alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
G-INVOICING TRADING PARTNER SPOTLIGHT 

GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

MAY 17, 2022 | JOANN SHARP & GPO TEAM 
AGENDA 

▪ Background 

▪ Approaches 

▪ Readiness Schedule 

▪ Next Steps 
 

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

▪ GPO provides a wide range of publishing products and services for the 

Federal government 

▪ General publishing services 

▪ Security products 

▪ Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations 

▪ Distribution and fulfillment 

▪ And many other solutions 

▪ Highly transactional – process approx. 7000 invoices per month 

▪ Currently implementing Oracle’s integrated solution
 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROACHES – GPO AS SERVICING AGENCY 

▪ GPO plans to support the following G-Invoicing Order approaches: 

▪ 7600-EZ Streamlined Order Process 

▪ Standard Order Processing (One-to-Many Model) 

▪ Dependent on successful implementation of Oracle’s integrated G-Invoicing 

solution 

▪ Planned integration with Publish.gpo.gov - GPO's new online order 

management system 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7600-EZ STREAMLINED ORDER PROCESS 

▪ As stated in Treasury Financial Manual (TFM) Bulletin No. 2022-03, Fiscal 

Service has established and recommends a separate process flow 

leveraging 7600-EZ for high volume orders 

▪ The 7600-EZ process will expedite transaction settlements by combining 

Order and Performance phases, requiring fewer data elements 

▪ This is modeled after how GPO does business with our customers now 

▪ Target readiness is planned for FY 24 

▪ Recommended method 
 

 

 

 

 

STANDARD ORDER PROCESSING (ONE-TO-MANY MODEL) 

▪ Buyer Initiated 

▪ One Order in G-Invoicing to process multiple GPO jobs 

▪ As individual GPO jobs are delivered, GPO will initiate 

Performance against the Order 

▪ Ready in FY 24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

READINESS SCHEDULE 

▪ FY 23 – October 1, 2022 

▪ Ready for: 

▪ GT&Cs 

▪ Orders for GPO as Buyer 

▪ Orders for GPO as Seller - one manual product line only: Distribution 

and Fulfillment Services (ALC 04000002) 

▪ Not ready for: 

▪ Orders for GPO as Seller - all other GPO product lines (ALC 04000001) 

▪ GPO will continue to process transactions through IPAC 
 

 

 

 

 

READINESS SCHEDULE 

FY 24 – October 1, 2023 

▪ Ready for: 

▪ Standard Order Processing (Buyer Initiated) – One-to-Many Model 

▪ GPO Print/Publishing Services using 7600-EZ 

▪ Continued use of legacy IPAC processes to support customers not 

engaged in G-Invoicing 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEXT STEPS 

▪ Communicate with your agency personnel doing business with GPO 

▪ GPO's readiness schedule 

▪ Look for GPO Circular Letters related to G-Invoicing updates 

▪ Plan to use 7600-EZ with GPO in FY 24 

▪ If you need a GT&C only, contact us 

▪ Sign up for future GPO webinars 

Contact us at GINV@gpo.gov 

GPO's G-Invoicing Page: https://www.gpo.gov/how-to-work-withus/agency/g-invoicing 
 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

WWW.GPO.GOV 

facebook.com/USGPO | twitter.com/USGPO | instagram.com/USGPO
#### SUNLAND HOSPITAL AT TALLAHASSEE, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Division of Retardation, Petitioner, v. John R. LORENZ and the Industrial Relations Commission of Division of Labor and Employment Opportunities, Department of Commerce, State of Florida, Respondents.

No. 38857.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 24, 1969.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Halley B. Lewis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Herboth S. Ryder, of Albritton, Sessums & Ryder, Tampa, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida In*805dustrial Commission bearing date June 25, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petitions, records and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is therefore denied.

Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $250.00 is awarded to claimant’s attorney.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.2
  CERTIFICATION
    The undersigned, Thomas C.
Shields, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of ANADIGICS, Inc.
(the "Company") hereby certifies that the Annual Report of the Company on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Dated: March 2,
2009
  By:
                /s/ Thomas C.
      ShieldsThomas C.
      ShieldsExecutive Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer  This
certification shall not be deemed to be “filed” for the purpose of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated by
reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated
by reference.
  A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been provided to ANADIGICS, Inc. and will be retained by ANADIGICS, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Terry Leroy GORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-41.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 1972.

Brooks Taylor, Crestview, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from the order denying his motion to vacate the judgment and sentence received for the offense of robbery.

We have previously considered and ruled upon the same issue raised in appellant’s motion to vacate in our review of the direct appeal of this cause. Gore v. State, 237 So.2d 243 (Fla.App. 1st, 1970). As stated by this Court in Carter v. State, 242 So.2d 737, at 738 (Fla.App. 1st, 1970):

> “Questions which have been considered and disposed of on a direct appeal of a judgment of conviction and sentence will not be considered as grounds for post-conviction relief sought pursuant to Rule 1.850, Rules of Criminal Procedure,

Accordingly, the order appealed herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 41314 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE MIGUEL ANDRADE

- ROCHA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14

- CR

- 763

- 1

Before DAVIS , JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgm ent in a criminal case, Jose Mi guel Andrade

- Rocha raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v.
Betancourt , 586 F.3d 303, 308

- 09 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that knowledge of drug type and quantity is not an eleme nt of a 21 U.S.C. § 841 offense

. The unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 1 6 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-41314 Document: 00513079992 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Frank ELLIS, Respondent.

No. 44155.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 17, 1973.

Certified dismissed.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
### 8 Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2009

- 0811 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2008

- NE

- 41

- AD

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

they do no t, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testin g,

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



### Replacement

Hardware 0.0 $ 0.00 $145,524 $ 145,524.00 

### 1 8 $ 2,619,432.0

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



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 2,619,432



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### 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) 

### :

### 9 Executive Order 12866:

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

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Proced ures:

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? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviati on 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 

### :
EXHIBIT 23.2
<PAGE>



                        [Atkinson & Co., Ltd. letterhead]




                       Consent of Independent Accountants



Board of Directors
GFSB Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statement  (No.
33-07131) on Form S-8 of GFSB Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated August 11, 1997,
relating to the  consolidated  statements of earnings,  changes in stockholders'
equity and cash flows for the year ending June 30, 1997, for GFSB Bancorp,  Inc.
which report  appears in the June 30, 1998 annual  report on Form 10-KSB of GFSB
Bancorp, Inc.



                                            /s/ Atkinson & Co., Ltd.

   
^October 9, 1998
Albuquerque, New Mexico
#### Long *v.*Grasham.

*Supreme Court*— Dismissals—No *constitutional question involved.*

(No. 18380

Decided April 8, 1924.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Allen county.

*Mr. J. K. BoeJcey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. T. B.*Hamilton, for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that the petition in error he, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, O. J., Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.

Wanamaker, J., not participating.
#### ROBERT M'CABE *vs.*JOHN MORRISON.

A retailer’s license is not evidence for the party taking it out, of his interest in the store.

To constitute a partnership there must be an agreement both for profit and loss.

A dormant partner need not be joined as a party plaintiff, if there be no privity of con-, tract between him and the defendant.

Case. Narr. in assumpsit. Pleas, non-assumpsit and discount.

The action was on book account for goods sold and delivered to *67defendant by plaintiff, who is a merchant. The defence set up was, that plaintiff was in partnership with a certain Harry Conelly, and could not sue alone; and, 2d., payment to Conelly.

To rebut the evidence of partnership, plaintiff replied and offered, inter alia, the license granted to M‘Cabe, as a retailer of merchandize, which was objected to, and rejected as the party’s own act.

On the question of partnership and the right to sue alone, it was contended for the plaintiff, that there must be an agreement, both as to profit and loss, to constitute a partnership; and even if Conelly was proved to be a partner, he was a dormant one; the rule as to which is, that there is no necessity of using the name of a dormant partner in suing. 1 *Chitty PI.*8; *Leveck ép Pollard*vs. *Shaftoe, 2 Esp. Rep.*468; *Cary on Partnership,*97 ; 5 *Law Library,*39.

On the other side it was contended, that this rule must be taken with this qualification, that a dormant partner need not be joined unless *privity of contract*could be shown, (2 *Saund. PI. Sf Ev.*701,) which it was insisted' had been done in this case.

*Booth*and *R. H. Bayard*for plaintiff.

*Macbeth, Read, Jr.,*and *J. Jl. Bayard,*for defendant*

*The Court*

left the question of partnership to the jury; defining it to be an association for the purpose of trade, where each party is to receive and bear his proportion of profit and loss; and instructing them, as to the other question, that it depended on the fact whether Conelly was a known or a dormant partner. If he was unknown-to the defendant, who dealt with McCabe' alone, then McCabe had the right to sue him alone.-

The plaintiff had a verdict*-
#### DURWIN CORPORATION and R. P. Hewitt & Associates of Florida, Inc., Service Representative, Petitioners, v. John B. STEWART et al., Respondents.

No. 44181.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 15, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0510

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ALAN EDWIN ERICKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 15, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 9 2023

01/09/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0510
# C_2020348EN.01002401.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/24

---

Action brought on 21 August 2020 — Phi Group v EUIPO — Gruppo Cadoro (REDELLO)

(Case T-532/20)

(2020/C 348/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Phi Group GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Campolini and L. Bidaine, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gruppo Cadoro GmbH (Eglisau, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark REDELLO — Application for registration No 17 929 193

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2020 in Case R 2677/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | find that the opposition against the trademark application fails in its entirety or, alternatively, refer the case to the EUIPO in order for it to draw all the necessary consequences form the Court’s decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the opposition against the trademark application fails in its entirety or, alternatively, refer the case to the EUIPO in order for it to draw all the necessary consequences form the Court’s decision;

| — | order the other party to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| — | order EUIPO and, if necessary, the intervener, to support the cost of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, if necessary, the intervener, to support the cost of the present proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### WAPLES *vs.*M'GEE & SALMONS.

After issue joined on the merits, the court will not permit the defendant to amend by adding a plea of the act of limitation, or any plea not going to the merits.

Capias case. Action for an injury to the reversionary interest in land.

*Cullen,*for defendants,

after a continuance of the cause on legal grounds, moved for leave to amend his pleadings, which was resisted.

The case stood at issue on a plea of *not guilty,*and the court required him to disclose to them the matter which he desired leave to plead ; when he stated that it was “ a special license from plaintiff;” and also the *act of limitation.*

*Ridgely*and *Frame,*for plaintiff.

*Cullen,*for defendants.

*The Court,*

after argument and consideration, gave leave to amend and to plead the license; but refused to allow the amendment for the purpose of pleading the act of limitation, or any plea not going to the merits.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 335 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 335

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      February 2, 1994.
    Resolved, That Representative Vernon J. Ehlers of Michigan be and is hereby 
elected to the following standing committees of the House of Representatives: 
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

The following is a list of all  subsidiaries  of Secured  Digital  Applications,
Inc. as of December 31, 2005.


                                                   Jurisdiction of Incorporation
Name of Subsidiary                                         or Organization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

China Sea Trade Company, Inc.,                                         Delaware
a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company

SDA Worldwide, Inc.,                                                   Delaware
a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company

Secured Digital Applications (M) Sdn Bhd (SDAM)                        Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company

Perwimas Telecommunications Sdn Bhd,                                   Malaysia
a 86.4% owned subsidiary of SDAM

Armor Multi Systems Sdn Bhd (AMS)                                      Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of SDAM

Secured Shipping Sdn Bhd                                               Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of SDAM

Digital Image ID Sdn Bhd                                               Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of SDAM

Gallant Service Centre (M) Sdn Bhd (GSC)                               Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of SDAM

Armor Multi Services Sdn Bhd                                           Malaysia
a 60% owned subsidiary of AMS

Gallant IT Holdings Sdn Bhd (GIH)                                      Malaysia
a 55% owned subsidiary of GSC

Gallant Zone (M) Sdn Bhd                                               Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of GIH

Eystar Distribution
Sdn Bhd                                                                Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of GIH

Gallant Focus (M) Sdn Bhd                                              Malaysia
a wholly owned subsidiary of GIH

Innospective Sdn Bhd                                                   Malaysia
A 55% owned subsidiary of SDAM
# C_2023015EN.01001601.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — VT v Ministero dell’Interno and Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza — Direzione centrale per le risorse umane

(Case C-304/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - National legislation fixing a maximum age limit of 30 years for the recruitment of police commissioners - Justification)

(2023/C 15/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VT

Respondents: Ministero dell’Interno and Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento della Pubblica Sicurezza — Direzione centrale per le risorse umane

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2), Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the fixing of a maximum age limit of 30 years for participation in a competition aimed at recruiting police commissioners, in so far as the duties actually performed by those police commissioners do not require particular physical capacities or, if such physical capacities are required, it is apparent that such legislation, while pursuing a legitimate aim, imposes a disproportionate requirement, which it is for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.

---