alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
December 4, 2012

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations M-30

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Airworthiness Directive; Brantly International, Inc. Helicopters; Docket No. FAA-2012-1093

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), representing more than 400,000 general 

aviation members nationwide, respectfully requests a 45 day extension to the proposed Brantly

helicopters Airworthiness Directive (AD) comment period, set to expire on December 17, 2012. 

On October 16, 2012 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD for Brantly International, Inc. Model B-2, B-2A, and Model B-2B 

helicopters with a certain main rotor blade. 

AOPA requests an additional 45 days to the original comment period primarily to accommodate

a thorough review of the NPRM by the affected community and secondarily to accommodate

the holiday schedule. Due to the timing of the proposed AD, AOPA contends the affected 

owners and operators of Brantly helicopters would not be able to adequately review the 

proposal and provide the agency adequate comments. 

Additionally, time is needed to research how and where the agency came up with the 

estimated replacement costs for an M/R blade due to limited replacement blade inventory and 

manufacturer support. 

We look forward to an extension of the comment period to allow for thorough communication 

and opportunity for owners, operators, and the public to comment.

Sincerely,

Rob Hackman

Vice President Regulatory Affairs

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association
Subpart 609.2—Qualifications Requirements

Parent topic: PART 609—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

609.202 Policy.

The authority prescribed in FAR 9.202(a)(1) is delegated, without power of redelegation, to the head

of the contracting activity.

609.206 Acquisitions subject to qualification requirements.

609.206-1 General.

(b) The authority prescribed in FAR 9.206–1(b) is delegated, without power of redelegation, to the

head of the contracting activity.
#### In the Matter of Robert Bloom, Appellant. Abraham J. Multer, Respondent.

In two proceedings to punish appellant for criminal contempt of court, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 20, 1980, which denied his motion to change the venue of the proceedings from Kings County to New York County. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and the proceedings are transferred from Kings County to New York County. In view of the fact that the Administrative Judges of Bronx and Kings Counties are prospective witnesses, that a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, is the complainant, and that a former Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, is a Special Assistant Attorney-General assigned to prosecute the proceedings, we believe that the possible appearance of any bias or favoritism requires a change of venue of these criminal contempt proceedings from Kings County to New York County. Accordingly, the ends of justice will be better served without undue inconvenience to the parties and their witnesses if the hearing were held in New York County. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Cohalan and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 128445 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

DANIEL BARRY COUCH, Stephen J. Markman,

Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices 

v SC: 128445 

 COA: 256899 

Oakland CC: 2003-047997-NM 

RAYMOND A. CORRELL, and RAYMOND 

A. CORRELL, P.C., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 1, 

2005 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. 

d0919 

I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, 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. 

September 28, 2005
 

Clerk
5233.9002 Contractor appeals to the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA).

(a) General. The DON Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has sole litigation authority for all

appeals under DON contracts to the ASBCA. Because of the frequent complexity of these cases, the

DON OGC and the contracting activity involved should maintain the continuity of any DON claim

team that might have investigated and evaluated the contractor's claim submission. Such teams

should continue to function in an assisting capacity under the leadership of the DON OGC Trial

Attorney assigned to handle the appeal.

(b) Litigation report requirement. With the compilation of ASBCA Rule 4 documents (available at

https://www.asbca.mil/Rules/rules.html ), a comprehensive litigation report shall be forwarded to the

Litigation Division. The report should include:

(1) A detailed narrative statement of facts, preferably in chronological sequence, and with a topical

segregation when appropriate, with references to attached supporting documents of expected

testimony. If such a statement was previously submitted, it need not be submitted a second time, but

should be supplemented or revised if additional information becomes available in the interim.

(2) An analysis and evaluation (classified as attorney-client privileged information) of the factual and

legal positions of both sides (including affirmative defenses and counterclaims available to the

Government), the available evidence, and the expertise and effectiveness of prospective witnesses.

(3) The advisory report, if any, of the reviewing official or board.

(c) Settlement negotiations pending appeal. The conduct of settlement negotiations in connection

with any pending appeal should generally be accomplished by a selected team consisting of the trial

attorney and representatives of the contracting officer (including contracting activity technical

personnel, counsel, negotiator, and auditor if necessary). Other arrangements may be made in

specific cases as appropriate. However, no final settlement agreement will be made without the

written approval of the contracting officer. When a settlement is made, a memorandum shall be

prepared by the negotiating team (and signed by all team members) stating the basis and reasons.

The settlement agreement shall be drafted by the contracting activity and trial attorney. The trial

attorney shall file any legal papers required to be filed with the ASBCA to effect disposition of the

case by mutual agreement of the parties.

(d) Review and approval. Negotiated settlements of appeals pending before the ASBCA, as well as

negotiated settlements of appeal issues that have been remanded to the DON for quantum

determination, will be subject to review and approval at levels established for claims of the same

dollar amount.

(e) Contract modification. Whenever contract modification and other contract documents are

required to implement a settlement of ASBCA or appellate court decision, they should reference the

ASBCA proceedings by title and docket number.

Parent topic: Subpart 5233.90 - PROCEDURES
I-100 Purpose.       (a) This appendix I implements the Pilot Mentor-Protege Program (Program) established under section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Pub. L. 101-50; 10 U.S.C. 4901 note prec.). The purpose of the Program is to provide incentives to major DoD contractors to furnish eligible small business concerns with assistance designed to—          (1) Enhance the capabilities of eligible small business concerns to perform as subcontractors and suppliers under DoD contracts and other contracts and subcontracts; and          (2) Increase the participation of such business concerns as subcontractors and suppliers under DoD contracts, other Federal Government contracts, and commercial contracts.          (b) Under the Program, eligible companies approved as mentor firms will enter into mentor-protege agreements with eligible protege firms to provide appropriate developmental assistance to enhance the capabilities of the protege firms to perform as subcontractors and suppliers. DoD may provide the mentor firm with either cost reimbursement or credit against applicable subcontracting goals established under contracts with DoD or other Federal agencies.          (c) DoD will measure the overall success of the Program by the extent to which the Program results in—          (1) An increase in the dollar value of contract and subcontract awards to protege firms (under DoD contracts, contracts awarded by other Federal agencies, and commercial contracts) from the date of their entry into the Program until 5 years after the conclusion of the agreement;          (2) An increase in the number and dollar value of subcontracts awarded to a protege firm (or former protege firm) by its mentor firm (or former mentor firm); and          (3) An increase in protégé participation in DoD science and technology programs; and          (4) An increase in job creation of protégé firms from the date of execution of the mentor-protégé agreement until 5 years after completion of the mentor-protégé agreement.          (d) This policy sets forth the procedures for participation in the Program applicable to companies that are interested in receiving—          (1) Reimbursement through a separate contract line item in a DoD contract or a separate contract with DoD; or          (2) Credit toward applicable subcontracting goals for costs incurred under the Program.    **Parent topic:** APPENDIX I - POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR THE DOD PILOT MENTOR-PROTEGE PROGRAM
coke-ex1073_405.htm



Exhibit 10.73

 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO REGIONAL MANUFACTURING AGREEMENT

 

This Second Amendment to Regional Manufacturing Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into on October 2, 2017 (the “Effective Date”), by and between The Coca‐Cola Company, a Delaware corporation (“Company”), and Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated, a Delaware corporation (“Bottler”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed thereto in the Agreement.

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, Company and Bottler are parties to that certain Regional Manufacturing Agreement (as amended hereby and from time to time hereafter, the “Agreement”), having an effective date of March 31, 2017, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Regional Manufacturing Agreement dated April 28, 2017; and

WHEREAS, Company and Bottler now wish to amend the Agreement as set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these promises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1.The parties hereto hereby amend Exhibit A (Regional Manufacturing Facilities) to the Agreement by deleting the following from such Exhibit: “Mobile, AL”.

2.The parties hereto hereby further amend Exhibit A (Regional Manufacturing Facilities) to the Agreement by adding the following to such Exhibit: “Memphis, TN” and “West Memphis, AR”.

3.The parties hereto hereby amend Exhibit B (Authorized Covered Beverages) to the Agreement by adding the following to such Exhibit: “Coca-Cola Zero Sugar”.

4.Other than as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Agreement will continue in effect in accordance with its terms.

5.This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Georgia, without regard to principles of conflict of laws.

6.This Amendment may be signed in counterparts, which together shall constitute one agreement.

[Signature Page Follows]

 

 



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first written above.

 

 


	
 
	
 
	
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ J. Alexander M. Douglas, Jr.

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
    Authorized Representative

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.

CONSOLIDATED

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ E. Beauregarde Fisher III

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
    Authorized Representative




 

Signature Page to Amendment to Regional Manufacturing Agreement
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

134594 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan NICOLE L. BROMLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 134594 COA: 278143 WCAC: 07-000028 AEROPOSTALE, INC ., and AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURA NCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants, and

WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 6, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1022 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
EX-35 (d)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 14, 2007

Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage
Loan Trust, Series 2006-AR5


Per Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 10/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer), hereby
certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:


(A)  a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
     portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or
     such other applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function
     Participant, has been made under such officer's supervision and

(B)  to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of any such Servicing Function
     Participant, in all material respects throughout such year or portion
     thereof, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in
     any material respect, specifying each such failure known to such officer
     and the nature and status thereof.



Certified By:
/s/ Reid Denny
Reid Denny, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3126 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3126

      To suspend temporarily the duty on ski and snowboard pants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

   Mr. Leahy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on ski and snowboard pants.

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

SECTION 1. SKI AND SNOWBOARD PANTS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.62.02        Ski/snowboard pants     Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           (provided for in                                                  31/2009          ''
                           subheading                                                                          .
                           6204.63.30)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
SUBCHAPTER H - CLAUSE AND FORMS

PART 2952 - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

PART 2953 - FORMS

PARTS 2954-2999 [RESERVED]

PART 2952 - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

Subpart 2952.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses

2952.201-70 Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR).

PART 2953 - FORMS

Subpart 2953.1 - General

2953.100 Request for Recommendation by Procurement Review Board DL 1-490.

2953.101 Simplified Acquisition Documentation Checklist DL 1-2216.

2953.102 Quotation for Simplified Acquisitions DL 1-2078.

2953.103 Acquisition Screening and Review - over $100,000 DL 1-2004.

PARTS 2954-2999 [RESERVED]
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Stratigraphyof Silurian rocks in Shawangunk Mountain, southeastern New York, including ahistorical review of nomenclature**** 
SuDocNumber: I 19.3:1839-L
ItemNumber: 0620
CGPsystem Number: 000373644
 
Report
Plate
 
 **
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 21 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 21 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 21 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 3 of 3
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

PROGRESSIVE AM. INS. CO., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv717-ID

v. )

 )

DALE EUGENE KIRKINDOLL, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon CONSIDERATION of Plaintiff Progressive American Insurance Co.’s

motion to dismiss interpleader defendant, filed October 1, 2007 (Doc. No. 88), and for

good cause shown, it is ORDERED that said motion be and the same is hereby

GRANTED and that, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center is hereby DISMISSED as a Defendant in

this lawsuit.

DONE this 2 day of October, 2007. nd

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 89 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANTS [UN] AUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND
[UN]  AUDITED  CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE 9 MONTHS [YEAR] THEN
ENDED  AND  IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                     1025238
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                             18854323
<ALLOWANCES>                                129955
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          23743166
<PP&E>                                     6604431
<DEPRECIATION>                              272467
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            31603848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     11732747
<BONDS>                                    6388718
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   8000000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (373696)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              31603848
<SALES>                                   99304358
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          99304358
<CGS>                                     78815963
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             96720793
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            237837
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            119347
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1003594
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            1222787
<INCOME-TAX>                                 77237
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        1145550
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               1145550
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .06


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE SKANSKA USA CIVIL SOUTHEAST INC 

AND SKANSKA USA INC,

CASE NO. 3:20-cv-5980/LAC/HTC

 

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Lacey Collier on June 22, 2021

Motion: MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Mary Elizabeth Putnick.

Filed by Attorney on 06/20/21 Doc.# 1193

 Stipulated Joint Pldg.

 Unopposed Consented

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

/s/ Barbara Rogers

Deputy Clerk

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 22nd day of 

June, 2021, that:

(a) The relief requested is GRANTED.

 s/L.A. Collier 

Lacey A. Collier

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1195 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 1
The DJI Inspire 1 Operator’s Manual was 17 mb in file size and was too large to upload to the

Regulations.gov website.

The document in its entirety can be downloaded from the following link:

http://download.dji­innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_User_Manual_v1.0_en.pdf