transfer of excess real property and reassign the property, when appropriate;
( d ) Confirm that the appraised fair market value of the excess real property proposed for transfer will not substantially exceed the probable purchase price of other real property that would be suitable for the intended purpose;
( e ) Limit the size and quantity of excess real property to be transferred to the actual requirements and separate, if possible, other portions of the excess installation for possible disposal to other agencies or to the public; and
( f ) Consider the design, layout, geographic location, age, state of repair, and expected maintenance costs of excess real property proposed for transfer; agencies must be able to demonstrate that the transfer will be more economical over a sustained period of time than the acquisition of a new facility specifically planned for the purpose.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: November 21 , 2014 TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR
- 2013 -0602 FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD SUBJECT: October 2 8 , 2014 Call with the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM)

regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** A conference call was made by EPA to the Public Service Company of New Mexico o n October 2 8 , 2014, to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants , which was proposed on June 2, 2014.
**ATTENDEES** Participant : Jeanette Pablo EPA Participant : Terry Johnson
MEMORANDUM

TO:   Docket for Reid Gardner Generating Station: EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0148

Docket for Navajo Generating Station: EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0009

FROM: Anita Lee

DATE: April 15, 2013

RE: Meeting on April 12, 2013 with Nevada Energy (NV Energy) and Nevada Division of Environmental

Protection (NDEP)  

Participants:

 Starla Lacy (NV Energy)

 Mike Elges and Rob Bamford (NDEP)

 Deborah Jordan, Ann Lyons, and Anita Lee (EPA Region 9)

 David Carson , by phone (US Department of Justice)

Location:

 EPA Region 9 Office in San Francisco, CA

Summary:

 NV Energy provided a summary and update of “NVision”, the proposal to the Nevada State Legislature

that may involve early closure of Reid Gardner Generating Station and sale of its share of Navajo

Generating Station.
#### § 301-50.7 Should I use the online self-service booking tool once ETS is available within my agency?

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 77027, Sept. 20, 2024.

Yes, you should use the online self-service booking tool offered by ETS or your agency's TMS until ETS becomes available to you.

Note to § 301-50.7:

Some extenuating circumstances for which you may not be able to use online self-service booking are (1) when you are attending a conference where the conference sponsor has negotiated with one or more lodging facilities to set aside a specific number of rooms for conference attendees and to ensure that a set aside room is available to you, you are required to book lodging directly with the lodging facility, (2) when your travel is to a remote location and it is not possible to book lodging accommodations through the TMS or ETS, or (3) when such travel arrangements are so complex and circumstance will not allow you to book your travel through an online self-service booking tool.

[FTR Amdt. 2006-04, 71 FR 49375, Aug. 23, 2006]
#### In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus of WALTER JENNINGS.

*Oou/i't of Qemral Sessions, of New Toi’Tc city*— jurisdiction *of*— presumptions.

Certiorari to review proceedings on *habeas corpus,*in wbicb tbe writ was dismissed.

■ Tbe commitment on wbicb tbe relator was held showed, tbat at a Court of General Sessions held in and for tbe city and county of New York, tbe recorder presiding, it was adjudged, on tbe confession of tbe relator, tbat be was guilty of burglary in tbe third degree and that be was duly sentenced. It was claimed by the relator tbat tbe commitment was insufficient, because tbe General Sessions is an inferior court, and all tbe facts necessary to give it jurisdiction of tbe offense stated should have been set out.

Tbe court at General Term said: “This view is erroneous. Tbe confession of tbe relator is itself an admission of tbe jurisdiction of tbe court. If it were not, tbe result must be tbe same, because tbe Court of General Sessions is one of general criminal jurisdiction, having tbe power to bear, determine and punish according to law all crimes and misdemeanors whatsoever, including crimes punishable with death or imprisonment in tbe State prison for life. (3 R. S. [5th ed.], 810.) Tbe crime of burglary in tbe third degree is one of wbicb tbat court can take jurisdiction if committed within tbe county, and all presumptions are in favor of tbe jurisdiction exercised therefore, and of tbe validity of tbe judgment pronounced in reference to it. This presumption arises from its general criminal powers. *(The People ex rel. Tweed*v. *Liscomb,*60 N. Y., 559.) Tbe traverse did not present an issue on tbe subject, and tbe presumption was not rebutted.”

*William F. Howe,*for the relator. *B. K. Phelps,*for tbe respondent.

Opinion by

Brady, J.;

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred in tbe result.

Proceedings affirmed and *cerüorwri*dismissed.
#### Bennie E. SMITH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

CASE NO. 1D16-3606

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 21, 2016.

Bennie E. Smith, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition seeking a belated appeal of the order denying petitioner’s motion to correct illegal sentence dated March 9, 2016, rendition of which was postponed pending rendition of the lower tribunal’s April 13, 2016, order denying petitioner’s timely motion for rehearing in Escambia County Circuit Court case number 2002-CF-5689, is granted. Upon issuance of mandate, a copy of this opinion shall be furnished to the clerk of the lower tribunal for treatment as a notice of appeal.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and WINSOR, JJ, CONCUR, 'i
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2008 - 0288 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2006 - SW - 25 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
§ 109-38.402 Replacement standards. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) Motor vehicles may be replaced without regard to the replacement standards in 41 CFR 102-34 subpart E only after certification by the Office of Management or the Head of the field organization for their respective organizations that a motor vehicle is beyond economical repair due to accident damage or wear caused by abnormal operating conditions.