alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
52.243-5 Changes and Changed Conditions.       As prescribed in 43.205(e), insert the following clause:          Changes and Changed Conditions (Apr 1984)                                       (a) 						            The Contracting Officer may, in writing, order changes in the drawings and specifications within the general scope of the contract.                                          (b) 						            The Contractor shall promptly notify the Contracting Officer, in writing, of subsurface or latent physical conditions differing materially from those indicated in this contract or unknown unusual physical conditions at the site before proceeding with the work.                                          (c) 						            If changes under paragraph (a) or conditions under paragraph (b) increase or decrease the cost of, or time required for performing the work, the Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment (see paragraph (d)) upon submittal of a "proposal for adjustment" (hereafter referred to as proposal) by the Contractor before final payment under the contract.                                          (d) 						            The Contracting Officer shall not make an equitable adjustment under paragraph (b) unless-                                                         (1) 								                The Contractor has submitted and the Contracting Officer has received the required written notice; or                                                            (2) 								                The Contracting Officer waives the requirement for the written notice.                                                                             (e) 						            Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the Disputes clause.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.243 [Reserved]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

WADE DEVENEY,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-23-AW-GRJ

DIXIE COUNTY 3rd JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT COURT, et al.,

Respondent.

 /

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

I have considered the magistrate judge’s January 28, 2020 Report and 

Recommendation. ECF No. 3. No objections were filed. (The mail was returned, 

indicating Mr. Deveney was not in custody. ECF No. 5. This is consistent with the 

magistrate judge’s conclusion.) It is now ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by 

reference in this Order.

2. The clerk will enter a judgment that says “The petition is dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction.”

3. The Clerk will close the file.

SO ORDERED on March 23, 2020.

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge
52.222-49 Service Contract Labor Standards-Place of Performance Unknown.       As prescribed in 22.1006(f), insert the following clause:          Service Contract Labor Standards-Place of Performance Unknown (May 2014)                                       (a) 						            This contract is subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards statute, and the place of performance was unknown when the solicitation was issued. In addition to places or areas identified in wage determinations, if any, attached to the solicitation, wage determinations have also been requested for the following: ________ [*insert places or areas*]. The Contracting Officer will request wage determinations for additional places or areas of performance if asked to do so in writing by _____________ [*insert time and date*].                                          (b) 						            Offerors who intend to perform in a place or area of performance for which a wage determination has not been attached or requested may nevertheless submit bids or proposals. However, a wage determination shall be requested and incorporated in the resultant contract retroactive to the date of contract award, and there shall be no adjustment in the contract price.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.222 [Reserved]
§ 65.260 United States country of origin. *United States country of origin* means in the case of: ( a ) Beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and goat: ( 1 ) From animals exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States;
( 2 ) From animals born and raised in Alaska or Hawaii and transported for a period of not more than 60 days through Canada to the United States and slaughtered in the United States; or
( 3 ) From animals present in the United States on or before July 15, 2008, and once present in the United States, remained continuously in the United States.
( b ) Perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, ginseng, pecans, and macadamia nuts: from products produced in the United States.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs CASE NO: 5:97cr11/LAC

ADAM W. ROSS,

Defendant.

__________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

Defendant seeks to have this Court order the U. S. Attorney to file a Rule 35 motion

attesting to what he believes to be his substantial assistance as, he alleges, is required by his

plea agreement. The Court disagrees and the motion is DENIED.

The law is well settled that the government has the discretion and the power, but not

a duty, to file a motion when a defendant has substantially assisted. United States v. Wade,

504 U.S. 181, 185 (1992). Plea agreements that only require the government to consider

whether the defendant’s aid to the prosecutionconstitutes substantial assistance do not create

a contractual duty to file a motion. United States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492, 1499-50 (11th Cir.

1993). In the absence of a plea agreement which expressly requires the government to file

such a motion, a defendant shall be heard to complain as to the government’s failure to file

the motion only upon a showing of the government’s unconstitutional or discriminatory

motivation. Id. at 1501-03. Defendant has failed to make such a showing. Citing Wade,

the Eleventh Circuit in Forney held that allegations of governmental bad faith or arbitrary

Case 5:97-cr-00011-RS-mcr Document 200 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 2
motive in failing to file a substantial assistance motion are not reviewable. Id. at 1501-02,

n.5. Generalized allegations of improper motive, nor allegations that are simply based on

the assertion that the movant indeed supplied substantial assistance, do not suffice to make

the defendant’s claim reviewable. Wade, 504 U.S. at 186; see also Forney, supra.

Therefore, the defendant has failed to raise a claim that is reviewable by this Court.

Further, during his plea colloquy defendant acknowledged that he understood that

there was no guarantee that a Rule 35 would be filed and he knew that it was “up to the

Government, only the Government, no one else to determine that [his] cooperation was

substantial” warranting the filing of a Rule 35. He cannot now be heard to complain.

ORDERED this 7th day of October 2005.

 s/L.A. Collier 

 LACEY A. COLLIER

 Senior United States District Judge

Case 5:97-cr-00011-RS-mcr Document 200 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1
**Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
I, William J. Gervais, Chief Executive Officer of Qualstar Corporation (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarterended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.   Dated: November 12, 2004   /s/ WILLIAM J. GERVAIS  **William J. Gervais** **Chief Executive Officer**
20
§ 765.304 Unapproved disposition. ( a ) If a borrower disposes of chattel security without Agency approval, or misuses proceeds, the borrower must: ( 1 ) Make restitution to the Agency within 30 days of Agency notification; or
( 2 ) Provide disposition or use information to enable the Agency to consider post-approval within 30 days of Agency notification.
( b ) Failure to cure the first unauthorized disposition in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, or a second unauthorized disposition, whether or not cured, constitutes a non-monetary default, will be considered by the Agency when making eligibility determinations for future requests for assistance, may adversely impact such requests, and may result in civil or criminal action.
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, }

}

Plaintiff, }

}

vs. } CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:06cr169-WKW

}

DEMETRIA MILLS, }

}

Defendant. }

}

PETITION FOR HEARING TO ADJUDICATE THE VALIDITY

OF THE INTEREST OF TITLEMAX OF ALABAMA, INC. IN THE PROPERTY ORDERED FORFEITED

TitleMax of Alabama, Inc. hereby moves this Honorable Court for the entry of an order to

adjudicate the validity of its interest in one 2002 Chevrolet Tahoe, VIN 1GNEC13Z54R236758 at

issue. In support hereof, TitleMax of Alabama, Inc. would show as follows:

1. TitleMax acquired a lienhold interest in the property at issue on February 10, 2005

when Demetria Mills pawned the vehicle at issue. A copy of the pawn agreement is

attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and a copy of the title is attached as Exhibit 2. 2. From and after that date Demetria Mills has renewed that transaction with the last

renewal being on October 28, 2005. Because no further payment has been made, under Alabama law the vehicle has become the property of TitleMax of Alabama,

Inc.

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 559 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

3. TitleMax loaned to Mills the amount of $3,500 to obtain its lien interest in the

property. At that time, TitleMax had no cause to believe that the property was

subject to forfeiture. [Affidavit of Chauncey Teague, Exhibit 3]. Wherefore, from all of the above, TitleMax of Alabama, Inc. hereby moves this Honorable

Court for the entry of an order setting this matter for hearing and amending the preliminary order of

forfeiture to provide for the protection of the interest of TitleMax of Alabama, Inc. in the property

at issue. Respectfully submitted,

s/ Jeffrey L. Ingram

Jeffrey L. Ingram (ING025)

Attorney for TitleMax of Alabama, Inc. OF COUNSEL:

GALESE & INGRAM, P.C. 800 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 300

Birmingham, Alabama 35209

Phone (205) 870-0663

Fax (205) 870-0681

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 559 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have mailed a copy of the above and foregoing pleading upon all

counsel of record in this cause, to their proper office addresses, as shown below, on February 11, 2008:

Mr. A. Clark Morris

Mr. John T. Harmon

U.S. Attorneyís Office

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0197

s/ Jeffrey L. Ingram

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 559 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Victoria Miller, Respondent, v Ronald Miller, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Montgomery County, entered August 1,1979, which dismissed respondent’s application for modification of a support order. Since it appears that the parties have subsequently agreed to a discontinuance of support payments to petitioner, this appeal by respondent has become moot and should be dismissed. Appeal dismissed, as moot, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willie McClain, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 738]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), rendered February 28, 2003, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress a written statement made by him to law enforcement officials, and certain physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress his written statement made by him to law enforcement officials, and a sweatshirt seized from his locker at the homeless shelter where he resided. The totality of the circumstances indicated that the defendant’s statement was voluntarily made *(see People v Jones,*283 AD2d 665, 667 [2001]; *People v Quinones,*245 AD2d 314 [1997]; *People v Marshall,*244 AD2d 508, 508-509 [1997]; *cf. People v Anderson,*42 NY2d 35, 41 [1977]). Moreover, the People established that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his locker and that the search was narrowly tailored and conducted *(see People v Ramirez-Portoreal,*88 NY2d 99, 109 [1996]; *People v Gaffney,*308 AD2d 598 [2003]). The written guidelines of the homeless shelter authorized searches of lockers. Notices informing residents of the guidelines *825were posted throughout the shelter, and the defendant acknowledged signing a document informing him of the guidelines.

Further, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of assault in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt *(see*Penal Law § 120.10 [1]; *People v Wade,*187 AD2d 687 [1992]; *People v Noel,*156 AD2d 592, 592-593 [1989]; *People v Patterson,*118 AD2d 665 [1986]). Moreover, resolutions of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt of assault in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Rivera and Dillon, JJ., concur.
52.219-32 Orders Issued Directly Under Small Business Reserves       As prescribed in 19.507(g)(2), insert the following clause:          Orders Issued Directly Under Small Business Reserves (Mar 2020)                                       (a)                   *Applicability.* This clause applies only to contracts that were reserved for any of the small business concerns identified at 19.000(a)(3).                                          (b) 						            If there is only one contract award to any one type of small business concern identified in 19.000(a)(3) as a result of the reserve, the Contracting Officer may issue an order or orders directly to the concern.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.219 [Reserved]
Exhibit 10.8(h)


 





 



DESCRIPTION OF 2018 SALARY RATES




FOR 2017 NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


 










 


Annualized salary rates for the executive officers of the First
Horizon National Corporation (the “Company”) who are expected to be named in the executive compensation disclosures
of the Company’s 2018 proxy statement in relation to fiscal year 2017 (“2017 Named Executive Officers”) currently
are:


 


	Officer Name	 	2018 Salary Rate	 
	D. Bryan Jordan	 	          $	900,000	 	 
	William C. (B.J.) Losch III	 	 	500,000	 	 
	Michael E. Kisber	 	 	600,000	 	 
	David T. Popwell	 	 	500,000	 	 
	Charles T. Tuggle, Jr.	 	 	475,000	 	 


 


The annualized rates shown above are those in effect on the
date this exhibit is filed with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K. Salary rates generally continue in effect until
they are changed.
# P.O. &*/**>* ^ # * Austin. lUas 7%7I'/

f /J r I r &fftit£> nohce 

### s, */nc&r& fr/nadL/cX&rtwos? _ /rmorhi/U. uha/rwf) 

## Tb.£J*ilesfMsc>

- mXtiMsAl. RECEIVED IN HunTi*\\\tTx>7H%D. . COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS • ' / • • JAN 2 0201b • AhfiB Acbsta. Clerk

• .

• •
-.

• • % i-r- •-. v 

### > . r „_.

- ;• -<fr.>hy- . -

# COXjRTof CKXMXAML APPEhLS of T^XAS^XM^OXM-Y-OMXO

# j/jdxu^MilAtetoL ¥.- 

## STkTB-dCIl}^ {lAjCCfifaor^ 

### '&2l^$&- Uu lE-JUm. 

# MuAJsvjihym^mixcL JhnaJ 

# •fit*ittiti) Dn-v?d /W***-215•X.H.'Vstf.)riuMlk 7% Tfzw^ \ 

# ^^ • : ——fftt

## Cec--ifcfcfca^-*£ Sendjg. — -~£l—h-&ctku L£Al£±^k<\^a^cu~&~~a-aA '^J/YiomM^AaJl/ri^/L ft 

# M^lfE^MJk rojie^^olMn^^a^e^^4J2 are'ft 

## •fitf. <=2 #£~<=3~
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.94
THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION 
DIRECTORS RESTRICTED STOCK DEFERRAL PLAN 
(2008 Amendment and Restatement) 
WHEREAS, The Progressive Corporation (“Company”) maintains The Progressive Corporation Directors Restricted Stock Deferral Plan pursuant to a plan document dated February 1, 2004, and one amendment thereto; and 
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend and restate the Plan; 
NOW, THEREFORE, effective January 1, 2008, the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to provide as follows: 
ARTICLE I 
PURPOSE; PARTICIPATION 
1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this plan, which shall be known as The Progressive Corporation Directors Restricted Stock Deferral Plan (the “Plan”) is to provide directors of the Company who are not employees of the Company or its subsidiaries with an opportunity to defer the receipt of Common Shares with respect to Eligible Restricted Stock Awards. 
ARTICLE II 
DEFINITIONS 
For purposes of this Plan, the following terms shall have the following meanings: 
“Board” means the Board of Directors of the Company.
# 52.242 [Reserved]

- 52.242-1 Notice of Intent to Disallow Costs. 
- 52.242-2 Production Progress Reports. 
- 52.242-3 Penalties for Unallowable Costs. 
- 52.242-4 Certification of Final Indirect Costs. 
- 52.242-5 Payments to Small Business Subcontractors. 
- 52.242-6 [Reserved] 
- 52.242-7 [Reserved] 
- 52.242-8 [Reserved] 
- 52.242-9 [Reserved] 
- 52.242-10 [Reserved] 
- 52.242-11 [Reserved] 
- 52.242-12 [Reserved] 
- 52.242-13 Bankruptcy. 
- 52.242-14 Suspension of Work. 
- 52.242-15 Stop-Work Order. 
- 52.242-16 [Reserved] 
- 52.242-17 Government Delay of Work. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 52.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 19 Filed 06/08/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 19 Filed 06/08/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 19 Filed 06/08/2006 Page 3 of 3
From: Brad Anderson

To: Hexter, Joseph A CTR (FAA)

Subject: RE: Request for Information

Date: Thursday, March 02, 2017 1:10:26 AM

Thank you very much Joe, this is extremely helpful.

From: Joseph.A-CTR.Hexter@faa.gov [mailto:Joseph.A-CTR.Hexter@faa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 7:14 AM

To: Brad Anderson <Brad_Anderson@yamaha-motor.com>

Subject: Request for Information

Brad:

Since our regulatory group has temporarily suspended posting requests for information to the

public docket, I’ve been authorized to send the equivalent request via e-mail instead. The

information listed below as well as your response will be posted to the docket at a later date. If

you have any questions, please call or e-mail at your convenience.

Operational Limitations to include: Max Takeoff Weight (MTOW) and Empty Weight, as well

as any restrictions/warnings for the dispensing of materials or substances

Component-level comparison, between the Fazer and RMAX with design changes,

Total Fazer flight hours (to include all countries where the UAS is operated)

Flight incidents and accidents (including lost link and other communication/control

issues) during the flight hours listed along with:

Root-cause analysis

Lessons learned

Design/operational changes or other mitigations implemented

Operating frequencies for communication links (and relevant certification from the FCC if

required)

Description of the Fazer software configuration control process to ensure the tracking and

controlling of changes in the software to avoid the introduction of errors as well as of

incompatibilities with other configuration items, and the latest software version number.

Respectfully,

Joe

Joseph Hexter / SAIC

Senior Regulatory Analyst - NextGen Initiatives Support Services Contract

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office (AUS-430)

Email: joseph.a-ctr.hexter@faa.gov

Direct: 202-267-4606
§ 58.649 Physical requirements for ice cream. ( a ) *Flavor.* The flavor of the finished ice cream shall be pleasing and desirable, and characteristic of the fresh milk and cream and the particular flavoring used.
( b ) *Body and texture.* The body shall be firm, have substance and readily melt to a creamy consistency when exposed to room temperatures; the texture shall be fine, smooth, and have the appearance of creaminess throughout.
( c ) *Color.* The color shall be attractive, pleasing, uniform and characteristic of the flavor represented.
52.223-17 Affirmative Procurement of EPAdesignated Items in Service and Construction

Contracts.

As prescribed in 23.406(e), insert the following clause:

Affirmative Procurement of EPA-designated Items in Service and Construction Contracts (Aug 2018)

(a) In the performance of this contract, the Contractor shall make maximum use of products

containing recovered materials that are EPA-designated items unless the product cannot be

acquired-

(1) Competitively within a timeframe providing for compliance with the contract performance

schedule;

(2) Meeting contract performance requirements; or

(3) At a reasonable price.

(b) Information about this requirement is available at EPA’s Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines

web site, http://https://www.epa.gov/smm/comprehensive-procurement-guideline-cpg-program. The

list of EPA-designated items is available at

http://https://www.epa.gov/smm/comprehensive-procurement-guideline-cpg-program.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.223 [Reserved]
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:91cr5014LAC

CLARENCE WILLARD WOMBLE

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on June 20, 2006

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FRCrP Rule 60(b)(4) 

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on 6/5/2006 Doc.# 703

RESPONSES:

GOVERNMENT on 6/30/2006 Doc.# 704

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 6th day of

July, 2006, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) As a successive and untimely collateral attack per 2255. Denied on the

merits as well. Booker is not retroactive. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 5:91-cr-05014-LC-MD Document 705 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 1