alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 470 Order of Temporary Detention

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ORDER OF TEMPORARY DETENTION

) PENDING HEARING PURSUANT TO

) BAIL REFORM ACT

v. )

 )

 ) CASE NO. 2:06CR206-MHT

ALETHIA ADRIANNE SCOTT )

 )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of the Government’s Oral Motion for Detention Hearing, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and is hereby GRANTED, that the detention hearing in

the above-case be and is hereby set for August 22, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. in The Frank M.

Johnson, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse Complex, Montgomery,

Alabama, in the Fourth Floor Courtroom, Room 4-B, before the undersigned Magistrate 

Judge. 

Pending this hearing, the defendant shall be held in custody by the United States

Marshal and produced for the hearing.

Done this 21 day of August, 2006. st

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

*If not held immediately upon defendant's first appearance, the hearing may be continued for up to three

days upon the motion of the Government, or up to five days upon motion of the defendant. 18

U.S.C.§3142(f)(2). A hearing is required whenever the conditions set forth in 18 U.S.C.§3142(f) are

present. Subsection (1) sets forth the grounds that may be asserted only by the attorney for the

Government; subsection (2) states that a hearing is mandated upon the motion of the attorney for the

Government or upon the judicial officer's own motion if there is a serious risk that the defendant (a) will

flee or (b) will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to

threaten, injure, or intimidate a prospective witness or juror.

Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 7 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

ROBERT E. COLE Attorney For Plaintiff

ROBERT E. COLE, P.C.

ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 73263

437 CHESTNUT STREET, SUITE 218

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106

(215) 922-2050

___________________________________

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., P.C. :

d/b/a THE PAIN CENTER

501-07 SOUTH 12TH STREET

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19147

Plaintiff :

V. : NO. 3:06cv711-MHT

SKILSTAF, INC. :

P.O. BOX 729

ALEXANDER CITY, AL 35011

Defendant :

___________________________________

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of , 2007, upon

consideration of defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and

plaintiff’s Reply thereto and the memorandum of law filed in

support thereof, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that the

Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________

 J.

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 41-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 41-3 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 41-3 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 41-3 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 41-3 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 41-3 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 41-3 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 6 of 6
#### § 1040.8 Effect of employment opportunity.

Due to limited opportunities in the past, certain protected groups may be underrepresented in some occupations or professions. A recipient's obligation to comply with this part is not alleviated by use of statistical information which reflects limited opportunities in those occupations or professions.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF ALABAMA, * 

* 

PLAINTIFF * 

* 

V. * CASE NO. 2:06-cv-736-WKW 

* 

SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN * 

HUNDRED ($74,700) DOLLARS IN U.S. * 

CURRENCY, * 

* 

DEFENDANT. * 

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

Comes now the defendant, by and through counsel, and moves the Court to Stay Proceedings in 

this cause pursuant to Title 18 § 981 (g)(2)(A) and as grounds therefore says as follows: 

1. The government has asked to take the deposition of claimant George Jones. 

2. There is currently pending in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama a 

criminal charge (CC-06-885) arising from the same facts and circumstances as the 

seizure of the funds made subject of this action. 

3. Continuation of this action will burden the right of claimant against self-incrimination in 

the State criminal case. 

Respectfully submitted this the 10th day of January, 2007. 

 s/Bruce Maddox

Bruce Maddox (MAD013) 

Attorney for George Jones 

6728 Taylor Court 

Montgomery, Alabama 36117 

Phone: (334) 244-7333 

Fax: (334) 260-9600 

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 13 Filed 01/10/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 10th day of January, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing 

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

appropriate parties. 

s/Bruce Maddox

Of Counsel

 

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 13 Filed 01/10/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) of Harvest Capital Credit Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Craig R. Kitchin, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.





/s/ Craig R. KitchinName:Craig R. KitchinDate:March 15, 2016
#### § 1016.26 Suspension or revocation of access authorization.

In any case where the access authorization of an individual subject to the regulations in this part is suspended or revoked in accordance with the procedures set forth in 10 CFR part 710, such individual shall, upon due notice from DOE of such suspension or revocation and demand by DOE, deliver to DOE any and all Restricted Data in his possession for safekeeping and such further disposition as DOE determines to be just and proper.

[48 FR 36432, Aug. 10, 1983. Redesignated at 82 FR 41508, Sept. 1, 2017]
# Subpart 949.5 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**PART 949 - TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS
#### Peeples *et al. v.*Wilson.

September 26, 1913.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Eite. Murray superior court. January 23, 1912.

*C. N. King*and *W. W. Sampler,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Maddox, McCamy & Shumate*and *R. N. Steed,*contra.

Hill, J.

*1.*By *the Civil Code, § 4212, it is*declared: “If *the*original deed be lost, a copy from the registry, if duly recorded, shall be admitted in evidence whenever the court is satisfied of the fact of loss or destruction; and to this fact the party may be a witness.”

*(a) No*question as to the correctness of the record being involved, it is not proper, over objection, to admit the original record to show the contents of a lost deed; but the admission of such record will not require a new trial where a certified copy of the record was subsequently introduced in evidence during the trial.

2. A sheriff’s deed to land, executed to one who purchases at a tax sale, though not accompanied by the tax fi. fa. under which the land was sold, is good as color of title. *Beverly*v. *Burke,*14 *Ga.*70; *Burkhalter*v. *Edwards,*16 *Ga.*593 (2), 596 (60 Am. D. 744); *Hester*v. *Coats,*22 *Ga.*56 (1), 58; *Sutton*v. *McLoud,*26 *Ga.*638 (2) ; *Hammond*v. *Crosby,*68 *Ga.*767 (1); *Wade*v. *Garrett,*109 *Ga.*270 (34 S. E. 572).

3. Even if an amendment to the plaintiff’s petition, praying that the defendant be required to bring his title deeds under which he claimed the land in controversy into court to be surrendered and canceled, ought . ‘ not to have been allowed, its allowance was not error requiring a re- ' versal, where the jury did not find in favor of such cancellation and the . court did not decree that the deeds be canceled.

4. The other assignments of error are without merit; the evidence required a verdict for the plaintiff, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices eonewr.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-cr-204-MEF

)

HENRY ERIK YAPIAS, ) (WO)

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the Motion to Correct Judgment (Doc. # 52) filed

on January 4, 2010. By this motion Defendant Henry Erik Yapias seeks an amended

judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The Court has carefully

considered the submissions in support of and in opposition to the motion as well as the

applicable law. The Court is satisfied that Defendant has been credited all of the time that

he is entitled to receive for his federal sentence.

It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

DONE this the 4 day of February, 2010.

th

/s/ Mark E. Fuller

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-00204-WHA-CSC Document 56 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 1
209.570-2 Policy.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, 10 U.S.C. 4292 prohibits any entity

performing lead system integrator functions in the acquisition of a major system by DoD from having

any direct financial interest in the development or construction of any individual system or element

of any system of systems.

(b) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply if—

(1) The Secretary of Defense certifies to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the

House of Representatives that—

(i) The entity was selected by DoD as a contractor to develop or construct the system or element

concerned through the use of competitive procedures; and

(ii) DoD took appropriate steps to prevent any organizational conflict of interest in the selection

process; or

(2) The entity was selected by a subcontractor to serve as a lower-tier subcontractor, through a

process over which the entity exercised no control.

(c) In accordance with section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008

(Pub. L. 110-181; 10 U.S.C. 4292 note), DoD may award a new contract for lead system integrator

functions in the acquisition of a major system only if—

(1) The major system has not yet proceeded beyond low-rate initial production; or

(2) The Secretary of Defense determines in writing that it would not be practicable to carry out the

acquisition without continuing to use a contractor to perform lead system integrator functions and

that doing so is in the best interest of DoD. The authority to make this determination may not be

delegated below the level of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. Also,

see 209.570-3 (b).

(d) Effective October 1, 2010, DoD is prohibited from awarding a new contract for lead system

integrator functions in the acquisition of a major system to any entity that was not performing lead

system integrator functions in the acquisition of the major system prior to January 28, 2008.

Parent topic: 209.570 Limitations on contractors acting as lead system integrators.
SUBPART 45.1 — GENERAL

Parent topic: PART 45 –– GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

45.000 Scope of part.

(b)(5) Contracting Officers shall insert DITCO Additional Text, H8 Defense Information System

Agency Incidental Property Management, in all service requirement solicitations and contracts when

the place of performance is a DISA owned or leased location.

45.101 Definitions.

Transferred property . Tangible items shipped from one contractor’s location to a different

contractor’s location for a follow-on contract without inspection.

Transitioned property . Direct-issued items such as laptops, cell phones, tablets which are not

transferred. These items are transitioned by being turned over toa COR or property custodian on the

last day of the contact for inspection, and any necessary provisioning/equipment refresh prior to

being provided to a subsequent contractor.

45.102 Policy.

(S-90) Contract Specialists shall complete the Government-Furnished Property (GFP)

Checklist/Quick Reference Guide located in the DARS PGI 245.103 and review the GFP

Questionnaire checklist located in the requirement checklist to develop the solicitation.

45.105 Contractors’ property management system

compliance.

(a) Contracting Officers shall insert DITCO Additional Text H9, Government Furnished Property

Contract Management, in all contracts/orders that include GFP to establish a post award Property

Management Plan and a Contractor Property Manager (CPM) Point of Contact (POC). The Property

Administrator (or the COR in the absence of an appointed Property Administrator) shall review the

contractor’s Property Management Plan IAW DITCO Additional Text H9, and notify the contractor of

any deficiencies within 10 business days of receipt. A final Property Management Plan will be placed

in the official contract file.

45.106 Transferring accountability.
All GFP from losing contracts must be returned by the contractor to the Government in the PIEE

GFP Module prior to or on the last day of the contract. The COR shall verify the appropriate action

has been taken as part of their closeout procedures.

Transitioned property is incorporated as a new GFP item in the gaining contract.
Subpart 924.1 - Protection of Individual

Privacy

Parent topic: PART 924 - PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

924.103 Procedures.

(b)(2) The Department of Energy rules and regulations on Privacy Act are implemented under 10

CFR part 1008.
#### § 1048.4 Unauthorized introduction of weapons or dangerous materials.

Unauthorized carrying, transporting, introducing or causing to be introduced into or upon an SPR facility or real property subject to this part, of a dangerous weapon, explosive or other dangerous material likely to produce substantial injury or damage to persons or property, is prohibited.
§ 1005.3 What programs and activities of the Department are subject to these regulations? ( a ) The Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a list of the Department's program and activities that are subject to the order and these regulations.
( b ) Unless otherwise stated in the Federal Register listing identified in paragraph (a) of this section, these regulations do not apply to the Department's financial assistance transactions with other than governmental entities.
( c ) The Bonneville Power Administration shall satisfy the requirements of these regulations by compliance with the consultation requirements of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, Public Law 96-501.
#### In the Matter of Gerald L. Hamby et al., Appellants, v. Board of Elections of Suffolk County, and Michael W. Davey et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating respondents Davey and Henkel as candidates in the Republican Party Primary Election to be held on June 17, 1969 for the Party position of member of the County Committee for the 112th Election District of the 2d Assembly District, Town of Brook-haven, Suffolk County, and for injunctive relief, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 4, 1969, which denied the petition in the proceeding. Order affirmed, without costs *(Matter of O’Donnell*v. *Ryan,*13 N Y 2d 885). Appellants are granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Questions of law have arisen which ought to be reviewed. Beldoek, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
JOANN MARCHELLE BROOKS

,

Appellant,

v.

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 1 4

- 1431

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 9, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Karen K. Cole , Judge

.

Donald Wheeler Jonz of the Law Offices of Donald Wheeler Jonz, Washington,

D.C.

, for Appellant

.

Andrew J. Knight , II of Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones, Jacksonville

, for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BENTON, and RAY , JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Income Properties Ltd. IV 1997 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000763049
<NAME> ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES LTD. IV
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      249
<ALLOWANCES>                                       123
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          22,949
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,766
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,777
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         15,326
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (13,814)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,777
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,116
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,167
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (519)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (519)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (519)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.87)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 1015.205 Credit reports. ( a ) In order to aid DOE in making appropriate determinations as to the collection and compromise of claims; the collection of interest, penalties, and administrative costs; and the likelihood of collecting the claim, DOE may institute a credit investigation of the debtor at any time following receipt of knowledge of the claim.
( b ) As described in § 1015.201(e), under the DCIA (31 U.S.C. 3711(g)), DOE is required to transfer all debts over 180 days delinquent to Treasury for purposes of debt collection (*i.e.,* cross-servicing). As part of its regular debt collection procedures, Treasury may also institute a credit investigation of the debtor on behalf of DOE.
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

August 18, 2006

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: Barnett v. Regions Bank Main Branch

Case Number: 2:06-cv-00725-MHT

This Notice of Correction was filed in the referenced case this date to add the corrected

signature page to the Complaint.

The corrected signature page attached to this notice for your review. Reference is made to

document # 1 filed on August 11, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00725-MHT-CSC Document 7 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00725-MHT-CSC Document 7-2 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 981.91 Effect of termination or amendment.

Unless otherwise expressly provided by the Secretary, the termination of this subpart or of any regulation issued pursuant to this subpart, or the issuance of any amendment to either thereof, shall not (a) affect or waive any right, duty, obligation, or liability which shall have arisen or which may thereafter arise in connection with any provision of this subpart or any regulation issued under this subpart, or (b) release or extinguish any violation of this subpart or of any regulation issued under this subpart, or (c) affect or impair any rights or remedies of the Secretary or of any other person, with respect to any such violation.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT By and through the signature of their counsel below, who have the authority to enter into and bind their respective parties to this amendment, Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians and Defendant Lisa Jackson, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), agree that the Settlement Agreement pertaining to WildEarth Guardians v. Jackson , No. 09-cv-02148-REB-MJW (D. Colo.), (Document No. 22-2 in the Docket), is amended to extend certain deadlines for EPA action as follows: Item 1 to Exhibit 1, Montana, "Stack Height Rules - 17.8.401-403 Stack Height Rule revisions," shall have a deadline for proposed action of March 28, 2013, and a deadline for final action of August 29, 2013; Item 2 to Exhibit 1, Montana, "Kraft Pulp Mill rule recod. and opacity," shall have a deadline for final action of June 27, 2013; Item 5 to Exhibit 1, Utah, "R307-401 Renumbering of NSR rules," shall have a deadline for proposed action of May 30, 2013, and a deadline for final action of October 31, 2013; Item 7 to Exhibit 1, Utah, “1-hour ozone maintenance plan,” shall have a deadline for final action of October 20, 2011; Item 8 to Exhibit 1, Utah, “Rules reorg. Grouping of smaller materials into a coherent structure,” shall have a deadline for proposed action of July 31, 2013, and a deadline for final action of December 20, 2013; Item 9 to Exhibit 1, Utah ,“R307-202-5 Open Burning,” shall have a deadline for proposed action of December 14, 2011, and a deadline for final action of June 14, 2012; Item 10 to Exhibit 1, Utah, “Ogden PM10 SIP Clean Air Determination,” shall have a deadline for proposed action of July 20, 2012, and a deadline for final action of January 17,2 2013; Item 12 to Exhibit 1, Utah, “Utah Smoke Management Rules,” shall have a deadline for proposed action of October 31, 2011, and a deadline for final action of April 30, 2012. All other terms and deadlines of the Settlement Agreement remain in effect except as previously extended by written agreement of the parties.

IGNACIA S. MORENO Assistant Attorney General Dated: 6/30/2011 s/David A. Carson DAVID A. CARSON United States Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division 1961 Stout Street - 8 th Floor Denver, Colorado 80294 (303) 844-1349 david.a.carson@usdoj.gov
COUNSEL FOR EPA JAMES J. TUTCHTON WildEarth Guardians 1536 Wynkoop St., Suite 301 Denver, Colorado 80202 (720) 301-3843 jtutchton@wildearthguardians.org

Dated: 6/20/2011 s/Robert Ukeiley ROBERT UKEILEY Law Office of Robert Ukeiley 435R Chestnut Street, Suite 1 Berea, Kentucky 40403 (859) 986-5402 rukeiley@igc.org
COUNSEL FOR WILDEARTH GUARDIANS