alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- ) ) Walter R. Price ) ) Under Contract Nos. WRIG-F-09C0134 ) WRIG-F-Ul-4C0049 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:
APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 58364, 58537

Mr. Walter R. Price Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.

AirForce Deputy ChiefTrial Attorney Gregory A. Harding, Esq.

AirForce Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL The parties have filed ajoint motion to dismiss these appeals with prejudice on the ground that they have "entered into a written agreement resolving the issues underlying these appeals." Accordingly, these appeals are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 19 January 2017

Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 58364, 58537, Appeals of Walter R Price, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
# Record of Contacts
**FDMS Docket No. FAA**  **- 20**  **11 -**  **1089 Contacts.**  With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? Organization Person Contacted Date Response Transport Canada Robert Farinas (613) 952
- 4379 5/18/11 No Objections

Bo mb ardier Aerospace Robert Farinas 5/18/11 No Objections Regional Airline Association Connie Arnold 202
- 367
- 1252 Arnold@raa.org 5/18/11 No Objections
RICHARD DANIEL VAUGHN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1257

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 14, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

William F. Stone, Judge.

Jeffrey E. Lewis, Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Michael J. Titus, 

Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil 

Regional Counsel, Region One, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Giselle Denise Lylen, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.
ACCEPTED

03-13-00175-CR

4807991

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/8/2015 1:18:08 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/8/2015 1:18:08 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
________________________ ___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

OMB No. 0581-0189

The Secretary of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC 20250

Dear Sir:

I hereby accept the appointment to the position set forth in the Selection Order. I agree to serve

during the period for which I was appointed and until my successor has been selected and has qualified.

In accepting this appointment, I also agree to carry out the assigned duties in administering the

terms and provisions of the Marketing Order to the best of my ability.

Sincerely,

Date Signature

Address

Exp. 01/31/2027. Destroy previous editions.
My question regards feminized seed and its use in certified organic systems. I have contacted several certification agencies regarding this issue and have received varying responses regarding its use. Mostly, west coast agencies have determined that feminized seed is allowable, while east coast have determined that feminized seed is not allowed. This creates confusion and distrust among growers and seed houses. Please, the USDA NOP needs to make a decision on the use of feminized seed in certified organic operations so that all growers are on equal grounds. 

Thank you

Tiffany Fess

Green Thumb Health Co. 

Morgantown WV
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1319 

To repeal the wage rate requirements commonly known as the Davis-Bacon 

Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 22, 2019 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Mr. GOSAR, and Mr. DUNCAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To repeal the wage rate requirements commonly known as 

the Davis-Bacon Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Davis-Bacon Repeal 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DAVIS-BACON WAGE REQUIREMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter IV of chapter 31 of 

8 title 40, United States Code, is repealed. 

9 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law to a 

10 wage requirement of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1319 IH

1 40, United States Code, shall after the date of the enact2 ment of this Act be null and void. 

3 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND LIMITATION. 

4 The amendment made by section 2 shall take effect 

5 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act but 

6 shall not affect any contract in existence on such date of 

7 enactment or made pursuant to invitation for bids out8 standing on such date of enactment. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 45 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.45
                                          Agreed to June 4, 2019        

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2157, the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives shall make the following correction: In section 1207, 
strike ``May 31, 2019'' each place such term appears and insert ``June 
14, 2019''.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1010 

To provide that the rule entitled ‘‘Short-Term, Limited Duration Insurance’’ 

shall have no force or effect. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2019 

Ms. CASTOR of Florida (for herself, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Mr. HORSFORD, Ms. 

MOORE, Ms. UNDERWOOD, and Mr. DESAULNIER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Labor, and 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide that the rule entitled ‘‘Short-Term, Limited 

Duration Insurance’’ shall have no force or effect. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT-TERM LIMITED DURATION INSURANCE 

4 RULE PROHIBITION. 

5 The Secretary of Health and Human Services, the 

6 Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Labor 

7 may not take any action to implement, enforce, or other8 wise give effect to the rule entitled ‘‘Short-Term, Limited 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1010 IH

1 Duration Insurance’’ (83 Fed. Reg. 38212 (August 3, 

2 2018)), and the Secretaries may not promulgate any sub3 stantially similar rule. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
• Natural fertilizers 

• Eco-friendly pest control 

• Protects soil and water 

Produce & Grains C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

Final.pdf 2 2/23/2024 9:32:35 AM
Order entered January 22, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00542-CV

CAROLYN WAID, Appellant

V.

TARGET CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-00729-E

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s January 20, 2021 motion to supplement the 

reporter’s record. The requested reporter’s record of the May 22, 2020 hearing 

was filed on January 20, 2021. Accordingly, we DENY the motion as moot.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE
RE: Case No. 15-0196

COA #: 12-13-00035-CV

STYLE:CYNTHIA KAY LYLES

v. AARON JORDAN, ET AL.

FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS

1^h nniirt of Appeals District

CATHY S. LUSK, CL

DATE

TC#: 2011-115

FILE COPY

4/14/2015

Today the Supreme Court of Texas received and

filed a second motion for extension of time to file

petition for review pursuant to Rule 53.7(f) in the

above numbered and styled case.

MS. CATHY S. LUSK

CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 354

TYLER, TX 75702
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO BARGE TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT



THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 (the "Amendment") is made, entered into and effective as of January 1, 2002 and amends that certain Barge Transportation Contract dated December 23, 1986, as amended, between COGENTRIX VIRGINIA LEASING CORPORATION and  McALLISTER TOWING AND TRANSPORTATION, INC. (f/n/a  McALLISTER BROTHERS, INC.).



RECITALS



WHEREAS, McAllister has provided barge transportation services to Cogentrix under the Contract since June, 1988.



WHEREAS, the designated Loading Port under the Contract is currently a single location and the Parties desire to provide for a second, alternative location, either of which may be the Loading Port on any given dispatch by Cogentrix.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree to further amend and modify the Contract as follows:



	
1.
	
All capitalized terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Contract, as amended, unless otherwise defined in this Amendment No. 2

	
2.
	
Section 2. of the Contract, Loading and Discharging Ports, is hereby amended by deleting the first full sentence in its entirety and inserting in its place the following:



"Commencing on the effective date hereof, Cogentrix shall, on a trip by trip basis, dispatch the vessel to a safe berth at either (a) Norfolk Southern Pier Number 6, Norfolk, Virginia, or (b) Dominion Terminal Associates Coal Pier, Newport News, Virginia (each individually referred to hereinafter as "Loading Port"), or so near thereto as she may safely proceed for the loading of coal."

	
3.
	
Section 19. of the Contract, Term, is hereby amended by deleting the date "December 31, 2002" and inserting in its place the date "April 30, 2003."

	
4.
	
Except as specifically modified herein, all other terms and provisions of the Contract, as previously amended, shall remain in full force and effect.







COGENTRIX VIRGINIA LEASING CORPORATION



By:           /s/ C. A. HALCOMB                     

       C.A. Halcomb

       Vice President-Operations





McALLISTER TOWING AND TRANSPORTATION, INC. 



By:           /s/ ARTHUR F. KNUDSEN          

       Arthur F. Knudsen

       Vice President/General Manager

       McAllister Towing of Virginia, Inc.
J l ^ TRIP TO THE WORLD ^^tnnet 

February 24, 2010 MKimi^m^KKmi^3aamtr 

The Honorable Ray LaHood > r V '" 

Secretary 

United States Department of Transportation . j : 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 

20590 

Subject: Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

As a dedicated travel partner of American Airlines, I am writing in support of American's 

application to provide new service from New York's John F. Kennedy International 

Airport and Los Angeles International Airport to Tokyo International Airport at Haneda. 

I recognize and applaud you and the Obama administration for your success last 

December in reaching a landmark Open Skies agreement with Japan, which opens up 

Haneda to service by U.S. airlines. 

I encourage your selection of American Airlines to provide nonstop service from New 

York and Los Angeles to Haneda in order to provide an essential connection between 

three of the world's financial and commerce centers. 

Recent events, including the successful preservation of Japan Airlines' oneworld Alliance 

membership, have underscored American's strong commitment to the trans-Pacific 

market. American is likewise committed to New York and Los Angles - both vital focal 

points of business, trade, entertainment, technology and education - providing 

unsurpassed air service since the mid-1900s 

Both the New York and Los Angeles metro areas will gain significant economic benefits 

from these proposed new flights, as will American's customers and employees. 

However, we need your help to make the JFK/Haneda connection a reality. 

Therefore, I strongly urge you to say yes to American Airlines and its request for slots to 

fly from Kennedy to Haneda! 

Sincerely, 

Fujio Nakagawa 

President 

Amnet New York, Inc. ^g ^ 

Carnegie Hall Tower • 152 West 57th Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10019 ^^ r (OX 

Tel: (212) 247-1900 • Fax: (212) 247-1951 WWW.amnet-USa.COm ^t^F TM 

New York • Bolton • Chicaeo • Miami • Los Angeles • Torrance • Costa Mesa • Hawaii • Tokyo • Osaka
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(No. 333-79547) on Form S-8 of Bridgford Foods Corporation of our report dated January 9, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Bridgford Foods Corporation as of October 28, 2005, and the related statements of
shareholders equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for the year ended October 28, 2005, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the October 28, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Bridgford Foods
Corporation.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Haskell & White LLP
|                       
|Irvine, California     
|                       
|January 26, 2006
;I 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL 

AND SCOT SPENCER 

AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. 

AND RICHARD BERNAIID 

Unauthorized Air Transp01 1ation, 

Unfair and Deceptive Pracc.ices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violatior-s of Public Charter R:'tles 

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Cliarter Rules 

Enforcement Proceeding 

STATUS REPORT 

... ; i-

..... 

· ... _·_ : __ ;' 

DOT -OST -1995-272 

formerly Dacket 49233 

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Horior' s March 22, 2006, Order 

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and 

settlement negotiations. 

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents 

and opposed by the Enforcement Office inAscend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-

17486. 
2 

There have been no further settlement discussions. 

Date: March 28, 2013 

Respectfully submitted, 

~~ · Samuel Podberesky 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Vinh Q. Nguyen 

Senior Trial Attorney 

United States Department of Transpmiation 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room 96-429 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-9342 

FAX: 202-366-7152 
3 

Docket No. DOT -OST -1995-272 

I hereby certify that on this 28th day of March, 2013, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: 

Original 

U.S. Depatiment ofTransportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

By First Class Mail 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Depatiment of Transportation 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2142 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

By First Class Mail 

Scot Spencer 

SBD Aircraft Services 

25 5 S Leland Norton Way 

Sam Bernardino, CA 92408
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1189 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1189

To repeal section 12616 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2019

 Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico (for herself, Mr. Sablan, Mr. San 
  Nicolas, Ms. Plaskett, and Mrs. Radewagen) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in 
    addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal section 12616 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF STATE RIGHT TO REGULATE INTRASTATE ACTIVITY.

    (a) In General.--Effective on the date of the enactment of the 
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-334), section 12616 
of such Act (Public Law 115-334) and the amendments made by such 
section are repealed.
    (b) Application.--The Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) 
and section 49(a) of title 18, United States Code, shall be applied and 
administered as if section 12616 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 
2018 (Public Law 115-334) and the amendments made by such section had 
not been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
Updated June 17, 2010

Formal Recommendation by the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

to the National Organic Program (NOP)

Date: April 29, 2011

Subject: Sunset 2012: 205.601(b) (2) (i) Newspaper or other recycled paper, without 

glossy or colored inks.

Chair: Tracy Miedema

 

 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action X

Guidance Statement 

Other 

Statement of the Recommendation (Including Recount of Vote): 

The Board's recommendation is to re-list newspaper or other recycled paper, without glossy 

or colored inks as a synthetic substance allowed for use in organic crop production in 

205.601(b)(2)(i).

 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with 

OFPA and NOP): 

The requested TR was not available for the Crops Committee or the Board in arriving at 

their decision. Although there are many alternatives to the use of newspapers as mulch, it 

is relatively cheap and effective and the known adverse effects are minimal. No comments 

adverse to re-listing were received.

NOSB Vote:

Moved: John Foster Second: Barry Flamm

Yes: 14 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recusal: 0
National Organic Standards Board 

Crops Committee 

Sunset 2012 Proposed Recommendations 

Newspaper 

April 29, 2011 

List § 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production 

(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable 

(2) mulches 

(i) Newspaper or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks 

Committee summary 

Although there are many alternatives to the use of newspapers as mulch, they are relatively 

cheap, biodegradable, and effective and the known adverse effects are minimal. When the 

requested technical report is received, the Crops Committee may reconsider its decision. 

Committee Recommendation 

Relist newspaper or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks on § 205.601(b). 

Committee Vote 

Motion by: Barry Flamm Second: Tina Ellor 

Yes: 6 No: 0 Absent: 1 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Alisa R. Margolis, as Law Guardian, on Behalf of Carlos R., Respondent, v Leonard G. Dunston, as Director of the New York State Executive Department, Division for Youth, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. Mc-Keon, J.), entered April 17, 1991, which granted the application of relator for a writ of habeas corpus and directed his immediate release, unanimously affirmed, without costs. This court’s previously granted stay of enforcement of such judgment pending determination of appeal is hereby vacated.

Initially, in the circumstances herein, we reject appellant’s argument that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was improperly commenced, as direct appeal is available. Although Family Court Act § 365.1 (1) grants to relator the *517general right of direct appeal from an order of disposition under Family Court Act article 3, it is long recognized that departure from traditional appeal proceedings and institution of habeas corpus proceedings, is permitted when dictated by reason of practicality and necessity in cases (such as this) where an individual stands uncharged of any crime and alleges illegal restraint of his liberty within the State *(see, e.g., People ex rel. Keitt v McMann,*18 NY2d 257).

Turning to the merits of relator’s application, it is clear that the IAS court properly granted the writ of habeas corpus and directed relator’s immediate release, on the ground that the Family Court’s three successive temporary extensions of the placement of relator with the Division for Youth, totaling 45 days beyond expiration of the then-current placement period, violated the express terms of Family Court Act § 355.3 (5). The unambiguous provisions of Family Court Act § 355.3 mandate the expiration of a placement, and thus the termination of Family Court jurisdiction, at the end of a valid placement term, unless an extension thereof is timely petitioned and granted after appropriate court hearing. Such determination must be made either before expiration of the then-current placement term, or within a non-renewable temporary extension of placement of up to 30 days, ordered upon good cause shown *(see,*Besharov, Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, 1991 Pocket Part, Family Ct Act § 355.3; *see also, Matter of Salvatore A.,*154 AD2d 930). Here, as the required hearing and determination were not accomplished within the statutory time period, Family Court lacked jurisdiction to order an extension of relator’s placement, and the writ of habeas corpus was properly granted. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Smith and Rubin, JJ.