alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3555.305 Voluntary liquidation. The lender must have exhausted the servicing options outlined in §§ 3555.302 through 3555.304 to cure the delinquency before considering voluntary liquidation. The methods of voluntary liquidation of the security property outlined in this section may be used to protect the interests of the Government. ( a ) *Eligibility.* To be eligible for voluntary liquidation, the following conditions must be met: ( 1 ) The loan is at least 30 days delinquent or meets the imminent default definition as outlined in § 3555.303(a)(2);
( 2 ) The default was caused by an involuntary reason; and
( 3 ) The borrower must presently occupy the property except in situations where the borrower does not occupy the property due to the same involuntary reason that led to the default.
( b ) *Pre-foreclosure or short sale.* The borrower may sell the security property for a price that represents its fair market value. The sale price, less any reasonable and customary sale or closing costs incurred by the borrower, must be applied to the borrower's account.
( c ) *Deed in lieu of foreclosure.* The lender may accept a deed in lieu of foreclosure if it will result in a lesser loss claim than if foreclosure occurs.
( d ) *Offer by junior lienholder.* If a junior lienholder makes an offer in the amount of at least the anticipated net recovery value, as calculated in accordance with § 3555.353, the lender may assign the note and mortgage to the junior lienholder.
( e ) *Other methods of voluntary liquidation.* The lender may propose other methods of voluntary liquidation that are consistent with this section if the lender fully documents how the proposal will result in a savings to the Government.
[78 FR 73941, Dec. 9, 2013, as amended at 84 FR 70886, Dec. 26, 2019]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case Nos. 1:92-cr-1001-AW-GRJ

1:19-cv-324-AW-GRJ

ERIC LOVEL BRENT,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING SECTION 2255 MOTION

This court has considered the magistrate judge’s December 19, 2019 report 

and recommendation. ECF No. 129. The court has also considered de novo the issues 

raised in Defendant’s objections. ECF No. 130. The report and recommendation is 

accepted and adopted as the Court’s opinion, notwithstanding the Defendant’s 

objections. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment stating, “This Section 2255

Motion is DENIED.” A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk will close 

the file.

SO ORDERED on February 10, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge
H. R. 2576 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen 

An Act 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to modify requirements relating to the 

availability of pipeline safety regulatory documents, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. AVAILABILITY OF PIPELINE SAFETY REGULATORY DOCUMENTS. 

Section 60102(p) of title 49, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘1 year’’ and inserting ‘‘3 years’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘guidance or’’; and 

(3) by striking ‘‘, on an Internet Web site’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EXHIBIT
10.3
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CREDIT AGREEMENT
  
 Supply and Offtake Agreement and Letter of Credit Facility
  Credit Agreement Company Administrative Agent
 Payoff Letter
 Supply and Offtake Agreement Aron LC Credit Agreement Goldman
   Goldman
 J. Aron
 LC Credit Agreement




---



##### 



LC Documents
 Supply and Offtake Agreements




---



##### 








---



##### 



Very truly yours,
BANK HAPOALIM B.M.
as the Administrative Agent and the sole LenderBy:
    /s/ Maxine LevyName:
    Maxine LevyTitle:
    First Vice President Acknowledged and agreed to as of the date first
written above by:
ALON REFINING KROTZ SPRINGS, INC.By:
    /s/ Shai EvenName:  Shai EvenTitle:  SVP & CFO
# Amphibian Metamorphosis Assay (AMA) OCSPP 890.1100

Additional Information

22 May 2013

# Spinal Curvature in **X. tropicalis**

2 A. Tadpoles that possessed straight tails and
backbones were considered to be absent of

scoliosis.

B. A curvature of the tail that was posterior to the hips was classified as moderate.
C. Severe scoliosis was present when there

was curvature of the tail and backbone anterior to the hips which would be expected to be present even after absorption of the tail during metamorphosis.

(From Olmstead et al. , unpublished manuscript. USEPA ORD)

# Normalization Approaches

3

# Normalization Approaches

4
exhibit10_2.htm


    Exhibit
10.2

    


    2009 Executive Bonus
Plan

    


    Executive
Officers of Charter and certain other managerial and professional employees of
Charter and its subsidiaries are eligible to participate in Charter's 2009
Executive Bonus Plan. Bonuses for eligible employees for 2009 will be determined
based on the extent to which Charter's (or, if applicable, an employee's
particular division or key market area’s) performance during 2009 meets or
exceeds budgeted goals with respect to four performance measures. These
measures, and the percentage of an employee's bonus allocated to each measure,
are Revenue (20%), Adjusted EBITDA for Corporate employees or Operating Cash
Flow for Divisional and Key Market Area employees (30%), Unlevered Free Cash
Flow (30%) and Customer Excellence Index Plus (“CEI+”) (20%).  CEI+
will be measured against quantifiable statistics determined by the Board of
Directors or Compensation and Benefits Committee and include: 1) Call Center
Operations Metric; 2) Technical Operations Metric; and 3) Operations
Metric.

    


    With
respect to each performance measure listed above, the eligible employee would
receive 100% of the portion of his or her target bonus allocated to that
performance measure if Charter's (or such employee's division's or key market
area’s) performance reaches the budgeted goal for that measure. Also, for each
performance measure, the employee would receive 10% of the allocated percentage
if the performance equals 90% of the budgeted goal, and could receive as much as
150% of the allocated percentage if the performance exceeds the applicable
budgeted goal by 5%. Each employee's target bonus is determined based on market
data and position within the company. Target bonuses for executive officers
range from 50% to 200% of base salary, subject to applicable employment
agreements.  The Target award is the assigned percentage of a
participant's base salary as of October 1, 2009.

    


    Payments
of the bonus amount will be made, if earned, semi-annually.  The first
payment will be based on performance attainment in the first six months of the
year and will be prorated for one-half the year and will not exceed one-half of
an employee's target bonus.  The second payment will be based on the
Company's actual performance attainment for the entire year, less the earlier
payment for the first six months of that year.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Steven J. Malcolm, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Williams Partners L.P.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) [Intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 34-47986];  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 8, 2006       /s/ Steven J. Malcolm     Steven J. Malcolm    Chief Executive Officer of Williams Partners GP LLC,    general partner of Williams Partners L.P.    (Principal Executive Officer)  
54
#### Freeman *against*Strong and Others.

[Mr. J. S. Henderson for plaintiffs: no appearance for defendants.]

From the Clay County Court.

*April*20.

As the acts authorizing county courts toC bind out children in certain cases.give but a special and limited junsdicin every such the fectf tom which the jurisdiction *283results-as that the person bound was an infant, an ordition described .in the act; that the parent, next friend, or person with whom the apprentice lived, was summoned &c. If the record is deficient in this respect, the whole proceeding may be annulled.

*282Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Three several writs of error bring up, from the County Court of Clay county the following orders for revision: «State of Kentucky, Clay County Court, December, , , term, 1836 — on motion of Ihomas strong — ordered *a*that the clerk of this Court bind Washington Freeman and Hiram h reeman to the said I homas Strong, ** ^eam the art an<^ mystery of farming, upon the said “ Strong entering into bond agreeable to law.”

*283“ On motion of Edward Davidson — ordered that- the “ clerk of this Court bind Elizabeth Freeman, infant “child of George Freeman, to said Davidson, to learn “ the art and mystery of spinning and weaving, by the “ said Davidson entering into bond with the Clerk agree“able to law.”

And at a subsequent term of the same Court, an-entry was made for recording “indentures”' in the three cases. ■ But the clerk has certified the foregoing orders as constituting a complete record — without certifying any bond or indenture.

As the jurisdiction of the County Courts over orphans- and poor free children, colored and white,, whose parents are unable or unfit to rear them properly,, is limited and special, every order for binding a child as an apprentice, should exhibit the facts required by law for giving jurisdiction.

In these cases, the record is altogether too meagre. It does not show that the children were orphans; nor that the parent or next friend or person with whom they lived, had been summonsed, or had appeared in Court; nor, so far as the two male children were concerned, that they were even infants. Wherefore, all these orders, tested by the record alone, as they must be by this Court, are clearly erroneous.

Wherefore, each of the orders for binding out the several plaintiffs in error must be set aside and held for nought.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JEAN JULES,

Petitioner

v. Case No. 4:20cv287-MW/MAF

WILLIAM P. BARR,

Respondent.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 3 Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, for all further proceedings. The 

Clerk shall also close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 6, 2020.

s/ MARK E. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00287-MW-MAF Document 5 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 1
4.1803 Verifying CAGE codes prior to award.       (a)                    						            Contracting officers shall verify the offeror’s CAGE code by reviewing the entity’s registration in the System for Award Management (SAM). Active registrations in SAM have had the associated CAGE codes verified.                                          (b)                    						            For entities not	required to be registered in SAM, the contracting officer shall validate the	CAGE code using the CAGE code search feature at https://cage.dla.mil.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 4.18 - Commercial and Government Entity Code
#### § 3570.87 Grant suspension, termination, and cancellation.

Grants may be suspended or terminated for cause or convenience in accordance with 2 CFR part 200 as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400, as applicable.

[79 FR 76013, Dec. 19, 2014]
2006-0742.

#### State ex rel. Triplett v. Ross.

In Prohibition. On motion to dismiss, motion of Ohio Attorney General for leave to intervene as respondent, and answer of intervening respondent. Motion to intervene granted. Alternative writ granted, and the following briefing schedule is set for presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X:

The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days; relator shall file his brief within 10 days of the filing of the evidence; respondents shall file their brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick and O’Connor, JJ., would grant the motion to intervene and the motion to dismiss.
§ 3201.63 Bioremediation materials. ( a ) *Definition.* Dry or liquid solutions (including those containing bacteria or other microbes but not including sorbent materials) used to clean oil, fuel, and other hazardous spill sites.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 86 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 23, 2012, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased bioremediation materials. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased bioremediation materials.
[76 FR 43817, July 22, 2011]
3.900 Scope of subpart.       This subpart implements various statutory whistleblower programs. This subpart does not implement 10 U.S.C. 4701, which is applicable only to DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard.                                       (a)                   41 U.S.C. 4712 is implemented in 3.900 through 3.906. These sections do not apply to—                                                         (1)                         DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard; or                                                            (2)                         Any element of the intelligence community, as defined in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(4)). Sections 3.900 through 3.906 do not apply to any disclosure made by an employee of a contractor or subcontractor of an element of the intelligence community if such disclosure—                                                                           (i)                               Relates to an activity of an element of the intelligence community; or                                                                              (ii)                               Was discovered during contract or subcontract services provided to an element of the intelligence community.                                                                                                                            (b)                   Section 743 of Division E, Title VII, of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113–235) and its successor provisions in subsequent appropriations acts (and as extended in continuing resolutions), is implemented in 3.909, which is applicable to all agencies.                                          (c)                   Section 3.907 of this subpart implements section 1553 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–5), and applies to all contracts funded in whole or in part by that Act.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 3.9 - Whistleblower Protections for Contractor Employees
#### Richard Delahanty, as Executor of George C. Delahanty, Deceased, Respondent, v Lawrence Hospital et al., Defendants, and Peter Voges et al., Appellants.

In a wrongful death action, based upon medical malpractice, defendants Voges, Putignano and D’Angelo appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated June 19, 1979, which denied their motion to strike plaintiff’s note of issue and statement of readiness on the ground that all preliminary proceedings had not been completed and (2) as limited by their brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated August 7,1979, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. (We deem the notice of appeal dated August 20,1979, to recite that the appeal is from the order dated August 7,1979. See CPLR 5520, subd [c].) Appeal from the order dated June 19, 1979, dismissed as academic, without costs or disburse*848ments. That order was superseded by the order granting reargument. Order dated August 7, 1979, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
# 7.107 Additional requirements for acquisitions involving consolidation, bundling, or substantial bundling.

- 7.107-1 General. 
- 7.107-2 Consolidation. 
- 7.107-3 Bundling. 
- 7.107-4 Substantial bundling. 
- 7.107-5 Notifications. 
- 7.107-6 Solicitation provision. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 7.1 - Acquisition Plans
#### The State ex rel. Ruiz, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Ruiz v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 333.]

(No. 97-1560

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 7, 1998.)

*Yulish, Twohig & Associates Co., L.P.A., Jeffrey S. Watson*and *Catherine B. Twohig,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *William J. McDonald,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0189 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-133-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 2011-0096

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16

                  DESCRIPTION OF ARRANGEMENT FOR DIRECTORS FEES

The following sets forth the amount of fees payable to outside directors of S1
Corporation for their services as Directors in fiscal year 2005:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
EVENT                                                          FEE
-----                                                        ------
<S>                                                          <C>
Quarterly Retainer                                           $5,000

Committee Meeting Attended (Member)                          $  500

Committee Meeting Attended (Chairman)                        $1,000
</TABLE>

Additionally, outside directors are eligible to receive stock option grants
under our 2003 Stock Option Plan. There is no prescribed method for granting
these options.
§ 3431.6 Review of nominations. ( a ) *Peer panel.* State shortage situations nominations will be evaluated by a peer panel of experts in animal health convened by the Secretary. The panel will evaluate nominations according to the criteria identified in the solicitation. The panel will consider the objectives and activities of the veterinarian position in the veterinary service shortage situation and the risks associated with not securing or retaining the position and make a recommendation regarding each nomination.
( b ) *Agency review.* The Secretary will evaluate the recommendations of the peer panel and designate shortage situations for the VMLRP.