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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-CR-179-MHT-DRB

)

JOHN TIERCE )

MOTION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING

COMES NOW the United States of America, by and through Leura G. Canary,

United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and moves this Court to continue

the sentencing set in the above-referenced cause from its current setting on November 11,

2006. 

The United States requests that sentencing be continued until on or after January

8, 2007. The continuation is necessary for the parties to resolve various matters related

to the sentencing. 

Counsel for the defense has no objection to the instant motion.

Respectfully submitted, this the 18th day of October, 2006.

LEURA G. CANARY 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER ASB-1176-O73T

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334)223-7280 Fax: (334)223-7135

E-mail: terry.moorer@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00179-MHT-CSC Document 13 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-CR-179-MHT-DRB

)

JOHN TIERCE )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 18, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to

the following: Jeffrey C. Duffey, Esquire.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334)223-7280

Fax: (334)223-7135

E-mail: terry.moorer@usdoj.gov

ASB-1176-O73T

Case 2:06-cr-00179-MHT-CSC Document 13 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 9 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 9 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 9 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 9 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 4 of 4
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 9-2 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 9-3 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 9-4 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 9-5 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 9-5 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 9-5 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 9-5 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 4 of 4
To ensure that the parties have adequate time to prepare thoroughly for trial on 1

the relevant claims, it is the court’s practice to rule on all dispositive motions prior to the

pretrial conference.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LEROY WILLIAMS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv658-ID

v. )

 )

STATE OF ALABAMA DEP'T OF )

TRANSPORTATION, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the court is a joint motion to modify scheduling order (Doc. No. 9), filed

by Plaintiff Leroy Williams and Defendants State of Alabama Department of

Transportation and Joe McInnes. The parties request the court to extend the dispositive

motion deadline from March 5, 2007, to June 7, 2007. An extension of the dispositive

motion deadline to June 7, 2007, however, would not afford the court sufficient time to

consider and rule on a summary judgment motion prior to the pretrial hearing which is set

on June 15, 2007. (See Doc. No. 8.) Regarding the parties’ contention that the 1

discovery deadline does not expire until June 7, 2007, the court directs counsel to the

“Frequently Asked Questions” section (question 5) of the Middle District of Alabama's

web site at www.almd.uscourts.gov, which explains why the Uniform Scheduling Order

establishes a dispositive motion deadline prior to the end of the period allowed for

Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 10 Filed 02/27/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

discovery. Accordingly, it is CONSIDERED and ORDERED that the parties' joint

motion to modify scheduling order be and the same is hereby DENIED. 

DONE this 27 day of February 2007. th

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 10 Filed 02/27/2007 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DERON L. BARNETT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv725-MHT

)

REGIONS BANK, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of Regions Bank’s motion to dismiss (doc. # 9) for want of

jurisdiction, it is

ORDERED that on or before September 12, 2006, the plaintiff shall show cause

why the motion should not be granted.

Done this 29 day of August, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00725-MHT-CSC Document 10 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-1847

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Appellee

v.

Corey Louis Hines

lllllllllllllllllllll Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: July 5, 2013

Filed: July 11, 2013

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Corey Louis Hines appeals following the district court’s order dismissing 1

without prejudice his motion to correct his sentence, purportedly pursuant to Federal

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.
Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b). Because Mr. Hines’s motion was at least his

second collateral attack on his sentence, and Mr. Hines did not obtain this court’s

authorization before filing the motion, it was the functional equivalent of an

unauthorized successive section 2255 motion, and the district court properly

dismissed it. See United States v. Patton, 309 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th Cir. 2002)

(prisoners may not bypass authorization requirement by purporting to invoke some

other rule or procedure);see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007) (absent

prior authorization, district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain successive § 2255

motion and should dismiss it or transfer it to court of appeals).

We note that even if Mr. Hines’s Rule 52(b) motion could be considered on its

merits, Mr. Hines would not be entitled to relief on the claim he advances. Mr. Hines

correctly asserts that the 71-month prison sentences imposed by the district court

upon his convictions for conspiracy to commit Social Security fraud and for three

counts of misuse of a Social Security number exceeded the 60-month statutory

maximum for these offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). It

is evident, however, that the district court intended to impose a prison sentence at the

top of Mr. Hines’s advisory sentencing range for these convictions--which was 57 to

71 months--and the district court was authorized to do so, to achieve the total

punishment of 71 months. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d) (if sentence imposed on count

carrying highest statutory maximum is less than total punishment, then sentence

imposed on other counts shall run consecutively, but only to extent necessary to

produce combined sentence equal to total punishment). An illegal sentence alone

does not establish the prejudice necessary for plain error relief. See United States v.

Bossany, 678 F.3d 603, 606 (8th Cir. 2012); United States v. Diaz, 296 F.3d 680,

683-85 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (defendant’s substantial rights not affected by sentences

that exceed maximumauthorized by jury findings if district court could have imposed

legal sentences on challenged counts and used consecutive sentencesto achieve same

total punishment under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d)), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 940 (2002).

-2-
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal.

______________________________

-3-
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- CJW Contractors, Inc. Under Contract No. N40085-16-D-0300 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

### ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61833
Douglas L. Patin, Esq.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Washington, DC Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy ChiefTrial Attorney Matthew S. Hawkins, Esq. Julie Ruggieri, Esq.

Trial Attorneys ORDER OF DISMISSAL The appeal has been withdrawn. Appellant has requested, and the government does not object to, dismissal ofthis appeal without prejudice. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board's docket withoutprejudice. Dated: April 17, 2019

dmin· ative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 61833, Appeal ofCJW Contractors, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
### TELEPHONE LOG

Name of Caller: John Sunda, SAI C Date: October 27 , 2011 Company Name: Sontek/YSI Street Address: 9940 Summers Ridge Road City /State/ZIP: San Diego, CA 92121 Person Contacted: Joel Edelman Title: Applications E ngineer Contact In fo: 1
- 858
- 546
- 8327 Ext 135 Called to inquire about use and cost of acoustic measuring devices for flow velocity measurement at industrial cooling water intakes. He said that the costs of an Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter will vary depending on instrumentation features such as real
- time versus recording but would generally costs between $9,000 to $11,000 or more for each unit. I asked about equipment lifetime and he said that the r e are no moving parts and it would mostly be dependent on the environment but that at a minimum it should last more than10 y ears. I asked about mounting set ups and he said it depended on the requirements could be as simple as a set up of one or more units that could fixed or moved around or a sophisticated sy stem where the probe can automatically move across the face of the screen.
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:53 AM 

To: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: RE: Continuing Discussion from Yesterday 

Thanks! 

From: Wayland, Robertj [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:52 AM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Subject: RE: Continuing Discussion from Yesterday 

Cortney – 

Since Kevin’s out on leave next week, I scheduled this for tomorrow from noon-1 pm. Discussing 

the BBs always benefits from Kevin’s perspectives as he has been in most of the meetings with 

EPA senior management. 

thanx! 

bob 

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. 

Leader, Energy Strategies Group 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Mail Code D243-01 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

Office: (919) 541-1045 

Cell: (919) 306-2290 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

Email: wayland.robertj@epa.gov 

************************************* 

 DRAFT/Deliberative Document - FOIA Exempt 

************************************* 
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:00 AM 

To: Wayland, Robertj 

Cc: Elman, Barry 

Subject: RE: Continuing Discussion from Yesterday 

Hi Bob, 

The following times work for us on a conversation about the remaining building blocks – if one of 

these times works on your end, can you send an Outlook invite? 

4/18: noon-1 

4/21: 10-11, 5-6 

4/22: 1-2 

Thanks, 

Cortney
Exhibit 32.2

STATEMENT 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 Allied Nevada Gold Corp. (the Corporation) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned officer of the
Corporation does hereby 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |                                                     
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 25, 2011 |  | /S/    HAL D.
KIRBY                                 
|                        |  | Hal D. Kirby,                                       
|                        |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
ANNEX 8 - PEER REVIEW ROLLING FORECAST       **Reporting requirements**. DON Contracting Activities             shall submit quarterly, by March 10, June 10, September 10, and December 10, a rolling             forecast of acquisitions requiring peer reviews by DASN(P) or                DPC. Use the DON Peer Review Rolling Forecast spreadsheet format when submitting             reports. Submit reports via email to mailto:usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the subject: “DFARS                201.170 – Peer Review Rolling Forecast.” The electronic version of this template is                available on the website https://www.secnav.navy.mil/rda/DASN-P/Pages/NMCARS.aspxidentified at NMCARS 5201.105-3 Copies..          **DON Peer Review Rolling Forecast Spreadsheet**                    *-continued columns on spreadsheet*
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3852

_____________________________

JOHN G. MACDERMID,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

March 27, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Carla P. Lowry, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.
2

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Subpart 727.3—Patent Rights under

Government Contracts

Parent topic: PART 727—PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS

727.303 Contract clause.

Contracting officers must insert the clause at 752.227–70, Patent Reporting Procedures, in all

solicitations and contracts that contain the clause at (48 CFR) FAR 52.227–11, Patent

Rights—Ownership by the Contractor.
Editorial Note on Part 91
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 91 appear at 61 FR 51350, Oct. 2 1996.

§ 91.19 General requirements of suitable samples. ( a ) Samples must be representative of the product tested and provided in sufficient quantity for the analyses requested.
( b ) Each sample must be identified with the following information: ( 1 ) Product type (specific description);
( 2 ) Lot number or production date;
( 3 ) Analyses desired;
( 4 ) Date/time collected;
( 5 ) Storage conditions prior to shipping;
( 6 ) Name of applicant;
( 7 ) Name of sampler;
( 8 ) Any other information which is required by the specific program under which analysis or test is performed.
BRIAN QUINN

Chief Justice

JAMES T. CAMPBELL Justice

MACKEY K. HANCOCK Justice

PATRICK A. PIRTLE Justice 

# Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas Potter County Courts Building

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2-A Amarillo, Texas 79101-2449 www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx VIVIAN LONG

Clerk

MAILING ADDRESS:

P. O. Box 9540

79105-9540

(806) 342-2650

August 25, 2015

Brooks Barfield, Jr.

BARFIELD LAW FIRM

P. O. Box 308 Amarillo, TX 79105-0308

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Scott Brumley

Potter County Attorney's Office

500 S Fillmore St., Room 301 Amarillo, TX 79101-2437

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 07-15-00091-CR, 07-15-00106-CR, 07-15-00107-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 141066, 141094, 141118

Style: Ex parte Daniel Lee Ainsworth

Dear Counsel:

The Court has this day entered the attached Order of Reinstatement.

Very truly yours, 

# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

xc: Honorable W. F. (Corky) Roberts (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Dedra Morgan (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Julie Smith (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
PUBLIC LAW 107–315—DEC. 2, 2002 116 STAT. 2763

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 117:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

Nov. 14, considered and passed House.

Nov. 20, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–315

107th Congress

Joint Resolution

Approving the location of the commemorative work in the District of Columbia

honoring former President John Adams.

Whereas section 8908 of title 40, United States Code, provides

that the location of a commemorative work in the area described

as Area I shall be deemed disapproved unless approved by law

not later than 150 days after notification to Congress that the

commemorative work should be located in Area I;

Whereas Public Law 107–62 (115 Stat. 411) authorized the Adams

Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work on

Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor former President

John Adams and his legacy; and

Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has notified Congress of

her determination that a memorial to former President John

Adams should be located in Area I: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF COMMEMORATIVE WORK.

Congress approves the location for the commemorative work

to honor former President John Adams and his legacy, as authorized

by Public Law 107–62 (115 Stat. 411), within Area I as described

in section 8908 of title 40, United States Code, subject to the

limitation in section 2.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION.

The commemorative work approved in section 1 shall not be

located within the Reserve.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF RESERVE.

In this resolution the term ‘‘Reserve’’ means the area of The

National Mall extending from the United States Capitol to the

Lincoln Memorial, and from the White House to the Jefferson

Memorial, as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Commemorative Areas

Washington, DC and Environs,’’ numbered 869/86501A and dated

May 1, 2002.

Approved December 2, 2002.

Dec. 2, 2002

[H.J. Res. 117]
945.671 Contractor inventory in foreign countries.       Contractor inventory located in foreign countries will be utilized and disposed of in accordance with 41 CFR 109-43.5 and 45.41, or its successor and 48 CFR 45.302.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 945.6 - Reporting, Reutilization, and Disposal
36.609-1 Design within funding limitations.

(a) The Government may require the architect-engineer contractor to design the project so that

construction costs will not exceed a contractually specified dollar limit (funding limitation). If the

price of construction proposed in response to a Government solicitation exceeds the construction

funding limitation in the architect-engineer contract, the firm shall be solely responsible for

redesigning the project within the funding limitation. These additional services shall be performed at

no increase in the price of this contract. However, if the cost of proposed construction is affected by

events beyond the firm’s reasonable control (e.g., if there is an increase in material costs which

could not have been anticipated, or an undue delay by the Government in issuing a construction

solicitation), the firm shall not be obligated to redesign at no cost to the Government. If a firm’s

design fails to meet the contractual limitation on construction cost and the Government determines

that the firm should not redesign the project, a written statement of the reasons for that

determination shall be placed in the contract file.

(b) The amount of the construction funding limitation (to be inserted in paragraph (c) of the clause

at 52.236-22) is to be established during negotiations between the contractor and the Government.

This estimated construction contract price shall take into account any statutory or other limitations

and exclude any allowances for Government supervision and overhead and any amounts set aside by

the Government for contingencies. In negotiating the amount, the contracting officer should make

available to the contractor the information upon which the Government has based its initial

construction estimate and any subsequently acquired information that may affect the construction

costs.

(c) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.236-22, Design Within Funding Limitations,

in fixed-price architect-engineer contracts except when-

(1) The head of the contracting activity or a designee determines in writing that cost limitations are

secondary to performance considerations and additional project funding can be expected, if

necessary;

(2) The design is for a standard structure and is not intended for a specific location; or

(3) There is little or no design effort involved.

Parent topic: 36.609 Contract clauses.