alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
52.227-15 Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software.       As prescribed in 27.409(c), insert the following provision:          Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software (Dec 2007)                                       (a) This solicitation sets forth the Government’s known delivery requirements for data (as defined in the clause at 52.227-14, Rights in Data-General). Any resulting contract may also provide the Government the option to order additional data under the Additional Data Requirements clause at 52.227-16, if included in the contract. Any data delivered under the resulting contract will be subject to the Rights in Data-General clause at 52.227-14 included in this contract. Under the latter clause, a Contractor may withhold from delivery data that qualify as limited rights data or restricted computer software, and deliver form, fit, and function data instead. The latter clause also may be used with its Alternates II and/or III to obtain delivery of limited rights data or restricted computer software, marked with limited rights or restricted rights notices, as appropriate. In addition, use of Alternate V with this latter clause provides the Government the right to inspect such data at the Contractor’s facility.                                          (b) By completing the remainder of this paragraph, the offeror represents that it has reviewed the requirements for the delivery of technical data or computer software and states [*offeror check appropriate block*]-                □ None of the data proposed for fulfilling the data delivery requirements qualifies as limited rights data or restricted computer software; or                □ Data proposed for fulfilling the data delivery requirements qualify as limited rights data or restricted computer software and are identified as follows:                _____________                _____________                _____________                                          (c) Any identification of limited rights data or restricted computer software in the offeror’s response is not determinative of the status of the data should a contract be awarded to the offeror.                                 (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.227 [Reserved]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

September 18, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10188 Summary Calendar

APPARAJAN GANESAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY JAMES, Administrative Tech II;
MICHAEL UPSHAW, Warden; JANIE COCKRELL,
DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:02-CV-129

Before GARWOOD, DEMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Apparajan Ganesan, Texas prisoner # 904088, by his February

18, 2003, notice of appeal seeks to appeal the dismissal without

prejudice for failure to prose cute of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit

against various prison officials for retaliation and mail** Appellant is reminded that if the district court denies his

motion to reinstate he should file in the district court a new
notice of appeal (directed to such denial) within 30 days from the

date of such denial if h e wishes to complain on appeal of such denial. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).

2 censorship. On February 4, 2003, Ganesan filed in the district

court a motion to reinstate, explaining why he had not sooner filed

the copies of documents as required by the December 20, 2002,

order, which failure was apparently the basis of the January 21,

2003, dismissal. The February 4, 2003, motion was filed within ten

days (computed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)) of the January 21, 2003,

dismissal and was in substance a timely Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion. B ann v. Ingram Micro Inc.

, 108 F.3d 625, 626 (5th Cir.

1997). The district court has never ruled on the February 4, 2003,

mot ion. Accordingly, the notice of appeal has not become

effective, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i), and the appeal is

therefore DISMISSED. ** S immons v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.

,

310 F.3d 865, 868-70 (5th Cir. 2002).

Appeal DISMISSED as premature.
5615.001 Definitions.    *(Revised February 2014)*       (a) *Business Clearance* (BC):       (1)The purpose of the BC for competitive acquisitions is to obtain approval from the appropriate approval authority to award without discussion or begin discussions.       (2)The purpose of the BC for non-competitive acquisitions, negotiated modifications, and delivery or task orders is to obtain the approval to begin negotiations.       (b) *Contract Clearance*:       (1) The Contract Clearance is the approval of the negotiated business arrangement. The Contract Clearance review is accomplished after completion of negotiations and prior to the Contracting Officer signing the contract. Contract clearance shall be accomplished prior to sending the contract to the Source Selection Authority for the final SSA decision.       (2) The requirement to obtain Contract Clearance may be waived if requested at the time the Pre-Negotiation portion of the BCM is submitted for review and no substantial changes are made to the original negotiation objective. **Parent topic:** Part 5615 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
§ 764.304 Rates and terms. ( a ) *Rates.* ( 1 ) The interest rate is the Agency's Direct Operating Loan rate, available in each Agency office.
( 2 ) The limited resource Operating Loan interest rate is not available for Youth loans.
( 3 ) The interest rate charged will be the lower rate in effect at the time of loan approval or loan closing.
( b ) *Terms.* Youth loan terms are the same as for an OL established at § 764.254(b).
EX-10.11





Exhibit
10.11



Medicare Advantage Attestation of Benefit Plan




WELLCARE HEALTH INSURANCE OF ILLINOIS, INC.




H0967




Date: 08/29/2008




I attest that I have examined the Plan Benefit Packages (PBPs) identified below and that the
benefits identified in the PBPs are those that the above-stated organization will make available to
eligible beneficiaries in the approved service area during program year 2009. I further attest that
we have reviewed the bid pricing tools (BPTs) with the certifying actuary and have determined them
to be consistent with the PBPs being attested to here.



I further attest that these benefits will be offered in accordance with all applicable Medicare
program authorizing statutes and regulations and program guidance that CMS has issued to date and
will issue during the remainder of 2008 and 2009, including but not limited to, the 2009 Call
Letter, the 2009 Solicitations for New Contract Applicants, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
Manual, the Medicare Managed Care Manual, and the CMS memoranda issued through the Health Plan
Management System (HPMS).



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	CMS	 	 
	Plan	 	Segment	 	 	 	 	 	Plan	 	Transaction	 	MA	 	Part D	 	Approval	 	Effective
	ID	 	ID	 	Version	 	Plan Name	 	Type	 	Type	 	Premium	 	Premium	 	Date	 	Date
	001	 	0	 	8	 	WellCare PPO
	 	Local PPO	 	Renewal	 	0.00	 	0.00	 	08/29/2008	 	01/01/2009






Page 1 of 2 — WELLCARE HEALTH INSURANCE OF ILLINOIS, INC. — H0967 — 08/29/2008





 









 








	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Heath Schiesser
 
CEO:

	 	9/5/08

Date:
	 	 
	Heath Schiesser 

CEO/President 

8735 Henderson Road 

Tampa, FL 33634

813-290-6205
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Thomas L. Tran
 
CFO:

	 	9/5/08

Date:	 	 
	Tom Tran
CFO 

8735 Henderson Road 

Tampa, FL 33634

813-290-6200 (1770)
	 	 	 	 






Page 2 of 2 — WELLCARE HEALTH INSURANCE OF ILLINOIS, INC. — H0967 — 08/29/2008
Case 5:03-cr-00056-MCR Document 131 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 7
Case 5:03-cr-00056-MCR Document 131 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 7
Case 5:03-cr-00056-MCR Document 131 Filed 05/18/05 Page 3 of 7
Case 5:03-cr-00056-MCR Document 131 Filed 05/18/05 Page 4 of 7
Case 5:03-cr-00056-MCR Document 131 Filed 05/18/05 Page 5 of 7
Case 5:03-cr-00056-MCR Document 131 Filed 05/18/05 Page 6 of 7
Case 5:03-cr-00056-MCR Document 131 Filed 05/18/05 Page 7 of 7
52.203-2 Certificate of Independent Price

Determination.

As prescribed in 3.103-1 , insert the following provision. If the solicitation is a Request for

Quotations, the terms "Quotation" and "Quoter" may be substituted for "Offer" and "Offeror."

Certificate of Independent Price Determination (Apr 1985)

(a) The offeror certifies that-

(1) The prices in this offer have been arrived at independently, without, for the purpose of restricting

competition, any consultation, communication, or agreement with any other offeror or competitor

relating to-

(i) Those prices;

(ii) The intention to submit an offer; or

(iii) The methods or factors used to calculate the prices offered.

(2) The prices in this offer have not been and will not be knowingly disclosed by the offeror, directly

or indirectly, to any other offeror or competitor before bid opening (in the case of a sealed bid

solicitation) or contract award (in the case of a negotiated solicitation) unless otherwise required by

law; and

(3) No attempt has been made or will be made by the offeror to induce any other concern to submit

or not to submit an offer for the purpose of restricting competition.

(b) Each signature on the offer is considered to be a certification by the signatory that the signatory-

(1) Is the person in the offeror’s organization responsible for determining the prices being offered in

this bid or proposal, and that the signatory has not participated and will not participate in any action

contrary to paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this provision; or

(2)

(i) Has been authorized, in writing, to act as agent for the following principals in certifying that

those principals have not participated, and will not participate in any action contrary to paragraphs

(a)(1) through (a)(3) of this provision ____________ [insert full name of person(s) in the offeror’s

organization responsible for determining the prices offered in this bid or proposal, and the title of

his or her position in the offeror’s organization];

(ii) As an authorized agent, does certify that the principals named in subdivision (b)(2)(i) of this

provision have not participated, and will not participate, in any action contrary to paragraphs (a)(1)

through (a)(3) of this provision; and

(iii) As an agent, has not personally participated, and will not participate, in any action contrary to

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this provision.

(c) If the offeror deletes or modifies paragraph (a)(2) of this provision, the offeror must furnish with
its offer a signed statement setting forth in detail the circumstances of the dis-closure.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.203 [Reserved]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

MARIE TOOLE AND )

CHRIS TOOLE, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

 ) 2:06-CV-652-VPM

ALFA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO; )

MATTHEW CHUPP; )

DON BRAMLETT, Fictious Defendants A-F )

 )

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 26(a)(1) DISCLOSURES

Witnesses

1. Marie Toole

2. Chris Toole

3. Any person named by the Defendants in their witness disclosure.

4. Any person needed for rebuttal.

5. Any person needed for authentication of any record or document.

6. Any person that maybe revealed through discovery but who is unknown or

unknowable at this time to the Plaintiff.

7. Any person needed as impeachment.

8. Dr. William Hanson-Southern Bone & Joint

9. Dr. Roy Hall-Southern Bone & Joint

10. Mrs. Laurie White-Covenant Rehabilitation

11. Dr. Jeffery Bush

Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 16 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 3
12. Don & Lucinda Bramlett

13. Matthew Chupp

14. Records Clerk-Flowers Hospital

15. Officer Allen Hinson

16. Records Clerk-Southeast Alabama Medical Center

17. Dr. Barry Sadler - Superintendent Eufaula City Schools

18. Mr. John DeLoach, CPA- DeLoach & Wingate

19. Records Clerk-Dothan Surgery

20. Justin Dismukes-Adjuster Precision Body

21. Any person needed to prove any item of damages as already produced to the

Defendants.

Documents

1. All documents previously disclosed to Defendant.

2. All documents which would tend to support the Plaintiff’s claims for damages

that have been or will be made available to the Defendants.

Damages

1. A computation of damages as already disclosed to the Defendants.

2. Any additional computations that may be supported and/or proved by expert

testimony.

Insurance Agreement

1. A copy of the under insured motor carrier provision from Alfa Insurance

which has already been provided to the Defendant.

Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 16 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 3
 (s) Jim S. Calton, Jr. 

 Jim S. Calton, Jr.

226 East Broad Street 

P.O. Box 895

Eufaula, AL 36072-0895

(334) 687-3563

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document by placing same in the

U.S.mail, postage paid August 4, 2006 and properly addressed and electronically emailed to.

Randall C. Morgan, Esq. 

HILL, HILL, CARTER

PO Box 116

Montgomery, Alabama 36101

rmorgan@hillhillcarter.com

Courtney R. Potthoff, Esq.

WILLIAMS, POTTHOFF

PO Box 880

Eufaula, Alabama 36027

copotthoff@mindspring.com 

This the 16 day of October, 2006. (s) Jim S. Calton, Jr. 

OF COUNSEL

 

Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 16 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 3
April 23, 2015

Manager, Flight Standards Service Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office FAA Headquarters, Building 10A 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

Re: Petition to Amend Exemption No. 11253 to Regulatory Docket No FAA

- 2014

- 0817

Attention: FAA UAS Integration Office

DFAM respectfully requests the amendment of our Exemption No. 1 1253 and COA

FAA

- 2014

- 0817

- 333E, to include Closed Set Motion Picture and Television Aerial Filming Operations.

Submitted Confidentially is our Motion Pictures and Television Operators Manual (MPTOM)

.

At least thr ee days before aerial filming

, DFAM must submit a written Plan of Activities to

the local Flight Standards District Office ( FSDO) with jurisdiction over the area of proposed aerial filming . The 3

- day notification may be waived with the concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities must include at least the following: a. Dates and times for all flights; b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted under this petition of exemption; c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on

- scene operation of the UAS; d. Make, model, and serial or N

- number of UAS to be used;

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved in the aerial filming ; f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners and/or

local officials to conduct aerial filming ; the list of those who gave permission must be made available to the inspector upon reques t; g. Signature of exemption

- holder or representative; and h. A description of the flight activity, including maps or diagrams of any area, city, town, county, and/or state over which aerial filming will be conducted and the altitudes essential to accomp lish the operation.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at the phone number or via the e

- mail address provided above should you have any questions or concerns.

Respectfully submitted,

Simon Nielsen

CEO

, Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management , Inc. Simon Nielsen

CEO Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management, Inc. 606 Venice Blvd, Suite E Venice, CA 90291 (213) 379

- 0629 Simon.Nielsen@drone

- fleet.com
www.drone

- fleet.com
52.241-12 Nonrefundable, Nonrecurring

Service Charge.

As prescribed in 41.501(d)(6), insert a clause substantially the same as the following:

Nonrefundable, Nonrecurring Service Charge (Feb 1995)

As provided herein, the Government will pay a nonrefundable, nonrecurring charge when the rules

and regulations of a Contractor require that a customer pay (1)a charge for the initiation of service,

(2)a contribution in aid of construction, or (3)a nonrefundable membership fee. This charge may be

in addition to or in lieu of a connection charge. Therefore, there is hereby added to the Contractor’s

schedule a nonrefundable, nonrecurring charge for ___________ in the amount of $________ dollars

payable .[specify dates or schedules]

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.241 Utility Services Provisions and Clauses.
§ 9.6 Eligibility subject to verification. ( a ) Producers who are approved for participation in CFAP are required to retain documentation in support of their application for 3 years after the date of approval.
( b ) Participants receiving CFAP payments or any other person who furnishes such information to USDA must permit authorized representatives of USDA or the Government Accountability Office, during regular business hours, to enter the agricultural operation and to inspect, examine, and to allow representatives to make copies of books, records, or other items for the purpose of confirming the accuracy of the information provided by the participant.
Subpart 245.70 - Reserved

Parent topic: Part 245 - GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
Case 1:06-mj-00070-DRB Document 2 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 1 of 1
§ 764.1 Introduction. ( a ) *Purpose.* This part describes the Agency's policies for making direct FLP loans.
( b ) *Types of loans.* The Agency makes the following types of loans: ( 1 ) FO, including ML and Downpayment loans;
( 2 ) OL, including ML and Youth loans;
( 3 ) EM; and
( 4 ) CL.
[72 FR 63298, Nov. 8, 2007, as amended at 75 FR 54015, Sept. 3, 2010; 78 FR 3835, Jan. 17, 2013; 81 FR 3292, Jan. 21, 2016]
#### In the Matter of Lisa Pantina-Bott, Petitioner, v Incorporated Village of Freeport et al., Respondents.

[816 NYS2d 484]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review an undated determination of the Incorporated Village of Freeport and the Freeport Police Department, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner was capable of performing the full duties of a police officer as of January 14, 2003, and ordered her to forfeit disability pay retroactive to that date, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated June 9, 2004, which denied the petition in part and transferred the matter to this Court to decide whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, and the order is vacated, on the law; and it is further,

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

Since the petition raises a substantial evidence question, and the remaining points raised by the petitioner and disposed of by the Supreme Court are not objections that could have terminated the proceeding within the meaning of CPLR 7804 (g), the Supreme Court should have transferred the entire proceeding to the Appellate Division *(see Matter of Royster v Goord,*26 AD3d 503 [2006]; *Matter of Boyd v New York State Crime*
      *593
      *Victims Bd.,*302 AD2d 380 [2003]). Nonetheless, since the record is now before us, this Court will treat the proceeding as if it had been properly transferred here in its entirety *(see Matter of Royster v Goord, supra; Matter of Boyd v New York State Crime Victims Bd., supra).*

The petitioner, a police officer employed by the respondent, the Incorporated Village of Freeport, was injured in a training exercise on April 24, 2002. She received disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c. She challenges the determination, after a hearing, that she was fit for full duty as of January 14, 2003 and therefore was not entitled to disability payments beyond that date. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination was rational and is supported by substantial evidence in the record *(see Matter of Chadha v County of Nassau,*248 AD2d 465, 466-467 [1998]; *see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176 [1978]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ, concur.
§ 718.101 Measurements. ( a ) Measurement services include, but are not limited to, measuring land and crop areas, measuring quantities of farm-stored commodities, and appraising the yields of crops in the field when required for program administration purposes. The county committee will provide measurement service if the producer requests such service and pays the cost, except that measurement service is not available and will not be provided to determine total acreage or production of a crop when the request is made: ( 1 ) For acreage, after the established final reporting date for the applicable crop, unless a late filed report is accepted as provided in § 718.104; or
( 2 ) After the farm operator has furnished production evidence when required for program administration purposes except as provided in this subpart.
( b ) Except for measurements and determinations performed by FSA in accordance with late-filed acreage reports filed in accordance with § 718.104, when a producer requests, pays for, and receives written notice that measurement services have been furnished, the measured acreage is guaranteed to be correct and used for all program purposes for the current year even though an error is later discovered in the measurement.
[84 FR 45887, Sept. 3, 2019]
#### Michael C. Thea, Appellant, v Susan Thea, Respondent.

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 15, 1979, as granted the defendant temporary alimony in the amount of $600 per week retroactive to July 27,1979, and directed the plaintiff to liquidate the accumulated arrears at the rate of $100 per week until fully paid. Order modified by decreasing the amount awarded as temporary alimony to $400 per week. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Given the wife’s substantial resources, the age of the parties, the relative brevity of the marriage and the absence of any children of the union, we believe that the award of temporary alimony was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see *Mendelsohn v Mendelsohn,*36 AD2d 952; *Weinberg v Weinberg,*23 AD2d 569; *Walker v Walker,*18 AD2d 684). We wish to note that our modification of the award of temporary alimony is not meant to signal any change in our general policy toward such matters (see, e.g., *De Rosa v De Rosa,*68 AD2d 923; *Schwartz v Schwartz,*59 AD2d 905; *Bogut v Bogut,*38 AD2d 829), but rather, is predicated on the requirements of justice under the unusual facts and circumstances of this case (cf. *La Pommeray v La Pommeray,*56 AD2d 838). Our modification of the award of temporary alimony is not intended to influence or otherwise affect the trial court in determining whether or in what amount permanent alimony should be awarded (see *Walker v Walker, supra).*This matter should proceed to trial without further delay. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.