alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cox *v.*Heidt *et al.*

December 12, 1912.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Sbeppard. Effingham superior court. January *12,*1912.

*J. H. Smith,*for plaintiff. *Travis & Travis,*for defendants.

Beck, J.

1. It appears from the petition in this ease, in which injunction is sought to restrain the sheriff from putting a purchaser of realty at a sheriff’s sale in possession of the land bought at such sale, that after a term of the superior court held subsequently to the sale the sheriff had put the purchaser in possession, and that thereafter an order was obtained from the superior court under the provisions of § 6074 of the Civil Code, and that the sheriff was threatening to give possession to the purchaser referred to under this order. It was not error to dismiss this petition upon demurrer, the petitioner failing to allege facts showing title in himself or that he was in possession of the property.

2. Merely alleging in the petition that certain locks upon gates of the enclosure around the land in question, which had been placed there when the sheriff first put the purchaser in possession, had been removed “so that his [petitioner’s] tenant could enter,” and that it would be illegal now to dispossess petitioner, does not amount to an affirmative allegation that petitioner or his tenant’ is or had been in possession.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
### §§218 to 218d. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–173, §10, Nov. 23, 1987, 101 Stat. 922

Section 218, act Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title V, §501, as added Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 532, 49 Stat. 648, stated necessity to curb unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent practices relating to live poultry.

Section 218a, act Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title V, §502, as added Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 532, 49 Stat. 648, authorized Secretary to designate cities and markets where unfair practices exist, to require licensing, and to prescribe information to be contained in application license, and authorized penalty for dealing without license.

Section 218b, act Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title V, §503, as added Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 532, 49 Stat. 649, defined "live poultry dealer".

Section 218c, act Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title V, §504, as added Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 532, 49 Stat. 649, related to application of other provisions of this chapter to this subchapter and posting of rates, charges, and rentals in licensee's place of business.

Section 218d, act Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title V, §505, as added Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 532, 49 Stat. 649, related to suspension and revocation of licenses.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective 90 days after Nov. 23, 1987, see section 12 of Pub. L. 100–173, set out as an Effective Date of 1987 Amendment note under section 182 of this title.
# Issue Paper 8

# Session 3: March 16-18, 2016

**Issue:**Prohibiting Loan Holder Interest Capitalization Upon Loan Rehabilitation 

**Statutory cite:**Section 428H(e)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended 

**Regulatory cite:**34 CFR 682.202(b)(3), 682.202(b)(4), 682.410(b)(4) , and 682.405

**Summary of Changes**: Modifies the conditions under which the capitalization of interest is permitted. 

**Changes:**See regulatory text below. 

**§ 682.202 Permissible charges by lenders to borrowers.**

[ * * * ]

**(b)***Capitalization.***(1)**Except as provided in §682.405(b)(4), a****lender may add accrued interest and unpaid insurance premiums or Federal default fees to the borrower's unpaid principal balance in accordance with this section. This increase in the principal balance of a loan is called “capitalization.”

**§682.405   Loan rehabilitation agreement.**

[ * * * ]

(b) *Terms of agreement*. In the loan rehabilitation agreement, the guaranty agency agrees to ensure that its loan rehabilitation program meets the following requirements at all times:

[ * * * ]

(4)(i) An eligible lender purchasing a rehabilitated loan must establish a repayment schedule that meets the same requirements that are applicable to other FFEL Program loans of the same loan type as the rehabilitated loan and must permit the borrower to choose any statutorily available repayment plan for that loan type. The lender must treat the first payment made under the nine payments as the first payment under the applicable maximum repayment term, as defined under §682.209(a) or (e). For Consolidation loans, the maximum repayment term is based on the balance outstanding at the time of loan rehabilitation.

(ii) The lender must not consider the purchase of a rehabilitated loan as entry into repayment or resumption of repayment for the purposes of interest capitalization under §682.202(b).

**§682.410 Fiscal, administrative, and enforcement requirements.**

(b) *Administrative requirements*— 

[ * * * ] 

(4) *Capitalization of unpaid interest.*The guaranty agency shall capitalize any unpaid interest due the lender from the borrower at the time the agency pays a default claim to the lender, but shall not capitalize any unpaid interest thereafter.
EXHIBIT 99

                                 EXHIBIT INDEX


     The exhibits listed below are filed as part of Form 10-Q for quarter ended
May 31, 1999.

        Exhibit No.                         Description of Exhibits


          10.(iii)A Employment Agreement between Farmland and Mr. H. D.
                    Cleberg, dated May 1, 1999

          10.(iii)B Employment Agreement between Farmland and Mr. Robert
                    Honse, dated June 7, 1999

          10.(iii)C Summary of severance and retention bonus plan for
                    certain management employees of Farmland, dated June
                    7, 1999.

          27        Financial Data Schedule
#### In the Matter of Isadore J. Elman, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We are unable to account as less than substantial the evidence and the inferences therefrom legitimately drawn by the board, upon which was predicated its determination that claimant was not totally unemployed. (Labor Law, §§ 522, 591.) The issues of his effective resignation as an officer and his supposed divorcement from the business were factual, and dependent, wholly or in part, upon the appraisal of his credibility by the board, whose evaluation we may not disturb. While the determination is sustainable on this ground alone, it was also open to the board to find that total unemployment did not exist within the meaning of the statute as construed in other cases involving the exercise of directional or policy-making control by unsalaried officers or other agents whose substantial financial interests were thereby protected and advanced. (See, e.g., *Matter of Levy [Catherwood],*21 A D 2d 750 [record on appeal]; *Matter of Lieberman*[Catherwood], 20 A D 2d 835; *Matter of Leshner*[Corsi], 268 App. Div. 582.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.
2101.102 Authority. ( a ) The LIFAR is issued by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management in accordance with the authority of 5 U.S.C. Chapter 87 and other applicable laws and regulations.
( b ) The LIFAR does not replace or incorporate regulations found at 5 CFR part 870, which provide the substantive policy guidance for administration of the FEGLI Program under 5 U.S.C. chapter 87. The following is the order of precedence in interpreting a contract provision under the FEGLI Program: ( 1 ) 5 U.S.C. chapter 87.
( 2 ) 5 CFR part 870.
( 3 ) 48 CFR chapters 1 and 21.
( 4 ) The FEGLI Program contract.
[58 FR 40372, July 28, 1993, as amended at 70 FR 41149, July 18, 2005]
Draft Borrower Defense to Repayment Language: Additional Aggressive Recruitment Categories

We propose the following additional categories of aggressive recruitment. The categories here are meant 

to supplement those previously submitted by the negotiators for state attorneys general.

“Aggressive Recruitment” means a post-secondary institution or their agents or contractors exerting 

unreasonable pressure or instituting policies that have the effect of admissions staff exerting 

unreasonable pressure upon a consumer to enroll in an institution. Without limiting the general application 

of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

[...]

(p) Enrolling a student without providing a reasonable amount of time for the student to withdraw and 

obtain a full refund, and failing to inform the student about the availability of that time period;

(q) Enrolling a student whose initial contact with the university occurred on a military installation at an 

event not sanctioned by the installation education office;

(r) The use of a lead generator that was the subject of a law enforcement investigation, settlement, 

or judgment within the previous 5 years;

(s) Enrolling a student using emotional manipulation or the asking of personal questions unrelated to 

the student’s career and educational goals;

(t) Discouraging the borrower from consulting an adviser, a family member, or other resource; and

(u) Failing to respond to the borrower's requests for more information, including about the cost of the 

program and the nature of any financial aid.
September 30, 2015 

Michael J. O'Donnell, A.A.E. 

Director of Airport Safety and Standards 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: Skydiving Operations at Grand Strand Airport 

Dear Mr. O'Donnell: 

As was relayed in our letter to you dated September 17, 2015, it is a paramount concern for the 

Harry County Department of Airports to maintain safe operations for all aeronautical users and operators 

at Grand Strand Airport. As HCDA awaits a decision from FAA on our prior request to immediately 

discontinue skydiving operations at CRE, close the LZ, and withdraw from the existing LOA, I did want to 

make you aware of two additional incidents that have occurred just since the date of our prior 

correspondence. 

In one incident, an errant skydiver touched down outside the landing zone on September 19, 2015, 

landing between the Air Traffic Control Tower and Taxiway Alpha. In a separate incident that occurred on 

September 27, 2015, a wayward parachutist landed on Taxiway Alpha, just northeast of Taxiways Tango 

and Charlie. While it is fortunate that no injuries or property damage were reported as the result of either 

incident, HCDA fears that it will only be a matter of time before we are writing to inform you of a catastrophic 

result. As such, HCDA reiterates its request for FAA concurrence to immediately discontinue skydiving 

operations at CRE, close the LZ, and withdraw from the existing LOA. 

Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter, and should you have any questions or if I 

can be of assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

nyours, 

~~~ Director, Harry County Department of Airports 

1100 J8tport Road • Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 • P 843 448 1580 • F 843 626 9096 • www FlyMyrtleBeach com 
cc: 

Winsome Lenfert Heather Haney 

Larry Clark John Marshall 

Ricarldo Washington Ron Caraway 

Herman Smith Marcus Valdes 

Jeffery Coley Rolando Caparas 

Steven Hicks Ruth Maestre 

Thomas Walsh Larry Ayers 

James Cline Gary Pendleton 

Joseph Roberts Glen Ray 

Daniel Jones Tom Moyer 

Reginald C. Govan, Esq. David Bannard,Esq. 

Arrigo Carotti, Esq. Randy Haldi, Esq.
#### SMITH v. HERTER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1903.)

Action by Edward Smith against Maria A. Herter.

No opinion. Motion denied, upon payment of $10 costs, and, upon payment of an additional $10, leave given to apply to the court below to open default.
#### 16.207-2 Application.

A firm-fixed-price, level-of-effort term contract is suitable for investigation or study in a specific research and development area. The product of the contract is usually a report showing the results achieved through application of the required level of effort. However, payment is based on the effort expended rather than on the results achieved.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Zurich Americ an Insurance Company v. Sandra A. Debose

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00344

- CV

Trial court case number: 2006

- 54103

Trial court: 133rd District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that Sandra Dubose’s motion for rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ L a ura C. Higley

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.

Justice Sharp dissents, without opinion, from the denial of the motion for rehearing.

Date: September 23, 2014
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7945

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PAUL D. WALDE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District

Judge. (CR-02-445; CA-04-291)

Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: May 2, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul D. Walde, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Elizabeth Flannery, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Paul D. Walde, formerly a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order dismissing his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). The

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Walde has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability 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
Case: 1:12-cv-02571 Document #: 72-6 Filed: 01/30/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:745
Case: 1:12-cv-02571 Document #: 72-6 Filed: 01/30/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:746
Case: 1:12-cv-02571 Document #: 72-6 Filed: 01/30/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:747
Case: 1:12-cv-02571 Document #: 72-6 Filed: 01/30/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:748
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20202

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global Competitiveness 

 by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

December 12

10:00 – 10:15: FMCS opens, any administrative business

10:15 – 11:00: Discuss reg text in § 30.89 waiver when the current balance exceeds the original principal 

balance

11:00 – 11:30: Discuss reg text in § 30.90 waiver when the current balance exceeds the original principal 

balance for low-income borrowers not on an IDR plan

11:30 – 12:00: Discuss reg text in § 30.83 waiver when a loan first entered repayment 20 or 25 years 

ago

12:00 – 1:00: Lunch

1:00-1:45: Discuss reg text in § 682.403 waiver of FFEL Program loan debt

1:45 – 2:30: Final consensus checks on individual parts of the regulations

2:30 – 2:45: Break

2:45 – 4:00: Additional Hardship Discussion and Wrap Up
#### 2131.109 Advance agreements.

FAR 31.109 is applicable to FEGLI Program contracts, except that precontract costs and nonrecurring costs that exceed $100,000 will not be allowed in the absence of an advance agreement between OPM and any potential FEGLI Contractor.

[70 FR 41152, July 18, 2005]
#### 1552.223-72 Use and care of laboratory animals.

As prescribed in 1523.303-72, insert the following clause in all contracts involving the use of animals in testing, research or training:

# Use and Care of Laboratory Animals March 2015

(a) *Use of laboratory animals.* (1) Before undertaking performance of any contract involving the use of laboratory animals, the contractor shall register with the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States in accordance with the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, as amended (AWA), codified at 7 U.S.C. 2131 *et seq.* and promulgated at 9 CFR parts 1-4. The contractor shall furnish evidence of such registration to the contracting officer.

(2) The contractor shall acquire animals used in research and development programs from a dealer licensed by the Secretary of Agriculture, or from exempted sources in accordance with 9 CFR 2.25-2.28. Animals shall not be acquired from any random source Class B dealer.

(3) The contractor may request registration of his/her facility and a current listing of licensed dealers from the Regional Office of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), USDA, for the region in which his/her research facility is located. The location of the appropriate APHIS Regional Office as well as information concerning this program may be obtained at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/contact_us/.*

(b) *Care of laboratory animals.* (1) In the care of any live animals used or intended for use in the performance of this contract, the contractor shall adhere to:

(i) The standards and practices incorporated in the *Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals,* prepared by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Research of the National Research Council of the National Academies (ILAR/NRC),

(ii) The Animal Welfare Regulations found in 9 CFR parts 1-4, and

(iii) The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

(2) In case of conflict between standards, the higher standard shall be used.

(3) The contractor's reports on portions of the contract in which animals were used shall contain a certificate stating that the animals were cared for in accordance with the principles enunciated in the *Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals,* prepared by the ILAR/NRC, and/or in the Animal Welfare Regulations found in 9 CFR parts 1-4.

(End of clause)

[80 FR 4215, Jan. 27, 2015]
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Alpha Technologies Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending October 26, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"),
Lawrence Butler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James J.
Polakiewicz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.

Date: January 9, 2004                 By: /s/ Lawrence Butler
                                          ----------------------
                                          Lawrence Butler
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive
                                          Officer)

Date: January 9, 2004                 By: /s/ James J. Polakiewicz
                                          ------------------------
                                          James J. Polakiewicz
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          (Principal Financial and
                                          Accounting Officer)

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed
as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### 2052.216-72 Task order procedures.

As prescribed at 2016.506-70(a), the contracting officer may insert the following clause in applicable solicitations and contracts that contain task order procedures. This clause may be altered to fit the circumstances of the requirement.

# Task Order Procedures (OCT 1999)

(a) Task order request for proposal. When a requirement within the scope of work for this contract is identified, the contracting officer shall transmit to the contractor a Task Order Request for Proposal (TORFP) which may include the following, as appropriate:

(1) Scope of work/meetings/travel and deliverables;

(2) Reporting requirements;

(3) Period of performance—place of performance;

(4) Applicable special provisions;

(5) Technical skills required; and

(6) Estimated level of effort.

(b) Task order technical proposal. By the date specified in the TORFP, the contractor shall deliver to the contracting officer a written or verbal (as specified in the TORFP technical proposal submittal instructions) technical proposal that provides the technical information required by the TORFP.

(c) Cost proposal. The contractor's cost proposal for each task order must be fully supported by cost and pricing data adequate to establish the reasonableness of the proposed amounts. When the contractor's estimated cost for the proposed task order exceeds $100,000 and the period of performance exceeds six months, the contractor may be required to submit a Contractor Spending Plan (CSP) as part of its cost proposal. The TORP indicates if a CSP is required.

(d) Task order award. The contractor shall perform all work described in definitized task orders issued by the contracting officer. Definitized task orders include the following:

(1) Statement of work/meetings/travel and deliverables;

(2) Reporting requirements;

(3) Period of performance;

(4) Key personnel;

(5) Applicable special provisions; and

(6) Total task order amount including any fixed fee.

(End of clause)