alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Dunleavy, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on April 22, 1974, order entered June 4, 1979, order entered on February 8, 1979, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from order entered on February 8, 1977, dismissed as abandoned. No opinion. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Ross, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs. CASE NO.: 1:00cr15-SPM

WILLIAM H. BLACK,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS

Upon consideration of the stipulation (doc. 1179) filed by Defendant Black

and the Government, for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. From the $191,323.09 currently held, the clerk shall disperse

$30,000.00 to the account of Kimberly Hampton, specified in the stipulation, for

the use and benefit of the Defendant’s minor dependent Matthew Hampton.

2. The clerk shall also disperse $39,000.00 to the account of Charlotte

Black, specified in the stipulation, for the use and benefit of Defendant’s minor

dependents, Shayla M. Black and Jeremy L. Black.

3. The clerk shall seal the stipulation (doc. 1179) and attachments

thereto and post a redacted version of the stipulation to conform with the clerk’s

privacy policy.

Case 1:00-cr-00015-MW-GRJ Document 1181 Filed 05/26/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

4. The remaining funds held shall be dispersed as restitution in

accordance with the Stipulation of Revised Restitution (doc. 1145) and the

attached loss summary, which sets forth the restitution amount owing to each

player/client in this case after taking into account compensation received by the

player/clients from other sources. The loss summary does not account for any

restitution that may have already been paid by the clerk through the registry of

this court. The clerk shall, therefore, subtract from the amounts on the loss

summary any amounts paid through the registry to determine the current amount

of restitution that is due and owing to each player/client.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 1:00-cr-00015-MW-GRJ Document 1181 Filed 05/26/05 Page 2 of 2
# SUBPART 42.15 — CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

**Parent topic:**PART 42 –– CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES

## 42.1502 Policy.

(a) Documents to assist with Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to include the DISA CPARS Procedures are located at https://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/deskbooks.asp.  Current Guidance for CPARS and the User Manual are available athttps://www.cpars.gov/help.htm.

## 42.1503 Procedures.

(a)(1)(i) Past performance assessments are a combined responsibility of the Assessing Official (AO) Assessing Official Representative (AOR), Reviewing Official (RO), and Contractor Representative (CR).

(a)(1)(ii) The contracting officer shall be assigned as the AO. The RO is at least a level above the AO. The contracting officer and Focal Point (PSD Contract Specialist) appoint AORs (Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) or Program Office Representatives) to assist the AO with writing the evaluation. If the AOR is the COR, the AOR designation shall be included in the COR appointment letter.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Lena Pierce, Appellant, v. Ellis Kellert et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed May 14, 1969. Lena Pierce was employed since 1962 as a housekeeper by a retired physician, living in his home and having Thursdays and Sundays as her days off. On Thursday, 'September 29, 1966, the doctor decided to drive from his home in Schenectady to Vermont to visit a bookshop and claimant accepted his invitation to ride along. On returning home, there was an automobile accident, allegedly caused by the doctor’s negligence and resulting in injuries to Mrs. Pierce. She had accompanied the doctor previously 'on several other trips. Two days after the accident, the doctor’s insurance agent filed a C-2 form, Employer’s Report of Injury. Mrs. Fierce never filed a claim but on October 13, 1966, without an award having been made, the carrier began making payments to her, which continued until February 10, 1967. Two hearings were held before a Referee and, upon her second nonappearance, the case was closed on October 11, 1967 with a finding that accident, notice and causal relation were established. In May, 1967 she engaged an attorney who commenced a negligence action against the doctor and thereafter discontinued it because the board had assumed jurisdiction. Upon Mrs. Pierce’s application that the board divest itself of jurisdiction and rescind the findings and award of October 11, 1967, the board found that a final award was made, that claimant accepted same and that the board no longer could divest itself of jurisdiction, the Referee’s decision being modified only by rescinding the finding of no further disability and restoring the case to the Referee’s calendar for further consideration. The payment of compensation benefits operates to give the board complete jurisdiction of the claim as though a formal claim had been presented by the employee to the employer or to the board *(Meaney*v. *Keating,*200 Mise. 308, 310-312, affd. 279 App. Div. 1030, affd. 305 N. Y. 660), and the jurisdiction of the board, once established, is exclusive *(Matter of Boca*v. *Federal Stevedoring Co.,*284 App. Div. 46, 51, affd. 308 N. Y. 44). The record does not reveal any invalidity with regard to the payment of compensation benefits and, accordingly, there is no reason to disturb the board’s determination. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.
§ 764.355 Security requirements. ( a ) EM loans made under § 764.351(a)(1) must comply with the general security requirements established at §§ 764.103, 764.104 and 764.155(b).
( b ) EM loans made as specified in § 764.351(a)(2) and (b) must generally comply with the general security requirements established in §§ 764.103, 764.104, and 764.255(b). These general security requirements, however, do not apply to equine loss loans to the extent that a lien is not obtainable or obtaining a lien may prevent the applicant from carrying on the normal course of business. Other security may be considered for an equine loss loan in the order of priority as follows: ( 1 ) Real estate,
( 2 ) Chattels and crops, other than horses,
( 3 ) Other assets owned by the applicant,
( 4 ) Third party pledges of property not owned by the applicant,
( 5 ) Repayment ability under paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, when adequate security is not available because of the disaster, the loan may be approved if the Agency determines, based on an otherwise feasible plan, there is a reasonable assurance that the applicant has the ability to repay the loan provided: ( 1 ) The applicant has pledged as security for the loan all available personal and business security, except as provided in § 764.106;
( 2 ) The farm operating plan, approved by the Agency, indicates the loan will be repaid based upon the applicant's production and income history; addresses applicable pricing risks through the use of marketing contracts, hedging, options, or other revenue protection mechanisms, and includes a marketing plan or similar risk management practice;
( 3 ) The applicant has had positive net cash farm income in at least 3 of the past 5 years; and
( 4 ) The applicant has provided the Agency an assignment on any USDA program payments to be received.
( d ) For loans over $25,000, title clearance is required when real estate is taken as security.
( e ) For loans of $25,000 or less, when real estate is taken as security, a certification of ownership in real estate is required. Certification of ownership may be in the form of an affidavit which is signed by the applicant, names the record owner of the real estate in question and lists the balances due on all known debts against the real estate. Whenever the Agency is uncertain of the record owner or debts against the real estate security, a title search is required.
[72 FR 63298, Nov. 8, 2007, as amended at 76 FR 75434, Dec. 2, 2011]
###### 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.

#### § 800.47 Withdrawal of request for official services.

An applicant may withdraw a request for official services any time before official personnel release results, either verbally or in writing. See § 800.51 for reimbursement of expenses, if any.

(Secs. 8, 9, 10, 13 and 18, Pub. L. 94-582, 90 Stat. 2870, 2875, 2877, 2880, and 2884, 7 U.S.C. 79, 79a, 79b, 84, 87, and 87e)

[49 FR 30915, Aug. 2, 1984]
#### § 900.56 Consolidated hearings.

At the discretion of the judge, hearings upon two or more petitions pertaining to the same order may be consolidated, and the evidence taken at such consolidated hearing may be embodied in a single record.
Part 5141 - Acquisition of Utility Services       Subpart 5141.1 - General                                                         5141.102 Applicability.                                                                             Subpart 5141.2 - Acquiring Utility Services                                                         5141.201 Policy.    Subpart 5141.1 - General 5141.102 Applicability.    See Army Regulation 420-41 Acquisition and Sale of Utilities Services.Subpart 5141.2 - Acquiring Utility Services 5141.201 Policy.    In accordance with Army Regulation 420-41, the Chief of Engineers is the Department of the Army power procurement officer and is responsible for the administration of the purchase and sale of utility services and for policies, engineering, rates, and legal sufficiency in connection with all utility services transactions and contracts in which the Army has a monetary interest.  The Chief of Engineers may enter into definite term utility contracts for utility services for periods not to exceed 10 years.  The Chief of Engineers may redelegate this authority to the deputy Army power procurement officer.
#### Debbie Kaminer, Appellant, v Aaron Wexler et al., Respondents.

Submitted October 22, 2007;

decided November 19, 2007

Reported below, 2007 NY Slip Op 76520(U).

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that *976the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
47.405 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.247-63, Preference for U.S.-Flag Air Carriers, in

solicitations and contracts whenever it is possible that U.S. Government-financed international air

transportation of personnel (and their personal effects) or property will occur in the performance of

the contract. This clause does not apply to contracts awarded using the simplified acquisition

procedures in part 13 or contracts for commercial products (see part 12).

Parent topic: Subpart 47.4 - Air Transportation by U.S.-Flag Carriers
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

MARCUS ZOHRON MORGAN,

Appellant,

v. CASE NO. 5D23-3594

LT CASE NO. 2018-CF-001358-A

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________/

DATE: April 12, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

 ORDERED that Appellant's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, filed 

April 5, 2024 (mailbox date), is accepted and the above-styled cause is 

dismissed.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is

(a true copy of) the original Court order.

cc:

Office of the Attorney 

General

Marcus Zohron Morgan
#### Irving C. Cooper et al., Respondents, *v.*William Jolly, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.

(Argued June 18, 1884;

decided June 27, 1884.)

*Watson M. Rogers*for appellant.

*Charles W. Thompson*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur, except Ruger, Ch. J., Rapallo and Earl, JJ., dissenting.

Order affirmed.
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 7 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 7 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 7 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 7 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 7 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 7 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 7 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 7 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 7-2 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 7-2 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 7-2 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 7-2 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 4 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 7-3 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 932.3 Person.

*Person* includes an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or any other business unit.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES F. HODGES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-646-TFM

) [wo]

LINDA S. McMAHON, )

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL )

SECURITY, )

)

Defendant. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the prior proceedings, opinions and orders of the Court, and

pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that JUDGMENT be, and it is

hereby entered in favor of the Defendant Commissioner and against the Plaintiff, James F.

Hodges.

Done this 8 day of February, 2007. th

 /s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00646-TFM Document 20 Filed 02/08/07 Page 1 of 1
1

The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-3491

___________

Phillips Development Corporation; *

College Heights, LLC, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Conagra, Inc.; Swift-Ekrich, Inc., *

doing business as Butterball * [UNPUBLISHED]

Turkey Company, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 28, 2002

Filed: July 24, 2002

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Phillips Development Corporation appeals the district court's1

 grant of

summary judgment in favor of Conagra, Inc., and its subsidiary, Swift-Ekrich, Inc.

d/b/a Butterball Turkey Company, on Phillips's suit for breach of contract and
-2-

promissory estoppel. Phillips alleges that Conagra and Swift-Ekrich promised to

subsidize rent payments for a housing complex Phillips constructed near a Butterball

Turkey plant in Huntsville, Arkansas. The district court granted summary judgment

after concluding the alleged promises were too indefinite to be enforceable. Having

carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court's rulings were proper.

We thus affirm on the basis of the district court's opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
###### Editorial Note on [Subchapter A of Chapter VIII](/current/title-7/chapter-VIII/subchapter-A)

#### Authority:

[7 U.S.C. 71-87K](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/7/71), [1621-1627](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/7/1621).

###### Editorial Note on [Subchapter A of Chapter VIII](/current/title-7/chapter-VIII/subchapter-A)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at [84 FR 45645](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-45645), Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 810.1204 Grades and grade requirements for rye.

| Grade | Minimum test weight per bushel (pounds) | Maximum limits of— | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Foreign material | | Damaged kernels | | Thin Rye (percent) |
| Foreign matter other than wheat (percent) | Total (percent) | Heat damaged (percent) | Total (percent) |
| U.S. No. 1 | 56.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 10.0 |
| U.S. No. 2 | 54.0 | 2.0 | 6.0 | 0.2 | 4.0 | 15.0 |
| U.S. No. 3 | 52.0 | 4.0 | 10.0 | 0.5 | 7.0 | 25.0 |
| U.S. No. 4 | 49.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 3.0 | 15.0 | |
| U.S. Sample grade— | | | | | | |
| U.S. Sample grade is rye that: | | | | | | |
| (a) Does not meet the requirements for the grades U.S. Nos. 1, 2, 3, or 4; or | | | | | | |
| (b) Contains 8 or more stones or any numbers of stones which have an aggregate weight in excess of 0.2 percent of the sample weight, 2 or more pieces of glass, 3 or more crotalaria seeds (*Crotalaria* spp.), 2 or more castor beans (*Ricinus communis* L.), 4 or more particles of an unknown foreign substance(s) or a commonly recognized harmful or toxic substance(s), 2 or more rodent pellets, bird droppings, or equivalent quantity of other animal filth per 11/8 to 11/4 quarts of rye; or | | | | | | |
| (c) Has a musty, sour, or commercially objectionable foreign odor (except smut or garlic odor); or | | | | | | |
| (d) Is heating or otherwise of distinctly low quality. | | | | | | |
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

JOHN P. BOWEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. 19-1812L

 (Filed: February 21, 2020)

ORDER

This case was stayed pending resolution of the government’s motion to dismiss in State 

of Mississippi, et al. v. United States, Case No. 19-231, a related case. ECF No. 7. On February 

6, the Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss in State of Mississippi. Case No 19-231, 

ECF No. 27. Therefore, the stay of proceedings pursuant to the Court’s January 23, 2020 Order, 

ECF No. 7, is hereby LIFTED. On February 20, the Court issued an order detailing the schedule 

for further proceedings in State of Mississippi. Case No. 19-231, ECF No. 31.

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Status Report proposing further proceedings in this 

case. The Court will STAY the United States’ answer to Plaintiff’s amended complaint. To 

promote efficiency, the Court will put this case on the same schedule as State of Mississippi, as 

follows:

March 2, 2020 Plaintiff shall file his Amended Complaint

March 23, 2020 United States shall file its Motion to Consolidate Cases 

March 30, 2020 Plaintiff shall file his Response to the United States’ Motion 

to Consolidate, if any 

April 6, 2020 United States shall file its Reply to Plaintiff’s Response, 

if any 

April 10–17, 2020 Early Meeting of Counsel 

April 22, 2020 Parties shall file a Joint Preliminary Status Report
2

After the parties submit their Joint Preliminary Status Report on April 22, the Court will 

schedule a status conference to discuss further proceedings in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Elaine D. Kaplan 

ELAINE D. KAPLAN

Judge
§ 760.1314 Miscellaneous provisions. ( a ) *Offset.* FSA may offset or withhold any amount due to FSA from any benefit provided under this subpart in accordance with the provisions of 7 CFR part 1403.
( b ) *Claims.* Claims or debts will be settled in accordance with the provisions of 7 CFR part 1403.
( c ) *Other interests.* Payments or any portion thereof due under this subpart will be made without regard to questions of title under State law and without regard to any claim or lien against the milk production, or proceeds thereof, in favor of the owner or any other creditor except agencies and instrumentalities of the U.S. Government.
( d ) *Assignments.* Any dairy producer entitled to any payment under this part may assign any payments in accordance with the provisions of 7 CFR part 1404.
( e ) *Violations of highly erodible land and wetland conservation provisions.* The provisions of part 12 of this title apply to this subpart. That part sets out certain conservation requirements as a general condition for farm benefits.
( f ) *Violations regarding controlled substances.* The provisions of § 718.6 of this title, which generally limit program payment eligibility for persons who have engaged in certain offenses with respect to controlled substances, will apply to this subpart.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50822

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO AVILA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:10-CR-1205-7

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Mario Avila has moved for leave to 

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Avila

has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant 

portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment 

that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

* 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

February 21, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 12-50822 Document: 00512539669 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2014
No. 12-50822

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-50822 Document: 00512539669 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2014
#### § 906.57 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 amendments 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 regulations 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 violations.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEBRA BEYAH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv659-CSC

)

WAL-MART STORES, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Now pending before the court is the August 10, 2006, motion for enlargement of time

to answer (doc. # 5) filed by the defendant. The plaintiff does not object to the extension of

time. Accordingly, upon consideration of the motion and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion for enlargement of time to answer (doc. # 5) be and is

hereby GRANTED and the defendant’s time to file a responsive pleading be and is hereby

EXTENDED from August 22, 2006 until September 5, 2006.

Done this 11 day of August, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 6 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 1
52.240 [Reserved]

Parent topic: Subpart 52.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses