alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PROGRAM 4521-S Contract Period: March 1, 2017 through February 28, 2018 plus four option years

TITLE: Graphic Design Services

Firefly Creative, Inc.

Graphic Visions

Infinity Direct, Inc.

BASIS Allen Wayne Ltd Argee Design Communicor, Inc. |} Cork Tree Creative, Exhibit Arts
1
TEM DESCRIPTION “ — ly, VA a ates = aukee, WI re Evaro TL we a, KS
AWARD
price} COST | price | COST | price} COST | price| COST | price| COST
T__ |DESIGN, LAYOUT, AND COMPOSITION:
1C) [TAs 202l|_$65.00| $13,130.00! $79.00] $15,958.00 $210.00| $42,420.00] $100.00] $20,200.00) _$57.50| $11,615.00
PLANNING/CONSULTATION:
Per Hour . = 24) _$70,00| $1,680.00] $69.00 _ $1,656.00] $150.00] _ $5,600.00] $100.00] _$2,400.00||_$64.60| $7,315.20]
TOTAL OFFER] 14,810.00 $17,614.00 $46,020.00 $22,600.00 312,930.20
DISCOUNT! 0.00% $0.00] 0.00% $0.00] 0.00% $0.00] 0.00% $0.00] 0.00% $0.00
NET OFFER: $14,810.00 $17,614.00 $46,020.00 $22,600.00 $12,930.20]
PROGRAM 4521-S Contract Period: March 1, 2017 through February 28, 2018 plus four option years
TITLE: Graphic Design Services
Mazique Design My House of

BASIS ; Services Design/Shaila
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF Atlanta, GA Gaithersburg, MD Plymouth, MN Chicago,IL [Abdullah Austin, TX|
AWARD]_UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT
price} COST | price | COST | price | COST | price | COST | price | COST
7, [DESIGN, LAYOUT, AND COMPOSITION:
(@)|Per Hour .. 202) _$50,00| $10,100.00] $53.50 $10,607.00] _$65.00| $11,110.00] $110.00| $22,220.00] $75.00] $15,150.00]
T_|PLANNING/CONSULTATION:
@JPer Hour... Tae 24|| $55.00] $1,320.00] $75.00| $1,800.00] $60.00] $1,440,00|_$80.00/_ $1,920.00] $75.00] $1,600.00
TOTAL OFFER] $11,420.00 $12,607.00] $12,550.00 $24,140.00 316,950.00
DISCOUNT! 0.00% $0.00] 2.00%] $252.14] 1.00%| $125.50], 5.00%) $1,207.00] 0.00% $0.00]
NET OFFER: $17,420.00 $12,354.86] $12,424.50 $22,933.00 $16,950.00

AWARDED



PROGRAM 4521-S Contract Period: March 1, 2017 through February 28, 2018 plus four option years

TITLE: Graphic Design Services

Prepared by: KD/TF

Proofread by: FM or

RED, Inc. Safety Research Corp. ice Inc., d.b.a. Slice . . .
BASIS || Communications of America Works Montgomery Se ane ral VE Graphics, ine.
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF Idaho Falls, 1D Dothan, Al Village, MD 7 90 7
AWARD |" UNIT ONIT UNIT UNIT UNIT
price| CST | price | COST | price | COST | price | COST | price | COST
1,_ DESIGN, LAYOUT, AND COMPOSITION:
(@)|[Per Hour. 202)|_ $55.00! $11,110.00) $55.00] $11,110.00] $94.50] $19,089.00) $85.00| $17,170.00] $72.00] $14,544.00]
Tl |PLANNING/CONSULTATION:
(@|Per Hour. 2all_$55,00| $1,320.00) $65.00| __$1,560.00| $115.00] $2,760.00| $60.00] $1,200.00] $110.00| $2,640.00
TOTAL OFFER} $12,430.00 $12,670.00 $21,849.00 $16,370.00 317,184.00
DISCOUNT! 0.00% $0.00] 0.00% $0.00] 0.00%] $0.00] 0.00% $0.00], 0.00% $0.00]
NET OFFER: $12,430.00 $12,670.00 $21,849.00 $16,370.00 $17,184.00
— , Previous Contractor
en ol cn
ITEM DESCRIPTION OF : "
AWARD | UNIT
price | COST
1._ DESIGN, LAYOUT, AND COMPOSITION:
(@)|Per Hour... 202) $59.85] $12,089.70] $56.00] $11,312.00
PLANNING/GONSULTATION:
Per Hour 2a|, $59.85] $1,436.40| $60.00] _ $1,440.00]
$15,526.10) $12,752.00
3.00% $0.00] 0.00% $0.00]
$13,526.10 $12,752.00
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Wallace WADE, Relator, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections for the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-699.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 12, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          15,562                  15,562
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  415,117                 415,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                    70,581                  70,581
<INVENTORY>                                    188,100                 188,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               884,491                 884,491
<PP&E>                                         708,694                 708,694
<DEPRECIATION>                                 268,889                 268,889
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,638,926               4,638,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,194,159               1,194,159
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     16,318                  16,318
<COMMON>                                        90,000                  90,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,563,887               1,563,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,638,926               4,638,926
<SALES>                                        116,131                 235,169
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               760,724               1,505,839
<CGS>                                           84,248                 170,703
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  512,494               1,019,352
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               126,271                 253,791
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                14,928                  27,307
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,935                 110,238
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,096                  95,151
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,927                  46,888
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,169                  48,263
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,169                  48,263
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.28                    0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28                    0.53


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOSEPH KEENE MOORE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2443 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed April 3, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Wayne Durden, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, KELLY, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### James Randall BALDRIDGE, by his next friend, his father, William J. Baldridge, Appellant, v. Robert HATCHER, d/b/a Hatcher’s Garbage Disposal Service, Appellee.

No. 71-682.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 19, 1972.

Allgood, McPherson & Cobb, New Port Richey, for appellant.

Dan C. Rasmussen of Delzar, Edwards & Martin, Port Richey, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

Here we have the opposite case from Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. deJesus, 266 So.2d 108. There a violation of an ordinary statute was alleged, and the jury was charged that if they found a violation that it constituted negligence per se. *113Here the ground of liability is the employment by Hatcher of Randy Baldridge, age 14, to operate dangerous machinery on a garbage truck, in violation of Fla.Stat. § 450.061(1) (1971),1 F.S.A. While operating the device which compresses garbage into the body of the truck, young Baldridge broke his finger.

The jury was charged, over plaintiff’s objection, that violation of the statute was "evidence of negligence,” substantially in accord with Standard Jury Instruction 4.11, 31 F.S.A., which in *deJesus*was found appropriate to the ordinary case.

But this is no ordinary case. The legislature, in prohibiting the employment of minors to operate dangerous machinery, has imposed strict liability on the employer. In effect, the employment is said to be the act from which the injury follows as the foreseeable consequence. This places causation at an antecedent point, and the minor’s contributory negligence in the operation of the machinery is no defense. The Third Edition of Prosser on Torts makes this point in at least four sections, at pages 202, 435, 436, 468 and 538. Our Supreme Court has made the point clear in Tampa Shipbuilding *&*Engineering Corp. v. Adams.2 There the court upheld as sufficient a complaint whose essential allegations amount to the unlawful employment of a minor under sixteen, who was permitted to work in a foundry and workshop, where he attempted to operate an elevator, from which he either fell or, having become frightened, jumped. Tami-ami Gun Shop v. Klein,3 where the defendant unlawfully sold a firearm, is to like effect. In that case the purchaser and his buddies said he was over eighteen. A similar argument is made here. Randy Baldridge, though not then fifteen, weighed 210 pounds. This must raise precisely the point the legislature had in mind in protecting minors from certain inherently dangerous conduct. If size were the measure of maturity of judgment, King Kong could be President.

Reversed and remanded.

LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.

1

. 450.061 (1) No minor under sixteen years of age, whether such person’s disabilities of nonage have been removed by marriage or otherwise, shall be employed, permitted or suffered to work in the following occupations:

> (a) In connection with power-driven machinery, except power mowers with cutting blades twenty-four inches or less;

2

. 1938, 132 Fla. 419, 181 So. 403.

3

. Fla.1959, 116 So.2d 421. See also Lewis v. City of Miami, 1937, 127 Fla. 426, 173 So. 150.
House Calendar No. 14

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 111

[Report No. 103–25]

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI

tions reported from the Committee on Rules.with respect to consideration of certain resoluMARCH 3, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 14

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 111

[Report No. 103–25]

Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration

of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 3, 1993

Mr. BONIOR, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect

to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the

Committee on Rules.

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule

2 XI for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to

4 the House is waived with respect to resolutions reported

5 on the legislative day of March 4, 1993, providing for con6 sideration of a bill relating to emergency unemployment

7 compensation.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Received on Draft Rule under EO 12866 and EO 13563

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review

1 Below is a summary of interagency comments received during EO 12866 and EO 13563 review of the draft final rule establishing GHG emissions standards and fuel efficiency standards for medium and heavy duty trucks. They are for your consideration and subj ect to further policy

I. Natural Gas Vehicle Credits.

1) Interagency commenters request that the agencies on a stand-alone basis assess impacts under the following three scenarios:

a) Current approach (accounting for CO2 benefits of NGVs) b) Light duty vehicle approach (multipli er of 6.67, the result of 1/0.15) c) New approach (e.g. using the Advanced Technology credits with a 1.5 multiplier on top of the current approach)

2) Interagency commenters also request additional clarity fr om agencies on the claim that different crediting schemes will mean zero incentive. Commenters request clarity on whether that is also true in the Li ght duty vehicle context (where there are different credits) -- or is the point there th at the targets are al so synchronized?

II. Commenter requests additional explanation regarding in-use requirements. Currently, Preamble states that “They will apply throughou t the useful life engine or vehicle, just as existing criteria em ission standards apply throughout the useful life.” Does applying throughout the useful life just mean that genera l testing or modeling must demonstrate that the engines/vehicles will continue to meet the standards throughout their useful life?

III. Baseline Issue regarding AEO 2011. Intera gency commenters recommend that the agencies simply use their own agency es timates of technology costs instead of using the EIA numbers of they are different to calculate costs and benefits against

this alternative baseline.

IV. Low rolling resistance tires. Interagency co mmenters note that many public commenters complained about low rolling resistance tires for some types of vocational trucks. For example, garbage trucks operate on a stop a nd go basis and aren’t likely to benefit from low rolling resistance tires. There are a lot of other issues with LRR tires such as safety, durability, etc. In teragency commenters request th at the agencies provide an explanation for why they continue to belie ve LRR tires are reasonable and why there aren’t’ additional costs and unintentiona l consequences from using them.

V. Optional Full Vehicle standards. Have the agencies considered in cluding a full vehicle joint standards as options for manufacturers to meet? These coul d be established in addition to the separate engine and vehicl e standards contained in the proposal.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT EPPS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

A. DELEON, Correctional Officer; A. SACAY, Correctional Officer,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 16501

D.C. No. 2:17

- cv

- 01306

- JAM

- AC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020 * *

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges

.

California state prisoner Robert Epps appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 action alleging an excessive force claim.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Wilhelm v. Rotman , 680 F.3d

* 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

MAY 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 16501

1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

T he distri ct court properly dismissed Epps’s action as time

- barred because

Epps failed to file his action within the applicable statute of limitations. See J ones

v. Blanas , 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (§ 1983 claims are governed by the

forum state’s statute o f limitations for personal injury claims, including state law

regarding tolling) ; see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 , 352.1( a ) (two

- year statute

of limitations for personal injury claims ; statutory tolling of up to two years due to

imprisonment ) ; Martel l v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Med. Ctr. , 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 329,

334 (1998) (equitable tolling ordinarily does not apply to “successive claims

pursued in the same forum”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Epps’s motion for

leave to amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes

v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

, 656 F.3d 1034 , 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting

forth standard of revi ew and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when

amendment would be futile).

Epps’s motion for leave to amend his complaint (Docket Entry No. 2) is

denied.

AFFIRM ED

.
/* START Telerik.Sitefinity.Resources.Themes.LayoutsBasics.css */
.sf_cols{width:100%;margin:0;padding:0}
.sf_cols:before,.sf_cols:after{content:"";display:table}
.sf_cols:after{clear:both}
.sf_cols{zoom:1}
.sf_colsOut+.sf_colsOut{*margin-left:-1px!important}
.sf_block{display:block}
.sf_1col_1_100{float:none;margin:0}
.sf_2cols_1_25{float:left;width:25%;margin:0}
.sf_2cols_2_75{float:right;width:75%;margin:0}
.sf_2cols_2_75 .sf_2cols_2in_75{margin-left:12px}
.sf_2cols_1_33{float:left;width:33%;margin:0}
.sf_2cols_2_67{float:right;width:67%;margin:0}
.sf_2cols_2_67 .sf_2cols_2in_67{margin-left:12px}
.sf_2cols_1_50{float:left;width:50%;margin:0}
.sf_2cols_2_50{float:right;width:50%;margin:0}
.sf_2cols_2_50 .sf_2cols_2in_50{margin-left:12px}
.sf_2cols_1_67{float:left;width:67%;margin:0}
.sf_2cols_2_33{float:right;width:33%;margin:0}
.sf_2cols_2_33 .sf_2cols_2in_33{margin-left:12px}
.sf_2cols_1_75{float:left;width:75%;margin:0}
.sf_2cols_2_25{float:right;width:25%;margin:0}
.sf_2cols_2_25 .sf_2cols_2in_25{margin-left:12px}
.sf_3cols_1_33{float:left;width:33%;margin:0}
.sf_3cols_2_34{float:left;width:34%;margin:0}
.sf_3cols_3_33{float:left;width:33%;margin:0;_margin-left:-1px!important}
.sf_3cols_2_34 .sf_3cols_2in_34,.sf_3cols_3_33 .sf_3cols_3in_33{margin-left:12px}
.sf_3cols_1_25{float:left;width:25%;margin:0}
.sf_3cols_2_50{float:left;width:50%;margin:0}
.sf_3cols_3_25{float:left;width:25%;margin:0;_margin-left:-1px!important}
.sf_3cols_2_50 .sf_3cols_2in_50,.sf_3cols_3_25 .sf_3cols_3in_25{margin-left:12px}
.sf_4cols_1_25,.sf_4cols_2_25,.sf_4cols_3_25,.sf_4cols_4_25{float:left;width:25%;margin:0}
.sf_4cols_4_25{_margin-left:-1px!important}
.sf_4cols_2_25 .sf_4cols_2in_25,.sf_4cols_3_25 .sf_4cols_3in_25,.sf_4cols_4_25 .sf_4cols_4in_25{margin-left:12px}
.sf_5cols_1_20,.sf_5cols_2_20,.sf_5cols_3_20,.sf_5cols_4_20,.sf_5cols_5_20{float:left;width:20%;margin:0}
.sf_5cols_5_20{_margin-left:-1px!important}
.sf_5cols_2_20 .sf_5cols_2in_20,.sf_5cols_3_20 .sf_5cols_3in_20,.sf_5cols_4_20 .sf_5cols_4in_20,.sf_5cols_5_20 .sf_5cols_5in_20{margin-left:12px}
/* END Telerik.Sitefinity.Resources.Themes.LayoutsBasics.css */
H. Res. 193

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

June 14, 1993.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 2200) to authorize appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for research and

development, space flight, control, and data communications,

construction of facilities, research and program management,

and Inspector General, and for other purposes. The first

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order

against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with

clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order

to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
2

HRES 193 EH

under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of

a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science,

Space, and Technology now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather than by section. Each title shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill

for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill

to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House

on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole

to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of

a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the quarterly report of Gold Standard, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), We, Scott L. Smith, President and director and Bret C. Decker,
Secretary of our Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

Dated: 6/14/2004                         /s/Scott L. Smith
      --------------                     ---------------------------
                                         Scott L. Smith
                                         President and director


Dated: 6/14/2004                         /s/Bret C. Decker
      --------------                     ---------------------------
                                         Bret C. Decker
                                         Secretary and director