alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING

SERVICE

PO BOX 182317

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43218-2317

DFAS-JAIQ/CO November 14, 2019

MEMORANDUM FOR Contracting Divisions at DCMA, DLA, Army, and Air Force

SUBJECT: Guidance and Information for Proper Indexing of Transfer Modifications

BACKGROUND: DFAS Columbus undertook a project to review erroneously 

transferred contract modifications and develop solutions and guidance to create a 

better process. From February-October 2018, DFAS Columbus received 2,783 

transfer modifications from Integrated Accounts Payable System (IAPS), 

Mechanization of Contract Administration System (MOCAS), Computerized Accounts 

Payable System-Windows (CAPS-W), and Enterprise Business system (EBS). 

Approximately 82% (2,284) were loaded incorrectly. DFAS Columbus spent 

approximately 390 hours to identify and process these erroneous transfer 

modifications, resulting in a labor cost of approximately $16,686.32. In addition,

each erroneous transfer modification issued results in unnecessary costs to 

contracting agencies and services. 

The main causes for the incorrect transfer modifications are as follows:

1. 32% resulted from different pay and/or vendor information being used which

caused issues in determining correct pay office. The use of multiple

contracting systems used across agencies contributes to this issue.

2. 25% resulted from incorrect indexing in Electronic Document Access (EDA)

(Discrepancy between transfer modification pay office and pay office

indexed in EDA).

3. 25% resulted from lack of guidance and general procedures in choosing the

correct pay office.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Several resources are recommended for customers to utilize 

to assist in a more efficient transfer process. These resources will help reduce erroneous 

transfer modifications and provide an easier, more efficient process that will help to 

reduce costly erroneous transfers for our customers. 

1. To address issue 1 (inaccurate pay and/or vendor information),

attachments 4, 5 and 6 provide guidance for customers to use Purpose

Code Management (PCM), System for Awards Management (SAM) and

Contract Management Team (CMT) to accurately identify vendor and pay

office information for transfer modification input.

2. To address issue 2 (incorrect indexing) attachment 3 provides a SOP of

how contracting officers can use EDA to validate indexing of proper pay

office after uploading transfer modifications.

3. To address issue 3 (lack of guidance) attachments 1, 2 and 6 provide

examples of correct language and format for transfer modifications and

CMT provides accurate pay information.

Mr. David Bush

Director, Accounts Payable Acquisitions

DFAS-CO

Attachments

1. Examples of Transfer Language for Box 14 of the modification

2. Examples of Transfer Language for Section A of the modification

3. How to use EDA to Check Pay Office Indexing

4. How to use Purpose Code Management (PCM) to Find Pay Office

Information (MOCAS specific)

5. How to use System for Award Management (SAM) to Find Contractor

Address (MOCAS specific)

6. How to use Contract Management Team (CMT) for Pay Information
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL**

**FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18            U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS            ADOPTED PURSUANT BY**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with this Amended Annual Report of BMB Munai, Inc. (the            “Company”) on Form 10-K/A-2 for the year ended March 31, 2007, as filed            with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the            “Report”), I, Sanat Kasymov, Chief Financial Officer of the 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 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 result of                            operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date: January 4, 2008 |         By:/s/ Sanat Kasymov |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Sanat Kasymov |
|--------|---------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
(April 8, 1991)

#### Vincent Amico, Appellant, v Carmin Pepe et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated July 19, 1989, which denied his motion to strike the defendants’ answer and to set the matter down for an assessment of damages.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted; and it is further,

*576Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an assessment of damages.

The disappearance or intentional unavailability of the defendants is not a reason, in and of itself, to deny a motion to strike the answer where there have been repeated defaults in appearances for examinations before trial *(see, Reitte v Entermy Cab Corp.,*162 AD2d 259; *Moriates v Powertest Petroleum Co.,*114 AD2d 888, 889; *Foti v Suero,*97 AD2d 748). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
Albany

Atlanta

Brussels

Denver

Los Angeles

Miami

New York 1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

Tel: 703.336.8800

mckennalong.com Northern Virginia

Orange County

Rancho Santa Fe

San Diego

San Francisco

Seoul

Washington, DC

Mark E. McKinnon

703.336.8708

Matthew J. Clark

703.336. 8714 Email Address

mmckinnon@mckennalong.com

mclark@mckennalong.com May 28 , 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Delivery of Confidential and Proprietary CNN Operating Documents (Docket

No. FAA

- 2015

- 1851 )

To Who m it May Concern :

As you are aware, this office represents Cable News Network, Inc. (CNN) regarding the

above

- referenced Petition for Exemption, in which CNN seeks regulatory relief to allow commercial

operation of small unmanned aircraft s ystem

. Please accept this letter as confirmation that CNN 's

operating documents , which contain proprietary and confidential information

, were submitted

electronically via e

- mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov on May 28, 2015.

If you have any questions or require any additional information to process CNN's Petition,

please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

Mark E. McKinnon

Lisa M. Ellman

Matthew J. Clark

Counsel for Cable News Network, Inc.
#### Peter H. Schaming et al., Respondents, v Saunders Construction Carriers et al., Appellants.

Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Harris, J.), entered April 5, 1990 in Albany County, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff Peter H. Schaming (hereinafter plaintiff) and his wife commenced this action to recover damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff as the result of an automobile accident *958which occurred on April 1, 1985. Following completion of discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff had not sustained a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Supreme Court denied the motion and this appeal ensued. We affirm.

While driving to his home following the accident, plaintiff began experiencing pain in his back. After arriving home, his wife drove him to the hospital where X rays were taken and he was advised to consult with Brian Quinn, an orthopedic surgeon. Plaintiff saw Quinn on April 23, 1985 and continued to consult with him through February 7, 1989. Quinn testified, at a deposition, that plaintiff’s X-ray studies revealed that he had a congenital condition known as spondylolysis which had become symptomatic as a result of the accident. It was Quinn’s opinion that as a result of the accident plaintiff had a significant permanent partial disability of his back preventing heavy work. Plaintiff, a plumber by trade, testified that he has experienced pain in his back, thigh and leg since the accident as a result of which he has only been able to work two to three days per week.

In spite of the above, defendants contend that plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of serious injury because his complaints of pain are entirely subjective. Defendants’ position seems to be that where a treating physician makes a diagnosis solely in reliance on a patient’s subjective complaints, such is per se insufficient to establish serious injury. That argument is not wholly without merit *(see, Thomas v Drake,*145 AD2d 687). However, that is not the situation in this case. Here, there is objective clinical evidence of a congenital deformity of plaintiff’s spine. Quinn, an orthopedic surgeon who has treated plaintiff from the onset of his injury, has opined that his pain is a result of the April 1, 1985 accident causing that condition to become symptomatic and resulting in a permanent disability. Thus, plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain are supported by competent medical evidence and a prima facie case of serious injury has been established *(see, Mooney v Ovitt,*100 AD2d 702).

Finally, we find without merit defendants’ claim that Supreme Court should have granted their motion because plaintiff suffered pain due to a preexisting condition. Quinn testified that the accident caused plaintiff’s preexisting condition to become symptomatic which presents a question for resolution by a jury *(see, Ortiz v Mendolia,*116 AD2d 707).

Order affirmed, with costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 572 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 572

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under 
     which certain persons may be treated as adjudicated mentally 
                   incompetent for certain purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 14, 2013

 Mr. Burr (for himself, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Risch, Mr. Moran, 
Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Thune, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Crapo, 
and Mr. Inhofe) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under 
     which certain persons may be treated as adjudicated mentally 
                   incompetent for certain purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Second Amendment Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONS FOR TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PERSONS AS ADJUDICATED 
              MENTALLY INCOMPETENT FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 55 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 5511. Conditions for treatment of certain persons as adjudicated 
              mentally incompetent for certain purposes
    ``In any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of 
laws and benefits under this title, a person who is mentally 
incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended 
loss of consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental 
defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18 
without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial 
authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to 
himself or herself or others.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 55 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following 
new item:

``5511. Conditions for treatment of certain persons as adjudicated 
                            mentally incompetent for certain 
                            purposes.''.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit 

No. 14-2112 

GABRIEL F. MARTINEZ, 

Plaintiff, Appellant, 

v. 

VICTOR F. PETRENKO, 

Defendant, Appellee. 

ERRATA SHEET 

 The opinion of this court issued on July 6, 2015, is 

amended as follows: 

 On page 3, line 19, the word "that" is replaced by an 

ellipsis.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TheHoward Hughes Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rael Diamond, in my capacity asInterim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Rael Diamond                |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
| Rael Diamond                    |   |
| Interim Chief Financial Officer |   |
| November 23, 2010          |   |

 

----
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998), PART 39.001(1) CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY SCHEDULE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

Page 1 of 1 

### AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE
On the effective date specified below, and for the reasons set out in the background section, the CASA delegate whose signature appears below revokes Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD/GA8/5 Amdt 2 and issues the following AD under subregulation 39.001(1) of CASR 1998. The AD re quires that the action set out in the requirement section (being action that the delegate considers necessary to correct the unsafe condition) be taken in rel ation to the aircraft or aeronautical product mentioned in the applicability section: (a) in the circumstances mentioned in the requirement section; and (b) in accor dance with the instructions set out in the requirement section; and (c) at the time mentioned in the compliance section. Gippsland Aeronautics GA8 Series Aeroplanes


### AD/GA8/5 Amdt 3 Horizontal Stabiliser Inspection 8/2010

Applicability: All GA8 aircraft serial number s GA8-00-004 and above, and GA8-TC 320 model, all serial numbers. Requirement: Accomplish the requirements of Gi ppsland Aeronautics mandatory service bulletin SB-GA8-2002-02, Issue 5, dated 13 November 2008. Compliance: As per requirement document. This Amendment becomes effective on 13 April 2010. Background: Inspection of a high time aircraft has reve aled cracks in the Horizontal Stabiliser rear spar splice plate and inboard main ribs ar ound the area of the Horizontal Stabiliser rear pivot attachment. Additionally, failure of some attach bolts in service may be due to improper assembly.
This amendment is issued to clarify the model applicability. The previous amendment was issued because the requirement document now contains an inspection for cracking in horizontal st abilisers which have load transferring fittings installed. Previous amendments of this AD listed the AD requirements in full. Due to the extensive use of diagrams and photographs, it is no longer appropriate or practical to write the requirements of the service bulletin out in full in this AD. All requirements, accomplishment instructions and illustrations are contained in the service bulletin. The original issue of this AD b ecame effective on 15 February 2007. Amendment 2 of this AD became effective on 12 March 2009.

Mike Higgins Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority 9 April 2010
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 44617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18941]



[[Page 44617]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt 
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-123-000.
    Applicants: Santa Rita East Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale 
Generator Status of Santa Rita East Wind Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180827-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric 
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2317-000.
    Applicants: Meadow Lake Wind Farm V LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Power Compensation 
Filing to be effective 10/26/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180827-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2318-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 844 Compliance Filing to 
be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180827-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2319-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-08-27 Att O-SPS, PSCo 
ADIT Filing to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180827-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 27, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18941 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO CAMACHO-CORONA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ANGEL ORTIZ, M.D., in individual 

capacity; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-55218 

D.C. No. 

5:14-cv-00543-VAP-KK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 12, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Federal prisoner Pedro Camacho-Corona appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging 

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 

 

* 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

MAR 20 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th 

Cir. 1997). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on CamachoCorona’s claim against defendant Blier because Camacho-Corona failed to raise a 

genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any delay in treatment for his 

surgery wound evinces in deliberate indifference. See Hallet v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 

732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need only if the delay caused significant harm). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on CamachoCorona’s claim against defendant Castillo on the basis of qualified immunity 

because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that denying 

Camacho-Corona access to a wheelchair was unlawful under the circumstances. 

See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (explaining two-part test for 

qualified immunity).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA - 2013 - 0789 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM127AD

777 - 32 - 0083, R 1 --- 2/17/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4122

A bill to temporarily extend certain provisions of the Marine Mammal

Protection Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 23, 1994

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

A bill to temporarily extend certain provisions of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act.

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

3 That section 114(a)(1) of the Marine Mammal Protection

4 Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1383a(a)(1)), is amended by strik5 ing ‘‘April 1, 1994,’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘May

6 1, 1994,’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Karen M. White, Also Known as Teresa Hackett, Appellant.

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Lawton, JJ.