alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: NxGen Process Group, LLC--Costs

File: B-406650.2

Date: May 24, 2012

DECISION

NxGen Process Group, LLC, of Perrineville, New York, requests that we 

recommend that the firm be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest

challenging the Army’s award of a contract to another firm under request for 

proposals (RFP) No. W9124L-LP92039 for appraisal services.

We dismiss the request.

The RFP, issued as a combined synopsis/solicitation under commercial item 

acquisition and simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) subpart 12.6, provided for the award of a contract to perform appraisals

necessary to maintain the Army’s Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Maturity Level 

3 rating, which it obtained from the Software Engineering Institute (SEI).

The agency received proposals from the protester and the awardee. The agency 

evaluated the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable and made award to 

another offeror. On, April 21, 2012, the protester challenged both the finding that its 

proposal was technically unacceptable and the contract award. On May 4, 2012, 

well in advance of the agency report due date of May 23, the agency announced its 

intention to take corrective action by termination the contract for convenience and 

cancelling the solicitation. We dismissed the protest as academic. (B-406650, 

May 7, 2012). 

The protester requests that our Office recommend that the agency reimburse

NxGen the costs of filing and pursuing its protest. Under the Competition in 

Contracting Act of 1984, our Office may recommend that protest costs be 

reimbursed only where we find that an agency’s action violated a procurement 

statute or regulation. 31 U.S.C. § 3554(c)(1) (2010). Our Bid Protest Regulations 

provide that where the contracting agency decides to take corrective action in 

response to a protest, we may recommend that the protester be reimbursed the 
Page 2 B-406650.2 

costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

4 C.F.R. § 21.8(e) (2012). This does not mean that costs should be reimbursed in 

every case in which an agency decides to take corrective action; rather, a protester 

should be reimbursed its costs where an agency unduly delayed its decision to take 

corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest. Griner’s-A-One 

Pipeline Servs., Inc.-Costs, B-255078.3, July 22, 1994, 94-2 CPD ¶ 41 at 5. When 

an agency takes corrective action before the due date set for receipt of the agency 

report, our Office views such action as prompt and will not recommend the 

reimbursement of costs. The Sandi–Sterling Consortium-Costs, B-296246.2, 

Sept. 20, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 173 at 2-3. Here, because the agency corrective 

action, taken in advance of the agency report due date, was not unduly delayed, 

there is no basis to grant the request for reimbursement of protest costs.

The request is dismissed.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Ray Huff, Appellant.

*People*v. *Huff,*134 App. Div. 995, affirmed.

(Submitted December 13, 1910;

decided January 3, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 30, 1909. affirming a judgment in favor of plain*565tiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover a penalty for an alleged violation of the Forest, Fish and Game Law.

*Amasa J. Parker*for appellant.

*Charles P. Ryan*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ. Dissenting: Willard Bartlett, J.
-----Original Message----- 

From: mhl@mhlcpa.com [mailto:mhl@mhlcpa.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:32 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Martin Levine 

PO Box 465 

Ashland, OR 97520
#### Charles Hawley, Respondent, v. The Pittsburg, Titusville and Buffalo Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court and that of the justice reversed. Opinion by

Bradley, J.
#### § 178.33d-1 Compliance.

Required in all details.

[81 FR 3685, Jan. 21, 2016]
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                                BROOKSTONE, INC.
       COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
       ------------------------------------------------------------------
                     (In thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                               Fiscal Year
                                          ----------------------
                                           1996    1995    1994
                                          ------  ------  ------
<S>                                       <C>     <C>     <C>
Net income                                $5,873  $4,617  $5,143
                                          ======  ======  ======
Weighted Average Number of Common         
 Shares Outstanding                        7,745   7,663   7,529
 
Adjustments to Weighted Average Common
 Shares Outstanding:
Common stocks issuable upon exercise of
 outstanding options (1)                     316     310     320
                                          ------  ------  ------
Weighted Average Number of Common
 Shares as Adjusted                        8,061   7,973   7,849
 
Primary and Fully Diluted Earnings per    $ 0.73  $ 0.58  $ 0.66
 share

(1) See note two of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
</TABLE>
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 Health and Human Services

# ACTION:

Announcement of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the 13th meeting of the American Health Information Community Chronic Care Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C.; App.)

# DATES:

February 15, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090 (please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

*http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic/​chroniccare/​.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Workgroup will continue to discuss possible Recommendations to the American Health Information Community, and medical/legal issues and challenges facing the use of remote monitoring and secure messaging technologies.

                    The meeting will be available via Internet access. For additional information, go to                     *http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic/​chroniccare/​cc_​instruct.html*.                

Dated: January 24, 2007.

Judith Sparrow,

Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

[FR Doc. 07-394  Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

     The Registrant, Champion Industries, Inc., a West Virginia corporation,
does business under the trade name "Chapman Printing Company". Its wholly owned
subsidiaries are:

1.   The Chapman Printing Company, Inc., a West Virginia corporation.

2.   Stationers, Inc., a West Virginia corporation (doing business in Ohio as
     "Garrison Brewer").

3.   Bourque Printing, Inc., a Louisiana corporation.

4.   Dallas Printing Company, Inc., a Mississippi corporation.

5.   Carolina Cut Sheets, Inc., a West Virginia corporation.

6.   U.S. Tag & Ticket Company, Inc., a Maryland corporation.

7.   Donihe Graphics, Inc., a Tennessee corporation.

8.   Smith & Butterfield Co., Inc., an Indiana corporation.

9.   The Merten Company, an Ohio corporation.

10.  Interform Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation.

11.  CHMP Leasing, Inc., a West Virginia corporation.

12.  Blue Ridge Printing Co., Inc., a North Carolina corporation.

13.  Rose City Press, a West Virginia corporation

14.  Capitol Business Equipment, Inc., a West Virginia corporation

15.  Thompson's of Morgantown, Inc., a West Virginia corporation

16.  Independent Printing Service, Inc., an Indiana corporation

17.  Diez Business Machines, Inc., a Louisiana corporation



                                  Exhibit 21-p1
-----Original Message----- 

From: enjakenya@yahoo.com [mailto:enjakenya@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 5:17 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Enja Borgmann 

P.O. Box 2291 

Laramie, WY 82073
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37259

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

JOHN ROBERT MOSHER ,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2011 Unpublished Opi nion No. 345

Filed: February 8, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, S tate of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and suspended unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years , for delivery of a controlled substance

, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

John Robert Mosher was found guilty of delivery of a controlled substance . I.C. § 37

- 2732(a)(1)(B) . The district court sentenced Mosher to a unified term of ten years, with a

minimum period of confinement of two years , bu t retained jurisdiction. Following successful

completion of his rider, the district court suspended Moser’s sentence and placed him on

probation

. Mosher filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court

denied. M osher appeals , arguing that his suspended sentence is excessive

. 1

1 Mosher was also found guilty and sentenced for two misdemeanors. However , he does not challenge these judgments of conviction or sentences on appeal.2 Sentencing is a matter for the trial court ’ s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed t he record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Mosher ’s judgment of conviction and suspended sentence are affirmed.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0445 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NE-14-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspect 17.0 $1,445.0

0

$0 $1,445.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

Indicates related information in AD Manual, FAA-IR-M-8040.1C. DOUBLE CLICK to follow the link

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
#### James P. Farrell, *Appellant, v.*Franklin Krum, *Respondent.*

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, reference discharged, costs to abide event. Mem. by

Learned, P. J.
# EUR-Lex - 52003XC1231(06) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 52003XC1231(06)

**Publication of a request under Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 to amend one or more parts of the specification of a name registered under Article 17 or Article 6 of that Regulation **

*
Official Journal C 321 , 31/12/2003 P. 0049 - 0049 *

Publication of a request under Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 to amend one or more parts of the specification of a name registered under Article 17 or Article 6 of that Regulation

(2003/C 321/11)

Publication confers the right to object within the meaning of Article 7 and 12d of the Regulation. Any objections to this request must be forwarded via the competent authority of a mMember State, a WTO member country or a third country recognised under Article 12(3) within six months of the publication date.

The amendment is not a minor one and it must therefore be published under Article 6(2) of the Regulation.

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2081/92

Application to amend a specification: Article 9

1. Registered name: "Baena".

2. Responsible department in the Member State Name: Subdirección General de Sistemas de Calidad Diferenciada, Dirección General de Alimentación - Secretaría General de Agricultura y Alimentación del MAPA - España

Address: Paseo de la Infanta Isabel, 1, E-28014 Madrid

Tel. (34) 913 47 53 61

Fax (34) 913 47 57 70

3. Amendments requested - Specification headings:

[square ] Name

[square ] Description

>PIC FILE= "C_2003321EN.004902.TIF">

Geographical area

[square ] Proof of origin

[square ] Method of production

[square ] Link

[square ] Labelling

[square ] National requirements

- Amendments:

In the paragraph "Production"

Where it reads "The production area of olive oil covered by the Designation of Origin 'Baena' is made up of land located in the municipal districts of Baena, Castro del Río, Luque, Doña Mencia, Nueva Carteya and Zuheros, ...".

Add "Cabra".

4. Date of receipt of the full application: 7 October 2003.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, July 20, 1995 (98), Para 98.31 Adjournment]
[Page 1168]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.98.31  adjournment

  On motion of Mr. ZIMMER, at 12 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m. on Friday, 
July 21 (legislative day of July 20), 1995, the House adjourned.
```
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT 10 (c)



                 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION
                         AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 25, 1996

     THIS AMENDMENT is dated as of March 25, 1999, and is by and between the
SOUTHSIDE BANCSHARES CORP., a Missouri corporation located in St. Louis,
Missouri (the" Company") and THOMAS M. TESCHNER (the "Employee").

RECITALS:

    1.    On April 25, 1996, the Employee and the Company entered into a
          certain Deferred Compensation Agreement, as amended (the
          "Agreement").

    2.    The Company and the Employee agree that it is in the best
          interest of each party to amend the Agreement as provided below to
          reflect that certain three for one stock split, payable in the form
          of a stock dividend of two shares of common stock for each common
          share outstanding on November 15, 1998 to shareholders of record on
          November 2, 1998.

     NOW THEREFORE, the Agreement is amended as follows:

    1.    The first paragraph of Section 2 of the Agreement is amended to
          read as follows.

          "2.  Grant of Awards. For each calendar year beginning on January 1,
          1998 during the term of this Agreement, Employee will be granted (as
          of the last business day of each such year) such number of whole
          and/or fractional shares of Performance Stock, at a deemed value of
          the bid price of the Company's publicly traded common stock on the
          last trading day of the Plan Year in the case of 2.a. and 2.b. and
          Five Dollars and Thirty Three Cents ($5.33) per share in the case of
          2.c., as shall have a value equal to the sum of:"

     IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, Employee has executed this Second Amendment and
the Company has caused its duly authorized officers to execute this Second
Amendment.


               Employee:               Company:

               THOMAS M. TESCHNER      SOUTHSIDE BANCSHARES CORP.


               /s/ Thomas M. Teschner  /s/ Howard F. Etling
               ----------------------  --------------------------
               Thomas M. Teschner
                                       Its Chairman of the Board
                                       --------------------------
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.509 Test requirements for pipelines to operate below 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage. Except for service lines and plastic pipelines, each segment of a pipeline that is to be operated below 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage must be leak tested in accordance with the following: ( a ) The test procedure used must ensure discovery of all potentially hazardous leaks in the segment being tested.
( b ) Each main that is to be operated at less than 1 p.s.i. (6.9 kPa) gage must be tested to at least 10 p.s.i. (69 kPa) gage and each main to be operated at or above 1 p.s.i. (6.9 kPa) gage must be tested to at least 90 p.s.i. (621 kPa) gage.
[35 FR 13257, Aug. 19, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 192-58, 53 FR 1635, Jan. 21, 1988; Amdt. 192-85, 63 FR 37504, July 13, 1998]
-----Original Message----- 

From: rgayleyoung@verzion.net [mailto:rgayleyoung@verzion.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:59 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Rhonda Young 

123 Daniel Shays Hwy. 

Belchertown, MA 01007
Third Amendment to the Employment Agreement




 Exhibit 10.28 
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Third Amendment to the Employment Agreement of Terry L. Persinger (“Third Amendment”) is entered into by and between Terry L. Persinger
(“Employee”) and Mannatech, Incorporated (“Employer”), this 1st day of January, 2006, and amends that certain Employment Agreement entered into by and between the Employee and the Employer, effective November 1, 1999, First
Amendment effective January 1, 2002, and Second Amendment effective June 7, 2004. 
 This Third Amendment shall modify the terms of
the Employment Agreement as follows: 
 ARTICLE I. 
 Paragraph 2, first sentence shall be replaced with the following: 
 “Employee is engaged to serve as
President and Chief Operating Officer at an annual salary of $371,280 (Three Hundred and Seven One Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Dollars) per annum, effective as of January 1, 2006. 
 In all other things except the foregoing Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 Effective this 1st day of January, 2006. 
  

					
		    	Mannatech, Incorporated
			
	 /s/ Terry L. Persinger
	    	By:	 	 /s/ Samuel L. Caster, Chairman

	Terry L. Persinger,	    		 	Samuel L. Caster, Chairman
	President and Chief Operating Officer