alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:01cr42-SPM/AK

JOSE MIKEL SMITH,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation dated November 21, 2005 (doc. 43).

Defendant has been furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and has

been 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 that the report and recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 43) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant

Case 4:01-cr-00042-RS-AK Document 44 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 2
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 42) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cr-00042-RS-AK Document 44 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 432 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 432 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 432 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 432 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 432 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 432 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 432 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 432 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 432 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 432 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 432 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 432 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 432 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 13 of 13
#### Walter Koupash, Respondent, v. Grand Union Company, Appellant.

— Sweeney, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered January 21, 1969 in Warren County, which granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint increasing the *ad damnum*clause thereof from $45,000 to $250,000. The defendant’s opposition to the amendment is directed solely to the sufficiency of the moving papers. The physician’s affidavit enumerates all of plaintiff’s disabilities observed during the course of his treatment and causally relates them to the accident in question. Defendant cites no authority for its contention that the physician must state facts recently discovered requiring additional treatment, nor do we believe this is necessary. Leave to amend is freely given (CPLR 3025, subd. [b]), and particularly is this so when the plaintiff is merely seeking to correct an underevaluation. *(Bird*V. *Board of Educ. of North Golowie Gent. Schools,*29 A D 2d 812.) We also conclude that the attorney’s affidavit is sufficient under the circumstances of this case. *(Byan*v. *Collins,*33 A D 2d 966.) Order affirmed, with costs. Reynolds, J. P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Sweeney, J.
§ 765.203 Protective advances. When necessary to protect the Agency's security interest, costs incurred for the following actions will be charged to the borrower's account: ( a ) Maintain abandoned security property;
( b ) Preserve inadequately maintained security;
( c ) Pay real estate taxes and assessments;
( d ) Pay property, hazard, or flood insurance;
( e ) Pay harvesting costs;
( f ) Maintain Agency security instruments;
( g ) Pay ground rents;
( h ) Pay expenses for emergency measures to protect the Agency's collateral; and
( i ) Protect the Agency from actions by third parties.
207.103 Agency-head responsibilities.

(d)(i) Prepare written acquisition plans for—

(A) Acquisitions for development, as defined in FAR 35.001, when the total cost of all contracts for

the acquisition program is estimated at $10 million or more;

(B) Acquisitions for production or services when the total cost of all contracts for the acquisition

program is estimated at $50 million or more for all years or $25 million or more for any fiscal year;

and

(C) Any other acquisition considered appropriate by the department or agency.

(ii) Written plans are not required in acquisitions for a final buy out or one-time buy. The terms "final

buy out" and "one-time buy" refer to a single contract that covers all known present and future

requirements. This exception does not apply to a multiyear contract or a contract with options or

phases.

(e) Prepare written acquisition plans for acquisition programs meeting the thresholds of paragraphs

(d)(i)(A) and (B) of this section on a program basis. Other acquisition plans may be written on either

a program or an individual contract basis.

(g) The program manager, or other official responsible for the program, has overall responsibility for

acquisition planning.

(h) For procurement of conventional ammunition, as defined in DoDD 5160.65, Single Manager for

Conventional Ammunition (SMCA), the SMCA will review the acquisition plan to determine if it is

consistent with retaining national technology and industrial base capabilities in accordance with 10

U.S.C. 3204(a)(3) and section 806 of Pub. L. 105-261. The department or agency—

(i) Shall submit the acquisition plan to the address in PGI 207.103 (h); and

(ii) Shall not proceed with the procurement until the SMCA provides written concurrence with the

acquisition plan. In the case of a non-concurrence, the SMCA will resolve issues with the Army

Office of the Executive Director for Conventional Ammunition.

Parent topic: Subpart 207.1 - ACQUISITION PLANS
#### In the Matter of Data Tree, LLC, Appellant, v Edward P. Romaine, Respondent.

Submitted October 15, 2007;

decided October 18, 2007

Reported below, 36 AD3d 804.

Motion by City of New York for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
Day 1248 1259 1286 1302 1315 1364 1435 1484 

1 0.32 18.88 27.01 16.82 16.67 26 30.5 30.5 2 15.53 15.77 28.73 12.97 12.76 28.27 27.52 27.52 3 17.43 20.71 28.67 9.49 9.57 27.59 29.07 29.07 4 16.57 22.61 27.95 10.43 10.58 37.25 24.64 24.64 5 18.3 19.67 7.66 9.44 9.64 28.78 23.82 23.82 6 17.06 25.9 7.49 11.47 11.71 7.72 24.52 24.52 7 16.57 22.63 7.58 13.59 13.83 42.98 25.14 25.14 8 21 21.21 8.12 12.85 12.72 25.28 26.46 26.46 9 16.57 5.07 23.93 4.3 4.38 24.67 25.49 25.49 

10 16.57 44.96 22.61 12.04 12.29 25.39 38.6 38.6 11 16.57 34.37 23.06 21.41 20.55 24.24 24.65 24.65 12 16.57 13.46 24.21 13.65 13.82 23.34 29.45 29.45 13 16.57 11.57 25.25 12.44 12.54 25.04 25.04 25.04 14 20.45 13.9 21.47 16.52 16.66 23.65 29.91 29.91 15 16.57 27.43 25.53 22.02 22.51 26.83 1.43 1.43 16 16.99 25.55 25.89 12.31 12.31 27.19 5.07 5.07 17 16.6 21.95 29.34 15.39 15.11 24.25 25.97 25.97 18 16.57 12.1 26.03 13.51 13.59 25.28 29.3 29.3 19 16.57 12.83 7.6 3.75 3.82 24.83 26.93 26.93 20 16.57 9.18 24.26 9.4 9.59 23.88 26.63 26.63 21 16.57 8.74 23.68 10.88 11.06 23.69 24.82 24.82 22 16.57 17.63 19.77 12.45 12.35 21.74 24.11 24.11 23 16.65 47.3 21.97 11.76 11.89 26.04 22 22 24 19.14 33.53 22.8 11.73 11.75 7.28 22 22 25 21.37 19.11 23.23 60.15 61.31 26.36 22 22 26 16.57 25.09 31.24 20.59 19.93 36.12 35.74 35.74 27 16.57 14.94 30.64 13.96 14.1 28.96 24.47 24.47 28 16.57 17.89 32.58 21.9 21.19 29.82 38.69 38.69 29 16.3 24.46 28.53 12.74 11.85 29.05 27.28 27.28 30 16.58 39.85 28.41 27.66 26.93 26.93 31 12.95 23.83 23.83

32 24.11 24.1133 27.28 27.2834 24.82 24.82 35 24.47 24.47

Daily Mercury Emissions (lb/MM tons feed) for Each Kiln (coded)
ni=number runs 30 31 29 30 30 29 35 35 

ni-1 29 30 28 29 29 28 34 34 Mean 16.628 21.33032 22.64931 15.279 15.258 25.91448 25.50543 25.50543 Auto Correlation 0.202 0.201 0.543 0.102 0.084 -0.187 0.238 0.236 Mean 19.21007Observed Variance 90.5988Auto Correlation 109.8387Intra quarry RSD 0.573 provided by KeithIntra quarry Variance 121.1622Intra quarry Auto Correlation 0.341 Hg Limestone Autocorrelation Provided by KeithVariance adj for Auto Corr 162.4785total variance 272.3172SQRT(Variance*(1/n+1/m)) 5.816644t (n-1) = 326 2.326UPL 32.7 lb/MM tons feed
Exhibit 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly report of eNucleus, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I John C. Paulsen, Chief
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


     (1)  The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.



                                            /s/  John C. Paulsen
                                            --------------------------------
                                                 John C. Paulsen
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 and Principal Financial Officer


                                                 November 14, 2002
#### § 42.132 Determining cumulative sum values.

(a) The parameters for the on-line cumulative sum sampling plans for AQL's applicable to origin inspection are as follows:

| Acceptable quality levels | Type of inspection | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Normal | | | Tightened | | | Reduced | | |
| T | L | S | T | L | S | T | L | S |
| 0.25 | 0.05 | 0.95 | 0.35 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1.5 | 0.5 | 2 | 1 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 |
| 6.5 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2.5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |

(b) At the beginning of the basic inspection period, the CuSum value is set equal to the starting value (“S”) for the specified CuSum plan. The CuSum value is then determined for each consecutive subgroup as follows:

(1) Add the number of defects for the present subgroup to the CuSum value of the previous subgroup.

(2) Subtract the subgroup tolerance (“T”).

(3) The CuSum value is reset in the following situations; however, determine portion of production acceptability (see [§ 42.133](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-42.133)) prior to resetting the CuSum value:

(i) Reset the CuSum value to zero (0) if the CuSum value is less than zero (0).

(ii) Reset the CuSum value to the acceptance limit (“L”) if the CuSum value exceeds the acceptance limit (“L”).
30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Services: health, social, educational

Services: personal, business, recreational

Distribution, all forms

Durables

Consulting: engineering, business, and other

Government and public administration

Transportation, communication and utilities

Financial and real estate

Services: cultural/membership organizations

Construction, all forms

Nondurables



	

 



	



	

	

	




		

	




CHART 1. Industries with new and emerging occupations

 	

 
 

 


		





		 
 	 	



	
	
	



	







	




	
			
	









 

	
	

!


 " 
 


	
	






	

  # 

	 
  	





	
	

	




	
		
	


	$ 
%&

	


	



			




 
	

   



			


	
		
	

	

	
		






	
	


	

	




		

	


			

	
		




	
		
		




  
 		

	
	
	




	
	



	







	
 
	


	

 
 	 	 	
 

	

	

	

	 

	 
 


	
		


	


	

!


	

"	



	


	
	


	


 

 

 


		


	


	
#		


 	 
 	 	




	


	

	

	
	
	
		



	

		

	$	


 
	
   	 $	


$


	





	
	
	

 
 	  	


	

 
	


	
		


	
		%
	
	



	
				

	
 
	



$	
	
	

	
	
&"	
'


()			



	

	


	


	$	


	 %
	
	 	
 
 

	


	 $ 	 


		
	
			
		


	*+	,-

		







	
	


		
		



	
	


	


	






	
		
		



	

	



	
.		



 
 	
	 

 

	
		

	






	




	
	




	
 
 
	

/
	


		



		
	


	 		
	 




	

	
	
	
	

	

	 


 	 



	




 		 



 	
	






	
	











	








	



	









	




 		 



 
	 





	



!
	
	

	

      
	
	







 !"

	



	



 !	" #$%&

#'(!

)' ! * #&#+#,&&&+


 


	


  


		
	
		
/


	
	



		


	



	
	

	

	
	







	
 
	 


	  



0

	
	





	
	


 %
	
	

"	
+	


*%+-		
%+	

%
	
	
+	
		
	

	
		
 


	 	

	




		

1%+


	
%+	


	
2

	


	
 	


	



	%
	


	 	
  
	 
"	
 


	#	



	
	



		




	




		

		





	
		 
	

	

 	

	


			0	


		
	


	


			

3	
	






	

		4


	

,5,6789579 	 	
 :


	 +			  	 





	
	 	

	 



			

		



	
	




 	!
(,5,6789,55

3;+(8<55<==<>>7

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

5 0

D e ve lo p m e n t A d m in is tra tio n S up p o rt  


	 	 























CHART 2. Functional specialties in Web-related jobs
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

09/08

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 08 Sep 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

●

●

★

● ●

● ●
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 2:06-cr-0169-WKW 

 ) 

JAMES CALVIN TALLEY, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 NOTICE OF INTENT TO CHANGE PLEA

COMES NOW, the defendant, James Calvin Talley, by and through the undersigned 

counsel, Richard K. Keith, and notifies the Court of his intent to change his previously 

entered plea of not guilty to guilty. Defendant waives his right to plea in front of a district 

judge and consents to do so before a magistrate judge. 

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of October, 2007. 

s/ Richard K. Keith 

RICHARD K. KEITH (KEI003)

Attorney for Defendant 

KEITH & DUBIN, P.C.

22 Scott Street 

Montgomery, AL 36104-4221 

Telephone: (334) 264-6776 

Facsimile: (334) 265-5362 

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 345 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 1, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to 

the following: 

A. Clark Morris, AUSA 

Post Office Box 197 

Montgomery, AL 36101-0197 

s/ Richard K. Keith 

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 345 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 19 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 13 of 13
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
November 29, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_______________



### m 04-40496

_______________



### L ARRY 

### B ROCK 

### ; ET 

### A L 

### .,

Plaintiffs,



### A LICE 

### H IGGINS 

### ; W ILLIAM 

### H IGGINS 

### ; M IKE 

### H IGGINS 

### E NTERPRISES 

### , I NC 

### .; K ATHY 

### P LUNKETT 

### ; C HARLES 

### P LUNKETT 

### ; B ILLY 

### D AN 

### R OLLING 

### ; A DDIE 

### H ALL 

### ; S COTT 

### R ENEAU 

### ; D ONNA 

### R ENEAU 

### , Plaintiffs-Appellants,



### F LAVIO 

### O LIVAREZ 

### ,

PlaintiffCounter DefendantAppellant,

VERSUS



### B ASKIN 

### -R OBBINS 

### USA, C O 

### .; B ASKIN 

### -R OBBINS 

### I NC 

### .,
DefendantsCounter ClaimantsAppellees.2 

### * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



### B ASKIN 

### -R OBBINS 

### I NC 

### .,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS



### C HARLES 

### R ONALD 

### P LUNKETT 

### ; K ATHY 

### E LIZABETH 

### P LUNKETT 

### , Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas


### m 5:01-CV-77

______________________________

Before D AVIS , S MITH , and D ENNIS , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM : *

The plaintiffs appeal an adverse judgment, partially resulting from a

summary judgment and partially from issues de t ermined after a trial. Plaint iffs claim, i nter alia
, improper use of monies in and from a trust fund intended for advertising.

We have reviewed the briefs and applicable portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. We conclude that the dist rict court did not err in deciding that defendants did not commit an actionable breach of fiduciary duty in administering the fund. Nor

was there error in denying leave to amend or in the various rulings on discovery or in any other aspect of the proceedings that is ra i sed on appeal.

The judgment, accordingly, is AFFIRMED.

* 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.
#### PEOPLE v. GELULA.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against Abe Gelula..

No opinion. Motion granted unless appellant be ready for November term. Order filed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GERMAINE R. RUDDOCK,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:21cv59-MW/MAF

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

and Recommendation. ECF No. 17. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 17, is accepted and adopted as 

this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s claims are 

DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order.”
2

The Clerk shall also close the file.

SO ORDERED on May 10, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge
#### Le Roy Noftell, Respondent, v. Gair Realty Corp., Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 23,. 1968, which conditionally granted plaintiff’s motion to remove the action from the Civil Court of the City of New York to the 'Supreme Court, Kings County, and for leave to serve an amended complaint and an amended bill of particulars. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by striking from the first ordering paragraph the words “on condition that plaintiff serve his bill of particulars within ten (10) days from the service of a copy of this Order,” and substituting therefor the words “ except that leave to serve an amended bill of particulars is denied without prejudice to a renewed motion for relief with respect to plaintiff’s bill of particulars.” As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. Such renewed motion shall be governed by the views expressed herein. Disputed questions of fact not passed upon by the Special Term were presented with respect to defendant’s alleged failure to serve upon plaintiff, by mail, a copy of the time-conditioned preclusion order dated September 13, 1956, and also plaintiff’s admitted failure to serve the initial bill of particulars until approximately one year after expiration of a stipulation extending the time for service as directed in the preclusion order. Before considering whether an amended bill should be permitted to be served in this case, Special Term must determine if plaintiff has a meritorious excuse for failure to serve the initial bill in accordance with the terms of the preclusion order (cf. *D’Antonio*v. *Fitzgerald,*11 A D 2d 804). Relevant disputed questions of fact that must be passed upon, by taking testimony or receiving other evidence, are (1) whether defendant failed to serve a copy of the preclusion order with notice of entry upon plaintiff by mail as alleged by plaintiff and denied by defendant (cf. *Trusts & Guar. Co.*v. *Barnhardt,*270 N. Y. 350; *New York Cent. Employees*v. *Commercial Credit Co.,*13 Misc 2d 874; *Seglin Const. Co.*v. *State of New York,*22 N. Y. S. 2d 94, affd. 262 App. Div. 782, mot. for rearg. den. 262 App. Div. 797); and (2) if such a copy was duly served, whether defendant failed to reject and return the late bill and also engaged in other acts with respect to this action which would constitute either a waiver of or estoppel as to its rights under the preclusion order (cf. *Alsens American Portland Cement Works*v. *Degnon Contr. Co.,*222 N. Y. 34; *Merritt*v. *Ellis,*285 App. Div. 1216; *Leiter*v. *Green,*13 Misc 2d 449). Therefore, plaintiff should move at Special Term to compel defendant to accept his initial bill of particulars *nunc pro tunc,*as of November 7, 1957, or, in the alternative, to have the order of preclusion vacated. In the same motion plaintiff should also seek permission to serve an amended bill of particulars if Special Term shall rule in his favor as to the initial bill. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY SCOTT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06CV654-VPM

) [WO]

NORMENT SECURITY GROUP, INC. )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER ON MOTION

For good cause, it is 

ORDERED that the defendant’s Unopposed Motion For an Extension of Time to File

Answer, filed on 22 August 2006 (Doc. # 4), is GRANTED. The defendant shall file its

Answer or other response to the complaint on or before 29 August 2006. The court is

mindful that the defendant delayed its request for an extension until the deadline for filing

its Answer and, accordingly, admonishes the defendant for doing so. A party should not file

a motion for extension on or after the due date for filing the pleading or other document.

FED.R.CIV.PROC. Rule 6(b); See Hill v. DeKalb Regional Youth Detention Center, 40 F.3d 1176

(11th Cir. 1994). 

DONE this 24 day of August, 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 5 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 1 of 1
49.105-4 Cleanup of construction site.

In the case of terminated construction contracts, the contracting officer shall direct action to ensure

the cleanup of the site, protection of serviceable materials, removal of hazards, and other action

necessary to leave a safe and healthful site.

Parent topic: 49.105 Duties of termination contracting officer after issuance of notice of

termination.
5615 ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 5615-1: BUSINESS CLEARANCE MEMORANDUM

Attachment 5615-2: BUSINESS CLEARANCE MEMORANDUM SIGNATURE PAGE

HQ, United States Special Operations Command

Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (SOF AT&L-K)

SOFARS 5615

February 2007

Parent topic: Part 5615 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION