alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[House Report 107-783]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-783

======================================================================

 
 WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO THE 
  SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES 
                               COMMITTEE

                                _______
                                

 November 13, 2002.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

                Mr. Goss, from the Committee on Rules, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 608]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 608, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to any special rule reported on the legislative day of 
Thursday, November 14, 2002, providing for consideration or 
disposition of a conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
4628) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for 
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United 
States Government, the Community Management Account, and the 
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, 
and for other purposes.


```
Puget Sound

Nisqually

River

McAll si ter Creek

Puget Sound

Nisqually

River

McAll si ter Creek

Special Designated Areas

3-67

Source: USFWS, 2000; Ducks Unlimited, 1999; EDAW, 2002

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Nisqually NWR Draft CCP/EIS

Figure 3.8-1

P:\0e01401 Nisqually\GIS\mxd\Figure3.5-1.mxd

N

0 0.5 1 0.25 Miles

1:70,000

Legend

Approved Nisqually NWR Boundary

National Recreation Trail

Shoreline of Statewide Significance

Public Use Natural Area

FWS Research Natural Area

Ft. Lewis Research Natural Area

National Natural Landmark

Purchase of Development Rights
Subpart 5601.1 - PURPOSE, AUTHORITY ISSUANCE     **Parent topic:** Part 5601 - THE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SYSTEM5601.101 Purpose.    This United States Special Operations Command Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (SOFARS) provides minimum essential implementation of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and DOD FAR Supplement (DFARS).5601.104 Applicability.    The SOFARS applies to all USSOCOM contracting offices that receive contracting authority from USSOCOM, Director of Procurement (DOP).5601.170 Peer Reviews.    *(Revised June 2023)*       (a) *DPC peer reviews*. DPC peer reviews are required on all non-competitive acquisitions over $1 billion. DPC peer reviews are required on competitive acquisitions over $1 billion only for major defense acquisition programs for which the USD(A&S) is the milestone decision authority or USD(A&S) special interest programs. DPC may still conduct peer reviews for competitive procurements above $1 billion upon request. Internal reviews should be completed prior to DPC peer review. Peer reviews are addressed in DFARS 201.170.       (b) DoD independent management reviews of contracts for services IAW section 808 of NDAA for FY08 are still required. Follow procedures for periodic independent management reviews of contracts for services consistent with section 808.       (c) *DPC Peer Reviews* leverage existing reviews; the following 5601-1 reviews serve as the DPC peer review phases. A list of required documents and elements to be addressed are found in PGI 201.170-4. Additionally, a peer review checklist is also found in PGI 201.170-4. As a minimum, the Chief, cognizant LNO, and acquisition legal advisor will serve as reviewers for noncompetitive actions. As a minimum, the Chief, cognizant LNO, acquisition legal counsel, SSAC-Chair (if required), and SSA will serve as reviewers for competitive actions.       **DPC PREAWARD PEER REVIEWS – COMPETITIVE ACQUISITIONS OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS WITH USD(A&S) AS MILESTONE DECISION AUTHORITY AND USD(A&S) SPECIAL INTEREST PROGRAM****DFARS**                   **5601-1 Equivalent**Phase 1 – Prior to issuance of the solicitation                   Requests for ProposalsPhase 2 – Prior to request for final proposal revisions (if applicable)                   Requests for Final Proposal Revisions (if applicable)Phase 3 – Prior to award                   Contract Clearance**DPC PREAWARD PEER REVIEWS – NONCOMPETITIVE ACQUISITIONS**Phase 1 – Prior to negotiations                   Business ClearancePhase 2 – Prior to award                   Contract Clearance**DPC POSTAWARD PEER REVIEWS – SERVICES ONLY**Base 1-year or less                   Post Award Peer Reviews – prior to exercise of each option period(d) *Component peer reviews*. Pre-award peer reviews for competitive solicitations valued at less than $1B and non-competitive solicitations valued at less than $500M must be accomplished by complying with the RFP, Business, and Contract Clearances requirements defined in SOFARS 5615.001 at the thresholds outlined in 5601-1.
# Subpart 5136.2 - Special Aspects of Contracting for Construction

**Parent topic:**Part 5136 - Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts

## 5136.201 Evaluation of contractor performance.

(1)  See 5142.1503-90 for the requirements to prepare contractor past performance evaluations on construction contracts.

(2)  At a minimum, prepare the report (DD Form 2626, Performance Evaluation (Construction)) at the final acceptance of work.  The contracting officer’s representative, or ordering officer if there is no contracting officer’s representative, must be responsible for monitoring contract performance.

### 5136.2-90 Special procedures for job order contracts.

Before awarding a job order contract, contracting officers must review all performance evaluations in the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System on those offerors in range for award.  Contracting officers may rely solely on the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System database information in assessing past performance.

## 5136.208 Concurrent performance of firm-fixed-price and other types of construction contracts.

The head of the contracting activity may approve contracts with cost variation or cost adjustment features as described at FAR 36.208.  See Appendix GG for further delegation.

## 5136.209 Construction contracts with architect-engineer firms.

Subject to the resolution of organizational conflict of interest concerns, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) may approve award of a construction contract to the firm that designed the project.  See Appendix GG for further delegation.

## 5136.213 Special procedures for sealed bidding in construction contracting.

### 5136.213-2 Presolicitation notices.

(a)  The head of the contracting activity may waive the requirement as stated in FAR 36.213-2(a).  See Appendix GG for further delegation.

## 5136.270 Expediting construction contracts.

The Secretary of the Army shall make the approval set forth in DFARS 236.270.  This approval authority may not be redelegated.  

## 5136.272 Prequalification of sources.

(b)  The head of the contracting activity must perform the functions at DFARS 236.272(b).  See Appendix GG for further delegation.
#### § 799.18 Overview of FSA NEPA process.

| If the proposed action: | FSA: |
| --- | --- |
| Is an emergency action | Follows the procedures in § 799.12 |
| Is exempt from section 102(2)(C) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) by authorizing legislation for the program | Implements the action. |
| Is categorically excluded under § 799.31(b) or § 1b.3 of this title | Implements the action after recording the specific categorical exclusion on the ESW (no review needed). |
| Is a proposed action that has the potential to impact historic properties as specified in § 799.33(e) and therefore requires the completion of an ESW | Completes an ESW to determine if there will be an impact on historic properties. FSA will prepare an EA or EIS, as indicated, before implementing the action. |
| Is a categorically excluded proposed action listed in § 799.32 that requires the completion of an ESW | Completes an ESW to determine whether extraordinary circumstances are present, as defined in § 799.33. This review includes a determination of whether the proposed action will potentially impact protected resources. If there are no extraordinary circumstances, FSA implements the action; if there are extraordinary circumstances, FSA will prepare an EA or EIS, as indicated, before implementing the action. |
| Involves a category of proposed actions requiring an EA listed in § 799.41 | Prepares an EA. |
| Involves a category of proposed actions requiring an EIS listed in § 799.51 | Prepares an EIS. |
#### § 923.66 Effect of termination or amendment.

Unless otherwise expressly provided by the Secretary, the termination of this subpart or of any regulation issued pursuant to this subpart, or the issuance of any amendment to either thereof, shall not (a) affect or waive any right, duty, obligation, or liability which shall have arisen or which may thereafter arise in connection with any provision of this subpart or any regulation issued under this subpart, or (b) release or extinguish any violation of this subpart or of any regulation issued under this subpart, or (c) affect or impair any rights or remedies of the Secretary or of any other person with respect to any such violation.
157 So.2d 234

#### Marie M. MOLAISON, widow of Sylvester Herbert ROHLI, v. The CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and City of New Orleans et al.

No. 46994.

Nov. 12, 1963.

In re: Marie M. Molaison, widow of Sylvester Herbert Rohli, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 156 So.2d 242.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
Case 3:06-cv-00641-WKW-TFM Document 7 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 800.87 New inspections.

(a) *Identity lost.* An applicant may request official personnel to perform a new original inspection service on an identified lot of grain, or on an identified carrier or container, if the identity of the lot or the carrier or container has been lost.

(b) *Identity not lost.* If the identity of the grain or the carrier or container is not lost, a new original inspection shall not be performed on the same identified lot of grain or carrier or container in the same assigned area of responsiblity within 5 business days after the last official inspection.

[50 FR 49674, Dec. 4, 1985]
#### § 51.783 Diameter.

*Diameter* means the greatest dimension measured at right angles to a line from stem to blossom end.
#### § 761.209 Loan funds for beginning farmers.

Each fiscal year, the Agency reserves a portion of direct and guaranteed FO and OL loan funds for beginning farmers in accordance with section 346(b)(2) of the Act.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3027 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3027

        To suspend temporarily the duty on noils of camel hair.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2006

Mr. Lieberman (for himself and Mr. Dodd) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on noils of camel hair.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NOILS OF CAMEL HAIR.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.12.25       Noils of camel     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         hair (provided                                                     31/2009
                         for in subheading
                         5103.10.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL ANDERSON 

 Plaintiff, 

PAUL WHALEY, ET AL. 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

CASE NO. 2:06-CV-620-WKW-CSC 

 

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS

 COME NOW Defendants, by and through the undersigned counsel, and for their Answer 

to the above-styled action, state as follows: 

 Defendants deny each and every material allegation made in the Complaint, and demand 

strict proof thereof. 

 Defendants deny that they violated any of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

 Defendants deny that they violated the Plaintiff’s due process rights. 

 Defendants deny that they caused or allowed to continue any unconstitutional condition 

of the Plaintiff’s confinement. 

 Defendants deny that they conspired, retaliated or discriminated against the Plaintiff in 

any way. 

DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

The Plaintiff makes no specific allegations against Defendants Coleman and Slatton. 

Case 2:06-cv-00620-WKW-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 1 of 3
The Defendants are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United 

States Constitution. 

The Defendants are immune from suit due to qualified immunity. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 TROY KING 

 Attorney General 

 s/ Benjamin H. Albritton

 Benjamin H. Albritton 

 Assistant Attorney General 

 

ADDRESS OF COUNSEL: 

Office of the Attorney General 

11 South Union Street 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

(334) 242-7300 

Case 2:06-cv-00620-WKW-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have, this the 29th day of August, 2006, served a copy of the 

foregoing upon the Plaintiff by placing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and 

properly addressed as follows: 

Michael Anderson, AIS #156270 

Bullock Correctional Facility 

P.O. Box 5107 

Union Springs, Alabama 36089 

 s/ Benjamin H. Albritton

 Benjamin H. Albritton 

Assistant Attorney General 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00620-WKW-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 3 of 3
Wdesk | Exhibit



Exhibit 10.5







Annual Director Compensation
Annual Retainers:
	
				
	Each non-employee director:
	$
	50,000
	


	Chairman of the Board
	80,000
	


	Chairperson of the Audit Committee:
	16,000
	


	Other Audit Committee Members:
	9,000
	


	Chairperson of the Compensation Committee:
	12,000
	


	Other Compensation Committee Members:
	6,000
	


	Chairperson of the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee:
	8,000
	


	Other Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee Members:
	6,000
	







All retainers are payable in cash, in four equal installments on the first day of each fiscal quarter. 


Meeting Fees:
Non-employee directors each receive $2,500 for each Board of Directors meeting attended in person and are reimbursed for their expenses in attending such meetings. 


Equity Award:
Annually, each director shall receive a deferred stock award consisting of the right to receive shares of Rent-A-Center common stock. The award shall be valued at $100,000 and be fully vested upon issuance. The shares covered by the award will be issued upon the termination of the director’s service as a member of the Board.
5250.104-3 Special procedures for unusually

hazardous or nuclear risks.

(b) Submit requests for authorization to use the clause prescribed at FAR 50.104-4 with sufficient

justification to SECNAV via DASN(P) by email at

usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the subject “[Activity Name] FAR

50.104-3 – Indemnification Request.”

Parent topic: 5250.104 Residual powers.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11536

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HECTOR JESUS CHAVEZ-LUNA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-159-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Hector Jesus Chavez-Luna pleaded guilty of conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute a controlled substance, and he asserts in this appeal that 

the district court erred in determining his sentence. The pending motion for 

substitution of counsel is GRANTED. 

The district court erred, Chavez-Luna contends: (1) in determining the

quantity of drugs for which he was accountable at sentencing; (2) in increasing 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 4, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11536 Document: 00515145894 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2019
No. 18-11536

2

his offense level by two levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(2) because, 

during an escape attempt, Chavez-Luna entered a residence and threatened 

the homeowner with bodily harm; (3) in increasing the offense level by two 

levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintenance of a premises for 

the purpose of distributing a controlled substance; and (4) in applying a fourlevel role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) because Chavez-Luna 

was an organizer-leader of a criminal activity involving five or more 

participants or that was otherwise extensive. We review these questions for 

clear error. See United States v. Trujillo, 502 F.3d 353, 356 (5th Cir. 2007). 

Because the unrebutted facts in the presentence report have an adequate and 

sufficiently reliable factual basis, they were properly relied upon by the district 

court in overruling Chavez-Luna’s objections to the drug quantity and 

guidelines enhancements. See United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 618-19

(5th Cir. 2013). 

For the first time on appeal, Chavez-Luna asserts that the threat 

enhancement was applied improperly because the threat was not in 

furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. Because the threat was part of the 

relevant conduct, Chavez-Luna cannot show that the district court plainly 

erred in applying the enhancement. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 

135 (2009); see also United States v. Teague, 772 F. App’x 149, 150 (5th Cir. 

2019); United States v. Torres, 694 F. App’x 937, 939, 942 (5th Cir. 2017).1

AFFIRMED.

 

1 Unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 1996, may be persuasive 

authority. Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006); 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 

 Case: 18-11536 Document: 00515145894 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION

MARIE TOOLE and CHRIS TOOLE, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-00652-MHT

)

MATTHEW CHUPP; DON BRAMLETT )

and ALFA INSURANCE COMPANY )

and fictitious defendants A-F, )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE CONCERNING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND MEDIATION

On behalf of the parties, the undersigned reports to the Court that the attorneys have

discussed settlement and, while unable at this point to reach settlement, have agreed to

pursue mediation. The parties are attempting to schedule mediation during the latter part

of February, 2007. 

 /s/ Randall Morgan 

RANDALL MORGAN [MOR037]

Attorney for Defendants Matthew Chupp

and Don Bramlett

OF COUNSEL:

HILL, HILL, CARTER, FRANCO,

COLE & BLACK, P.C.

425 South Perry Street

P.O. Box 116

Montgomery, AL 36101-0116

(334) 834-7600

(334) 263-5969 - FAX

Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 25 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing has been duly served by e-mail and by placing a

copy of same in the U.S. Mail, properly addressed and first class postage prepaid this the

5th day of February upon the following:

Jim S. Calton, Jr., Esq.

CALTON & CALTON

226 East Broad Street

P O Box 895

Eufaula, AL 36072

Courtney R. Potthoff, Esq.

Joel P. Smith, Jr., Esq.

WILLIAMS, POTTHOFF, 

 WILLIAMS & SMITH, LLC

125 South Orange Avenue

Eufaula, Alabama 36072

 /s/ Randall Morgan 

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 25 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 2 of 2
# L_2014294DE.01005601.xml

| 10.10.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 294/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 294/56

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 224/2014 des Rates vom 10. März 2014 über restriktive Maßnahmen angesichts der Lage in der Zentralafrikanischen Republik

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 70 vom 11. März 2014
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 70 vom 11. März 2014

Auf Seite 1, Erwägungsgrund 4:

anstatt:

| „(4) | Die Befugnis zur Änderung der Liste in Anhang I dieser Verordnung sollte vom Rat angesichts der besonderen Bedrohung des internationalen Friedens und der Sicherheit in der Region ausgeübt werden, die von der Situation in der zentralafrikanischen Republik ausgeht, und um Kohärenz mit dem Verfahren zur Änderung und Überprüfung des Anhangs des Beschlusses 2014/125/GASP herzustellen.“ |
| --- | --- |

„(4)

Die Befugnis zur Änderung der Liste in Anhang I dieser Verordnung sollte vom Rat angesichts der besonderen Bedrohung des internationalen Friedens und der Sicherheit in der Region ausgeübt werden, die von der Situation in der zentralafrikanischen Republik ausgeht, und um Kohärenz mit dem Verfahren zur Änderung und Überprüfung des Anhangs des Beschlusses 2014/125/GASP herzustellen.“

muss es heißen:

| „(4) | In Anbetracht der besonderen Bedrohung des internationalen Friedens und der Sicherheit in der Region, die von der Situation in der zentralafrikanischen Republik ausgeht, und zur Wahrung der Übereinstimmung mit dem Verfahren zur Änderung und Überprüfung des Anhangs des Beschlusses 2014/125/GASP sollte die Befugnis zur Änderung der Liste in Anhang I dieser Verordnung vom Rat ausgeübt werden.“ |
| --- | --- |

„(4)

In Anbetracht der besonderen Bedrohung des internationalen Friedens und der Sicherheit in der Region, die von der Situation in der zentralafrikanischen Republik ausgeht, und zur Wahrung der Übereinstimmung mit dem Verfahren zur Änderung und Überprüfung des Anhangs des Beschlusses 2014/125/GASP sollte die Befugnis zur Änderung der Liste in Anhang I dieser Verordnung vom Rat ausgeübt werden.“

---