alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Office of Acquisition Policy

Various aspects of acquisition management are carried out by the Office of Acquisition Policy (OAP) under the guidance of the Chief Acquisition Officer and the Senior Procurement Executive. The office mission is to strengthen federal acquisition policy and operations. OAP leads positive change in acquisition policy through its role on the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to issue and maintain the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) as well as through GSA acquisition policy, guidance, and reporting to stakeholders.

OAP hosts the Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI) and supports FAI transformation efforts for the civilian agency acquisition workforce and further enhances the GSA acquisition workforce through attention to their training, certification, and warrant needs. OAP also oversees acquisition integrity functions for GSA, including suspension and debarment of contractors or participants in non-procurement programs, agency level acquisition protests, agency task/delivery order ombudsman functions, internal procurement management reviews, and agency competition advocate functions.

## Offices

The Office of Acquisition Policy, headed by the Deputy Chief Acquisition Officer/ Senior Procurement Executive, includes the following offices:

The Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy
                        - Federal Acquisition Policy Division
                        - Regulatory Secretariat Division
                        - Regulatory Information Service Center
                        - Acquisition.gov

The Office of General Services Acquisition Policy, Integrity & Workforce
                        - Procurement Management Review Division
                        - Suspension and Debarment Division
                        - Acquisition Policy Division
                        - Acquisition Workforce Division

Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI)

GSA Ombudsman

## Get updates

Sign up to receive FAR news updates

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  Acquisition policy-  Overview 
-  Office of Acquisition Policy    -  Governmentwide Acq Policy 
  -  GSA Acq Policy, Integrity & Workforce 
  -  Federal Acquisition Institute 
-  Acquisition policy library and resources 
-  Acquisition regulations 
-  Construction contract administration 
-  Eligibility determinations 
-  FAIR Act Inventory 
-  Get help with your GSA procurement complaint 
-  GSA Acquisition Policy Federal Advisory Committee 
-  IT Acquisition 
-  Legislative Proposals 
-  Procurement Innovation Resource Center  
-  Real Property Leasing Certification Program 
-  Small Business Reports 
-  Service Contract Inventory 
-  Small Entity Compliance Guide 
-  Unsolicited Proposals
EXHIBIT 32.2  Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002    I, Jill R. Marlatt, Controller (Principal Financial Officer) of Gateway Energy Corporation, certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gateway Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries for the periods presented.   Date:  November 15, 2010/s/ Jill R. Marlatt Jill R. Marlatt Controller (Principal Financial Officer)


---
#### The CLOTHES CLOSET, INCORPORATED v. CORPORATE MALL, INCORPORATED.

No. 62673.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: The Clothes Closet, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          19,880
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              30
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,810
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    263,577
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         133,243
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           133,034
<LOANS>                                        584,916
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,450
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,045,837
<DEPOSITS>                                     866,724
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,335
<LONG-TERM>                                     85,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,045,837
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 43,229
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               31,062
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                74,291
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              40,880
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,285
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           25,006
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,750
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  62
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 20,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    203
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         111
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       111
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.44
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,276
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,554
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  6,401
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,780
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,259
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,271
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,271
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          3,732
        

</TABLE>
#### John Rudolph UNNEVER III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-576.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 30, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Official Journal C 432/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 432 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6015 December 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 432

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6015 December 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2017/C 432/01 | Decision | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Parliament

2017/C 432/01

Decision

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
258 La. 916

#### SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al.

No. 51476.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 8, 1971.

In re: South Central Bell Telephone Company applying for writ of certiorari.

Application granted. The trial judge is ordered to hold a hearing on the merits as to whether a preliminary injunction should not issue; meantime, all future proceedings are stayed until said judge acts on the merits as to whether a preliminary injunction should not issue.

Appeal dismissed June 16, 1971, see 249 So.2d 200.
# Solicitation and Offer

                - Title:  Solicitation and Offer 
                - Form #:         OF308      
                - Current Revision Date:  09/1997
                - Authority or Regulation:  

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 842

To increase the number of weeks for which emergency unemployment

compensation is payable.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1993

Mrs. KENNELLY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To increase the number of weeks for which emergency

unemployment compensation is payable.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN NUMBER OF WEEKS FOR WHICH

4 EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSA5 TION IS PAYABLE.

6 Subparagraph (A) of section 102(b)(2) of the Emer7 gency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991 (Public

8 Law 102–164, as amended) is amended by adding at the

9 end thereof the following new clause:
2

•HR 842 IH

1 ‘‘(vii) ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENT.—

2 Effective with respect to weeks beginning

3 after the date of the enactment of this

4 clause—

5 ‘‘(I) the applicable limit other6 wise determined under this subpara7 graph shall be increased by 6, and

8 ‘‘(II) the percentage otherwise

9 applicable under paragraph (1)(A)

10 shall be increased by 25 percentage

11 points.

12 Adjustments similar to those provided in

13 the preceding sentence shall be made to

14 the provisions of section 501 of this Act.’’

Æ
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

SYSTEMONE TECHNOLOGIES INC.

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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of SystemOne
Technologies Inc. (the #gCompany#h) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
#gReport#h), Paul I. Mansur, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ## 1350, as adopted pursuant to ## 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |                                                                                                                          
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The 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 Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|                                                           |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Paul I. Mansur

Paul I. Mansur
Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|                                                           |  | 
|Date: April 30, 2003                                       |  |
#### SAMUEL BETTS, def't. below *vs.*MITCHELL WARREN, pl’ff below.

On certiorari the court will not hear allegations against the record, of matters not essential to jurisdiction.

The record is conclusive in its statement of the proceedings below.

Certiorari to Justice Dickerson.

The record showed a service of process and appearance of defendant; an adjournment and appearance of both parties; trial and judgment for plaintiff, after hearing the allegations and proofs of the *parties.*

The defendant filed an affidavit that he appeared on the first day and demanded a nonsuit; that he appeared on the second day, and remained until near sun down; when, the plaintiff not appearing, he again demanded a nonsuit, which was refused; but the justice said if plaintiff did not appear, he would enter a nonsuit; and if he did appear, he would postpone the case and give him notice; upon which the defendant left, and did not hear of the judgment against him until after the time for appeal had expired; and he denied that the plaintiff had appeared, at any time, before the justice.

Upon which, *Layton,*for defendant, moved for leave to contradict the record in fact.

Judgment affirmed,—

*The Court*

stating the principle as to allegation of errors in fact against the record, which must be confined to such facts as controvert the essentials of jurisdiction. If the justice has jurisdiction of the cause of action and of the parties, his record as to the proceedings in the cause is conclusive on certiorari.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 21, 2011 

p1114 

Order 

 

November 21, 2011 

143504 

RONALD H. LONG, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 14 3504 

 COA: 296698 

 Wayne CC: 05-524009-AV 

DETROIT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 23, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 31158)    
                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, July 19, 2018, 08:00 a.m. to July 20, 2018, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 26, 2018, 83 FR Pg 29803.                

This meeting was changed from a 2-day meeting to a 1-day meeting. The meeting is now July 19, 2018 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: June 27, 2018.

Natasha M. Copeland, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2018-14215 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### BASIN, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellee, v. FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION et al., Defendants-Respondents-Appellees, Independent Refiners Association of America, Applicant for Intervenor-Petitioner-Appellant.

No. 5-20.

Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals.

March 7, 1977.

Before INGRAHAM, VAN OOSTER-HOUT and JOHNSON, Judges.

ORDER

For the reasons stated in this Court’s opinion entered in *Basin, Inc.*v. *Federal Energy Administration et al.,*Em.App., 1977, 552 F.2d 931, it is ORDERED that the issues presented in this case be and are hereby declared MOOT.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**ZION BULLITT AVENUE LIMITED**
**PARTNERSHIP,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**WESTMORELAND COUNTY TAX CLAIM BUREAU, WESTMORELAND COUNTY** 

**INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND CITY OF** 
**JEANNETTE,**

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 341 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**

**the Order of the Commonwealth Court**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 1st day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowa nce of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of this m atter.**
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 60289 Summary Calendar

MUHAMMAD NAVID ASRAR , Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A078 961 229

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Muhammad Navid Asrar , a native and citizen of Pakistan , petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings , in which he unsuccessfully sought withholding of removal and relief under the C onvention Against
Torture. Asrar moved to reopen based on an alleged breach of confidentiality, which he asserted resulted in changed conditions or circumstances in Pakistan

.

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 27, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-60289 Document: 00512984361 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2015N o. 14

- 60289

Asrar asserts : the BIA’s rejection of his claim that the removal proceedings should be reopened based on his breach

- of

- co nfidentiality claim was arbitrary and contrary to law ; and the BIA erred in concluding there was no evidence of a breach , and in determining he failed to show changed

- country conditions. Asrar was convicted of an aggravated felony (unlawful possession of ammunition) and sentenced to 42 months ’ imprisonment. Subsequently, he was ordered removed to Pakistan. His petition for review was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he was removable as an alien who had been convicted of an aggravated felony and failed to raise a constitutional claim or a question of law. Asrar v. Gonzales , 229 F. App’x 326 (5th Cir. 2007). Therefore , w ith respect to the denial of Asrar’s motion to reopen , we have jurisdiction to review only constitutional and legal questions. E.g., Escudero

Arciniega v. Holder , 702 F.3d 781, 785 (5th Cir. 20 12 )

. W hether the BIA erroneously weighed or ignored evidence regarding changed conditions in Pakistan, which Asrar alleged resulted from the

purp orted confidentiality breach, and whether the evidence Asrar presented
established such changed conditions , are questions of fact and do not raise either a constitutional or legal question. E.g., id. DISMISSED.

2 Case: 14-60289 Document: 00512984361 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2015
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Warren R. Nelson, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Shells Seafood Restaurants, 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 factnecessary 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 allmaterial 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 officer 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; and 

 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this 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. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

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

 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 26, 2004
#### F. C. ATKINSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-346.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 24, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from herein is affirmed upon the authority of this Court’s decision in the companion case of Atkinson v. State, 247 So.2d 793, opinion filed on May 18, 1971.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.5

                                AMENDMENT NO. 1
                        MATRIXONE, INC. 1999 STOCK PLAN


MatrixOne, Inc.'s 1999 Stock Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended as follows:

1. Section 3(a) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

   "Number of Shares. Subject to adjustment under Section 3(c), the aggregate
   number of shares of Common Stock of the Company (the "Common Stock") that may
   be issued pursuant to the Plan is 3,000,000 shares. If any Award expires, or
   is terminated, surrendered or forfeited, in whole or in part, the unissued
   Common Stock covered by such Award shall again be available for the grant of
   Awards under the Plan. If shares of Common Stock issued pursuant to the Plan
   are repurchased by, or are surrendered or forfeited to, the Company at no
   more than cost, such shares of Common Stock shall again be available for the
   grant of Awards under the Plan; provided, however, that the cumulative number
   of such shares that may be so reissued under the Plan will not exceed
   3,000,000 shares. Shares issued under the Plan may consist in whole or in
   part of authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares."

2. Except as modified hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.