alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

# AGENCY:

Department of Veterans Affairs.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is notifying the public of the availability of the VA FY 2021 Service Contract Inventory Analysis Report and the associated inventory. The report discusses the methodology, analysis, and special interest functions studied from the FY 2021 inventory. The inventory provides information on service contracts over $150,000. VA developed the analysis report and the inventory in accordance with guidance the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) issued on November 5, 2010, and updated on December 19, 2011. OFPP's guidance is available at                         *https://www.whitehouse.gov/​omb/​management/​office-federal-procurement-policy.*                         VA posted the VA FY 2021 Service Contract Inventory Analysis Report and a link to the associated inventory is on the VA Office of Acquisition and Logistics website at                         *https://www.va.gov/​oal/​business/​pps/​scaInventory.asp*.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Questions regarding the service contract inventory may be directed to Forrest Browne, Procurement Policy and Warrant Management Service (PPS) via email at                         *VA.Procurement.Policy@va.gov*                         or by telephone at 202-632-9677. (This is not a toll-free number.)                    

## Signing Authority

Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, signed and approved this document on October 11, 2024, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Luvenia Potts,

Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2024-24159 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7041

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ANTHONY BELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.

(CR-91-189)

Submitted: November 4, 2004 Decided: November 9, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Brereton Barbier,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion to vacate judgment filed pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69,

374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Bell has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Bell’s notice of appeal and

informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or

successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). In order

to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a

prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of
- 3 -

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the

Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly

discovered evidence that would be sufficient to establish by clear

and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have

found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2),

2255 (2000). Bell’s claims do not satisfy either of these

conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Bell to file a

successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00411-CR

TIMOTHY EVANS REYNOLDS, SR. APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Timothy Evans Reynolds, Sr. attempts to appeal from his 

conviction on his plea of guilty to felony DWI. The trial court’s certification states 

that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and 

“the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

On September 21, 2011, we notified Reynolds that this appeal would be 

dismissed unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

on or before October 3, 2011, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. 

Reynolds filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the 

appeal. Therefore, in accordance with the trial court’s certification, we dismiss 

this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 13, 2011
SCWC-13-0000042

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

RODNEY Y. SATO, Petitioner/PlaintiffCounterclaim Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

vs. WAHIAWA-CENTRAL OAHU HEALTH CENTER, INC., a Hawai # i non-profit corporation; and THE WAHIAWA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, a Hawai # i non-profit corporation,

Respondents/DefendantsCounterclaimants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0000042; CIV. NO. 09-1-1087)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee Rodney Y. Sato’s application for writ of certiorari filed on May 12, 2015, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 24, 2015. Eric A. Seitz, Della A. Belatti, and Sarah R. Devine for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0000042 24-JUN-2015 07:56 AM
Note: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-7280 

KENNETH A. HALL, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

GORDON H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

Kenneth A. Hall, of Selma, Alabama, pro se. 

Robert C. Bigler, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United 

States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With him on 

the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, 

and Martin F. Hockey, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. 

Timinski, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Jamie L. Mueller, Attorney, United 

States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

 

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

Judge Ronald M. Holdaway 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-7280 

KENNETH A. HALL, 

 Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

GORDON H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

 __________________________ 

DECIDED: December 5, 2007 

 __________________________ 

Before LINN, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Kenneth A. Hall (“Hall”) appeals from a final decision of the United States Court 

of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). Hall v. Nicholson, No. 06-802 (Vet. 

App. May 17, 2007). In that decision, the Veterans Court affirmed a decision by the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that determined that his discharge from military 

service would be treated as having been under dishonorable conditions, thereby barring 

his claim for veteran’s pension benefits. Because we lack subject-matter jurisdiction to 

consider the issue that Hall asks us to review, we dismiss Hall’s appeal. 

In Hall’s informal brief, he concedes that the decision of the Veterans Court did 

not involve the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation, nor did it involve any 

constitutional issue. Informal Br. for Pet’r ¶¶ 2, 3. Rather, Hall challenges the decision 

by the Veterans Court to affirm the Board’s determination that his discharge from the 
2007-7280 2 

military was under other-than-honorable conditions and was based upon an offense 

involving moral turpitude, thereby warranting treatment as a dishonorable discharge 

under 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(d)(3). He asks us to “upgrade [his discharge] to at least 

‘general,’” i.e., “to where [he]’ll be eligible for VA benefits.” Informal Br. for Pet’r ¶ 6. 

As the Veterans Court observed, the Board’s decision involved a factual finding. 

Under the statute that grants us limited jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans 

Court, we “may not review (A) a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or 

regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

Accordingly, we have no power to consider the issue Hall raises or to grant the relief he 

seeks, and his appeal must be dismissed. 

COSTS 

No costs.
EXHIBIT 13.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Retalix Ltd. (the Company)
for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the Report), I, Barry Shaked, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board 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 results of operations of the Company.

|Date:
  June 29, 2004 |                          
|--------------------- | -------------------------
|                      |                          
|                      | /s/ Barry Shaked         
|                      |                          
|                      |                          
|                      | Barry
  Shaked           
|                      |                          
|                      | Chief
  Executive Officer



---

---

EXHIBIT 13.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Retalix Ltd. (the Company)
for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the Report), I, Danny Moshaioff,
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 results of operations of the
Company.

|Date:
  June 29, 2004 |                          
|--------------------- | -------------------------
|                      |                          
|                      | /s/ Danny Moshaioff      
|                      |                          
|                      |                          
|                      | Danny
  Moshaioff        
|                      |                          
|                      | Chief
  Financial Officer

---

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00572-CR

 

BRIAN DUMONT JACKSON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF COOKE COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

On November 1, 2012, the trial court convicted Appellant Brian Dumont 

Jackson of driving while intoxicated and sentenced him to three days’ 

confinement and an $850 fine. Jackson timely filed a motion for new trial and 

notice of appeal on November 27, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a), 26.2(a)(2). 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

The trial court subsequently granted his motion for new trial on December 18, 

2012, and set the case for a jury trial to be held on May 14, 2013. 

On January 9, 2013, we notified Jackson that the appeal appears to be 

moot because the trial court granted his motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 

21.9(b). We requested that he file a response stating grounds to continue the 

appeal on or before January 22, 2013, if he desired to continue the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. No response was filed. 

Accordingly, because the trial court granted Jackson’s motion for new trial, 

making any appeal from the original judgment moot, we dismiss this appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 21.9(b), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 2, 2013
Exhibit 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned, as a trustee of Great Lakes REIT (the "Company"), does hereby constitute and appoint Richard A. May, Richard L. Rasley and James Hicks, and each
of them, as his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 and any and all amendments hereto, and to file the same, with
exhibits and schedules thereto, and other documents therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing necessary or desirable to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, thereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorney-in-fact, or his substitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26th the day of February, 2004.

/s/MATTHEW S. DOMINSKIMatthew S. Dominski

/s/PATRICK R. HUNTPatrick R. Hunt

/s/DANIEL P. KEARNEYDaniel P. Kearney

/s/LEANDRA R. KNESLeandra R. Knes

/s/DONALD E. PHILLIPSDonald E. Phillips

/s/JAMES E. SCHRAGERJames E. Schrager

/s/RICHARD E. TERRYRichard E. Terry

---

QuickLinks
# Ai **rw orthiness**  **Directiv e** 

**Pacific A**

**erospace 750XL Ai**  **rcraft**

Issued by the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand in accordance with section 72I(3A) of the Civil Aviation Act . An Airworthiness Directive (AD) contain s regulatory information which is man datory. An operator of an aircraft must not operate the aircraft unless the operator complies with every applicable AD issued by the Director in accordance with section 72I(3A) of the Civil Aviation Act

. An AD is issued where the Director believes on reaso nable grounds that an unsafe condition exists in an aircraft or aeronautical product

.
*** DC A/** **750XL/17 Reversionary A**  **ttitude Indicator -**  **Installation Ap**  **plicability:** Pacific Aerospace 750XL aircraft, all S/N operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). **No te:**  Pacific Aerospace 750XL aircraft eligible for operation under IFR require a reversionary

attitude indicator. **Requirement:** To ensure continued safe flight under IFR in the event of loss of the primary attitude indication,

accomplish the requirements in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) PACSB/XL/074 issue 1, dated 2 4 October 2014. (Compliance with FAR 23.1309) **Compliance:** Before the next IFR flight. **Effective Date:** 6 November 2014 **Background:** This AD with effective date 6 November 2014 i s prompted by a recent determination that

certain PAL750XL aircraft were inadvertently manufactured with instrument panels with only one Attitude Indicator (AI). A second AI is required for PAL750XL operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)

. The AD ma ndates the installation of either a second AI , or the enablement of Reversionary Attitude mode in the Sandel Electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator (EHSI) , if fitted , when operating under IFR

.

Owen Olls Airworthiness Specialist Delegate of the Civil Aviation Authortiy of New Zealand 30 October 20 1 4
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 

FORM OF SHARE CERTIFICATE 
  





 
 CyberArk Software Ltd. 
  

					
	Number	 		 	Shares
			
	CYB	 	 	 	CUSIP: M2682V 108
		 		 	See Reverse for
		 		 	Certain
		 		 	Definitions

 CYBERARK SOFTWARE LTD. 

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL 

THIS CERTIFIES that 
  

 
  

is the Registered Holder of 

FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE ORDINARY 

SHARES OF NIS 0.01 PAR VALUE EACH 
 of
CyberArk Software Ltd. transferable on the books of the Company by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney only upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed or with an appropriate instrument of transfer. This Certificate
and the shares represented hereby are issued and shall be held subject to all the provisions of the Articles of Association of the Company and amendments thereto, to all of which the holder by the acceptance hereof assents. This Certificate is not
valid unless countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this
Certificate to be issued under the facsimile seal of the Company. 
  

					
	Dated:	 		  	
		 	  
	  	
		 	 CyberArk Software Ltd.
 Corporate Seal
	  	ISRAEL

  
 Ehud
Mokady                         

Chief Executive 

Officer and Director 







 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Certificate, shall be construed as
though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

																					
	 TEN COM -
	  	as tenants in common	  		  		  	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT	 				 	 	Custodian	  	 			
		  		  		  		  		 	  
	  
	 	 				 	  
	  
	 
	 TEN ENT -
	  	as tenants by the entireties	  		  		  		 	 	(Cust)	  	 				 	 	(Minor)	  
	 JT TEN -
	  	as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common	  		  		  	 under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
	   
	 			
		  		  		  		  		 				 				 	  
	  
	 
		  		  		  		  		 				 	 	(State)	  

 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED,
                         HEREBY SELLS, ASSIGNS AND TRANSFERS UNTO PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING
NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
 PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE 

                          
               SHARES REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE, AND SO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTES AND APPOINTS 

ATTORNEY TO TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES ON THE BOOKS OF THE WITHIN-NAMED CORPORATION AND FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES. 

DATED
                                        

  

			
	 	 	 
	  
	 	  

		 	NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE, WHATSOEVER.
		
	 Signature(s) Guaranteed:
	 	
		
		 	
	  
	 	
	THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO
S.E.C. RULE 17 Ad-15.