alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
32.503-9 Liquidation rates-alternate method.

(a) The liquidation rate determined under 32.503-8 shall apply throughout the period of contract

performance unless the contracting officer adjusts the liquidation rate under the alternate method in

this 32.503-9. The objective of the alternate liquidation rate method is to permit the contractor to

retain the earned profit element of the contract prices for completed items in the liquidation

process. The contracting officer may reduce the liquidation rate if-

(1) The contractor requests a reduction in the rate;

(2) The rate has not been reduced in the preceding 12 months;

(3) The contract delivery schedule extends at least 18 months from the contract award date;

(4) Data on actual costs are available-

(i) For the products delivered, or

(ii) If no deliveries have been made, for a performance period of at least 12 months;

(5) The reduced liquidation rate would result in the Government recouping under each invoice the

full extent of the progress payments applicable to the costs allocable to that invoice;

(6) The contractor would not be paid for more than the costs of items delivered and accepted (less

allocable progress payments) and the earned profit on those items;

(7) The unliquidated progress payments would not exceed the limit prescribed in paragraph (a)(5) of

the Progress Payments clause;

(8) The parties agree on an appropriate rate; and

(9) The contractor agrees to certify annually, or more often if requested by the contracting officer,

that the alternate rate continues to meet the conditions of subsections5, 6, and 7 of this section.The

certificate must be accompanied by adequate supporting information.

(b) The contracting officer shall change the liquidation rate in the following circumstances:

(1) The rate shall be increased for both previous and subsequent transactions, if the contractor

experiences a lower profit rate than the rate anticipated at the time the liquidation rate was

associated with contract items already delivered, as well as subsequent progress payments.

(2) The rate shall be increased or decreased in keeping with the successive changes to the contract

price or target profit when-

(i) The target profit is changed under a fixed-price incentive contract with successive targets; or

(ii) A redetermined price involves a change in the profit element under a contract with prospective

price redetermination at stated intervals.

(c) Whenever the liquidation rate is changed, the contracting officer shall issue a contract

modification to specify the new rate in the Progress Payments clause.Adequate consideration for

these contract modifications is provided by the consideration included in the initial contract.The
parties shall promptly make the payment or liquidation required in the circumstances.

Parent topic: 32.503 Postaward matters.
Rainfall–Runoff Characteristics and Effects of Increased Urban Density   on Streamflow and Infiltration in the Eastern Part of the San Jacinto River   Basin, Riverside County, California   

***By*Joel R. Guay** 

 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

 Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4090 

Version 1.1****
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BRIAN CHARLES PIERRE CONSTANT, III,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5617/LAC/EMT

CALVIN LEAVEN CRUM, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on

December 14, 2021 (ECF No. 30). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report

and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

30) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Crum, Masters, and White

Case 3:20-cv-05617-LC-EMT Document 33 Filed 01/14/22 Page 1 of 2
Page of 2

 (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of January, 2022.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5617/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05617-LC-EMT Document 33 Filed 01/14/22 Page 2 of 2
§ 319.7-3 Denial of permits. ( a ) APHIS may deny an application for a permit to import a regulated article into the United States. A denial, including the reason for the denial, will be provided in writing, including by electronic methods, to the applicant as promptly as circumstances permit. The denial of a permit may be appealed in accordance with § 319.7-5.
( b ) APHIS may deny an application for a permit to import a regulated article: ( 1 ) If APHIS determines that the applicant is not likely to abide by permit conditions. Factors that may lead to such a determination include, but are not limited to, the following: ( i ) The applicant, or a partnership, firm, corporation, or other legal entity in which the applicant has a substantial interest, financial or otherwise, has not complied with any permit that was previously issued by APHIS;
( ii ) APHIS determines that issuing the permit would circumvent any order revoking or denying a permit under the Plant Protection Act;
( iii ) APHIS determines that the applicant has previously failed to comply with any APHIS regulation;
( iv ) APHIS determines that the applicant has previously failed to comply with any Federal, State, or local law, regulation, or instruction concerning the importation of prohibited or restricted foreign agricultural products;
( v ) APHIS determines that the applicant has failed to comply with the laws or regulations of a national plant protection organization or equivalent body, as these pertain to plant health;
( vi ) APHIS determines that the applicant has made false or fraudulent statements or provided false or fraudulent records to APHIS; or
( vii ) The applicant has been convicted or has pled nolo contendere to any crime involving fraud, bribery, extortion, or any other crime involving a lack of integrity.
( 2 ) If the application for a permit contains information that is found to be materially false, fraudulent, deceptive, or misrepresentative;
( 3 ) If APHIS concludes that the actions proposed under the permit would present an unacceptable risk to plants and plant products because of the potential for introduction or dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States;
( 4 ) If the importation is adverse to the conduct of an eradication, suppression, control, or phytosanitary program of APHIS or a program recognized by APHIS;
( 5 ) If the importation is not in compliance with any applicable import regulations or any administrative instructions or measures, including, but not limited to, all the requirements of this part; or
( 6 ) If a State executive official, or a State plant protection official authorized to do so, objects to the movement in writing and provides specific, detailed information that there is a risk the movement will result in the dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed into the State, and APHIS determines that such plant pest risk cannot be adequately addressed or mitigated.
ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET

Attachment Number 034 Attachment Name Consolidated PMN Request and EPA Approval Associated PMN Section Number N/A Contains CBI Report Number Sanitized Version

# All CBI has been removed
52.214-16 Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.       As prescribed in 14.201-6(j), insert the following provision in invitations for bids, except for construction, if the contracting officer determines that a minimum acceptance period must be specified:          Minimum Bid Acceptance Period (Apr 1984)                                       (a) 						            "Acceptance period," as used in this provision, means the number of calendar days available to the Government for awarding a contract from the date specified in this solicitation for receipt of bids.                                          (b) 						            This provision supersedes any language pertaining to the acceptance period that may appear elsewhere in this solicitation.                                          (c) The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of __________ calendar days [*the Contracting Officer shall insert the number of days*].                                          (d) 						            In the space provided immediately below, bidders may specify a longer acceptance period than the Government’s minimum requirement.                The bidder allows the following acceptance period: __________ calendar days.                                          (e) 						            A bid allowing less than the Government’s minimum acceptance period will be rejected.                                          (f) 						            The bidder agrees to execute all that it has undertaken to do, in compliance with its bid, if that bid is accepted in writing within-                                                         (1) 								                The acceptance period stated in paragraph (c) of this clause; or                                                            (2) 								                Any longer acceptance period stated in paragraph (d) of this clause.                                                                    (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.214 [Reserved]
Exhibit 10.1


 


Exhibit 10.1 to Hiland Holdings GP, LP 1st Quarter 2009 10-Q


 


Compensation of Conflicts Committee Members in
Connection with Going Private Proposal


 


On February 19,
2009, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Hiland Partners GP Holdings, LLC,
the general partner of Hiland Holdings GP, LP 
(the “Partnership”), authorized the Conflicts Committee of the Board
(the “Conflicts Committee”) to consider and respond to a proposal made by
Harold Hamm, whereby Mr. Hamm and certain of his affiliates would acquire
all of the outstanding common units of the Partnership that are not owned by Mr. Hamm,
his affiliates or the Hamm family trusts (the “Proposal”).  The Conflicts Committee is composed of two
independent directors, Dr. Bobby B. Lyle and Dr. Cheryl L. Evans. On February 19,
2009, the Board determined that, for service on the Conflicts Committee in
connection with the Conflicts Committee’s consideration of the Proposal, all
members of the Conflicts Committee will receive a one-time fee of $30,000, in
lieu of the prior arrangement of $1,000 per meeting. No additional fees are
expected to be paid to the members of the Conflicts Committee for attending
meetings of the Conflicts Committee during the time period in which the
Conflicts Committee is considering the Proposal. The fees payable to the
members of the Conflicts Committee are in addition to the annual fees received
by such directors for their services as a member of the Partnership’s Board and
other committees thereof.
52.214-17 [Reserved]

Parent topic: 52.214 [Reserved]
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ___________ 

No. 19-10842

___________ 

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Brian Matthew Morton,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-17-1 

______________________________ 

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion January 5, 2021, 5 Cir., 2021, 984 F.3d 421)

Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Jones, Smith, Stewart, Dennis, 

Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Costa, 

Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, and Wilson,

Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for 

rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service 

and not disqualified having voted in favor,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 18, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 19-10842

2

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en 

banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will 

specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs. Pursuant to 

5th Circuit Rule 41.3, the panel opinion in this case dated January 5, 2021, is 

VACATED.
(3) Designated Representatives and Alternate Designated 

Representatives

Sections 97.413 through 97.418, 97.513 through 97.518, 

97.613 through 97.618, and 97.713 through 97.718 establish 

the procedures for certifying and authorizing the 

designated representative, and alternate designated 

representative, of the owners and operators of a source and 

the units at the source and for changing the designated 

representative and alternate designated representative. 

These sections also describe the designated 

representative’s and alternate designated representative’s 

responsibilities and the process through which he or she 

can delegate to an agent the authority to make electronic 

submissions to the Administrator. Except as discussed 

herein, the provisions in the final rules are the 

essentially same as in the proposed rules and for each of 

the Transport Rule trading programs.

The designated representative is the individual (i.e., 

the natural person) authorized to represent the owners and 

operators of each covered source and covered unit at the 

source in matters pertaining to all Transport Rule trading 

programs to which the source and units were subject. One 

alternate designated representative (also an individual) 

can be selected to act on behalf of, and legally bind, the 
designated representative and thus the owners and 

operators. Because the actions of the designated 

representative and alternate legally bind the owners and 

operators, the designated representative and alternate must 

submit a certificate of representation certifying that each 

was selected by an agreement binding on all such owners and 

operators and is authorized to act on their behalf. 

In the final rules (like in the proposed rules), the 

certificate of representation must contain: specified 

identifying information for the covered source (including 

location) and the covered units at the source and for the 

designated representative and alternate; the name of every 

owner and operator of the source and units; and 

certification language and signatures of the designated 

representative and alternate. The final rules require an 

additional piece of identifying information, i.e., whether 

the unit is located in Indian country. This is necessary 

in order for the Administrator to implement the abovedescribed Indian country new unit set-aside. All 

submissions (e.g., monitoring plans, monitoring system 

certifications, and allowance transfers) under the final 

rules for a covered source or covered unit must be 

submitted, signed, and certified by the designated 
representative or alternate, except that electronic 

submission may be delegated. 

In order to change the designated representative or 

alternate, a new certificate of representation must be 

received by the Administrator. A new certificate of 

representation must also be submitted to reflect changes in 

the owners and operators of the source and units involved. 

The new certificate must be submitted within 30 days of 

such changes.
Report
        on
        Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria
  Midland
        Loan Services, Inc. ("Midland"), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of The
        PNC
        Financial Services Group, Inc., is responsible for assessing compliance with
        the
        applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB
        of the
        Securities and Exchange Commission ("Regulation AB") relating to its role
        in the
        servicing of commercial mortgage- backed
        securities transactions.
  Midland
        has assessed its compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of
        and for
        the year
        ended December 31, 2006. In making this assessment, Midland used the criteria
        set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in Item 1122(d)
        of
        Regulation AB. The transactions
        covered by this report include commercial mortgage-backed securities that
        were issued
        on
        or after January 1, 2006 and that were registered with the SEC pursuant to
        the Securities
        Act of 1933 (the "Platform").
  Based
        on
        such assessment, Midland believes that, as of and for the year ended, Midland
        has complied
        in all material respects with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)
        of Regulation
        AB relating to its role in the servicing of commercial mortgage-backed
        securities transactions,
        except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(l)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i) through (3)(iv),
        and 1122(d)(4)(xv),
        which Midland has determined as being inapplicable to the activities it performs
        with respect to the commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions being serviced
        (the "applicable servicing criteria").
  Deloitte
        & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued
        an attestation
        report on Midland's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing
        criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006.
  MIDLAND
        LOAN SERVICES, INC.
  /s/
                Steven W. Smith
              /s/
                Vincent E. Beckett
              /s/
                Bradley J. HaugerSteven
                W. Smith
              Vincent
                E. Beckett
              Bradley
                J. HaugerExecutive
                Vice President &
              Executive
                Vice President &
              Senior
                Vice PresidentChief
                Operating Officer
              Chief
                Administrative Officer
              Servicing
                Operations
  Date:
        February 16, 2007
  **A
        Member of the PNC Financial Services Group**
 10851
        Mastin P.O. Box 25965 Shawnee Mission Kansas 66225-5965
 www.midlandls.com
        913 253 9000**T** 913 253 9709 **F**
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

GASTON, LAWRENCE, and STEWART

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Malyah L. R. COLEMAN

Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Equipment)

Airman (E-3), U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 202000117

Decided: 27 January 2021

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judges:

Chad C. Temple (arraignment)

Kimberly J. Kelly (trial)

Sentence adjudged 22 January 2020 by a general court-martial convened at Naval Base Kitsap, Bremerton, Washington, consisting of a 

military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, confinement for six months, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Lieutenant Commander Jacqueline M. Leonard, JAGC, USN

For Appellee: 

Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________
United States v. Coleman, NMCCA No. 202000117

Opinion of the Court

2

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.1

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

1 Uniform Code of Military Justice arts. 59, 66, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
# L_2014212EN.01004701.xml

| 18.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 212/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 212/47

---

Corrigendum to Directive 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on deposit guarantee schemes

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 173 of 12 June 2014
  )

On page 172, Article 21, first paragraph:

for:

‘... 4 July 2019 ...’,

read:

‘... 4 July 2016 ...’.

---
§ 51.2335 Grades. ( a ) “U.S. Fancy” consists of kiwifruit which meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) Basic Requirements: ( i ) Similar varietal characteristics;
( ii ) Mature;
( iii ) Not soft, overripe, or shriveled;
( iv ) Carefully packed;
( v ) Clean; and,
( vi ) Well formed.
( 2 ) Free From: ( i ) Worm holes;
( ii ) Broken skins which are not healed;
( iii ) Sunscald;
( iv ) Freezing injury;
( v ) Internal breakdown; and,
( vi ) Decay.
( 3 ) Free From Injury By: ( i ) Bruises;
( ii ) Leaf or limbrubs;
( iii ) Discoloration;
( iv ) Hail;
( v ) Growth cracks;
( vi ) Scab;
( vii ) Scars;
( viii ) Heat, sprayburn, or sunburn;
( ix ) Scale;
( x ) Insects;
( xi ) Other diseases; and,
( xii ) Mechanical or other means.
( 4 ) Tolerances. (See § 51.2336)
( b ) “U.S. No. 1” consists of kiwifruit which meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) Basic Requirements: ( i ) Similar varietal characteristics;
( ii ) Mature;
( iii ) Not soft, overripe, or shriveled;
( iv ) Carefully packed;
( v ) Clean; and,
( vi ) Fairly well formed.
( 2 ) Free From: ( i ) Worm holes;
( ii ) Broken skins which are not healed;
( iii ) Sunscald;
( iv ) Freezing injury;
( v ) Internal breakdown; and,
( vi ) Decay.
( 3 ) Free From Damage By: ( i ) Bruises;
( ii ) Leaf or limbrubs;
( iii ) Discoloration;
( iv ) Hail;
( v ) Growth cracks;
( vi ) Scab;
( vii ) Scars;
( viii ) Heat, sprayburn, or sunburn;
( ix ) Scale;
( x ) Insects;
( xi ) Other diseases; and,
( xii ) Mechanical or other means.
( 4 ) Tolerances. (See § 51.2336):
( c ) “U.S. No. 2” consists of kiwifruit which meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) Basic Requirements: ( i ) Similar varietal characteristics;
( ii ) Mature;
( iii ) Not soft, overripe, or shriveled;
( iv ) Carefully packed;
( v ) Fairly clean; and,
( vi ) Not badly misshapen.
( 2 ) Free From: ( i ) Worm holes;
( ii ) Broken skins which are not healed;
( iii ) Sunscald;
( iv ) Freezing injury;
( v ) Internal breakdown; and,
( vi ) Decay.
( 3 ) Free From Serious Damage By: ( i ) Bruises;
( ii ) Leaf or limbrubs;
( iii ) Discoloration;
( iv ) Hail;
( v ) Growth cracks;
( vi ) Scab;
( vii ) Scars;
( viii ) Heat, sprayburn, or sunburn;
( ix ) Scale;
( x ) Insects;
( xi ) Other diseases; and,
( xii ) Mechanical or other means.
( 4 ) Tolerances. (See § 51.2336)
[47 FR 34513, Aug. 10, 1982, as amended at 51 FR 36682, Oct. 15, 1986]