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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12205]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Parts 204 and 252

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical 
Amendments

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide needed editorial 
changes.

DATES: Effective: May 22, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Manuel Quinones, Defense 
Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B855, 3060 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 571-372-6088; 
facsimile 571-372-6094.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule amends the DFARS to correct 
typographical error at 204.1105 and to correct the clause date at 
252.204-7004, 252.204-7007, 252.232-7006, 252.232-7011, and 252.245-
7004.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 204 and 252

    Government procurement.

Manuel Quinones,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 252 is amended as follows:

0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 204 and 252 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

PART 204--ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

204.1105  [Amended]

0
2. Amend section 204.1105 by removing the word ``clause'' and adding 
the word ``provision'' in its place.

PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

252.204-7004  [Amended]

0
3. Section 252.204-7004 is amended by removing from the clause heading 
``(DATE)'' and adding ``(MAY 2013)'' in its place.

252.204-7007  [Amended]

0
4. Section 252.204-7007 is amended by removing ``(DATE)'' and adding 
``(MAY 2013)'' in its place.

252.232-7006  [Amended]

0
5. Section 252.232-7006 is amended by removing ``(DATE)'' and adding 
``(MAY 2013)'' in its place.

252.232-7011  [Amended]

0
6. Section 252.232-7011 is amended by removing ``(DATE)'' and adding 
``(MAY 2013)'' in its place.

252.245-7004  [Amended]

0
7. Section 252.245-7004 is amended by removing ``(DATE)'' and adding 
``(MAY 2013)'' in its place.

[FR Doc. 2013-12205 Filed 5-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
# Official Journal C 44A/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.044.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 44A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5516 February 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.044.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 44A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5516 February 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2012/C 044A/01 | Corrigendum to the notices of competitions COM/AD/01/10 and COM/AD/02/10, COM/AD/03/10 and COM/AD/04/10, COM/AD/05/10 and COM/AD/06/10, COM/AD/07/10 and COM/AD/08/10, COM/AD/09/10 and COM/AD/10/10, COM/AD/11/10 and COM/AD/12/10, COM/AD/13/10 and COM/AD/14/10, COM/AD/15/10 and COM/AD/16/10 (OJ C 265 A, 30.9.2010) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

Corrigenda

2012/C 044A/01

Corrigendum to the notices of competitions COM/AD/01/10 and COM/AD/02/10, COM/AD/03/10 and COM/AD/04/10, COM/AD/05/10 and COM/AD/06/10, COM/AD/07/10 and COM/AD/08/10, COM/AD/09/10 and COM/AD/10/10, COM/AD/11/10 and COM/AD/12/10, COM/AD/13/10 and COM/AD/14/10, COM/AD/15/10 and COM/AD/16/10 (OJ C 265 A, 30.9.2010)

(OJ C 265 A, 30.9.2010)

1

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 8 | (DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | |
| 17 | (LT) |
| 20 | (EN) |
| 22 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (FR) |
| 31 | (ES) |
| 37 | |
| 44 | |

8

(DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL)

10

17

(LT)

20

(EN)

22

(DE/EN/FR)

27

30

(FR)

31

(ES)

37

44

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

Corrigenda

| 16.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 44/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 44/1

---

Corrigendum to the notices of competitions COM/AD/01/10 and COM/AD/02/10, COM/AD/03/10 and COM/AD/04/10, COM/AD/05/10 and COM/AD/06/10, COM/AD/07/10 and COM/AD/08/10, COM/AD/09/10 and COM/AD/10/10, COM/AD/11/10 and COM/AD/12/10, COM/AD/13/10 and COM/AD/14/10, COM/AD/15/10 and COM/AD/16/10

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 265 A of 30 September 2010
  )

(2012/C 44 A/01)

In Section VI of the competition notices (on pages 6, 19, 28, 36, 49, 58, 70, 82)

for:

‘VI.   RESERVE LISTS

| 1. | Candidates placed on the reserve list |
| --- | --- |

1.

[...]

The reserve lists will be valid until 31 December 2012.’

read:

‘VI.   RESERVE LISTS

| 1. | Candidates placed on the reserve list |
| --- | --- |

1.

[...]

The reserve lists will be valid until 31 December 2014.’

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SECOND
QUARTER 2000 10-Q OF BUILDING MATERIALS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         927314
<NAME>                        BUILDING MATERIALS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-02-2000
<CASH>                                              63,667
<SECURITIES>                                        35,527
<RECEIVABLES>                                       31,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        130,729
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   420,789
<PP&E>                                             416,758
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     969,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              263,119
<BONDS>                                            637,654
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 1
<OTHER-SE>                                          35,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       969,348
<SALES>                                            615,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   615,590
<CGS>                                              444,658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      444,658
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  24,979
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     15,046
<INCOME-TAX>                                         5,567
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  9,479
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         9,479
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0


</TABLE>
#### JAMES DICKINSON *vs.*JOHN B. JONES.

A bond was given to an officer, to indemnify him for selling under an execution at the instance of *il*J. and H. against W” Held, that to entitle the officer to recover on this bond, he must show that he sold under the execution mentioned in the bond.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Wayne County, at the Fall ■ Term, 1850, his Honor Judge Ellis' presi-' ding.

*46The case is stated in the opinion delivered in this Court.

*Mordecai*and *Washington,*for the plaintiff.

*J. H.*Bryan, for the defendant.

Pearson, J.

The plaintiff had, as a constable, levied on certain articles, as the property of one Briggs. One By-num claimed the articles; and, thereupon, the defendant executed a bond to indemnify the plaintiff for selling under an execution in his hands, “ wherein John B. Jones and Henry Dickinson are plaintiffs, and one William G. Briggs is defendant.” The plaintiff sold the property and was sued by Bynum, who recovered six cents, and a large sum for costs. The action is on the bond for indemnity. On' the trial, the plaintiff did not offer in evidence an execution in favor of John B. Jones and Henry Dickinson against William G. Briggs, and, of course, did not prove, that he sold the property under the execution recited in the bond.

His Honor was of opinion that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to make this proof, and that he was entitled to recover by proving that he sold the property, without showing that he made the sale “ under an execution corresponding with that recited in the bond.” To this the defendant excepts.

There is error. The defendant agrees to indemnify the plaintiff for selling under a certain execution. How can the indemnity be claimed without alleging and proving that he did sell under that execution ? Suppose the plaintiff sold under a different execution. It may be that it was not levied in time, or that the defendant had not the same interest in it. At all events, it does not come within the terms of the bond.

It is unnecessary to notice the other exception; because upon the next trial, if the plaintiff has in fact paid the amount recovered by Bynum» he will be able to prove it *47without depending upon the entry on the execution docket.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed, and a *venire de*novo.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.3

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of National Property Analysts Master
Limited Partnership ("NPAMLP") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, David A. Simon, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
EBL&S Property Management, Inc., Agent for NPAMLP and the equivalent of its
Chief Financial Officer 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) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NPAMLP.

                                        NATIONAL PROPERTY ANALYSTS MASTER
                                        LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                                        (Registrant)

                                        Date: November 10, 2006

                                        By: EBL&S Property Management, Inc.,
                                            Agent for NPAMLP


                                        By: /s/ David A. Simon
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: David A. Simon
                                        Title: Vice President and Chief
                                               Financial Officer
June 6, 2013

Memo to: EPA Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0268)

Subject: Summary of May 2013 presentations given at the Interagency Steering Committee 

on Radiation Standards meeting regarding the update to the Protective Action 

Guides (PAGs) Manual

On May 1, 2013, EPA staff gave a short presentation at a public meeting of the Interagency 

Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS) at the request of the meeting organizers. 

The presentation focused on the publication of a proposal for public comment: “PAG Manual: 

Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents.” EPA staff 

provided a brief overview of the differences between the current (1992) and newly proposed 

PAG Manuals and answered questions. Staff from federal and state radiation programs, industry, 

media and environmental groups participated.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             309,147  
<SECURITIES>                                       228,639  
<RECEIVABLES>                                      894,481  
<ALLOWANCES>                                       153,286  
<INVENTORY>                                         44,146  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,391,745  
<PP&E>                                             843,903  
<DEPRECIATION>                                     627,295  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,815,412  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,147,460  
<BONDS>                                             25,000  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0  
<PREFERRED>                                              0  
<COMMON>                                             2,469  
<OTHER-SE>                                         652,983  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,815,412  
<SALES>                                          1,594,935  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,594,935  
<CGS>                                              495,158  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      446,994  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,106,492  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (465,085)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0  
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0  
<CHANGES>                                                0  
<NET-INCOME>                                      (465,085)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.18) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.18) 
                                                
                                                

</TABLE>
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 604 

Expressing support for the designation of November 2016 as ‘‘National 

Bladder Health Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 

Mr. KIRK submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

NOVEMBER 17, 2016 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of November 2016 

as ‘‘National Bladder Health Month’’. 

Whereas tens of millions of people in the United States are 

affected by bladder diseases and conditions, including urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, underactive bladder, interstitial cystitis, nocturia, urinary tract infections, 

bladder cancer, urotrauma, and neurogenic bladder; 

Whereas bladder diseases and conditions have a significant 

impact on health and quality of life, contributing to decreased physical activity (which can increase obesity levels and the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease), 

depression, social isolation, falls, sexual dysfunction, loss 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 604 ATS 

of self-esteem, hospitalizations, nursing home admissions, 

and even death; 

Whereas bladder diseases and conditions result in costs to the 

United States economy estimated at more than 

$70,000,000,000 annually; 

Whereas bladder problems are highly stigmatized, and open 

dialogue generated by National Bladder Health Month 

can reduce stigma and empower providers and patients to 

have much-needed conversations about bladder health; 

Whereas medical and behavioral research to better understand and maintain bladder health and treat bladder diseases is critically needed yet poorly recognized; 

Whereas bladder diseases and conditions are common in military veterans; 

Whereas more than 1 in 10 military service members injured 

in Afghanistan and Iraq have urotrauma injuries (damage to the urinary tract or reproductive organs); 

Whereas 1 in 3 younger women veterans report overactive 

bladder, stress urinary incontinence, and painful bladder 

symptoms; 

Whereas more than 3⁄4 of veterans with spinal cord injuries 

suffer from neurogenic bladder; 

Whereas bladder cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer among Veterans Affairs Health System patients; 

Whereas preventative campaigns and measures for diseases 

and conditions that are as extensive and expensive as 

bladder diseases and conditions are routine and accepted 

in common medical, societal, and public health practice, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

SRES 604 ATS 

yet no preventative campaign or measure exists in a 

large, systematic fashion for bladder health; and 

Whereas November 2016 is an appropriate month to designate as ‘‘National Bladder Health Month’’ since bladder health awareness has been promoted in November for 

more than 20 years: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports the designation 

2 of November 2016 as ‘‘National Bladder Health Month’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2911

___________________________ Hollis Shannon Winfrey lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Ford Motor Company lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________ Submitted: March 24, 2021 Filed: March 29, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Hollis Winfrey appeals following the district court’s 1 denial of his motion

seeking reconsideration of the judgment dismissing this employment discrimination action. For the following reasons, we affirm. In November 2019, Winfrey filed his pro se complaint, naming his former employer, Ford Motor Company. The district court thereafter granted Ford’s motion to dismiss the complaint, concluding, inter alia, that some of Winfrey’s claims were untimely, while others failed to state a claim. Judgment was entered on April 1, 2020. In July, Winfrey moved for “reconsideration,” asserting, for various reasons, that he was unable to timely raise his claims. On August 20, the district court entered an order denying the motion, concluding that Winfrey’s arguments did not merit relief under, as relevant, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) (court may relieve party from final judgment or order due to, inter alia, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect). On September 11, Winfrey filed his notice of appeal (NOA). On appeal, he challenges the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, and asserts that he was entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). Initially, we conclude that appellate jurisdiction is limited to the district court’s order denying Winfrey’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), as that is the only order which he timely appealed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (NOA must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment or order appealed from; if party filed, inter alia, motion under Rule 60 no later than 28 days after entry of judgment, time to file appeal runs from entry of order disposing of such motion); see also United States v. Stute Co., 402 F.3d 820, 822 (8th Cir. 2005) (timely filing of NOA is mandatory and jurisdictional). We further conclude, after careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

1 The Honorable Greg Kays, United Stated District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2-denying relief under Rule 60(b). See Giles v. Saint Luke’s Northland-Smithville, 908

F.3d 365, 368 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (standard of review; reversal of denial of Rule 60(b) motion is rare, as it only authorizes relief in exceptional circumstances). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-3-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         294,447
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,987,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                   275,000
<INVENTORY>                                 12,342,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,105,005
<PP&E>                                      31,359,652
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,821,356
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,199,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,792,226
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,716,450
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,119,311
<SALES>                                     65,814,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            65,835,758
<CGS>                                       50,623,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               64,015,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,286,110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                504,014
<INCOME-TAX>                                   184,119
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   319,895
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17


</TABLE>