alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- ) ) Epsilon Lambda Electronics Inc. ) ) Under Contract Nos. FA9453-1O-C-0029 ) N68335-07-C-0460 )

APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60704

Mr. Robert M. Knox

President

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Lawrence S. Rabyne, Esq.

Senior Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Arlington Heights, IL

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On 6 September 2017, Mr. Knox, on behalfofappellant, executed a settlement agreement withthe government disposing ofthe subject matter ofthis appeal by establishing a paymentplan with the government. The settlement agreementrequired appellant to file a motion to dismiss with prejudice within 10 days ofits execution. This, appellant did not do. The government requested that we dismiss the matter anyway, and appellant opposed that request. Consequently, we conducted a telephonic status conference with the parties today to discuss the matter. Duringthat status conference, Mr. Knox represented that he wished to dismiss his appeal with prejudice to bring this matter to closure. We inquired with Mr. Knox to make sure that he understood the ramifications ofthis request and that he understood that he would not be able to bring a new appeal on the same subject matter ifthe request were granted. Mr. Knox stated that he understood and that he still desired the prejudicial dismissal. We also inquired ofthe governmentwhether it would still consider itselfboundby the settlement agreement in light ofappellant's failure to file a timely request for dismissal. On behalfofthe government, Mr. Rabyne stated that the government would remain bound by the agreement. Mr. Rabyne also stated that the government had no objection to the motion to dismiss.In light ofthe government's agreement to abide by the terms ofthe settlement agreement and Mr. Knox's unopposed request to dismiss this appeal with prejudice, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Dated: 7 November 2017

J.)IB1BPROUTY Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals in ASBCA No. 60704, Appeal ofEpsilon LambdaElectronics Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter.

Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
##### 



Exhibit 15
  
  1)
    
    Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-4290, 333-65502, 333-83007, and 333-95965) 1995
Long-Term Incentive Plan and Individual Stock Options Granted to Certain Directors and
Employees Prior to the Adoption of the Plan2)
    
    Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-52907, 333-55470 and 333-96969) 1998 Employee
Incentive Compensation Plan3)
    
    Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-136693) 2006 Long-Term Incentive Compensation
Plan
#### Robert P. Lynn, Jr., et al., Appellants, v Robert W. Corcoran, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 754]

In an action to recover damages for the defendant’s interference with the plaintiffs’ law practice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated February 17, 1994, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendant’s counterclaims to direct an accounting and to appoint an appraiser.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant, Robert W. Corcoran, claims that he, together with the plaintiffs Robert P. Lynn, Jr., and Peter K. Ledwith, was a member of the law firm of Lynn, Ledwith and Corcoran. His claim in this respect is supported by proof that he signed *699an agreement to indemnify his two former partners for all liability they might have in connection with the lease of his office and by evidence that he was referred to as a partner in the financial statements prepared by the law firm’s accountants. The plaintiff Robert P. Lynn, Jr., acknowledged that "an accounting was already tendered” to Mr. Corcoran, although he denied that Mr. Corcoran was an "equity partner”. The financial statements referred to above reflect that Mr. Corcoran made a "capital contribution” of $2,000 in December 1989, although the plaintiffs claim that such a contribution was never made.

Under the circumstances outlined above, and under all the other circumstances revealed in the record, we agree with the Supreme Court that summary judgment is not warranted. A dispute between two or more persons as to the existence of an oral partnership agreement generally presents issues of fact concerning, for example, the ownership of partnership assets, the sharing of partnership profits, the exercise of management and control over the partnership *(see generally, Olson v Smithtown Med. Specialists,*197 AD2d 564, 565; *Brodsky v Stadlen,*138 AD2d 662; *Ramirez v Goldberg,*82 AD2d 850; 15 NY Jur 2d, Business Relationships, §§ 1309-1320; *cf., Mazur v Greenberg, Cantor & Reiss,*110 AD2d 605, *affd*66 NY2d 927 [written partnership agreement not signed by plaintiff claiming to have been partner]). In the present case, the plaintiffs have not demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they have failed to produce evidence which conclusively negates the allegations asserted in the defendant’s counterclaims relating to the existence of an oral partnership agreement.

We have examined the plaintiffs’ remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
**APPENDIX A**

**TRAINING ACTIVITIES FOR STAFF IN THE NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS PROGRAM AREA**

Introduction

The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) program area training and qualification program requires that an employee complete a variety of training activities, each of which is designed to help the employee learn information or practice a skill that will be important to performing licensing or inspection activities.  

The training and qualification journal is designed to ensure that a uniform method of conducting and documenting training is being followed for all NMSS employees qualified under this manual chapter.  The qualification journal establishes the minimum training requirements that must be met for all required general and formal training courses and serves as a guide for development of other training and qualification journals.  The minimum requirements listed can be expanded, but cannot establish a training and qualification journal that go below the minimum requirements.

Required Basic-Level Training Courses

These courses establish minimum formal classroom training requirements.  Refer to Section 1246-08 for exceptions to these requirements.  

· H-100, Site Access Training

· Ethics Training , Web-based

· Allegations Training, Web-based 

Additional Required Training Courses for Inspectors

New training requirements for inspectors qualified under this manual chapter were approved by the Office Director, NMSS in a May 7, 2010 memo (ML100200563).  The course content is provided through iLearn and currently includes 11 modules:

· Compressed Gas Safety

· Chemical Process Safety

· Confined Space Entry

· Electrical Safety Awareness

· Fall Protection Awareness

· Hearing Conservation

· Heat Stress

· Ladder and Scaffolding Safety

· Machine Guarding Safety

· Material Safety Data Sheets

· Personal Protective Equipment

Training Requirements and Qualification Journal

Each Appendix to this manual chapter provides the training requirements and qualification journals for a particular inspection or licensing activity as indicated below.

	END

Issue Date: 10/26/11	A-2	1246

Issue Date: 10/26/11	A-1	1246

Attachment 1

Revision History for IMC 1246, Appendix A

Issue Date: 10/26/11	Att1-1	1246
<PAGE>

                                                                   EHHIBIT 1.9

                                  HEMOSOL INC.

                                  BY-LAW NO. 3

           A by-law providing for the amendment of By-law No. 1 of HEMOSOL INC.

           BE IT ENACTED AND IT IS HEREBY ENACTED as a by-law of HEMOSOL INC.
(hereinafter called the "Company") as follows:

           Paragraph 42 of the By-law No. 1 of the by-laws of the Company be and
           the same is hereby amended by deleting the words "33?%" following the
           words "not less than" in the fifth line thereof and by substituting
           therefore the words "20%", such that paragraph 42, as amended, shall
           read as follows:

                     QUORUM. Two persons present and each holding or
                     representing by proxy at least one issued share of the
                     Company shall be a quorum of any meeting of shareholders
                     for the choice of a chairman of the meeting and for the
                     adjournment of the meeting to a fixed time and place but
                     may not transact any other business; for all other purposes
                     a quorum for any meeting shall be persons present not being
                     less than two in number and holding or representing by
                     proxy not less than 20% of the total number of the issued
                     shares of the Company for the time being enjoying voting
                     rights at such meeting. If a quorum is present at the
                     opening of a meeting of shareholders, the shareholders
                     present may proceed with the business of the meeting,
                     notwithstanding that a quorum is not present throughout the
                     meeting.

                     Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Company has only one
                     shareholder, or only one shareholder of any class or series
                     of shares, the shareholder present in person or by proxy
                     constitutes a meeting and a quorum for such meeting.
file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110529.sr.txt[5/1/2013 1:56:22 PM]

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 11-0529

Standard Review Draft 1/5/2012

ENGINEER: El-Zoobi \ AH

 
file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110529.sr.txt[5/1/2013 1:56:22 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110529.sr.txt[5/1/2013 1:56:22 PM]

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 11-0529
file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110529.sr.txt[5/1/2013 1:56:22 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110529.sr.txt[5/1/2013 1:56:22 PM]

 

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 11-0529
file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110529.sr.txt[5/1/2013 1:56:22 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110529.sr.txt[5/1/2013 1:56:22 PM]

 

 

 

 
file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110529.sr.txt[5/1/2013 1:56:22 PM]
Exhibit 32.1

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 Star Gas Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) and
Star Gas Finance Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel P. Donovan, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) 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 Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |                          |  |                                      
|-------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|               |  |  |  | STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P. 
|               |  |  |  | STAR GAS FINANCE COMPANY
|               |  |  | 
|               |  |  |  | By:                      |  | KESTREL HEAT LLC (General Partner)   
|               |  |  | 
|August 5, 2009 |  |  |  | By:                      |  | /s/ DANIEL P. DONOVAN                
|               |  |  |  |                          |  | Daniel P. Donovan                    
|               |  |  |  |                          |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|               |  |  |  |                          |  | Star Gas Partners, L.P.              
|               |  |  |  |                          |  | Star Gas Finance Company
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D 20 2 3

- 0129 Lower Tribunal No. C F17

- 00 9340

- XX

_____________________________
F RANKY M. V ALLEJO , Appellant
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County

.

J. Kevin Abdoney , Judge.

July 2, 2024

PER CURIAM

.

AFFIRMED

.
WOZNIAK
, WHITE and BROWNLEE , JJ., c oncur.

Robin H. Stevenson, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Blain A. Goff, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
No. 91-6292.

#### Miller *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1665 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1665

To ensure that Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
    considers severe local impact in making a recommendation to the 
              President for a major disaster declaration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2017

 Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois (for himself and Mrs. Bustos) introduced 
      the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure that Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
    considers severe local impact in making a recommendation to the 
              President for a major disaster declaration.

    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 ``Disaster Declaration Improvement 
Act''.

SEC. 2. LOCAL IMPACT.

    In making recommendations to the President regarding a major 
disaster declaration, the Administrator shall give greater weight and 
consideration to severe local impact. Further, the Administrator shall 
make corresponding adjustments to the Agency's policies and regulations 
regarding such consideration. Not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall report to the 
Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs of the Senate on the changes made to regulations and policies 
and the number of declarations that have been declared based on the new 
criteria.
                                 <all>
```
WILLIAM C. BOND, Plaintiff,
v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action 10-1617 (RCL)

JUDGMENT For the reasons stated by the Court in its memorandum docketed this same day, it is hereby ORDERED that Bond’s motions to strike [Dkt. ##13, 25] are DENIED , ORDERED and ADJUDGEDthat defendants’ motions to dismiss [Dkt. ##10, 24] are GRANTED , and it is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Bond’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint [Dkt. #26], is DENIED . This case now stands DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE . This is a final and appealable order. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). Signed on December 6, 2011 by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8454

CHRIS RATTIS, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. H. JACKSON, Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-hc-02026-D)

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 17, 2009

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chris Rattis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Chris Rattis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely

filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed if the notice of appeal is untimely. Washington v. Bumgarner , 882 F.2d 899, 900 (4th Cir. 1989).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 29, 2008. Rattis’ notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on November 17, 2008. * Because Rattis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

23 reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1997

# NRC Staff to Meet with Public to Discuss Big Rock Point Decommissioning

----

----

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-17

February 19, 1997

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH PUBLIC TO DISCUSS BIG ROCK POINT DECOMMISSIONING

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public meeting on March 4 to discuss the decommissioning of the Big Rock Point Nuclear Station, Charlevoix, Michigan. The facility's operating license will expire on May 31, 2000.

The meeting will be chaired by Philip Johnson, Chairman, Charlevoix County Board of Commissioners and will begin at 7 p.m. in the Charlevoix Township Hall (Stroud Hall), 12491 Waller Road in Charlevoix.

The program will include presentations by the NRC on the decommissioning regulatory process and by Consumers Power Company on decommissioning activities. A question-and-answer period will follow.

Consumers Power plans to continue operations at Big Rock Point until the expiration of its operating license in slightly more than three years. Once operations cease, the utility plans to leave the facility in safe storage for 27 years to allow much of the onsite radioactivity to decay, and then to dismantle the plant. Consumers Power then plans to restore the site to a "green field" condition. These plans are spelled out in detail in the Big Rock Point post-shutdown decommissioning activities report which Consumers Power has filed with NRC.

The report (previously referred to as the Big Rock Point Decommissioning Plan) was submitted February 27, 1995, and is available for public inspection in the NRC local public document room at the North Central Michigan College, 1515 Howard Street in Petoskey, Michigan.

Another public meeting will be held before license termination and completion of decommissioning activities at Big Rock Point.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STAR GAS
PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF JUNE 30, 1997
AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE INTERIM PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 1996
THROUGH JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001002590
<NAME> STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           7,255
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                       485
<INVENTORY>                                      3,339
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,632
<PP&E>                                         114,135
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,750
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,948
<BONDS>                                         85,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,466<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                         132<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,767
<SALES>                                        113,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               117,396
<CGS>                                           63,578
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,056
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,902
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   382
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,386
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,092
<INCOME-TAX>                                        18
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,074
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,074
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32
<FN>
<F1>COMMON STOCK - IN DECEMBER 1995 STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P. ISSUED COMMON AND
SUBORDINATED UNITS WHICH REPRESENT LIMITED PARTNER INTERESTS.  THESE UNITS ARE
CONSIDERED TO POSSESS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMON STOCK AND ARE BOTH INCLUDED
IN THE DETERMINATION OF EPS.
<F2>OTHER SE - REPRESENTS THE GENERAL PARTNER'S INTEREST IN THE PARTNERSHIP AND
IS CLASSIFIED HERE SINCE IT DOES NOT POSSESS THE RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS OF
EITHER COMMON OR PREFERRED STOCK.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>