alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## D:PTOrIhA f SERVE D JUN E 17,201 0

:;.,:\f^!i^ : U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C
I N TH E MATTE RO F FEDERA LEXPRES S CORPORATIO N FA A DOCKE T No
. CP09AL000 5 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S FAA-2009-009 9 

### ORDERO FDISMISSA

L O n May 19 , 2009 , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (hereinafte r referre dt o a s "Complainant" ) file daComplaint
. O n Ma y 13 , 2009 , Federa l Expres s Corporatio n (hereinafte r

referre dt o a s "Respondent" ) ha dfile daReques t for Hearing
. O n Jun e 16 , 2010 , Complainan t requeste dtha t

it s Complain t

b e withdrawn , citin g settlement
. 1 4 C.F.R
. § 13.21 5 states : "A t an ytim e befor e o rdurin g a hearing , a n agenc y attorne yma ywithdra wa complain t o rpart yma ywithdra wa reques t fo ra hearin g withou t th e consen t o f th e administrativ e la wjudge
. I f a n agency attorne ywithdraw s th e complain t o ra part ywithdraw s th e reques t fo ra hearin g an d th e answer , th e administrativ e la wjudg e shal l dismis s th e proceeding s unde rthi s subpar t wit h prejudice. " 

### WHEREFORE , th e withi n file dReques t t o Withdra w Complain t

havin g bee n rea dan dconsidered , i t

i s ORDERE D a s follows : 1
. Complainant' s Reques t t o Withdra w Complain t

b e an di s hereb y granted ;

### 2
. Th e hearing , se t t o begi n o n Jun e 21 , 2010 , i n Anchorage , AK , i s cancelled ; and 3
. Thi s proceedin g b e an di s hereb y dismisse dwithprejudice
.

Richar dC
. Goodwi n U.S
. Administrativ e Law Judg e Attachments - Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP09AL000 5 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y
Courtne y E
. Felts , Respondent' s Counse l Staf f Attorney , Federa l Express , Inc
. 362 0 Hack s Cros s Roa d Buildin g B,3'' * Floo r Memphis , T N 38125-880 0 TEL : 901-434-863 2 FAX: 901-434-828 3 Lawrenc e W
. Bierlein , Respondent' s Counse l 110 1 30 * Street , N W Suit e 50 0 Washington , D C 2000 7 TEL : 202-625-835 5 FAX: 202-625-436 3 Glen n H
. Brown , Senio r

Attorne y Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 22 2 W
. 7t hAvenu e #1 4 Anchorage , A K

9951 3 TEL : 907-271-521 7 FAX: 907-271-280 0 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D.C
. 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX: 202-366-753 6

' Service was b

y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Federa l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D

C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430
.
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 6 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 1 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 2 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 3 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 4 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 5 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 6 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 7 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 8 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 9 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 10 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 11 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 12 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 13 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 14 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 15 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 16 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 17 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 18 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 19 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 20 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 21 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 22 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 23 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 24 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 25 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 26 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 27 of 28
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 28 of 28
252.209-7002 Disclosure of Ownership or

Control by a Foreign Government

As prescribed in 209.104-70 , use the following provision:

DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT (DEC 2022)

(a) Definitions.As used in this provision—

(1) “Effectively owned or controlled” means that a foreign government or any entity controlled by a

foreign government has the power, either directly or indirectly, whether exercised or exercisable, to

control the election, appointment, or tenure of the Offeror’s officers or a majority of the Offeror’s

board of directors by any means, e.g., ownership, contract, or operation of law (or equivalent power

for unincorporated organizations).

(2) “Entity controlled by a foreign government”—

(i) Means—

(A) Any domestic or foreign organization or corporation that is effectively owned or controlled by a

foreign government; or

(B) Any individual acting on behalf of a foreign government.

(ii) Does not include an organization or corporation that is owned, but is not controlled, either

directly or indirectly, by a foreign government if the ownership of that organization or corporation

by that foreign government was effective before October 23, 1992.

(3) “Foreign government” includes the state and the government of any country (other than the

United States and its outlying areas) as well as any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality

thereof.

(4) “Proscribed information” means—

(i) Top Secret information;

(ii) Communications security (COMSEC) material, excluding controlled cryptographic items when

unkeyed or utilized with unclassified keys;

(iii) Restricted Data as defined in the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;

(iv) Special Access Program (SAP) information; or

(v) Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).

(b) Prohibition on award. No contract under a national security program may be awarded to an

entity controlled by a foreign government if that entity requires access to proscribed information to

perform the contract, unless the Secretary of Defense or a designee has waived application of 10

U.S.C. 4874.

(c) Disclosure.The Offeror shall disclose any interest a foreign government has in the Offeror when
that interest constitutes control by a foreign government as defined in this provision. If the Offeror is

a subsidiary, it shall also disclose any reportable interest a foreign government has in any entity that

owns or controls the subsidiary, including reportable interest concerning the Offeror’s immediate

parent, intermediate parents, and the ultimate parent. Use separate paper as needed, and provide

the information in the following format:

Offeror’s Point of Contact for Questions about

Disclosure

(Name and Phone Number with Country Code, City

Code and Area Code, as applicable)

Name and Address of Offeror

Name and Address of Entity Controlled by a Foreign

Government

Description of Interest,

Ownership Percentage, and

Identification of Foreign

Government

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 252.209 RESERVED
#### § 51.636 Smooth texture.

*Smooth texture* means that the skin is thin and smooth for the variety and size of the fruit.
#### Judith Kaplan, Respondent, v Moran R. Kaplan, Appellant.

In a support proceeding, in which the father moves to vacate arrears in child support that have accrued pursuant to an order of the Family Court, Orange County, entered February 16, 1968, the father appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, dated December 20, 1979 which denied the motion. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remanded to the Family Court for an evidentiary hearing consistent herewith. On this appeal from the order denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the arrears (some $19,000) which have accrued since approximately June, 1971 under an order of support entered February 16, 1968, he contends that he is entitled to cancellation because of the mother’s willful frustration since at least December, 1972, of his visitation rights provided in the order. Moreover, he suggests that her failure to seek enforcement of the support order was motivated by her desire to deny him visitation. The appellant also maintains that a determination made in an adoption proceeding brought by the mother and her second husband is conclusive on the issue of her willful conduct. The question of jurisdiction, *886which was raised by appellant in his motion papers, is, in effect, conceded in his brief. There he merely urges that it is inappropriate for the Family Court "to pursue” him for the arrears, when neither he, the mother, nor the children any longer reside in Orange County and the mother has not instituted a proper enforcement proceeding. The appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing at which he may establish his right to cancellation or reduction upon proof of such factors as his inability to pay and the deliberate frustration of his visitation rights by the mother (see *Abraham v Abraham,*44 AD2d 675, 676). Another relevant consideration is the failure of the mother to seek enforcement of the order (cf. *Righter v Righter,*44 AD2d 669). We reject appellant’s contention that the memorandum decision that issued in the adoption proceeding brought by the mother and her second husband is conclusive on the issue of the mother’s willful frustration of his visitation rights. In reviewing the parties’ claims, the Surrogate determined that there was no abandonment; the court specifically noted that its decision was not to be read to obviate appellant’s obligation to support his children. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Rabin and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Jo hn William Palmer v. The State of Te xas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 0 0 3 6 7

- CR

Trial court case number: 15 84 9 8 9

Trial court: 263rd District Court of Harris County

A ppellant

, Jo hn William Palmer , has filed a m otion for an e xtension of time to file

his brief

. Because we have issued an opinion dismissing the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction, we construe the motion as a motion seeking an extension of time to file a

motion for rehearing. See Palmer v. State , No. 01

- 18

- 00367

- CR, 2018 WL 2925712

(Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] June 12, 2018, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication) . The motion is granted

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.1, 49.8.

A ppella nt ’s motion for rehearing, if any, is due to be filed no later than July

12, 2018

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s /Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: June 26

, 2018
#### Eulah Jones et al., Appellants, v Edward D. Corley, Jr., et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 30, 2007;

decided September 4, 2007

Reported below, 35 AD3d 381.

Motion for leave to appeal brought on behalf of Lucinda Swingearn and Delores Gordon dismissed upon the ground that as to them timely substitution has not been made *(see*CPLR 1021); motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
#### FREY, Appellant, v. FOUGERA et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 27, 1906.)

Action by Rose Frey against Prancine Pougera and another, administratrixes.

No opinion. Motion to resettle order denied.
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION

Rules 13a-14(a) And 15d-14(a) Under The Securities
Exchange Act Of 1934, As Amended

I, Hal D. Kirby, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Allied Nevada Gold Corp.; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: April 29, 2011 |  | /s/ Hal D. Kirby                                    
|                      |  | Hal D. Kirby                                        
|                      |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
From: Petrolati, Victor

Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:24 AM Subject: Web Broadcast of DOE Public Meeting

Dear Battery Charger and Extern al Power Supply Stakeholders:

This email contains new information about registering for the Web broadcast of an upcoming public meeting.

On September 12, 2008 at 9:00 AM, the U.S. Department of Energy will hold a public meeting in Washington, D.C. to discuss proposed amendments to the Department’s test procedures for battery chargers and external power supplies

. In order to accommodate stakeholders that are unable to attend the public meeting, the Department will broadcast the meeting live over the Internet. The Web broadcast will allow

stakeholders to listen in and view the slides of the presentations; however, stakeholders will not be able to submit comments or questions during the Web broadcast . In order to ask questions or make comments during the public meeting, stakeholders must attend the meeting in person.

You must register in advance to access the broadcast. To register, follow this link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/667345048 . Upon registering, you will receive a confirmation email that explai ns how to join the Webinar. You may listen to the meeting only by phoning in on the conferen ce line number that is provided as part of

the Webinar.

We will try to provide meeting presentation slides on the DOE Web site prior to the meeting (these slides will be shown during the Web Broadcast). More information, including the proposal, the public meeting agen da, and a list of issues for stakeholder

comment are already available. See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/build ings/appliance_standards/re sidential/battery_external_ 2008_tp_standby_off.html

Vic

Victor Petrolati General Engineer Office of Building Technologies (EE-2J) Department of Energy

202-586-4549 victor.petrolati@ee.doe.gov
#### James B. Sullivan, Appellant, v Richard C. Bond et al., as Trustees of the Penn Central Transportation Company, Respondents.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: After a jury trial at which plaintiff was awarded $7,500 for personal injuries, the court declared a mistrial and set the verdict aside. Plaintiff then retained new counsel who had plaintiff examined by an orthopedic surgeon different from the doctor who had originally treated him and testified at the first trial. It should be noted that the doctor who treated plaintiff and testified for him at the first trial was also retained by defendants and had provided medical reports to defendants. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff moved for leave to amend his complaint and bill of particulars to conform to the medical findings of the more recent physician which indicated injuries more serious- than those originally thought to have been *583sustained by plaintiff and plaintiff also moved to increase the *ad damnum*clause in his complaint from $35,000 to $150,000. Special Term denied the motion. Leave to amend pleadings is a matter for the court’s discretion and generally shall be freely given *(Murray v City of New York,*43 NY2d 400; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3025:4, p 476). This is especially so where there is no showing of undue prejudice or unfair advantage. Defendants can hardly show prejudice or disadvantage in this case having had the benefit of plaintiff’s treating physician in their employ throughout the prior history of this case. While judicial discretion will be sparingly exercised when leave to amend is sought on the eve of trial, or there is an inadequate explanation for the delay in seeking the amendment *(City of Watertown v Roy,*73 AD2d 832; *Hemmerick*v *City of Rochester,*63 AD2d 816), here trial of the case is not imminent and plaintiff has met the burden of explaining the need for amending his pleadings in the unusual circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the motion to amend is granted with leave to defendants to have a further physical examination of plaintiff if they so choose. (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court—amend complaint.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
Arches/Canyonlands - Worst - Total Extinction Arches/Canyonlands - Worst - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

SO4

Extin

CANY1 NIA 2000 20 31.58 CANY1 NIA 2000 20 CANY1 NIA 2001 22 30.35 CANY1 NIA 2001 22 CANY1 NIA 2002 22 36.92 CANY1 NIA 2002 22 CANY1 NIA 2003 23 33.24 CANY1 NIA 2003 23 CANY1 NIA 2004 22 26.46 CANY1 NIA 2004 22 

158.55 Total 

31.71 Average 

2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 18%

Arches/Canyonlands - Best - Total Extinction Arches/Canyonlands - Best - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

SO4

Extin

CANY1 NIA 2000 19 14.42 CANY1 NIA 2000 19 CANY1 NIA 2001 21 15.12 CANY1 NIA 2001 21 CANY1 NIA 2002 22 15.3 CANY1 NIA 2002 22 

CANY1 NIA 2002 22 15.3 CANY1 NIA 2002 22 CANY1 NIA 2003 22 13.99 CANY1 NIA 2003 22 CANY1 NIA 2004 21 14.31 CANY1 NIA 2004 21 

73.14 Total 

14.628 Average 

2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 15%
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

 DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

 

September 1, 2006

NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

RE: Marie Toole et al v. Matthew Chupp et al

Civil Action No. 2:06cv00652-VPM

The above-styled case has been reassigned to District Judge Myron H. Thompson.

Please note that the case number is now 2:06cv00652-MHT. This new case

number should be used on all future correspondence and pleadings in this action.

Sincerely,

Sheryl K. Lent

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 9 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE MCNAIR, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-cv-695-WKW

) [wo]

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the defendants’ Motion to Consolidate and For Speedy Hearing

(Doc. # 15), it is ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file a response on or before November 8, 2006.

It is further ORDERED that the parties confer and develop a proposed discovery plan in

accordance with Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rule 26(f) report

containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable but not later than November 27,

2006. The report should comply with Form 35 of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. The parties shall be prepared to participate in a discussion of scheduling issues at

the status conference that has been set for November 28, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.

Done this the 2nd day of November, 2006.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 17 Filed 11/02/2006 Page 1 of 1
19.808-1 Sole source.

(a) The justification is included (in the template) in the 8(a) Sole Source Market Research Report.

(b) If a sole source requirement exceeds $100M, a J&A must be executed in accordance with DARS

PGI 6.303-1 (S-90)

(c) If a sole source exceeds the competitive 8(a) threshold, the HCA will coordinate the request with

the Director, OSBP. HCA approval will be provided via email, copy furnished to the Director of the

OSBP. The Director, OSBP will concur on the DD2579.

Parent topic: SUBPART 19.8 – CONTRACTING WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

(THE 8(a) PROGRAM)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3233 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3233

   To make technical corrections relating to duties on wool products.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To make technical corrections relating to duties on wool products.

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

SECTION 1. WOOL PRODUCTS.

    (a) In General.--The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States is amended--
            (1) in heading 9902.51.15 (relating to fabrics of combed 
        wool), by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2007''; 
        and
            (2) in heading 9902.51.16 (relating to fabrics of combed 
        wool) is amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/
        31/2007''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
33.211 Contracting officer’s decision.    (a) The contracting officer must coordinate with legal counsel and the CoCO and HCO prior to issuing a final decision.       (S-90) *Settlements.* The contracting officer must coordinate with legal counsel, a DITCO Cost/Price Analyst, the CoCO, and the HCO on proposed settlement agreements. **Parent topic:** SUBPART 33.2 –– DISPUTES AND APPEALS