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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4486

To prohibit any executive branch agency from entering into any service

contract if the services procured under the contract can be performed

at a lower cost by employees of the agency.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 1994

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

Committee on Government Operations

A BILL

To prohibit any executive branch agency from entering into

any service contract if the services procured under the

contract can be performed at a lower cost by employees

of the agency.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON ENTERING CERTAIN SERVICE

4 CONTRACTS.

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—An agency in the executive

6 branch of the Federal Government may not enter into a

7 service contract, unless—

8 (1) the agency has determined—
2

•HR 4486 IH

1 (A) the total cost to the Federal Govern2 ment of procuring services under the contract;

3 and

4 (B) the total cost to the Federal Govern5 ment of having those services performed by em6 ployees of the agency; and

7 (2) the costs determined under paragraph

8 (1)(A) are less than the costs determined under

9 paragraph (1)(B).

10 (b) COST COMPARISON.—The comparison of costs re11 quired by subsection (a)(2) shall be made pursuant to the

12 criteria set forth in Office of Management and Budget

13 Circular A–76, as in effect on the date of the enactment

14 of this Act.

15 (c) APPLICATION.—Subsection (a) shall apply with

16 respect to contracts awarded after the date of enactment

17 of this Act.

18 (d) SERVICE CONTRACT DEFINED.—For the pur19 poses of this section, the term ‘‘service contract’’ has the

20 meaning given such term in part 37 of title 48 of the Code

21 of Federal Regulations.

Æ
# AGENCY:

 Northeast Dairy Compact Commission. 

# ACTION:

 Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

 The Compact Commission will hold its monthly meeting to consider matters relating to administration and enforcement of the price regulation, including the reports and recommendations of the Commission's standing Committees. The Commission will also continue its deliberative meeting, which was convened at the December 1, 1999 and January 5, 2000 Commission meetings, to consider whether to implement an assessment/refund supply management program. 

# DATES:

 The meeting will begin immediately following the public hearing on technical amendments to the Over-order Price Regulation scheduled to commence at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, February 2, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

 The meeting will be held at The Centennial Inn, Armenia White Room, 96 Pleasant Street, Concord, New Hampshire (I-93 Exit 14). 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Kenneth M. Becker, Executive Director, Northeast Dairy Compact Commission, 34 Barre Street, Suite 2, Montpelier, VT 05602. Telephone (802) 229-1941. 

Authority:7 U.S.C. 7256. 

Dated: January 19, 2000.

Kenneth M. Becker, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 00-1711 Filed 1-24-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1650-01-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"18-1348: INNOVATIVE MEMORY SYSTEMS, INC v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"AIsGWmhmKz\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/9-18-2019-18-1348-innovative-memory-systems-inc-v-micron-technology-inc-opinion-nonprecedential-18-1348-opinion-9-18-2019\/\">18-1348: INNOVATIVE MEMORY SYSTEMS, INC v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/9-18-2019-18-1348-innovative-memory-systems-inc-v-micron-technology-inc-opinion-nonprecedential-18-1348-opinion-9-18-2019\/embed\/#?secret=AIsGWmhmKz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-1348: INNOVATIVE MEMORY SYSTEMS, INC v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"AIsGWmhmKz\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: INNOVATIVE MEMORY SYSTEMS, INC v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-1348 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

          - [OJP (OJJDP)-1285] 
          - RIN 1121-ZB90 

# AGENCY:

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Justice. 

# ACTION:

Announcement of Fiscal Year 2000 Missing and Exploited Children's Program Plan. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is issuing its Missing and Exploited Children's Program Final Program Plan for Fiscal Year 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ronald C. Laney, Director, Child Protection Division, 202-616-3637. [This is not a toll-free number.] 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On January 7, 2000, OJJDP published the Fiscal Year 2000 Missing and Exploited Children's Program Proposed Program                           ( print page 41098)                        Plan in the                     **Federal Register**                     at 65 FR 1175 and requested public comments on the plan. No comments were received.                 

                    OJJDP has determined that the Proposed Program Plan does not need to be modified in any way. Accordingly, the Proposed Plan as published in the January 7, 2000,                     **Federal Register**                     is now the Final Missing and Exploited Children's Program Plan for Fiscal Year 2000.                 

Dated: June 27, 2000. 

John J. Wilson, 

Acting Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 00-16711 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1158 Form of payment for regulatory fees. Any annual and multiple year regulatory fee payment must be submitted by online Automatic Clearing House (ACH) payment, online Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover credit card payment, or wire transfer payment denominated in U.S. dollars and drawn on a United States financial institution and made payable to the Federal Communications Commission. No other credit card is acceptable. Any other form of payment for annual and multiple year regulatory fees (e.g., paper checks, cash) will be rejected and sent back to the payor. The Commission will not be responsible for cash, under any circumstances, sent through the mail. ( a ) Payors making wire transfer payments must submit an accompanying FCC Form 159-E via facsimile.
( b ) Multiple payment instruments for a single regulatory fee are not permitted, except that the Commission will accept multiple money orders in payment of any fee where the fee exceeds the maximum amount for a money order established by the issuing entity and the use of multiple money orders is the only practicable means available for payment.
( c ) Payment of multiple standard regulatory fees (including an installment payment) due on the same date, may be made with a single payment instrument and cover mass media, common carrier, international, and cable service fee payments. Each regulatee is solely responsible for accurately accounting for and listing each license or authorization and the number of subscribers, access lines, or other relevant units on the accompanying FCC Form 159 and, if needed, FCC Form 159C and for making full payment for every regulatory fee listed on the accompanying form. Any omission or payment deficiency of a regulatory fee will result in a 25 percent penalty of the amount due and unpaid.
( d ) Any regulatory fee payment (including a regulatory fee payment submitted with an application in the wireless radio service) made by credit card or money order must be submitted with a completed FCC Form 159. Failure to accurately enter the credit card number and date of expiration and the payor's signature in the appropriate blocks on FCC Form 159 will result in rejection of the credit card payment.
[60 FR 34031, June 29, 1995, as amended at 67 FR 46306, July 12, 2002; 80 FR 66816, Oct. 30, 2015]
EXHIBIT 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



        I, Charles Cimitile, certify that:

        1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of SPAR Group, 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 statements made, 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 financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

        4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

        (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

        (c) Presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

        5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I 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 functions):

        (a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

        (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

        6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 30, 2004           /s/ Charles Cimitile
                               --------------------
                               Charles Cimitile
                               Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"18-2041: INCEPT LLC v. HYPERBRANCH MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Bbe43G08zp\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/7-15-2019-18-2041-incept-llc-v-hyperbranch-medical-technology-rule-36-judgment-18-2041-rule_36_judgment-7-15-2019-1\/\">18-2041: INCEPT LLC v. HYPERBRANCH MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/7-15-2019-18-2041-incept-llc-v-hyperbranch-medical-technology-rule-36-judgment-18-2041-rule_36_judgment-7-15-2019-1\/embed\/#?secret=Bbe43G08zp\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-2041: INCEPT LLC v. HYPERBRANCH MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"Bbe43G08zp\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: INCEPT LLC v. HYPERBRANCH MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-2041 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Exhibit 99.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer

under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge, (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended March 30, 2003 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 this 13th day of May, 2003.



|/S/    JOHN C. FANNING                               
|-----------------------------------------------------
|John C. Fanning, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



|/S/    HARRY V. MACCARRONE                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Harry V. Maccarrone, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 698

To repeal the requirement relating to specific statutory authorization for

increases in judicial salaries, to provide for automatic annual increases

for judicial salaries, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 10, 1999

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To repeal the requirement relating to specific statutory authorization for increases in judicial salaries, to provide

for automatic annual increases for judicial salaries, 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. JUDICIAL COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES.

4 (a) REPEAL OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENT RELAT5 ING TO JUDICIAL SALARIES.—Section 140 of the resolu6 tion entitled ‘‘A Joint Resolution making further continu7 ing appropriations for the fiscal year 1982, and for other
2

•HR 698 IH

1 purposes.’’, approved December 15, 1981 (Public Law 97–

2 92; 95 Stat. 1200; 28 U.S.C. 461 note) is repealed.

3 (b) AUTOMATIC ANNUAL INCREASES.—Section

4 461(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read

5 as follows:

6 ‘‘(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), effective on the

7 first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on

8 or after January 1 of each calendar year, each salary rate

9 which is subject to adjustment under this section shall be

10 adjusted by an amount, rounded to the nearest multiple

11 of $100 (or if midway between multiples of $100, to the

12 next higher multiple of $100) equal to the percentage of

13 such salary rate which corresponds to the most recent per14 centage change in the Employment Cost Index (relative

15 to the date described in the next sentence), as determined

16 under section 704(a)(1) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.

17 The appropriate date under this sentence is the first day

18 of the fiscal year that begins in the preceding calendar

19 year.

20 ‘‘(2) In no event shall the percentage adjustment tak21 ing effect under paragraph (1) in any calendar year (be22 fore rounding), in any salary rate, exceed the percentage

23 adjustment taking effect in such calendar year under sec-
3

•HR 698 IH

1 tion 5303 of title 5 in the rates of pay under the General

2 Schedule.’’.

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ

- RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 73040

Agency No. A087

- 054

- 679

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 18, 2017 **

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Juan Ca rlos Sanchez

- Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for adjustment of status . We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial e vidence the

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 73040

agency’s findings of fact. Val a dez

- Munoz v. Holder , 623 F.3d 1304, 1308 (9th Cir.

2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency ’ s denial of adjustment of status,

where Sanchez

- Ramirez ’s testimony established that he made a false claim of

United States citizenship to the California Department of Motor Vehicles to

procure a driver’s license and is therefore inadmissible

. See 8 U.S.C.

§ § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)

, 1255( i ) , 1229a(c)(2)(A) ; Valadez

- Munoz , 623 F.3d at 1308

-

09 ( use of United States birth certificate to erroneously obtain a benefit constitutes

a false claim of United States citizenship ); Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 168

(9th Cir. 2007) (“so long as there is a basis in the evidence for a challenged

inf erence, we do n ot question whether a different inference was available or more

likely.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1527 Initial decision.

A presiding officer (other than the Commission) shall issue an initial decision on the application as soon as possible after completion of proceedings on the application. The decision shall include written findings and conclusions regarding the applicant's eligibility and whether the applicant was a prevailing party or whether the demand by the agency or agencies in the proceeding was substantially in excess of, and was unreasonable when compared with, the decision in the adversary adjudication, and an explanation of the reasons for any difference between the amount requested and the amount awarded. The decision shall also include, if at issue, findings on whether the Commission's position substantially justified, whether the applicant unduly protracted the proceedings, committed a willful violation of law, or otherwise acted in bad faith, or whether special circumstances make an award unjust. If the applicant has sought an award against more than one agency, the decision shall allocate responsibility for payment of any award made among the agencies, and shall explain the reasons for the allocation made. When the Commission is the presiding officer, the Commission may, but is not required to, issue an initial or recommended decision.

[61 FR 39900, July 31, 1996, as amended at 85 FR 63184, Oct. 6, 2020]
No. 11-5360.

#### Ash *v.*Philadelphia Prison System et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 92-1696.

#### Cook *v.*Chrysler Corp. et al.

C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied.