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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4488

To amend the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 to provide

that the duties performed by individuals separating from Government

service in order to receive a voluntary separation incentive payment

may not be performed by any person under contract with the United

States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 1994

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Government Operations and Post Office and Civil Service

A BILL

To amend the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994

to provide that the duties performed by individuals separating from Government service in order to receive a

voluntary separation incentive payment may not be performed by any person under contract with the United

States.

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

•HR 4488 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON PROCUREMENT OF SERVICE

2 CONTRACTS.

3 Section 5(g) of the Federal Workforce Restructuring

4 Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–226; 108 Stat. 117) is

5 amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(g) LIMITATION ON PROCUREMENT OF SERVICE

7 CONTRACTS.—The duties and responsibilities of an indi8 vidual who separates from Government service in order to

9 receive a voluntary separation incentive payment under

10 section 3 may not be performed, in whole or in part, by

11 any person under contract with the United States.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2

Section 1350

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended June 25, 2006 as to which this Certification is an exhibit
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.

Signed August 7, 2006.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Harry V. Maccarrone                             
|Harry V. Maccarrone                                 
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 10.270 Subscribers' right to terminate subscription.

If a CMS provider that has elected to provide WEA Alert Messages in whole or in part thereafter chooses to cease providing such alerts, either in whole or in part, its subscribers may terminate their subscription without penalty or early termination fee.

[78 FR 16807, Mar. 19, 2013]
504 P.2d 498

#### Ronald H. SCHULTZ et ux., Petitioners, v. George A. HINSHAW et al., Respondents.

No. 2 CA-CIV 1343.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Dec. 27, 1972.

Laber, Lovallo & Colarich, Ltd. by Joseph A. Lovallo and Paul W. Colarich, Jr., Tucson, for petitioners.

Paul G. Rees, Jr. and Ronald Mercaldo, Tucson, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The sole question presented here is whether a superior court judge can rule upon matters of appellate jurisdiction.

The procedural chronology is as follows. On November 5, 1971, a lawsuit was filed by respondents Hinshaw and Gibson against the petitioners. The case was tried to the ■court on June 29, 1972, and thereafter on August 29th a “Partial Judgment” was entered. The court made certain express findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the relationship of the respective litigants and referred the matter to a master for accounting purposes.

A subsequent motion for new trial was filed and denied and on November 29, 1972, a timely notice of appeal was filed by petitioners specifying the August 29th judgment. On December 11, 1972, pursuant to the plaintiffs’ motion, the lower court directed that the notice of appeal be stricken. The court further directed that a $20,000 supersedeas bond previously posted, be continued. This special action challenges the lower court’s authority to strike the notice of appeal.

Both parties have argued at length the appealability of the “Partial Judgment”. We need not, however, decide whether this judgment is appealable pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101, subsec. G, as amended. This question will be resolved by us when the appeal is docketed in this court. In the case of Application of Lopez, 97 Ariz. 328, 400 P.2d 325 (1965), our Arizona Supreme Court stated:

> “ . . . it is this Court’s responsibility alone to decide whether the appeal has been properly or timely perfected.” 97 Ariz. at 331, 400 P.2d at 327.

In *Lopez,*supra, just as in the instant case, the superior court interfered with the appeal by directing dismissal. We have held that a trial court does not lose jurisdiction to proceed in a case when an appeal is taken from a non-appealable order. Burke v. Gottfried, 7 Ariz.App. 96, 436 P.2d 488 (1968). This case, however, does not authorize the superior court to dismiss an attempted appeal — it merely authorizes the court to proceed in the matter notwithstanding an attempted appeal. In so holding, we quoted as follows from State ex rel. Adamson v. District Court of Fourth Judicial District In and For Lake County, 128 Mont. 538, 279 P.2d 691 (1955):

> “. . . , only if it may be said in a given case that it is fairly debatable *558whether an order is appealable, is the final decision to be made here. The lower court then should wait for this court to rule. Otherwise it should not stand by.” 7 Ariz.App. at 98, 436 P.2d at 490.

We hold that the lower court erred in aborting petitioners’ appeal since any decision as to appealability is for this court alone. The only decision left to the lower court was as to its own jurisdiction to proceed.

For the foregoing reasons, the order striking the notice of appeal is hereby vacated.
No. 11-9017.

#### Massey *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
#### § 301-73.100 Must we require employees to use the E-Gov Travel Service?

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 77028, Sept. 20, 2024.

Yes, unless you have an exception to the use of the ETS (*see* §§ 301-73.102 and 301-73.104), you must have fully deployed the ETS across your agency and require employees to use the ETS for all temporary duty travel no later than September 30, 2006. Agencies must submit their ETS migration plans and schedules by March 31, 2004 to the eTravel PMO, (*see* § 301-73.101). You must implement the ETS no later than December 31, 2004, and require employees to use the ETS as soon as it becomes available in your agency. The Department of Defense and the Government of the District of Columbia are not subject to this requirement.

Notes to § 301-73.100:

(1) You have the option to use the contracted travel agent service(s) of your choice (through the ETS or other contract vehicles). You have the responsibility for ensuring agency-contracted travel agent services complement and support the ETS in an efficient and cost effective manner.

(2) Award of a task order to a vendor on the ETS Master Contract constitutes ETS implementation. Agency-wide use of the ETS for all travel management processes and travel claim submission constitutes complete migration.

[FTR Amdt. 2003-07, 68 FR 71030, Dec. 22, 2003, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2007-05, 72 FR 61540, Oct. 31, 2007]
Exhibit 10.11
               AMENDMENT TO AUTO LOAN PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT ("Amendment") to the AUTO LOAN PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
("Agreement") dated and effective May 4,2000 by and between E-LOAN, Inc.
("E-LOAN") and TranSouth Financial Corporation ("TranSouth") is entered into and
effective this 27th day of February, 2001:

FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION the receipt and sufficiency of which is
expressly acknowledged by the parties hereto, E-LOAN and TranSouth agree to the
Amendment to Exhibit B and Exhibit D as follows:

EXHIBIT B: PURCHASE CRITERIA
[*]


<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.11



EXHIBIT D: LOAN DOCUMENTS

o        Note and Security Agreement
o        Copy of front and back of Documentary Draft to fund immediately and
         Original Copy in timely fashion.
o        Drivers License(s)
o        Proof of Insurance
o        Title Application
o        Sale Contract (New Vehicle)
o        Bill of Sale or Buyers Order (Used Vehicle)
o        Odometer Statement (Used Vehicle)
o        Warranty Certificate (if applicable)
o        Proof of Income, if requested by TranSouth on Tiers 1 & 2.
         Required for Tiers 3 & 4
o        Proof of Residency for Tiers 3 & 4
o        No References for Tiers 1 and 2, Four Completed References
        (name, address, phone number) for Tiers 3 and 4.

The Agreement is hereby modified and amended to incorporate the terms and
conditions set forth herein, which shall supersede and prevail over any
conflicting terms of the Agreement. Except for this change to Exhibit B and
Exhibit D, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force
and effect.

                                      -2-

<PAGE>





TRANSOUTH FINANCIAL CORPORATION     E-LOAN, INC.

By:      /S/ ILLEGIBLE              By:      /S/ STEPHEN M. HERZ
         --------------------------          -------------------
         Authorized Signature                Authorized Signature

Name:    CHRIS GOODMAN              Name:    STEPHEN M. HERZ
         --------------------------          ------------------

Title:   OPERATIONS VP              Title:   SVP CONSUMER LOANS
         --------------------------          ------------------

                                    By:      /S/ MATT ROBERTS

                                             Authorized Signature

                                    Name:    MATT ROBERTS
                                             ------------------
                                    Title:   CFO
                                             ------------------



                                      -3-
No. 11-5068.

#### Quy Nguyen *v.*Ho.

Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3666-3667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1655]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


University of North Carolina; Notice of Decision on Application 
for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 99-025. Applicant: University of North Carolina, 
Chapel Hill, NC 27599. Instrument: Nose Only Inhalation System. 
Manufacturer: ADG Developments Ltd., United Kingdom.

[[Page 3667]]

Intended Use: See notice at 64 FR 63788, November 22, 1999.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as it is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the 
United States. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides delivery of 
drug aerosols by nose-only exposure to mycobacterium infected guinea 
pigs to evaluate novel therapies for the treatment of tuberculosis in 
animal models. The National Institutes of Health advises in its 
memorandum of December 10, 1999 that (1) this capability is pertinent 
to the applicant's intended purpose and (2) it knows of no domestic 
instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the foreign 
instrument for the applicant's intended use.
    We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent 
scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured 
in the United States.

Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 00-1655 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KALE VORAK,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JOHN SERVATIUS, individually;

CHUCK PRATHER, Individually, AKA

Charles Prather, AKA Charles E. Prather,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-36112

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00335-SMJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 13, 2016** 

Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Kale Vorak appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First

Amendment retaliation claim arising out of the filing of prison grievances. We

FILED

APR 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry,

584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Vorak failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with a

retaliatory motive or whether there was an absence of legitimate correctional goals

for defendants’ conduct. See id. at 1269 (setting forth the elements of a retaliation

claim in the prison context); Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2014)

(“[M]ere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation is not sufficient.”);

Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that it is the

plaintiff’s burden to prove the absence of a legitimate correctional goal and that

courts “should afford appropriate deference and flexibility to prison officials”

when evaluating proffered legitimate goals (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-36112
LAND ROVER EMISSION DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT NO. L10042D1B Causal part name: DIAGNOSTIC MODULE – TANK LEAKAGE (DMTL) Causal part number: WTR500020

Issued: 15 February 2011 Page 1 of 2 Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40. Part 85. Subpart T. §85.1903 - Emissions Defect Information Report
(c)(1) The manufacturers corporate name. Land Rover.
(c)(2) A description of the defect. DMTL replacements are made by dealer technicians investigating M.I.L. illumination incidents.
(c)(3) A description of each class or category of vehicles potentially affected by the defect including make, model, model year, and such other information as may be required to identify these vehicles. See table in section (c)(4)(i) below. (c)(4) For each class or category of vehicle or engine d escribed in response to paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the following shall also be provided: (c)(4)(i) The number of vehicles or engines known or estimated to have the defect and an explanation of the means by which this number was determined.

MODEL YEAR TEST GROUP MODEL SALES CLAIMS / DEFECTS 2007 7LRXT04.2001 Range Rover; Range Rover Sport 11335 134 2007 7LRXT04.4001 Range Rover Sport; LR3 13736 682 2008 8LRXT03.2001 LR2 14672 184 2008 8LRXT04.2001 Range Rover; Range Rover Sport 19898 164 2008 8LRXT04.4001 Range Rover Sport; LR3 21138 667 2009 9LRXT03.2001 LR2 3418 43 2009 9LRXT04.2001 Range Rover; Range Rover Sport 4298 29 2009 9LRXT04.4001 Range Rover Sport; LR3 7072 109 The above data was taken from Land Rover's warranty tracking report dated 2010Q3.
(c)(4)(ii) The address of the plant at which the potentially defective vehicles or engines were produced. Land Rover Solihull Plant, Birmingham, England. Land Rover Halewood Plant, Liverpool, England. (c)(5) An evaluation of the emissions impact of the defect and a description of any driveability problems which a defective vehicle might exhibit. 

### EPA EDIR# 4178 Received: February 15, 2011LAND ROVER EMISSION DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT NO. L10042D1B Causal part name: DIAGNOSTIC MODULE – TANK LEAKAGE (DMTL) Causal part number: WTR500020

Issued: 15 February 2011 Page 2 of 2 A defective DMTL prevents successful completion of the leak check cycle; it cannot cause an evaporative leak. There is no adverse impact on driveability associated with this issue. This issue illuminates the M.I.L.
(c)(6) Available emissions da ta which relate to the defect. There is no adverse impact on emissions caused by the DMTL.
(c)(7) An indication of any an ticipated manufacturer follow-up. This issue is regarded as self campai gning; M.I.L. illumination prompts drivers to return the vehicle to a Land Rover dealer for rectification.
Related emissions defect information report. L10042D0A 

### EPA EDIR# 4178 Received: February 15, 2011
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

Certifications****

 

I, Curtis J. Parker, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Cotelligent, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of Cotelligent, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures presented in the annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether of not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 29, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4468 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4468

      To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reduce certain 
restrictions on the participation of proprietary institutions of higher 
            education in programs of student financial aid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 1994

Mrs. Mink (for herself, Mrs. Unsoeld, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, Mr. Williams, 
   Mr. Klink, Mr. Engel, Mr. Pastor, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Pickett, Mr. 
    Mollohan, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Kildee, Mr. 
Abercrombie, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Cunningham, and Mr. Hilliard) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                               and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reduce certain 
restrictions on the participation of proprietary institutions of higher 
            education in programs of student financial aid.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF LOAN FUNDS IN CALCULATION OF 85/15 LIMITATION.

    Section 481(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1088(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
``For the purposes of clause (6) of this subsection, funds received by 
an institution from the proceeds of loans made to students or parents 
under this title shall be considered to be funds of such students or 
parents, and not to be funds derived from funds provided under this 
title.''.

                                 <all>
```