alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
252.237-7024 Notice of Continuation of

Essential Contractor Services.

As prescribed in 237.7603(b), use the following provision:

NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF ESSENTIAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES (OCT 2010)

(a) Definitions.“Essential contractor service” and “mission-essential functions” have the meanings

given in the clause at 252.237-7023 , Continuation of Essential Contractor Services, in this

solicitation.

(b) The offeror shall provide with its offer a written plan describing how it will continue to perform

the essential contractor services listed in attachment ___, Mission Essential Contractor Services,

dated ________, during periods of crisis. The offeror shall–

(1) Identify provisions made for the acquisition of essential personnel and resources, if necessary,

for continuity of operations for up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed;

(2) Address in the plan, at a minimum—

(i) Challenges associated with maintaining essential contractor services during an extended event,

such as a pandemic that occurs in repeated waves;

(ii) The time lapse associated with the initiation of the acquisition of essential personnel and

resources and their actual availability on site;

(iii) The components, processes, and requirements for the identification, training, and preparedness

of personnel who are capable of relocating to alternate facilities or performing work from home;

(iv) Any established alert and notification procedures for mobilizing identified “essential contractor

service” personnel; and

(v) The approach for communicating expectations to contractor employees regarding their roles and

responsibilities during a crisis.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 252.237 RESERVED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10566

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VANESSA MAYO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-21-1

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Vanessa Mayo appeals the above-guidelines sentence imposed for the 

third revocation of her supervised release. She argues only that the 30-month 

sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Given Mayo’s objection at sentencing, we review her substantive 

reasonableness challenge under the “plainly unreasonable” standard. See 

United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). Mayo’s arguments, 

 

* 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

March 21, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10566 Document: 00514395719 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2018
No. 17-10566

2

however, essentially amount to a disagreement with the district court’s 

assessment of the sentencing factors, which this court will not reweigh. See 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Thus, Mayo has failed to show 

that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Miller, 634 F.3d at 843;

United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2009); see, e.g., United 

States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 500-01 (5th Cir. 2012).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-10566 Document: 00514395719 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2018
|T H E   W H I T E   H O U S E

Bulletin No. 99-07, Supplement 3

Help

Text Only | T H E   W H I T E   H O U S E    | Bulletin No. 99-07, Supplement 3 | Help

Text Only
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | ---------------
|T H E   W H I T E   H O U S E                                                    | Bulletin No. 99-07, Supplement 3 | Help

Text Only                 

|
|

|November 5, 1999

BULLETIN NO. 99-07, Supplement No. 3

TO THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND ESTABLISHMENTS

SUBJECT:  Apportionment Under the Extension of the Continuing Resolution for Fiscal
Year 2000

1.Purpose and background.  H. J. Res. 75 extends the continuing resolution
through November 10, 1999.


2.Apportionment.  I am extending the automatic apportionment specified in section
2 of OMB Bulletin No. 99-07 to November 10, 1999.  The portion of the year covered is now
11.2 percent.

If you can justify amounts greater than the amount automatically apportioned, please submit
a written request for apportionment.

Jacob J. LewDirector



The Budget
 | 
Legislative Information
 | 
Management Reform/GPRA
 | 
Grants Management
Financial Management
 | 
Procurement
        Policy
 | 
Information &
        Regulatory Policy

Privacy Statement
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX B - RESERVED Table Of Contents           **Parent topic:** Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Exhibit 10.3

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made as of February 27, 2018, by and between EagleBank (the “Bank”) and the Executive named below.

 

RECITAL:

 

Bank has retained Executive as an executive officer, pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of January 31, 2017 (the “Agreement”). The parties desire to amend the Agreement to provide for clarity in how to apply IRC Section 280G to the extent applicable.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

1.                                      Section 10.1 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in lieu thereof:

 

10.1        Section 280G

 

If any of the payments or benefits received or to be received by the Executive (including, without limitation, any payment or benefits received in connection with a Change in Control or the Executive’s termination of employment, whether pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or any other plan, arrangement or agreement, or otherwise) (all such payments collectively referred to herein as the “280G Payments”) constitute “parachute payments” within the meaning of Section 280G of the Code and would, but for this Section 10.1, be subject to the excise tax imposed under Section 4999 of the Code (the “Excise Tax”), then prior to making the 280G Payments, the 280G Payments shall be reduced to the minimum extent necessary to ensure that no portion of the 280G Payments is subject to the Excise Tax.  In applying the foregoing limitation,  benefits shall be reduced so as to maximize the economic value payable to the Executive and, if two economically equivalent amounts are subject to reduction but are payable at different times, the amounts shall be reduced (but not below zero) on a pro rata basis.

 











 

2.                                      But for the above change, the Agreement remains in full force and effect, unmodified.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement as of the date first written above.

 

EAGLEBANK

 

	
By:
    	
/s/   Ronald D. Paul
    	
 
    
	
Name:   Ronald D. Paul
    	
 
    
	
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
    	
 
    
	
Date:   February 27, 2018
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Executive
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Antonio F. Marquez
    	
 
    
	
Name: Antonio F. Marquez
    	
 
    
	
Title: Executive Vice President, CLO-CRE
    	
 
    
	
Date: February 8, 2018
    	
 
    


 

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

KEITH LAWSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-cv-641-WKW

)

CITY OF ALEXANDER CITY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The parties are granted until September 12, 2007, to file a joint stipulation of dismissal.

DONE this 6th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00641-WKW-TFM Document 19 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 57-3 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### Morris Solomon, Respondent, *v.*The City of Kingston, Appellant.

(Submitted June 13, 1884;

decided June 24, 1884.)

*John J. Linson*for appellant.

*K. S. Wood*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
#### § 905.88 Personal liability.

No member or alternate of the committee nor any employee or agent thereof, shall be held personally responsible, either individually or jointly with others, in any way whatsoever, to any handler or to any other person for errors in judgment, mistakes, or other acts, either of commission or omission, as such member, alternate, or employee, except for acts of dishonesty.

[22 FR 10734, Dec. 27, 1957. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 42 FR 59371, Nov. 17, 1977]
# 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 Missi ssippi

. Case No 19

- 231,

ECF No. 27. T herefore, t he stay of pro ceedings purs uant to the Co urt ’ s January 23, 2020 O rder

, 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 ’ J oint S tatus R eport 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 A mended C omplaint

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 sha ll 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
250.103-5 Processing cases.       (1) At the time the request is filed, the activity shall prepare the record described at PGI                 250.101-3             (1)(i) and forward it to the appropriate official within 30 days after the close of the month in which the record is prepared.          (2) The officer or official responsible for the case shall forward to the contract adjustment board, through departmental channels, the documentation described at PGI                 250.103-5             .          (3) Contract adjustment boards will render decisions as expeditiously as practicable. The Chair shall sign a memorandum of decision disposing of the case. The decision shall be dated and shall contain the information required by FAR 50.103-6. The memorandum of decision shall not contain any information classified “Confidential” or higher. The board's decision will be sent to the appropriate official for implementation.    **Parent topic:** 250.103 Contract adjustments.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, William J. Gervais, Chief Executive Officer of Qualstar Corporation (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|(1) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter
ended September 30, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 13, 2003

/s/ WILLIAM J. GERVAISWilliam J. GervaisChief Executive Officer
47.208-1 Advance notice.

Military (and as required, civilian agency) storage and distribution points, depots, and other

receiving activities require advance notice of shipments en route from contractors’ plants. Generally,

this notification is required only for classified material; sensitive, controlled, and certain other

protected material; explosives, and some other hazardous materials; selected shipments requiring

movement control; or minimum carload or truckload shipments. It facilitates arrangements for

transportation control, labor, space, and use of materials handling equipment at destination. Also,

timely receipt of notices by the consignee transportation office precludes the incurring of demurrage

and vehicle detention charges.

Parent topic: 47.208 Report of shipment (REPSHIP).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eduardo Hansen, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 872]

Appeal from judg*491ment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered January 20, 2004, as amended March 8, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of eight years, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded for further proceedings on defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, as provided herein. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 20, 2004, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the order vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings on defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, as provided herein.

Based on our review of the trial record and the submissions on defendant’s motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude that under the circumstances presented, both parties should have the opportunity to make further submissions pursuant to CPL 440.10 for consideration by the motion court, which may address, among other issues, the reason trial counsel refrained from moving to suppress physical evidence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Malone, JJ.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MAXIE MCNABB, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv664-MHT

)

SANDERS LEAD COMPANY, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that this matter be and is hereby set for a mediation conference on

November 14, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5-B, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States Courthouse

Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama. It is further

ORDERED that counsel and the parties or a representative with full authority to settle the

case shall appear at and attend this conference. The plaintiff should be prepared to present

documents substantiating any claims for damages.

On or before the close of business on November 12, 2007, each party shall provide the

undersigned judge with a confidential mediation conference statement. The statement should not

be filed with the clerk's office and should not be served on the other parties. The statement is solely

for the court's use in preparing for the mediation conference. The statement shall be limited to ten

(10) pages and should include:

1. An estimate of the costs of future litigation in this case, including the cost of trial and trial

preparation;

2. A history of past settlement discussions;

3. A candid assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the party's claims and defenses;

Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 45 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

and

4. The relief sought -- where damages are sought, the party should provide the court with

evidence supporting their damage request.

If no timely mediation statement is sent to the court by all parties involved, the mediation

ordinarily will not go forward as scheduled. If the parties settle this lawsuit prior to mediation, they

should notify both the magistrate judge and the district judge. 

DONE, this 23rd day of October, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 45 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### Philip Weeks, Respondent, v. William H. Clark et al., Appellants.

(Argued June 18, 1884;

decided June 27, 1884.)

*Samuel Hand*for appellants.

6r. *W. H. Zcglio*for respondent. •

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
PaulA. LePage GOVERNOR 

## s lAlE OF MAINE DEPARHiENT OF TRANSPORTATIO"K 16 STATE HOUSF STATIO:-! AUGt!SlA, MAINE 04333-0016

December 14, 20 15

Byron K. Huffman, Acting Director Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis 800 Independence Ave. S W Washington D.C . 20591 Dear Mr. Huffman : David Bernhardt COMMISSIONER

Wit h this letter, we respectfully confirm the State of Maine's compliance to FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue (64 FR 7696, February 16, 1999). It has been MaineDOT policy for close to two decades to use all revenue, approximately $950,000 annually, from aviation fuel tax for aviation purposes including management fees for the s tateowned Augusta Airport and staff salaries for MaincDOT's aviation engineer and planner. In addition, the State of Maine offer s a 5% bond match (approximately $1.5M each year) to all FAA projects for General Aviation and Commercial airports. Please feel free to contact this office with questions o r concerns regard i ng MaineDOT's compliance. Sincerely,



# ~-k **JJ~**

Susan Moreau, Manager Bureau ofPlanning, MaineDOT

THE MAINE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS AN A!llRMAIIVE ACTION . EQUAl OPPORI UI'll Y EMPLOHR PHONE: (207) 624-3000 TTY: 888 - 516-9364 FAX: (207! 624-3001
157 So.2d 230

#### CAGLE SUPPLY OF LAFAYETTE, INC. v. Nathan Frank HINSON et al.

No. 46958.

Nov. 12, 1963.

In re: Cagle Supply of Lafayette, Inc. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 155 So.2d 773.

The application is denied. ■ According to 'the facts, as found to be by the Court of Appeal, the result reached is correct.
Exhibit 32.1 

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 Annual Report of Atlas Resources Public #16-2007 (A) L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner, 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 results of operations of the Partnership. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                                                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ FREDDIE M. KOTEK                                        |
| Freddie M. Kotek                                            |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner |
| August 14, 2014                                             |
§ 51.1542 U.S. Commercial. “U.S. Commercial” consists of potatoes which meet the requirements of U.S. No. 1 grade except for the following: ( a ) Free from serious damage caused by: ( 1 ) Dirt or other foreign matter;
( 2 ) Russet scab; and,
( 3 ) Rhizoctonia.
( b ) Increased tolerances for defects specified in § 51.1546.
252.236-7007 Additive or Deductive Items.

As prescribed in 236.570 (b)(5), use the following provision:

ADDITIVE OR DEDUCTIVE ITEMS (DEC 1991)

(a) The low offeror and the items to be awarded shall be determined as follows—

(1) Prior to the opening of bids, the Government will determine the amount of funds available for the

project.

(2) The low offeror shall be the Offeror that—

(i) Is otherwise eligible for award; and

(ii) Offers the lowest aggregate amount for the first or base bid item, plus or minus (in the order

stated in the list of priorities in the bid schedule) those additive or deductive items that provide the

most features within the funds determined available.

(3) The Contracting Officer shall evaluate all bids on the basis of the same additive or deductive

items.

(i) If adding another item from the bid schedule list of priorities would make the award exceed the

available funds for all offerors, the Contracting Officer will skip that item and go to the next item

from the bid schedule of priorities; and

(ii) Add that next item if an award may be made that includes that item and is within the available

funds.

(b) The Contracting Officer will use the list of priorities in the bid schedule only to determine the low

offeror. After determining the low offeror, an award may be made on any combination of items if—

(1) It is in the best interest of the Government;

(2) Funds are available at the time of award; and

(3) The low offeror's price for the combination to be awarded is less than the price offered by any

other responsive, responsible offeror.

(c) Example. The amount available is $100,000. Offeror A's base bid and four additives (in the order

stated in the list of priorities in the bid Schedule) are $85,000, $10,000, $8,000, $6,000, and $4,000.

Offeror B's base bid and four additives are $80,000, $16,000, $9,000, $7,000, and $4,000. Offeror A

is the low offeror. The aggregate amount of offeror A's bid for purposes of award would be $99,000,

which includes a base bid plus the first and fourth additives. The second and third additives were

skipped because each of them would cause the aggregate bid to exceed $100,000.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 252.236 RESERVED