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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5337 

To amend section 3903 of title 31, United States Code, to establish accelerated payments applicable to contracts with certain small business concerns, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 20, 2018 

Mr. KNIGHT (for himself, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. CHABOT, and Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend section 3903 of title 31, United States Code, 

to establish accelerated payments applicable to contracts 

with certain small business concerns, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Accelerated Payments 

5 for Small Businesses Act of 2018’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5337 IH

1 SEC. 2. ACCELERATED PAYMENTS APPLICABLE TO CON2 TRACTS WITH CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS 

3 CONCERNS UNDER THE PROMPT PAYMENT 

4 ACT. 

5 Section 3903(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ‘‘except as 

8 provided in paragraphs (10) and (11),’’ before ‘‘30 

9 days’’; 

10 (2) in paragraph (8), by striking ‘‘and’’; 

11 (3) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at 

12 the end; and 

13 (4) by adding at the end the following new 

14 paragraphs: 

15 ‘‘(10) for a prime contractor (as defined in sec16 tion 8701(5) of title 41) that is a small business 

17 concern (as defined under section 3 of the Small 

18 Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632)), to the fullest extent 

19 permitted by law, establish an accelerated payment 

20 date with a goal of 15 days after a proper invoice 

21 for the amount due is received if a specific payment 

22 date is not established by contract; and 

23 ‘‘(11) for a prime contractor (as defined in sec24 tion 8701(5) of title 41) that subcontracts with a 

25 small business concern (as defined under section 3 

26 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632)), to the 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5337 IH

1 fullest extent permitted by law, establish an acceler2 ated payment date with a goal of 15 days after a 

3 proper invoice for the amount due is received if— 

4 ‘‘(A) a specific payment date is not estab5 lished by contract; and 

6 ‘‘(B) such prime contractor agrees to make 

7 payments to such subcontractor in accordance 

8 with such accelerated payment date, to the 

9 maximum extent practicable, without any fur10 ther consideration from or fees charged to such 

11 subcontractor.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2011039EN.01000601.xml

| 8.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6041 — PAI/Gecos/Nuance)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 39/03

On 31 January 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6041. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6041. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2009212EN.01001701.xml

| 5.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/17

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 September 2009

2009/C 212/06

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4262 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,45 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4436 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87200 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2844 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5157 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6080 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,561 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 274,35 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7023 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1145 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2468 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1420 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6915 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5581 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,0533 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0851 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0517 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 769,09 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,9136 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7409 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3334 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 426,36 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0281 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 69,337 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 45,1308 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,597 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6469 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,3072 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,7270 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4262

JPY

Japanese yen

132,45

DKK

Danish krone

7,4436

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87200

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2844

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5157

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6080

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,561

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

274,35

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7023

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1145

RON

Romanian leu

4,2468

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1420

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6915

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5581

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,0533

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0851

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0517

KRW

South Korean won

1 769,09

ZAR

South African rand

10,9136

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7409

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3334

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 426,36

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0281

PHP

Philippine peso

69,337

RUB

Russian rouble

45,1308

THB

Thai baht

48,597

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6469

MXN

Mexican peso

19,3072

INR

Indian rupee

69,7270

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Exhibit 18











October 11, 1996



To the Board of Directors of
Pro-Fac Cooperative, Inc.

Dear Directors:

We have been  furnished  with a copy of the Form 10-Q for  Pro-Fac  Cooperative,
Inc. for the quarter ended September 28, 1996. NOTE 1 therein describes a change
in the method of  accounting  for spare  parts  inventory,  whereby  spare parts
previously  charged  directly to expense  will be  capitalized  until  placed in
service. It should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable method
of  accounting  for spare  parts  over  another  has not been  addressed  in any
authoritative  accounting  literature,  and in arriving at our opinion expressed
below, we have relied on the business planning and judgment of management. Based
upon our discussions  with management and the stated reasons for the change,  we
believe that such change represents,  in your  circumstances,  the adoption of a
preferable  alternative  accounting principle for spare parts in conformity with
Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 20.

We have not  made an  audit  in  accordance  with  generally  accepted  auditing
standards  of the  financial  statements  of Pro-Fac  Cooperative,  Inc. for the
three-month  period ended  September  28, 1996 and,  accordingly,  we express no
opinion thereon or on the financial  information  files as part of the Form 10-Q
of which this letter is to be an exhibit.

Yours very truly,



/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Wollemi Mining Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Susana
Gomez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
21st day of October, 2008.


/s/ Susana Gomez
-------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES G. KINNEY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

FRANCES ROTHSCHILD; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 56356

D.C. No. 2:17

- cv

- 05342

- GW

- SS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Charles G. Kinney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging violations of federal law

. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for

failure to comply with a pre

- f iling vexatious litigant order

. In re Fillbach , 223

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Kinney’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief , is denied. 

# FILED

MAY 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. CO URT OF APPEALS2 17

- 56356

F.3d 1089, 1090

- 91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Kinney’s action

because Kinney failed to comply with the vexatious litigant order entered aga inst

him

. See id. at 1091 ( litigant may not avoid a vexatious litigant order by filing suit

in a different court ).

The district court did not abuse its discre tion by dismissing Kinney’s action

without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth

standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper

when amendment would be futile).

The district court d id not abuse its discre tion by denying Kinney’s motion to

vacate or reconsider the district court’s dismissal order because Kinney failed to

establish any grounds for such relief

. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or.

v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of

review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60 ).

We reject as meritless Kinney’s contention that the magistrate judge lacked

authority to transfer this case and to enter other interlocutory orders. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(A).

Appellees Clark, Marcus, and Chomsky’s motion to be dismissed from this

appeal (Docket Entry No. 12 ) is granted.3 17

- 56356

The parties’ requests for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 13, and 14)

are granted.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

AXA EQUITABLE LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:11-cv-188-RS-WCS

KATHRYN SIMKINS-ESFORMES

and LEE WARWICK,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Mediation Report (Doc. 56). Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 16.2(D), IT 

IS ORDERED:

1. This case is dismissed from the active docket of the court.

2. In the event that the settlement between these parties is not consummated, the 

Court reserves jurisdiction, upon motion filed by any party within sixty days 

of the date of this Order, to amend or vacate and set aside this Order and 

reinstate the case. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file for administrative purposes, and upon the 

expiration of 60 days without activity, the clerk is directed to close the case in 

its entirety for all purposes.

ORDERED on August 19, 2011.

/s/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-00188-RS-WCS Document 57 Filed 08/19/11 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:11-cv-00188-RS-WCS Document 57 Filed 08/19/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

WELLS FARGO BANK NA, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00127-MP-GRJ

BBMJ. LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of

Deadlines. (Doc. 38). The parties move the Court for an extension of deadlines for

their Rule 26(a) disclosures and Rule 26(f) report to February 10, 2012. A motion for

more definite statement is pending before the Court and plaintiff has informed

defendants that it intends to seek leave to amend its complaint to include fraudulent

conveyance claims against one or more defendants.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The parties joint motion for extension of deadlines is GRANTED.

2. The parties shall submit their Rule 26(f) report and make all Rule 26(a)

disclosures on or before February 10, 2012.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2012. 

áBZtÜç eA ]ÉÇxá 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00127-GRJ Document 39 Filed 01/26/12 Page 1 of 1
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this 15th day of September 2014, by and between UNILIFE CORPORATION (“Unilife”) and Ramin Mojdehbakhsh, Ph.D. (“Mojdeh”). 

WHEREAS, Unilife and Mojdeh have entered into an employment agreement, dated as of July 1, 2012 (the
“Agreement”), as amended by agreement dated September 12, 2013, in connection with Mojdeh’s employment by Unilife; and 

WHEREAS, Unilife and Mojdeh desire to amend the term of the Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and covenants set forth herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties
agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	The first sentence of Section 1 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following. Other than this first sentence of Section 1, Section 1 shall remain unchanged:


 “This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of this agreement and shall expire on
December 31, 2019.” 
  

	 	2.	Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement. All other provisions of the Agreement not amended by this Amendment shall continue in full force and effect. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the date first set forth above. 

 

							
	UNILIFE CORPORATION:	 		 	Ramin Mojdehbakhsh, Ph.D.:
				
	By:	 	 /s/ John C. Ryan
	 		 	 /s/ Ramin Mojdehbakhsh

		 	John C. Ryan	 		 	
		 	 Senior Vice President,
 General Counsel and
Secretary
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1] 

                    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the market for the securities of Xiiva Holdings, Inc. (“Xiiva,” trading symbol XIVAF), may be reacting to manipulative forces or deceptive practices and that there is insufficient current public information about the issuer upon which an informed investment decision may be made, particularly concerning (1) the identity of and prior securities fraud judgments against persons who appear to be involved in the offer and sale of                           ( print page 71726)                        Xiiva shares; (2) the financial performance and business prospects of Xiiva; and (3) offerings to foreign investors and any restrictions on the resale of shares.                 

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. 

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for the period of 9:30 a.m. EST, December 14, 2007 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on December 28, 2007. 

By the Commission. 

J. Lynn Taylor, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07-6097 Filed 12-14-07; 12:26 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

NOVEMBER 26, 2014 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 30.25(b). 

1. SD33099 State of Missouri, Respondent vs. Thomas D. Freeman, Appellant
NIOSH Conformity Assessment Letter to 

Manufacturers

NIOSH CA 2018-1008

October 2018

 

Resolution to Issue Affecting Chemical Warfare Agent (CWA) Testing for 

NIOSH CBRN Respirator Approvals, supersedes NIOSH CA 2018-1001
Document Number

NIOSH CA 2018-1008

Page 2 of 2

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) employs the U.S. Army Research 

Development and Engineering Command, Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC) to conduct 

Chemical Warfare Agent (CWA) testing. These services support the NIOSH Respirator Approval 

Program by completing CWA testing for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) 

respiratory protection conformance.

On September 27, 2018, NIOSH visited ECBC to observe and understand resolutions implemented in 

response to the May 23, 2018 ECBC Simulant Agent Resistant Test Manikin (SMARTMAN) Laboratory

safety stand-down due to fume hood airflow issues. 

Beginning mid-October, 2018 ECBC SMARTMAN testing can resume and NIOSH has prioritized work to 

be completed based on the five CBRN projects currently in the ECBC test queue. NIOSH and ECBC 

expect this backlog of projects will be tested and completed in approximately two months. NIOSH and 

ECBC also expect testing needed to complete submissions to NFPA 1981:2018 can begin in midDecember, 2018. 

Subject: Resolution of Issue Affecting Chemical Warfare Agent (CWA) Testing for 

NIOSH CBRN Respirator Approvals, supersedes NIOSH CA 2018-1001
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LAMAR D. HODGES, 

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv139-MP-GRJ

EDWIN BUSS, 

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation dated January 30, 2012. (Doc. 16). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred (doc. 14) is

GRANTED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of February, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-00139-MP-GRJ Document 18 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 1