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.                  

###### Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

# AGENCY:

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

# ACTION:

Proposed additions the Procurement List.

# SUMMARY:

The Committee is proposing to add service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before: August 14, 2022.

# ADDRESSES:

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or email                         *CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

## Additions

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the service(s) listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

The following service(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

### Service(s)

*Service Type:*                         Facilities Support Services                    

*Mandatory for:*                         US Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Southwest Regional Maintenance Center, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Base Coronado (North Island), and Naval Base Point Loma, San Diego, CA                    

*Designated Source of Supply:*                         Professional Contract Services, Inc., Austin, TX                    

*Contracting Activity:*                         DEPT OF THE NAVY, SOUTHWEST REGIONAL MAINT CENTER                    

Michael R. Jurkowski,

Acting Director, Operations.

[FR Doc. 2022-15198 Filed 7-14-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
AMENDMENT NO. 1


                                     TO THE


                       AGREEMENT FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES



     THIS  AMENDMENT  NO. 1 TO THE  AGREEMENT  FOR  PROVISION  OF SERVICES  (the
"Amendment")  is  entered  into as of  January 1,  2000,  by and  between  MAFCO
HOLDINGS  INC., a Delaware  corporation  ("Mafco") and GOLDEN STATE BANCORP INC.
("GSB"),  a  Delaware  corporation,  in  reference  to the  following  facts and
understandings:

     WHEREAS, GSB and its subsidiaries have continuously  benefited from certain
services provided by Mafco for the benefit of GSB and its subsidiaries  pursuant
to the  Agreement  for  Provision  of Services  dated as of January 1, 1999 (the
"Agreement").

     WHEREAS,  GSB and Mafco desire to extend the term of the Agreement  through
December 31, 2001.

     NOW  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the  foregoing,  and of their mutual
covenants herein,  and intending to be legally bound thereby,  the parties agree
as follows:

     1. TERM OF AGREEMENT.  The term of the Agreement shall be extended  through
        -----------------
and including December 31, 2001.

     2. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. Except as specifically amended by this Amendment,
        ---------------------
all other terms and  conditions of the Agreement  shall remain in full force and
effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties have executed this Amendment by their duly
authorized officers effective on the date first written above.


MAFCO HOLDINGS INC.,                            GOLDEN STATE BANCORP INC.,
a Delaware corporation                          a Delaware corporation



By:     /s/ Glenn P. Dickes                  By:     /s/Eric K. Kawamura
   ------------------------------               --------------------------------
            Glenn P. Dickes                             Eric K. Kawamura
            Senior Vice President                       Senior Vice President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric C. Pinzon, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 425]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), rendered November 23, 2004, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

*434Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
TAYLOR v. TOWN OF RIVER BEND.

No. COA05-841.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 1, 2006.

Certification Date August 21, 2006.

Appeal from Craven (04CVS2193).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 4.9      CONSENT OF JOSEE-ANNE LEVESQUE   Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2011 (the Annual Report) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  I, Josee-Anne Levesque, staff member of the Company, participated, in the preparation of Technical Report and Recommendations, Summer-Fall 2010 Exploration Program, Lac Pau Project, Quebec, March 2011 (the Technical Study) concerning mineralized material in the Lac Pau property for the Company.   Portions of the Technical Study are summarized under the heading Item III Description of the Business  3.3.4 Geological Setting, 3.3.5 Exploration Work and Drilling, and 3.3.6 Mineralization  in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2011 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference therein).  I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.    Very truly yours,   /s/ Josée-Anne Lévesque _________ Name:  Josee-Anne Levesque, Trainee Geologist     May11, 2011
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period endedDecember 31, 2010 (the “Report”) of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, RICHARD L. PETEKA, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurerof the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. 

/s/ RICHARD L. PETEKA                    

Name: Richard L. Peteka 

Date: February 3, 2011
STATE of North Carolina v. Tyrone Maurice BATTS.

No. 565P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Adrian Lapas, Goldsboro, for Tyrone M. Batts.

Q. Shante Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of October 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of November 2005."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5657 

To clarify the authority of States to use funds as the non-Federal share 

of Medicaid expenditures for certain regional medical centers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 31, 2008 

Mr. COHEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To clarify the authority of States to use funds as the nonFederal share of Medicaid expenditures for certain regional medical centers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF STATE AU4 THORITY TO USE FUNDS AS THE NON-FED5 ERAL SHARE OF MEDICAID EXPENDITURES 

6 FOR CERTAIN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTERS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in section 1903(w) of the 

8 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(w)) shall be con9 strued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

10 as prohibiting a State’s use of funds as the non-Federal 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5657 IH

1 share of expenditures under title XIX of such Act where 

2 such funds are transferred from or certified by a publicly3 owned regional medical center located in another State 

4 and described in subsection (b), so long as the Secretary 

5 determines that such use of funds is proper and in the 

6 interest of the program under title XIX. 

7 (b) CENTER DESCRIBED.—A center described in this 

8 subsection is a publicly-owned regional medical center 

9 that— 

10 (1) provides level 1 trauma and burn care serv11 ices; 

12 (2) provides level 3 neonatal care services; 

13 (3) is obligated to serve all patients, regardless 

14 of ability to pay; 

15 (4) is located within a Standard Metropolitan 

16 Statistical Area (SMSA) that includes at least 3 

17 States; 

18 (5) provides services as a tertiary care provider 

19 for patients residing within a 125-mile radius; and 

20 (6) meets the criteria for a disproportionate 

21 share hospital under section 1923 of such Act (42 

22 U.S.C. 1396r–4) in at least one State other than the 

23 State in which the center is located. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
RAMIREZ v. GOLDEN CORRAL.

No. COA05-587.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 3, 2006.

Certification Date January 23, 2006.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #919517).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. POLLEY.

No. COA05-557.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 17, 2006.

Certification Date February 6, 2006.

Appeal from New Hanover (03CRS52703).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5653 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5653

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain isotopic separation machinery 
  and apparatus, and parts thereof, for use in the construction of an 
          isotopic separation facility in southern New Mexico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2008

 Mr. Pearce (for himself, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, and Mrs. Wilson of 
 New Mexico) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reduce temporarily the duty on certain isotopic separation machinery 
  and apparatus, and parts thereof, for use in the construction of an 
          isotopic separation facility in southern New Mexico.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ISOTOPIC MACHINERY AND APPARATUS, AND PARTS THEREOF, 
              FOR USE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ISOTROPIC SEPARATION 
              FACILITY IN SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.84.05       Isotopic            2.2%         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          separation                                                         31/2011.......
                          machinery and
                          apparatus, and
                          parts thereof,
                          for use in the
                          construction of
                          an isotopic
                          separation
                          facility located
                          in southern New
                          Mexico known as
                          the ``National
                          Enrichment
                          Facility''
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          8401.20.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.14


    Exhibit
      10.14
      FIFTH
        AMENDMENT TO

      AMERICAN
        RETIREMENT CORPORATION

      ASSOCIATE
        STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

      


      
        	 The
                American Retirement Corporation Associate Stock Purchase Plan is
                hereby
                amended, effective as of July 1, 2005, as follows:
	 	 
	
                1.

              	
                By
                  adding a new Section 4.5 to read as follows:

              
	 	 
	
                 

              	
                "4.5
                  Officers Not Eligible to Participate.

              
	 	 
	 	
                Notwithstanding
                  anything herein to the contrary, no officer of ARC shall be eligible
                  to
                  participate in this Plan. For purposes of this Section 4.5, an
“officer”
                  shall be defined to mean any employee of ARC holding any of the
                  following
                  titles: Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief Operating
                  Officer, Executive Vice President, Senior Vice President, Vice
                  President,
                  Secretary or Treasurer.”

              
	 	 
	
                2.

              	
                By
                  deleting Section 6.3 in its entirety and substituting therefore
                  the
                  following:

              
	 	 
	 	
                “The
                  Exercise Price of the options granted under this Plan for any Option
                  Period shall be eighty-five percent (85%) of the Closing Market
                  Price of
                  the Stock on the Exercise
                  Date.”
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00420

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 322nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 322

- 587262

- 15
Before Pittman, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### G ARTH 

### R

AYMOND 

### P ROIETTI 

### , Appellant

V



### . L ORIE 

### A NN 

### P ROIETTI 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Gar th Raymond Proietti filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial
court’s November 19, 2018 “Order o n Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Motion for Modification of Spousal Maintenance .” The trial court subsequently granted
A ppellant’s motion for new tri al on J anuary 31, 2019 , while it still had plenary power over the case. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(e).
On February 6, 2019 , we informed the parties that it appeared the trial court’s granting of the motion for new trial rendered this appeal moot and that th e appeal would be dismissed as moot unless, on or before February 19, 201 9 , any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Neither party filed a response. Accordingly, on this court’s own motion, we d ismiss th is appeal as moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
Per Curiam
Delivered: March 28, 2019
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

GABRIEL KOTSIS, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent

______________________

2024

- 1920

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. AT

- 0432

- 16

- 0006

- B

- 1.

______________________
ON MOTION

______________________
Before L OURIE , C UNNINGHAM , and S TARK , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Gabriel Kotsis filed an appeal at the Merit Systems Protection Board challenging his removal and raising, among other things , affirmative defense s o f disability discrimination and reprisal for engaging in Equal Employment Opportunity activity . The Board’s final decision affirmed. Mr. Kotsis petitioned this court for review

, and Case: 24-1920 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 08/21/2024KOTSIS v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2

his filings indicate that he wishes to continue to pursue his discrimination and retaliation claims. T he agency moves to waive Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and dismiss or transfer this matter . Mr. Kotsis has not filed a response to the motion.
We transfer this case. Federal district courts, not thiscourt, have jurisdiction over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2), which involve an allegation of an action appealable to the Board and an allegation that a basis for the action was covered discrimination. Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017). Here, Mr. Kotsis continues to pursue the allegations he made before the Board that his removal was the result of covered discri mination, so jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision lies in district court. We transfer to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, where the employment action appears to have occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Accordingly

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

Th e motion is granted to the extent that the matter and all case filings are transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

August 2 1 , 2024 Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 24-1920 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 08/21/2024
DANIEL P. COLWART , Petitioner,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Respondent. ___________________________/ 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 FIL ED
CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1465

Opinion filed December 9, 2014.
Petition for Belated Appeal

-- Original Jurisdiction

. Daniel P. Colwart, pro se , Petitioner. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM. The petition seeking a belated appeal of the order denying defendant’s motion to withdraw plea rendered on November 12, 2013, in Duval County Circuit Court casenumber 16

- 2011

- CF

- 3900

- AXXX

- MA is granted. Upon issuance of mandate, a copy of this opinion shall be furnished to the clerk of the lower tribunal for treatment as a notice of appeal. Insofar as the petition seeks a belated appeal in circuit court case number 16

- 2011

- CF

- 003769

- AXXX

- MA, the petition is denied.
V AN NORTWICK, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ. , CONCUR.

2
STATE of North Carolina v. Vonderick LANGLEY.

No. 535P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

Lemuel W. Hinton, for Vonderick Langley.

Jay L. Osborne, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 20th day of October 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*448"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd day of March 2006."
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-5026

PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 06-CV-144,

Judge Marian Blank Horn.

ON MOTION

Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the United States' unopposed motion for a 60-day

extension of time, until August 5, 2009, to file its brief,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

JUN 11 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk	_FILED U.S. COUn OF APPEALS

THE FEDERAL CRCUIT"

JUN 1 1 2009

Jtu• abituttla

CLERK

Date

cc:	Michael J. Cook, Esq.

Leslie Cayer Ohta, Esq.

s19
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed March

10 , 2020.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 20
- 00126
- CV

IN RE ISCO INDUSTRIES, INC. , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 125th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017
- 32226


### MEMORANDUM OPINION On February 5, 2020, relator Isco Industries, Inc. filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( Supp. ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Kyle Carter , presiding judge of the 125th District Court of Harris County , to vacate his January 6, 2020 order denying r elator’s “ Rule 12 Motion Requesting Attorn eys’ for Plaintiffs and Intervenor To Show Authority to Prosecute their Claims .”2

With certain exceptions not applicable here , to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy at law, such as an appeal

. In re Garza , 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) ; In re Prudential Ins. Co

. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)

. Because relator has not shown it is entitled to mandamus relief, we deny its petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Zimmerer

.