alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc .. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W9124A-04-C-001 l ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 59802, 59856 

60016,60306 

Brett W. Johnson, Esq. 

Colin P. Ahler, Esq. 

Snell & Wilmer LLP 

Phoenix, AZ 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Jamal A. Rhinehardt, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER REGARDING PARTIES' REQUEST FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO 

FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 502(D) 

The parties request that the Board issue an order pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 502(d). 

That rule provides that: 

A federal court may order that the [attorney-client] 

privilege or [attorney work product] protection is not 

waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending 

before the court-in which event the disclosure is also not 

a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding. 

We deny the parties' request. The Board is not a federal court; consequently, 

Rule 502( d) does not authorize the Board to issue an order that would determine 

whether a disclosure connected with the appeals before it would be a waiver in "any 

other federal or state proceeding." In the alternative, the parties request a protective 

order, but the parties on 3 December 2015 agreed between themselves that: 

[A] Party's inadvertent disclosure or production of any 

documents or information in this proceeding shall not, for 

purposes of this proceeding or any other proceeding in any 

other court, constitute a waiver by that Party of any 

privilege or protection applicable to those documents, 

including the attorney-client privilege, work product 

protection and any other privilege or protection recognized 

by law. 
In view of that agreement, the parties do not persuade us that a protective order is 

needed. Although the parties point out that, pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 502(e), "[a]n 

agreement on the effect of disclosure in a federal proceeding is binding only on the 

parties to the agreement, unless it is incorporated into a court order," again, the Board 

is not a court; consequently, Rule 502 does not authorize the Board to bind non-parties 

to the parties' agreement. Nor do we find authority in our own rules to do so. 

For these reasons, the parties' requests are denied. 

Dated: 8 February 2016 

I concur 

Administrative 

~~ Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 59802, 59856, 60016, 

60306, Appeals of Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc., rendered in 

conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
James H. Wilson, Jr., VSB No: 27878

Counsel for Defendant

4860 Cox Road, Suite 200

Glen Allen, VA 23060

(804) 740-6464

1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

In re: :

:

CHERYL CIBULA PAYNE, : Case No: 20-30524

: Chapter 13

Debtor. :

:

THOMAS C. PAYNE, :

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : AP No: 20-03037

:

CHERYL CIBULA PAYNE, :

Defendant. :

MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

COMES NOW the Defendant Cheryl Cibula Payne, by counsel, and moves this 

court, pursuant to F.R.B.P. 7012(b)(6), to dismiss the “Motion Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 

§1328” for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As her grounds in 

support thereof, Defendant states as follows:

1. A Domestic Support Obligation is a defined in 11 U.S.C. §101(14A) and 

consists of the four elements found in subsections (A), (B), (C), and (D).

2. A party attempting to prove the existence of a Domestic Support Obligation 

must prove all four elements. In re Forgette, 379 B.R. 623

(Bankr. W.D. Va, 2007).

3. Although Plaintiff alleges the debt is a Domestic Support Obligation, he has 

failed to allege specifically elements (B) and (D).

4. Plaintiff bears the burden of proving a Domestic Support Obligation is support 

or “actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support.” Pagels v. 

Case 20-03037-KLP Doc 10 Filed 05/20/20 Entered 05/20/20 15:23:34 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
James H. Wilson, Jr., VSB No: 27878

Counsel for Defendant

4860 Cox Road, Suite 200

Glen Allen, VA 23060

(804) 740-6464

2

Pagels, APN 10-07070-SCS (EDVA Bkr. 2010) citing Tilley v. Jessee, 789 

F.2d 1074, 1077 (4th Cir. 1986).

5. In support of his “Motion” in this chapter 13 case, Plaintiff erroneously relies

on In re Schenkein, 2010 WL3219464, a New York chapter 7 case, which 

stands for the proposition that it does not matter in chapter 7 whether the debt 

is a 523(a)(5) debt or a 523(a)(15) debt.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant moves this court to dismiss the “Motion Pursuant 

to 11 U.S.C. §1328”, and to issue such other orders, processes, or judgments that are 

necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of Title 11.

Date: May 20, 2020 CHERYL CIBULA PAYNE

By Counsel

/s/James H. Wilson, Jr.

James H. Wilson, Jr.

Counsel for Defendant

VSB No: 27878

4860 Cox Road, Suite 200

Glen Allen, VA 23060

(804) 740-6464

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that I have this 20th day of May, 2020, mailed a true copy of this Motion

to James M. Goff, II, Esq., James M. Goff, II, P.C., 10310 Memory Ln., Ste. 2C, P.O. 

Box 313, Chesterfield, VA 23832.

/s/ James H. Wilson, Jr.

James H. Wilson, Jr., VSB No: 27878

Counsel for Defendant

Case 20-03037-KLP Doc 10 Filed 05/20/20 Entered 05/20/20 15:23:34 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 10.1




Professional Marketing Fee and Additional Compensation




Lorden y Asociados and/or Dr. Ricardo Lorden and his staff will implement the aforementioned Marketing and Government Relations Program throughout the Mexican Republic for Aquentium, Inc.  The required Professional fee for our Marketing and Government Relations Services will be $12,500.00 U.S. Dollars per month for a period of one year commencing upon the acceptance of the Marketing and Government Relations Program.  Please note that after the initial fee payment has been duly executed, all future payments can be covered with negotiable stock issued from your Public Corporation.




The first payment needs to be executed on the date this agreement is signed, and each following payment will be executed on the first day of every month thereafter.




Lorden y Asociados and or Ricardo Lorden will receive a commission on all units sold in Mexico.  This commission is over and above the aforementioned Marketing and Governmental Relations fee.  The percentage of the commission will be negotiated upon consummation of this agreement.




The monthly marketing fee does not include out of pocket expenses such as incorporation for your Mexican subsidiary, travel, long distance telephone, printing and production of sales and marketing materials, videos, DVD’s etc.  These expenses will be billed at cost and any expenditure over $1,500.00 U.S. Dollars will require written prior approval.




We have the relationships in order to consummate major sales through out Mexico, especially in the state of Puebla, Yucatan, Quintana Roo, Veracruz, and Chiapas, all of which have suffered mayor destruction to their basic infrastructure, rural housing, schools and health centers, etc. caused by recent Hurricanes, major rains and flooding.




If our company obtains the [any] funding necessary for your company, we will receive 10% of the total amount of  funding. A separate agreement will be executed after this agreement is signed to incorporation commission and/or stock options.




As J. Paul Getty once told me when I represented his interests in Mexico, and I quote: “Wealth can be accumulated when you find the need and fill it”.  IADDIC and its technologies truly fill the present and immediate needs in Mexico for Low Cost Housing and Shelters.







		
	Agreed and Accepted




/s/ Mark Taggatz

Aquentium, Inc.

Mark Taggatz

President & CEO

	Agreed and Accepted




/s/Ricardo Lorden

Lorden y Asociados.

Dr. Ricardo Lorden.

President.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 141

 139

 158

 159

 154

 160

 155

 161

 164

 162

 170

 189

 197

 218

 233

 222

 201

 194

 196

 198

 208

 206

 204

 197

 193

 186

 185

 170

 181

 177

 174

 112

 113

 115

 118

 120

 122

 124

 133

 147

 148

 147

 155

 158

 160

 165

 183

 174

 176

 179

 183

 189

 197

 191

 188

 178

 166

 151

 155

 159

 163

 165

 121

 123

 128

 130

 132

 138

 141

 146

 153

 155

 159

 169

 175

 178

 186

 193

 187

 184

 187

 189

 198

 201

 197

 191

 185

 176

 169

 163

 168

 170

 170

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 19, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 2,230

 2,130

 2,031

 1,935

 1,870

 1,852

 1,845

 1,847

 1,862

 1,883

 1,906

 1,943

 1,995

 2,048

 2,113

 2,183

 2,242

 2,296

 2,351

 2,402

 2,459

 2,514

 2,558

 2,594

 2,620

 2,627

 2,621

 2,606

 2,588

 2,565

 2,548

 159

 152

 145

 138

 134

 132

 132

 132

 133

 135

 136

 139

 143

 146

 151

 156

 160

 164

 168

 172

 176

 180

 183

 185

 187

 188

 187

 186

 185

 183

 182

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
###### Editorial Note on Part 18

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 18 appear by T.D. ATF-436, 66 FR 5471, 5472, Jan. 19, 2001.

#### § 18.12 Delegations of the Administrator.

The regulatory authorities of the Administrator contained in this part are delegated to appropriate TTB officers. These TTB officers are specified in TTB Order 1135.18, Delegation of the Administrator's Authorities in 27 CFR Part 18, Production of a Volatile Fruit-Flavor Concentrate. You may obtain a copy of this order by accessing the TTB Web site (*http://www.ttb.gov*) or by mailing a request to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, National Revenue Center, 550 Main Street, Room 1516, Cincinnati, OH 45202.

[T.D. TTB-44, 71 FR 16927, Apr. 4, 2006]
#### ARNING, et al, Respondents, v. HARTMAN MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant.

(268 N. W. 698.)

(File No. 7928.

Opinion filed August 18, 1936.)

*Roy B. Willy,*of Sioux Falls, *(T. M. Bailey,*of Sioux Falls, of counsel), for Appellant.

*T. R. Johnson*and *Gordon Graff,*both of Sioux Falls, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

In 1928 plaintiff’s predecessors in interest leased to defendant for a five-year term certain premises in the city of Sioux Falls to be used and occupied by defendant for the conducting of its business, consisting of the operation and maintenance of a garage, business office, and automobile showroom. In 1931, claiming that the landlord had permitted the premises to fall into disrepair and continue in such disrepair notwithstanding notice, defendant company vacated the same. The present action was instituted to recover the rent for the unexpired term, and judgment below was directed for the plaintiffs.

*525The only question presented by this appeal is 'whether or not the action of defendant-appellant in vacating t'he premises as above stated was justified by the provisions of section 1057, 1058, R. C. 1919. The learned trial judge, relying upon the decision of the territorial court in Edmison v. Aslesen, 4 Dak. 145, 27 N. W. 82 (1886), ruled that it was not. We think such ruling was right, notwithstanding some language in Prior v. Sanborn County, 12 S. D. 86, 80 N. W. 169 (1899), and1 Armstrong v. Thompson, 62 S. D. 567, 255 N. W. 561, 96 A. L. R. 561 (1934), which appears either to overlook, or to be in conflict with, the interpretation of the statute announced by the Bdmison 'Case.

The judgment and order appealed from are therefore affirmed.

RUDODP'H, J., absent and not sitting.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY

 396.17

 397.23

 398.34

 399.62

 400.90

 402.11

 403.31

 404.64

 406.07

 407.48

 409.10

 411.06

 413.16

 415.28

 417.57

 418.21

 419.28

 420.32

 421.28

 422.24

 423.62

 424.04

 424.48

 425.74

 428.06

 428.56

 429.30

 431.35

 432.33

 433.18

 434.23

 492,786

 501,055

 509,769

 519,887

 530,078

 539,780

 549,466

 560,276

 571,987

 583,623

 597,099

 613,557

 631,376

 649,557

 669,413

 675,003

 684,386

 693,552

 702,054

 710,595

 722,939

 726,712

 730,672

 742,058

 763,143

 767,715

 774,498

 793,397

 802,486

 810,399

 820,209

 0

 0

 1,343

 937

 932

 926

 2,733

 906

 892

 3,754

 3,743

 5,628

 5,404

 8,507

 8,154

 2,009

 2,674

 8,727

 5,793

 5,407

 4,330

 1,861

 2,949

 2,893

 8,575

 1,448

 1,473

 12,439

 1,820

 2,906

 5,298

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SAN LUIS RESERVOIR FEDERAL February 12, 2015

DAILY OPERATIONS

DECEMBER 2014 RUN DATE:

FEDERAL

CHANGE CHANGE

PACHECO

PUMP

TOTALS 331,693 0 4,021 106,913

FEDERAL

PUMP ADJ

FEDERAL

GEN

 4,270

 8,269

 8,714

 10,118

 10,191

 9,702

 9,686

 10,810

 11,711

 11,636

 13,476

 16,458

 17,819

 18,181

 19,856

 5,590

 9,383

 9,166

 8,502

 8,541

 12,344

 3,773

 3,960

 11,386

 21,085

 4,572

 6,783

 18,899

 9,089

 7,913

 9,810

 39

 39

 30

 35

 33

 33

 33

 36

 75

 81

 81

 72

 76

 133

 155

 195

 198

 192

 192

 194

 200

 204

 199

 195

 193

 191

 194

 198

 195

 196

 134

-174

-120

865

459

546

385

2,283

424

337

3,162

3,946

5,187

4,953

8,049

8,160

1,881

2,574

8,496

5,607

5,252

4,096

1,492

2,671

2,715

8,315

1,000

1,036

12,143

3,650

2,589

4,934

ELEV STORAGE

 114,461

 177,495

 177,375

 178,240

 178,699

 179,245

 179,630

 181,913

 182,337

 182,674

 185,836

 189,782

 194,969

 199,922

 207,971

 216,131

 218,012

 220,586

 229,082

 234,689

 239,941

 244,037

 245,529

 248,200

 250,915

 259,230

 260,230

 261,266

 273,409

 277,059

 279,648

 284,582

FEDERAL

STORAGE

COMMENTS : 

VALUES IN ACRE-FEET

 177,669

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0
### Part B—Mexico Labor Attaches
§ 690.80 Recalculation of a Federal Pell Grant award. ( a ) *Change in expected family contribution.* ( 1 ) The institution shall recalculate a Federal Pell Grant award for the entire award year if the student's expected family contribution changes at any time during the award year. The change may result from— ( i ) The correction of a clerical or arithmetic error under § 690.14; or
( ii ) A correction based on information required as a result of verification under 34 CFR part 668, subpart E.
( 2 ) Except as described in 34 CFR 668.60(c), the institution shall adjust the student's award when an overaward or underaward is caused by the change in the expected family contribution. That adjustment must be made— ( i ) Within the same award year—if possible—to correct any overpayment or underpayment; or
( ii ) During the next award year to correct any overpayment that could not be adjusted during the year in which the student was overpaid.
( b ) *Change in enrollment status.* ( 1 ) If the student's enrollment status changes from one academic term to another term within the same award year, the institution shall recalculate the Federal Pell Grant award for the new payment period taking into account any changes in the cost of attendance.
( 2 ) ( i ) If the student's projected enrollment status changes during a payment period after the student has begun attendance in all of his or her classes for that payment period, the institution may (but is not required to) establish a policy under which the student's award for the payment period is recalculated. Any such recalculations must take into account any changes in the cost of attendance. If such a policy is established, it must apply to all students.
( ii ) If a student's projected enrollment status changes during a payment period before the student begins attendance in all of his or her classes for that payment period, the institution shall recalculate the student's enrollment status to reflect only those classes for which the student actually began attendance.
( c ) *Change in cost of attendance.* If the student's cost of attendance changes at any time during the award year and his or her enrollment status remains the same, the institution may (but is not required to) establish a policy under which the student's award for the payment period is recalculated. If such a policy is established, it must apply to all students.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a)
[50 FR 10724, Mar. 15, 1985, as amended at 59 FR 54735, Nov. 1, 1994]
#### Edward J. Murphy, Respondent, v. Long Island Electric Railway Company, Appellant.

Order reversed, with costs, and verdict unanimously reinstated, with costs. (See *Simonsen*v. *Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co.,*53 App. Div. 478.) Present—Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear by T.D. ATF-235, 66 FR 5473, Jan. 19, 2001, and T.D. ATF-463 and T.D. ATF-462, 66 FR 42733, 42736, Aug. 15, 2001.

§ 20.111 General. ( a ) Formula approval obtained on TTB Form 5150.19 is not required for an article made in accordance with any approved general-use formula that is specified in §§ 20.112 through 20.124, that is approved by the appropriate TTB officer as an alternate method, or that is published as a TTB Ruling on the TTB Web site at *https://www.ttb.gov .* However, a statement of process on TTB Form 5150.19 is still required in any of the circumstances described in § 20.94.
( b ) Any interested party may petition TTB for approval of a new general-use formula by submitting a letter describing the proposed general-use formula to the appropriate TTB officer.
( c ) The manufacturer shall ensure that each finished article made pursuant to a general-use formula is unfit for beverage use and is incapable of being reclaimed or diverted to beverage use or internal human use.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1513-0061) [T.D. ATF-199, 50 FR 9162, Mar. 6, 1985, as amended by T.D. TTB-140, 81 FR 59457, Aug. 30, 2016]
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Amended Quarterly Report of Quixit,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2002 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I, H.
Daniel Boone,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
USC section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
for 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.

                                        /s/H. Daniel Boone
                                        --------------------------
                                       H. Daniel Boone, Chief Executive Officer

Dated 11/13/02
### §§3351 to 3358. Repealed. Pub. L. 116–113, title VI, §601, Jan. 29, 2020, 134 Stat. 78

Section 3351, Pub. L. 103–182, title III, §301, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2100, provided definitions for this subpart.

Section 3352, Pub. L. 103–182, title III, §302, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2100, related to commencing of action for relief.

Section 3353, Pub. L. 103–182, title III, §303, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2101, related to required International Trade Commission actions on petitions.

Section 3354, Pub. L. 103–182, title III, §304, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2102, related to provision of relief from certain imports.

Section 3355, Pub. L. 103–182, title III, §305, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2103, related to termination of relief authority for certain articles.

Section 3356, Pub. L. 103–182, title III, §306, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2104, related to compensation authority.

Section 3357, Pub. L. 103–182, title III, §307, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2104, related to submission of petitions to the International Trade Commission.

Section 3358, Pub. L. 103–182, title III, §309, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2105; Pub. L. 104–295, §21(b)(4), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3530; Pub. L. 114–125, title VIII, §802(d)(2), Feb. 24, 2016, 130 Stat. 210, related to price-based snapback for frozen concentrated orange juice.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on the date on which the USMCA entered into force (July 1, 2020), see section 601 of Pub. L. 116–113, set out as a note under former section 3301 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 103–182, title III, §318, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2108, which provided that the provisions of subtitle A of title III of Pub. L. 103–182 would take effect on the date the North American Free Trade Agreement entered into force with respect to the United States, was repealed by Pub. L. 116–113, title VI, §601, Jan. 29, 2020, 134 Stat. 78, effective on the date the USMCA entered into force (July 1, 2020).
###### Editorial Note on Part 18

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 18 appear by T.D. ATF-436, 66 FR 5471, 5472, Jan. 19, 2001.

#### § 18.15 Right of entry and examination.

Appropriate TTB officers may at all times, as well by night as by day, enter any concentrate plant to make examination of the materials, equipment, and facilities thereon; and make such gauges and inventories as they deem necessary. Whenever appropriate TTB officers, having demanded admittance and declared their name and office, are not admitted into such premises by the proprietor or other person having charge thereof, they may at all times use such force as is necessary for them to gain entry to such premises.

(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1357, as amended, 1392, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5203, 5511))
§ 98.2 Definitions. ( a ) The following terms used in this part are defined in 34 CFR part 77; “Department,” “Recipient,” “Secretary.”
( b ) The following definitions apply to this part:
*Act* means the General Education Provisions Act.
*Office* means the information and investigation office specified in § 98.5.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1))
#### § 86.4 What are the procedures for submitting a drug prevention program certification?

An IHE shall submit to the Secretary the drug prevention program certification required by § 86.3(b).

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1880-0522)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1145g)

[55 FR 33581, Aug. 16, 1990, as amended at 61 FR 66226, Dec. 17, 1996]