alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#  Explore business models

The following options are the most common ways small businesses become federal marketplace vendors. 

## Schedule

The Schedule program is the most widely used federal procurement program. Over 12 million commercial items are available Schedule contracts.

If you choose to sell via Schedule, you must be registered in the System for Award Management.

## Indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts

IDIQs are used when we can’t determine, above a specified minimum, the precise quantities of products or services that the government will require during the contract period (which often spans 5+ years). IDIQs standardize the ordering process for the business and provide flexibility for the agency.

## Governmentwide acquisition contracts

GWACs are pre-competed, multiple-award, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts that agencies can use to buy total IT solutions, including both products and services. A GWAC contract requires a vendor to be registered in SAM, but does not have a minimum "years in business" experience or an annual revenue minimum to pursue a contract.

## Non-Schedules based contracts

These contracts are often for building design and construction, architecture and engineering acquisitions, and some professional service engagements. These procurements require a response to the RFP or RFQ; be sure to include Form 1442 with your submission.

## Subcontracting and other partnerships

Subcontracting and other partnerships involves working with other contractors in order to test the waters of federal business without suffering undue risk.

## Set-asides and special interest groups

Qualified small businesses that meet various socioeconomic criteria are eligible to compete for additional set-aside opportunities after obtaining certification from the SBA.

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  Small business-  Overview 
-  Small business goals and performance 
-  Small business resources 
-  Register your business    -  Subcontracting and Other Partnerships 
  -   Explore business models      -  Set-Asides and Special Interest Groups 
    -  Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) 
  -  Research the federal market 
-  Forecast of contracting opportunities
EXHIBIT 24


POWER OF ATTORNEY








KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned constitutes and appoints Matthew R. Broad, Anthony G. Morrow and Jessica P. Lange, and each of them, his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for and in his or her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 28, 2017 and any and all amendments thereto and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as might or could be done in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them, or their substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Power of Attorney has been signed effective as of the 22nd day of June, 2017, by the following persons.





By: /s/ Margaret Shân AtkinsMargaret Shân AtkinsBy: /s/ Nana MansahNana MensahBy: /s/ Bradley D. BlumBradley D. BlumBy: /s/ Eugene I. Lee, Jr.Eugene I. Lee, Jr.By: /s/ James P. FogartyJames P. FogartyBy: /s/ William S. SimonWilliam S. SimonBy: /s/ Cynthia T. JamisonCynthia T. JamisonBy: /s/ Charles M. SonstebyCharles M. Sonsteby
# C_2020222EN.01003801.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/38

---

Action brought on 15 May 2020 — Capella v EUIPO — Cobi.bike (GOBI)

(Case T-286/20)

(2020/C 222/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Capella EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: R. Klenke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cobi.bike GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU trade mark GOBI — Application for registration No 17 168 089

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 in Case R 1685/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

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.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7221

NORMAN LEE, JR.,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JENNIFER SAAD, Warden, FCI Gilmer,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:18-cv-00181-FPS)

Submitted: January 29, 2020 Decided: February 13, 2020

Before KING, NIEMEYER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman Lee, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Norman Lee, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Lee’s 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 (2018) petition in which he sought to challenge his sentence by way of the savings 

clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his 

sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would 

be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.

[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence 

when: (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme 

Court established the legality of the sentence; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s 

direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the aforementioned settled substantive 

law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; (3) 

the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255(h)(2) for 

second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the 

sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental 

defect.

United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Lee has not met the Wheeler test, 

thus, there is no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny Lee’s motion for summary judgment and affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Lee v. Saad, No. 5:18-cv-00181-FPS (N.D.W. Va., Aug. 2, 2019). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2020209EN.01004001.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/40

---

Action brought on 8 May 2020 — Global Chartered Controller Institute v EUIPO — CFA Institute (CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE)

(Case T-266/20)

(2020/C 209/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Global Chartered Controller Institute SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and T. Barber Giner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union figurative mark CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE — Application for registration No 15 508 161

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 in Case R 235/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | vary the contested decision and find that the conditions for applying the relative ground for refusal of registration in Article 8(1)(b) of EUTMR are not fulfilled in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

vary the contested decision and find that the conditions for applying the relative ground for refusal of registration in Article 8(1)(b) of EUTMR are not fulfilled in the present case;

| — | or, in the alternative, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

or, in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant (including the costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal) and order the intervener to pay the costs incurred before the Opposition Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant (including the costs relating to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal) and order the intervener to pay the costs incurred before the Opposition Division.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 92 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
House Calendar No. 224

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 544

[Report No. 103–744]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3171)

other purposes.ganize the Department of Agriculture, and forto authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to reorSEPTEMBER 23, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 224

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 544

[Report No. 103–744]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3171) to authorize the Secretary

of Agriculture to reorganize the Department of Agriculture, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 23, 1994

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

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

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3171) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to reorganize the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 3171) to authorize the Secretary

6 of Agriculture to reorganize the Department of Agri7 culture, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
2

HRES 544 RH

1 bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

2 consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall

3 be confined to the bill and the amendments made in order

4 by this resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally

5 divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking mi6 nority member of the Committee on Agriculture. After

7 general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

8 under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider

9 as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under

10 the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a sub11 stitute recommended by the Committee on Agriculture

12 now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the

13 nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All

14 points of order against the committee amendment in the

15 nature of a substitute are waived. At the conclusion of

16 consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee

17 shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

18 amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may

19 demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment

20 adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to

21 the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.

22 The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

23 the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

24 intervening motion except one motion to recommit with

25 or without instructions.
# Honoring the Victims of the Tragedy in Annapolis, Maryland

Our Nation shares the sorrow of those affected by the shooting at the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland. Americans across the country are united in calling upon God to be with the victims and to bring aid and comfort to their families and friends. As a mark of solemn respect for the victims of the terrible act of violence perpetrated on June 28, 2018, by the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order that the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset, July 3, 2018. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same length of time at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.

[FR Doc. 2018-14744

Billing code 3295-F8-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00664

- CR

Anthony Lamonte HARRIS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR0729

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED November 6, 2013.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
# all_lease01012019
| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  December 6, 2011 | Samuel Martin                         |
|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                              | President and Chief Executive Officer |
# Visiting or Working in Federal Buildings

The federal community in the greater Washington, DC area counts on GSA to provide world class work space and services. GSA's National Capital Region is the proud steward of some of the most beautiful and historic buildings in the nation's capital.

Federal agency tenants with questions or requiring services should contact the GSA Service Center responsible for their agency. GSA has five Service Delivery Teams in the National Capital Region to serve customer's real estate and workspace needs.

## Visitors to Federal Buildings

In general, federal building hours of operation are from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Visitors to agencies within a federal building should check with that agency for its respective business hours. Generally, visitors must have a valid picture ID and are required to submit to a security screening process to gain entrance to the building.

GSA manages approximately 688 buildings in Washington, DC, Maryland and Northern Virginia, including seventy historic buildings and six national landmarks. These 184 federally-owned buildings comprise 41 million rentable square feet (RSF), while 504 leased buildings comprise 55.4 million RSF managed by GSA.

## Working in Federal Buildings

Federal agencies can depend on GSA to provide a full scope of realty services including space planning, space programming, and design services; construction management services; and advisory services to develop the best housing solutions for their work space needs.

Looking for convention, meeting and event space? It is available in many GSA-managed federal buildings (availability may be limited due to several factors).

For any facility-related questions, concerns or requests, please contact the appropriate NCR Representative, listed  in the NCR Directory of Services.

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  Region 11 | National Capital-  Overview 
-  About NCR 
-  Buildings and Facilities    -  Enhancing the Community 
  -  Development Projects 
  -  VisitingWorking in Federal Buildings 
  -  Meeting and Event Space 
  -  District of Columbia 
  -  Maryland 
  -  Project Information (NEPA) 
  -  Virginia 
-  Products and Services 
-  Region 11 Newsroom 
-  Small Business Opportunities 
-  GSA Celebrates CIS Groundbreaking 
-  PBS Commissioner Speaks at Bisnow Event
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-35855, 333-42929 and 333-84051), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 18, 1997 pertaining to the
shares issued in conjunction with the acquisition of Ben Watson Associates
Limited, on December 22, 1997 pertaining to the shares issued in conjunction
with the acquisition of CBT Systems Middle East Limited, and on July 29, 1999
pertaining to the shares issued in conjunction with the acquisition of
Knowledge Well Limited and Knowledge Well Group Limited, on Form S-4 (No. 333-
51159), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 1998
pertaining to the shares issued in conjunction with the acquisition of The
Forefront Group, Inc., on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-06409, 333-25245, 333-35745,
333-57031, 333-68499, 333-83927, 333-86861, and 333-32380), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 20, 1996 pertaining to the 1994
Share Option Plan, on April 16, 1997 pertaining to the 1996 Supplemental Stock
Plan and Applied Learning Limited Executive Stock Plan, on September 16, 1997
pertaining to the 1994 Share Option Plan, on June 17, 1998 pertaining to The
Forefront Group, Inc. Amended and Restated 1992 Stock Option Plan, The
Forefront Group, Inc. Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Option Plan and The
Forefront Group, Inc. 1996 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan, on
December 7, 1998 pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1994 Share Option
Plan, on July 28, 1999 pertaining to the Knowledge Well Limited 1998 Share
Option Plan and the Knowledge Well Group Limited 1998 Share Option Plan, on
September 10, 1999 pertaining to the 1994 Share Option Plan and the 1995
Employee Share Purchase Plan, on March 14, 2000 pertaining to the 1996
Supplemental Stock Plan, of our reports dated January 18, 2000, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in this annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.

Dublin, Ireland                                    /s/ Ernst & Young
                                          _____________________________________
March 30, 2000
                                                       Ernst & Young
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         258,167
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  129,421
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               379,821
<PP&E>                                      11,764,757
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,175,757)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,356,409
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,838,935
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,517,474
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,356,409
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,540,007
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,564,738
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (61,837)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (61,837)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (61,837)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134091 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134091 

 COA: 260771 

Wayne CC: 04-011411-01

ERNEST HALL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2007 

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

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

t0830 

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. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk