alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Subpart 939.70 - Implementing DOE Policies and Procedures

**Parent topic:**PART 939 - ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

## 939.7000 Scope.

This part sets forth the policies and procedures that apply to the acquisition of information technology by the Department of Energy (DOE).   

## 939.7001 [Reserved]

## 939.7002 Contractor acquisition of information technology.

(a) *Management and operating (M&O) contracts.* Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, M&O contractors and their subcontractors shall not be used to acquire information technology unrelated to the mission of the M&O contract either for sole use by DOE employees or employees of other DOE contractors, or for use by other Federal agencies or their contractors. 

(b) *Other than M&O contracts.* Where it has been determined that a contractor (other than an M&O contractor or its subcontractor) will acquire information technology either for sole use by DOE employees or for the furnishing of the information technology as government-furnished property under another contract, and after receiving written authorization from their cognizant DOE contracting office pursuant to 48 CFR part 51, DOE contractors working under cost-reimbursement-type contracts may place orders against authorized contracts. All authorizations to contractors shall expressly and specifically reference the restriction regarding contractor use of the items acquired, cited at 951.102(e)(4)(iii). 

(c) *Consolidated contractor acquisitions.* When common information technology requirements in support of DOE programs have been identified and it is anticipated that the consolidation of such requirements will promote cost or other efficiencies, the Designated Senior Official for Information Management may authorize an M&O contractor to acquire information technology for use by the following -  

(1) One or more other contractor(s) performing on-site at the same DOE-owned or -leased facility as the M&O contractor; or 

(2) Other M&O contractors.
Subpart 651.70—Contractor Use of Travel Advances, Official Travel Orders, and Government Travel Requisitions    **Parent topic:** PART 651—USE OF GOVERNMENT SOURCES BY CONTRACTORS651.7001 Policy.       (a) It is the Department's policy that contractors shall not:          (1) Receive travel advances from the Department for contract-related travel;          (2) Travel under official travel orders; or,          (3) Receive Government Travel Requisitions (GTRs) for transportation.          (b) All contract-related travel shall be performed on the contractor's account with reimbursement provided after submission of a proper voucher.          (c) This policy does not apply to personal services contractor; *provided,* that such contractors are paid through the Department's payroll system and they are subject to the standard payroll deductions of Federal Withholding Tax and FICA.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hector Vasquez, Appellant.

Judgement rendered March 8, 1968, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and committing him, upon a finding of narcotic addiction after a hearing, but without a jury, to the care and custody of the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission for a period not to exceed 36 months, unanimously modified on the law to the extent of remitting the case for a jury trial on the sole issue of whether the defendant is a narcotic addict and otherwise affirmed. .(See *People*v. *Harris,*32 A D 2d 621.) Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Markewieh and ‘Steuer, JJ.
1032.7003 Contract clause.       Except as provided in 1032.7002(a), use the clause at 1052.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests, in all solicitations and contracts.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1032.70 - Electronic Submission and Processing of Payment Requests
#### Albert Levy, Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted November 5, 2007;

decided December 18, 2007

Reported below, 40 AD3d 359.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### § 984.59 Interhandler transfers.

For the purposes of this part, transfer means the sale of inshell and shelled walnuts within the area of production by one handler to another. The Board, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish methods and procedures, including necessary reports, for such transfers.

[73 FR 11339, Mar. 3, 2008]
#### Allen *v.*The State.

August 12, 1913.

Indictment for rape. Before Judge Daniel. Fayette superior court. May 23, 1913.

*W. B. Hollingsworth*and *J. W. Culpepper,*for plaintiff in error.

*T. 8. Felder, attorney-general,*and *E. M. Owen, solicitor-general,*contra.

Beck, J.

1. It does not appear that there was any abuse of discretion in overruling a motion for a continuance in the present case, there being no showing on the part of the movant that the absent witness resided in the county in which the case was pending, or even in this State. Motions for continuances' are peculiarly within the discretion of the trial court, and that discretion will not be controlled by . this court unless it has been manifestly abused. *Hardy*v. *State,*117 *Ga.*40 (43 S. E. 434).

2. The court did not err in charging the jury that “in prosecutions for rape the fact that the woman made complaint soon after the assault took place is evidence, but the particulars of the complaint can not be gone into.” This was a statement of a general legal principle, and did not amount to an expression of an opinion on the facts of the instant case. Nor was it unauthorized by the evidence in the ease.

3. There was sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict of the jury; and that verdict, having received the sanction of the trial judge, will not be disturbed here.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
The State 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

No. 04-14-00699-CR

Jerimiah BAREFIELD,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR6188A

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. 

Appellant’s brief is due on May 13, 2015. No further extensions will granted. 

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

857 

CA 13-01754 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A REVIEW 

UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW OF 

THE ASSESSMENTS BY FFT SENIOR COMMUNITIES, INC.,

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

 

V ORDER

TOWN OF CANANDAIGUA AND BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW 

FOR TOWN OF CANANDAIGUA, COUNTY OF ONTARIO, 

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

 

LACY KATZEN LLP, ROCHESTER (JOHN T. REFERMAT OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

BIERSDORF & ASSOCIATES, P.A., MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA (DAN BIERSDORF OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County

(Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered June 17, 2013 in a proceeding

pursuant to RPTL article 7. The order, among other things, granted

petitioner’s motion seeking to establish the value of its property for

three assessment dates.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court.

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### § 985.70 Separability.

If any provision of this part is declared invalid or the applicability thereof to any person, circumstance or thing is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this part or the applicability thereof to any other person, circumstance, or thing shall not be affected thereby.
#### § 97.155 Signatures.

Every document filed by an attorney or agent representing an applicant or party to a proceeding in the Office shall bear the signature of such attorney or agent, except documents which are required to be signed by the applicant or party.
#### In the Matter of Motor Network, Ltd., Appellant, v Raymond P. Martinez, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 545]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Raymond E Martinez, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated July 1, 2002, which denied the petitioner’s application for *912renewal and re-issuance of a special registration license plate, which was determined by judgment dated April 12, 2004, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), entered December 9, 2004, which denied its application for an award of an attorney’s fee and for costs pursuant to CPLR article 86.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in finding that the respondent’s position was substantially justified *(see*CPLR 8601 [a]; *Matter of Newman v Wing,*12 AD3d 515 [2004]). “ ‘[T]he mere fact that the government has lost the underlying case on the merits does not require that an attorney’s fee be awarded’ ” *(Matter of Newman v Wing, supra*at 516, quoting *Matter of McCrimmon v Dowling,*247 AD2d 620, 621 [1998]). Absent an abuse of discretion, a determination by the Supreme Court that the respondent’s position was substantially justified is entitled to deference *(see Matter of New York State Clinical Lab. Assn. v Kaladjian,*85 NY2d 346, 356 [1995]). Accordingly, we affirm. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.
wmih-ex101_8.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This AMENDMENT (“Amendment”), by and between WMIH Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and William Gallagher (“Executive”) (collectively, the “Parties”) is made as of March 9, 2018.

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive previously entered into an Employment Agreement, made as of May 15, 2015 (the “Employment Agreement”); 

WHEREAS, the Company intends to effect a merger with Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation;

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to modify the Employment Agreement to extend the Employment Period thereunder in connection with the anticipated merger with Nationstar Mortgage Holdings, Inc.; and

WHEREAS, capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Employment Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants, understandings, representations, warranties, undertakings and promises hereinafter set forth, intending to be legally bound thereby, the Parties agree as follows: 

 


	
 
	
1.
	
Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the phrase “on the third anniversary thereof” and replacing it with the following: 




“the earlier of (a) the Closing Date (as defined in that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 12, 2018, among Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc., WMIH Corp., a Delaware corporation and Wand Merger Corporation (the Merger Agreement”)) or (b) the End Date (as defined in the Merger Agreement)”.


	
 
	
2.
	
Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all other terms, conditions and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.





	
 
	
3.
	
This Amendment is effected pursuant to Section 10(f) of the Employment Agreement.





	
 
	
4.
	
This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with Section 10(d) of the Employment Agreement and may be executed in separate counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original and all of which taken together constitute one and the same agreement.  Facsimile and PDF signatures will suffice as original signatures.




 

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]






 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.

 

 

 

WMIH CORP.

By:/s/ Charles Edward Smith
             Name: Charles Edward Smith
             Title: Executive Vice President


 

 

 

WILLIAM GALLAGHER

 

 

Signature: /s/ William Gallagher
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 78 FR 34247, June 7, 2013.

§ 1.25 Office of the Secretary of the Commission. The Office of the Secretary of the Commission— ( a ) Provides general management services to support the Commission and to implement Commission decisions; and advises and assists the Commission and staff on the planning, scheduling, and conduct of Commission business including preparation of internal procedures;
( b ) Prepares the Commission's meeting agenda;
( c ) Manages the Commission Staff Paper and COMSECY systems;
( d ) Receives, processes, and controls Commission mail, communications, and correspondence;
( e ) Maintains the Commission's official records and acts as Freedom of Information administrative coordinator for Commission records;
( f ) Codifies Commission decisions in memoranda directing staff action and monitors compliance;
( g ) Receives, processes, and controls motions and pleadings filed with the Commission; issues and serves adjudicatory orders on behalf of the Commission; receives and distributes public comments in rulemaking proceedings; issues proposed and final rules on behalf of the Commission; maintains the official adjudicatory and rulemaking dockets of the Commission; and exercises responsibilities delegated to the Secretary in 10 CFR 2.303 and 2.346;
( h ) Administers the NRC Historical Program;
( i ) Integrates office automation initiatives into the Commission's administrative system;
( j ) Functions as the NRC Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer; and
( k ) Provides guidance and direction on the use of the NRC seal and flag.
[52 FR 31602, Aug. 21, 1987, as amended at 63 FR 15741, Apr. 1, 1998; 69 FR 2233, Jan. 14, 2004]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID FINNEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-cv-622-WKW

)

NISSAN NORTH AMERICAN, INC., et al.,) 

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The mediator has notified the court that this case has settled. All remaining dates and

deadlines, including the pretrial conference scheduled for June 2, 2008 and the trial

scheduled for the June 30, 2008 trial term, are CANCELLED. The parties are ORDERED

to file a joint stipulation of dismissal on or before February 19, 2008.

DONE this 6th day of February, 2008.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 67 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 1
#### Public Administrator of the County of New York, as Administrator de Bonis Non of the Estate of Lam Kwei Shi, Deceased, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

Motion, to the extent it seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order of this court entered February 26, 1980 [74 AD2d 741] which unanimously affirmed the judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 5, 1979, awarding the plaintiff $100,000 plus interest after a jury trial for assessment of damages, denied. That portion of the motion which seeks reargument is granted, and upon reargument, the decretal paragraph of the order of this court entered February 26, 1980 is deleted, and in its place the order is amended to read "It is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby reversed, on the law, without costs and without disburse*770ments, and the matter remanded for a new assessment of damages.” Inasmuch as the damage award upon which the judgment is based was a lump-sum figure and compensated plaintiff for, *inter alia,*loss of decedent’s consortium, which is no longer compensable, a new assessment is required. Although this court had held otherwise *(Ventura v Consolidated Edison Co.,*65 AD2d 352, revd 49 NY2d 622), loss of consortium is not a compensable item of damage in a New York wrongful death action. This assessment took place after our decision in *Ventura*but before the Court of Appeals decision. We are mindful that no objection was taken to the court’s instructions, but conclude that the interest of justice would be best served by a new assessment (see *Alexander v State of New York,*36 AD2d 777, 778), inasmuch as defendant should not be obligated to pay damages to which plaintiff is not entitled. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Carro, JJ.
§ 984.445 Procedures for voting by mail, e-mail, telephone, videoconference, facsimile, or any other means of communication. ( a ) Whenever the Board votes upon any proposition by mail, e-mail, or facsimile, at least six members or alternates acting as members must vote and one dissenting vote shall prevent its adoption. Each proposition to be voted upon by mail, e-mail, or facsimile shall specify a time limit for members to vote, after which the alternates shall be given the opportunity to vote.
( b ) Whenever the Board conducts meetings by telephone, videoconference, or any technology that enables member interaction, the vote shall be conducted by roll call.
[75 FR 1527, Jan. 12, 2010]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          30,294
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,294
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,316,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,069,019
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,165,836)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,316,724
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               171,470
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               144,040
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             181,085
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (153,655)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (153,655)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (153,655)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (8)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (8)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         66,231
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  40,965
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,196
<PP&E>                                         163,176
<DEPRECIATION>                                 87,635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 184,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          240,101
<BONDS>                                        50,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       83,356
<OTHER-SE>                                     (220,959)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   184,335
<SALES>                                        129,216
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,216
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,031)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,031)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,031)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cv-00632-WKW-DRB Document 3 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00632-WKW-DRB Document 3 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Viking Minerals Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles Irizarry,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
5th day of October, 2010.


/s/ Charles Irizarry
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer