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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIE MCNAIR, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No. 2:06-cv-695-WKW-CSC 

 ) 

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. )

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

 Defendants Richard Allen, Commissioner, and Grantt

Culliver, Warden, previously moved for summary judgment on 

the grounds that McNair’s complaint was barred by the 

statute of limitations under McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168 

(11th Cir. 2008). In McNair, the Eleventh Circuit ruled, 

as a matter of first impression, that a method of execution 

claim accrues on the later of the date on which direct 

appellate review is complete, or the date on which the 

capital litigant becomes subjected to a new or 

substantially changed execution protocol. McNair, 515 F.3d 

at 1174. The McNair decision was recently applied to time 

bar a lethal injection challenge filed by a death-sentenced 

inmate in Georgia. See Crowe v. Donald, __ F.3d __, 2008 

WL 2096831 at *2-3 (11th Cir. May 20, 2008). The 

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 176 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 3
2 

defendants hereby file this notice bringing this precedent 

to this Court’s attention. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Troy King 

Alabama Attorney General 

s/ J. Clayton Crenshaw 

 J. Clayton Crenshaw (CRE007) 

Assistant Attorney General 

 

OF COUNSEL: 

Office of the Attorney General 

11 South Union Street 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

(334) 242-7300 

(334) 353-8440 Fax 

Email:ccrenshaw@ago.state.al.us 

jroberts@ago.state.al.us

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 176 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 2 of 3
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on the 27th day of May, 2008, a 

copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed with 

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will 

electronically send a copy of the same to the following: 

Randall S. Susskind, Cathleen I. Price, Vincent R. 

Fitzpatrick, Jr., Heather K. McDevitt, and Stephanie Cohen.

 s/ J. Clayton Crenshaw 

 J. Clayton Crenshaw 

 Assistant Attorney General 

ADDRESS OF COUNSEL: 

Office of the Attorney General 

Alabama State House 

11 South Union Street 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

Tele: 334.242.7300 

Fax: 334.353.3637 

Email: ccrenshaw@ago.state.al.us

 jroberts@ago.state.al.us

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 176 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 3 of 3
#### Gerald Zisholtz, Appellant, v. Harris Birnbaum et al., Respondents.

. Three orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 12, 1969, September 2, 1969, and September 15, 1969, respectively, and judgment of the same court, dated September 19, 1969, affirmed. No opinion. Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 15, 1969, dismissed. No appeal lies from an order which denied reargument. Respondents are jointly awarded a single bill of $10 costs and disbursements to cover all these appeals. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Kleinfeld and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
EX-10.25



 Exhibit 10.25 

This Waiver (this “Waiver”), dated December 29, 2017 (the “Effective Date”), is by and between
Zafgen, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Jeffrey Hatfield (“Hatfield”), and implements waiver of certain provisions of (i) that certain Offer Letter, dated as of October 3, 2017, by and
between the Company and Hatfield (the “Offer Letter”), and (ii) that certain Non-Qualified Inducement Stock Option Agreement, dated as of October 9, 2017, by and between the Company
and Hatfield (the “Option Agreement”). Defined terms used but not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Offer Letter or the Option Agreement, as applicable. 

WHEREAS, due to the unanticipated accounting consequences associated with including a cash runway and financing condition in the Offer Letter
and Option Agreement; and
 WHEREAS, the Company’s Board of Directors believes that the stock price performance targets are sufficient
to expect that the Company will have or be able to the obtain necessary financial resources to pursue its business plans. 
 NOW
THERREFORE, effective as of the Effective Date, the Board of Directors has determined to amend the Offer Letter and Option Agreement to irrevocably waive the foregoing conditions: 

 

	1.	Offer Letter: 

  

	 	a.	The condition in the third bullet point under the Performance Period/Metrics heading of Appendix 1 of the Offer Letter, which reads “In order to earn any options, the Company must also have a reasonable cash runway
to pursue its business plans, as determined by the Board” 

  

	 	b.	The condition in the second bullet point under the Payout Curve heading of Appendix 1 of the Offer Letter, which reads “and the reasonable level of financing has also been achieved” 


 

	 	2.	Option Agreement: 

  

	 	a.	The condition in the third bullet point of Schedule A of the Option Agreement, which reads “In order to earn any Option Shares, the Company must also have a reasonable cash runway to pursue its business plans, as
determined by the Board”. 

  

	 	b.	The condition in the second bullet point under the Payout Curve heading of Appendix A of the Option Agreement, which reads “and the reasonable level of financing has also been achieved” 


The parties hereby acknowledge and agree to this Waiver: 

 

			
	ZAFGEN, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Peter Barrett

	Name:	 	Peter Barrett
	Title:	 	Chairman of the Board of Directors


  

	
	 /s/ Jeffrey Hatfield

	Jeffrey Hatfield
#### Michael F. Sweeny, Respondent, v Orange County Publications Division of Ottaway Newspapers, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In a libel action, defendant Orange County Publications Division of Ottaway *900Newspapers, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 28, 1979, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, appellant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed. Summary judgment in favor of the appellant should have been granted. The first article which the plaintiff alleges is defamatory is a fair and true report of the investigation into ticket fixing conducted by the State Commissioner on Judicial Conduct. As such, it is absolutely privileged under section 74 of the Civil Rights Law. While the second article repeats the fact that the plaintiff was mentioned by the commission, the articles purpose was to report the plaintiff’s vehement denial of misconduct. This article is not defamatory and thus is not actionable. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
162 So.2d 574

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Sam GREEN et al.

No. 47240.

April 17, 1964.

In re: Sam Green et al. applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writs denied. There are no perfected bills of exception. See La.Code Crim.Proc.Art. 499, LSA-R.S. 15:499; State v. Richardson, 220 La. 338, 56 So.2d 568; State v. McDonald, 218 La. 198, 48 So.2d 797; State v. Foret, 245 La. 70, 156 So.2d 606; 245 La. 187, 157 So.2d 733. Moreover, there is no error patent on the face of the record.
902.201 Contract clause.       Insert the clause at 952.202-1, Definitions, in solicitation and contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 902.2 - Definitions Clause
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

November 28, 2006

 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

To: All Counsel of Record

Re: D E Enterprises, LLC v. Zurich North America

Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-00692-VPM

The above-styled case has been reassigned to Judge Wallace Capel, Jr.

Please note that the case number is now 3:06-cv-00692-WC. 

This new case number should be used on all future correspondence and pleadings in this

action.

 

Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 8 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 1 of 1
# L_2021277EN.01003001.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 277/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 277/30

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/1263

of 26 July 2021

conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name (‘Muškat momjanski/Moscato di Momiano’ (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission has examined the application to register the name ‘Muškat momjanski/Moscato di Momiano’ forwarded by Croatia and has published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission has examined the application to register the name ‘Muškat momjanski/Moscato di Momiano’ forwarded by Croatia and has published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

| (3) | In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Muškat momjanski/Moscato di Momiano’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Muškat momjanski/Moscato di Momiano’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Muškat momjanski/Moscato di Momiano’ (PDO) is hereby protected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 July 2021.

For the Commission

On behalf of the President

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 36, 2.2.2021, p. 22.

2

---
156 So.2d 475

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Paul T. SCHEXNAYDER.

No. 46952.

Oct 2. 1963.

In re: Paul T. Schexnayder applying for writ of habeas corpus and, alternatively, for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writs refused. The showing made in the application is insufficient to justify the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
§ 932.19 Crop year and fiscal year. ( a ) *Crop year* means the 12-month period beginning on August 1 of each year and ending on July 31 of the following year or such other period that may be recommended by the committee and approved by the Secretary.
( b ) *Fiscal year* means the 12-month period beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31 of each year or such other period that may be recommended by the committee and approved by the Secretary.
[47 FR 32906, July 30, 1982]
**Exhibit32.1**

**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 Outdoor ChannelHoldings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Perry T. Massie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Perry T. Massie     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| **Perry T. Massie**     |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| February 12, 2007       |

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Outdoor ChannelHoldings, Inc. and will be retained by Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.55



****CONFIDENTIAL PORTION has been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment by the Company to, and the material has been separately filed with, the SEC.  Each omitted Confidential Portion is marked by four asterisks.


THIRTY-THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE
FULL-TIME TRANSPONDER CAPACITY AGREEMENT (PRE-LAUNCH)




This Thirty-third Amendment to the Full-Time Transponder Capacity Agreement (Pre-Launch) (the “Thirty-third Amendment”) is made and entered into by and between INTELSAT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (“Intelsat”), and GCI COMMUNICATIONS CORP., an Alaskan corporation (“Customer”), as of the latest date set forth below.


RECITALS


WHEREAS, pursuant to that certain Full-Time Transponder Capacity Agreement (Pre-Launch) dated as of March 31, 2006, as amended (collectively, the “Agreement”) between Intelsat and Customer, Intelsat is providing Customer with (a) **** (“**** Transponders”); (b) **** (“**** Transponder”); (c) **** Transponder ****; (d) **** Transponder ****; and (e) **** Transponder ****” as detailed in Appendix A hereto. 


WHEREAS, Customer wishes to acquire additional **** Capacity, as further detailed below;




AGREEMENT


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:




		
	1.
	Article 2, Capacity ****.  The Capacity **** of the **** Transponder **** shall be extended from **** through ****, as set forth under **** in Appendix A hereto. 




		
	2.
	Section 3.1, **** Fee. Effective **** Customer’s **** Fee for the extended Capacity **** as defined above, shall be reduced from **** to **** per ****, as set forth in Appendix A 




		
	3.
	Except as specifically set forth in this Agreement, all terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties hereto has duly executed and delivered this Thirty First Amendment as of the latest date set forth below (the “Execution Date”).




INTELSAT CORPORATION                GCI COMMUNICATION CORP.


By:  _/s/ Stephen Chernow___________        By:  _/s/ Jimmy Sipes_______________                    
Name:  _Stephen Chernow___________        Name:  _Jimmy Sipes_______________            


Title:  _VP & Deputy General Counsel___        Title:  _VP Network Services & Chief Engineer                
Date:  _October 4, 2017______________        Date:  _October 3, 2017_________________
5145.000 Scope of part.

As used in this part—

“Accounting Requirements Code” (ARC)isa code assigned to each item of supply to identify its

specific classification and the degree of accounting and control that must be applied at the user

level. Logistics Support Activity assigns the accounting requirements code (ARC) using the ARC

assignment criteria contained in DA Pam 708–2, Cataloging and Supply Management Data

Procedures for the Army Enterprise Material Master.

“Nonexpendable”, as used in the definition of equipment at AR 735-5, Property Accountability

Policies refers to an item that is not consumed in use and that retains its original identity during the

period of use. These items have an ARC of “N” contained in the Federal Logistics Data Base

(FEDLOG)

Parent topic: Part 5145 - Government Property
607.102 Policy.       It is the Department's policy that every acquisition be conducted and the contract file documented in conformance with the requirements for acquisition planning pursuant to FAR part 7.    **Parent topic:** PART 607—ACQUISITION PLANNING
#### § 966.89 Derogation.

Nothing contained in this subpart is, or shall be construed to be, in derogation or in modification of the rights of the Secretary or of the United States to exercise any powers granted by the act or otherwise, or, in accordance with such powers, to act in the premises whenever such action is deemed advisable.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 31, 2014

h0127 

# Order

Clerk January 31, 2014

147510

AMY M. OGILVIE,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147510

COA: 310935

Alpena CC: 11

- 004212

- DM

ERIC ARLINGTON OGILVIE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 26, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The defendant’s motions

to adjourn the case until transcript is obtained, to allow for supplemental pleadings of

application for appeal, to allow for corrections to the recor d, and to provide other relief

are DENIED.
#### Goodyear Publishing Co., Inc., Appellant, v Robert A. Mundell, Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 20, 1979, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this action arising out of a breached contract is unanimously reversed, on the law, and summary judgment is granted in favor of the plaintiff, with costs. Goodyear Publishing Co., asserting two causes of action—breach of contract and *557unjust enrichment—seeks to recover moneys it advanced against royalties to be earned on the sale of a book to be entitled "Economics, The Science of Policy” to be written by defendant Robert A. Mundell and published by Goodyear. The written publishing agreement entered into by these parties, as amended, provided for the return of all advances if a completed manuscript, acceptable to the publisher, was not delivered by August 30, 1973. Goodyear asserts no such manuscript has been delivered. While an outline of chapter headings appears in the record, there is nothing remotely resembling a manuscript. Nor was any purported manuscript handed up to this court to examine. And though defendant challenges the dates he is said to have received advances he does acknowledge receiving payments from Goodyear. Defendant, who is appearing *pro se,*has furnished only unsworn papers, which ordinarily would have no probative value. However, at plaintiffs request we have considered these papers as if they were verified. The bulk of Mundell’s defenses have their basis in supervening oral agreements which he maintains altered the parties’ duties and responsibilities. These defenses run afoul of subdivision 1 of section 15-301 of the General Obligations Law for the original agreement expressly provides "this agreement may not be changed unless the parties to it agree in writing.” Evidence of part performance of any claimed oral modification is wanting. The Statute of Limitations defense is unavailing for plaintiffs causes are actions at law which accrued on the nonsubmission of an acceptable manuscript by August 30, 1973, and this suit was commenced January 4, 1979, well within six years thereafter. (CPLR 213, subds 1, 2.) Also advanced is the defense of impossibility of performance. Defendant contends the international economic upheaval occurring in 1971 and his involvement in 1973 with a prestigious group charged with devising a European monetary system made it impossible for him to timely complete his manuscript. These circumstances simply do not lend themselves to this defense, for the excuse of impossibility of performance is generally confined to the destruction of the means of performance by an act of God, *vis major,*or by law. (See *407 East 61st Garage v Savor Fiñh Ave. Corp.,*23 NY2d 275.) Furthermore, defendant had almost six years after the 1973 agreement and prior to the commencement of this action within which to submit an acceptable manuscript and he failed to do so. None of the allegations which underlie the remaining defenses, and defendant’s counterclaims, presents any impediment to granting summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor. Settle order. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Lupiano, Bloom and Yesawich, JJ.
711.002-70 Metric system waivers.

(a) Criteria. The (48 CFR) FAR 11.002(b) requirement to use the metric system of measurement for

specifications and quantitative data that are incorporated in or required by USAID contracts may be

waived when USAID determines in writing that such usage is impractical or is likely to cause U.S.

firms to experience significant inefficiencies or the loss of markets.

(b) Authorization.

(1) The USAID Metric Executive (as designated in ADS Chapter 323), the contracting officer, and the

USAID official who approves the procurement requirement are authorized to waive the metric

requirement for one of the above reasons. The USAID Metric Executive is authorized to overrule a

decision to grant a waiver, or to nullify a blanket waiver made by another approving official so long

as a contractor's rights under an executed contract are not infringed upon.

(2) A blanket waiver for a class of multiple transactions may be issued for a term not to exceed three

years.

(3) When a waiver will be based upon the adverse impact on U.S. firms, clearance from the USAID

Metric Executive and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) will be

obtained prior to authorization.

(c) Records and reporting.

(1) The basis for each waiver and any plans to adapt similar requirements to metric specifications in

future procurements should be documented in the contract file.

(2) Each procurement activity will maintain a log of the waivers from the metric requirements which

are authorized for its procurements. The logs shall list the commodity/service being procured, total

dollar value of the procured item(s), waiver date, authorizing official, basis for waiver, and USAID

actions that can promote metrication and lessen the need for future waivers.

(3) Within 30 days of the closing of each fiscal year, each USAID/W procurement activity and each

Mission will submit a copy of the metric waiver log for the year to the USAID Metric Executive.

(Mission logs are to be consolidated in a Mission report for the procurement activity and for the

nonprocurement activities maintaining such logs under the USAID Metric Transition Plan.)

Repetitive purchases of commercially produced and marketed items and classes of items may be

consolidated in reporting procurements that do not exceed $10,000 cumulatively during the

reporting period.

Parent topic: PART 711—DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS
Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 36 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 36 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 2