alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1042.115 Assurance required. ( a ) *General.* Either at the application stage or the award stage, the Department of Energy must ensure that applications for Federal financial assistance or awards of Federal financial assistance contain, be accompanied by, or be covered by a specifically identified assurance from the applicant or recipient, satisfactory to the designated agency official, that each education program or activity operated by the applicant or recipient and to which these Title IX regulations apply will be operated in compliance with these Title IX regulations. An assurance of compliance with these Title IX regulations shall not be satisfactory to the designated agency official if the applicant or recipient to whom such assurance applies fails to commit itself to take whatever remedial action is necessary in accordance with § 1042.110(a) to eliminate existing discrimination on the basis of sex or to eliminate the effects of past discrimination whether occurring prior to or subsequent to the submission to the designated agency official of such assurance.
( b ) *Duration of obligation.* ( 1 ) In the case of Federal financial assistance extended to provide real property or structures thereon, such assurance shall obligate the recipient or, in the case of a subsequent transfer, the transferee, for the period during which the real property or structures are used to provide an education program or activity.
( 2 ) In the case of Federal financial assistance extended to provide personal property, such assurance shall obligate the recipient for the period during which it retains ownership or possession of the property.
( 3 ) In all other cases such assurance shall obligate the recipient for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended.
( c ) *Form.* ( 1 ) The assurances required by paragraph (a) of this section, which may be included as part of a document that addresses other assurances or obligations, shall include that the applicant or recipient will comply with all applicable Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683, 1685-1688).
( 2 ) The designated agency official will specify the extent to which such assurances will be required of the applicant's or recipient's subgrantees, contractors, subcontractors, transferees, or successors in interest.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6426

LARRY LORENZEN, a/k/a Larry Lee Lorenzen,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN PADULAH,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(0:08-cv-00905-TLW)

Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Lorenzen, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Lorenzen seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Lorenzen has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Case 2:06-cv-00725-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00725-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00725-MHT-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 956.94 Personal liability.

No member or alternate of the committee or any employee or agent thereof, shall be held personally responsible, either individually or jointly with others, in any way whatsoever, to any handler or to any person for errors in judgment, mistakes, or other acts, either of commission or omission, as such member, alternate, employee, or agent, except for acts of dishonesty, willful misconduct, or gross negligence.
Subpart 1432.1 - Non-Commercial Item

Purchase Financing

Parent topic: PART 1432 - CONTRACT FINANCING

1432.102 Description of contract financing methods.

Use of progress payments based on a percentage or stage of completion are authorized for

construction contracts. Progress payments for other than construction, alteration, and repair

contracts require the CO to write a determination that:

(a) Payments based on costs would be impracticable; and

(b) Adequate measures exist for determining quality standards and the percentage of work

accomplished.
Subpart 1306.2 - Full and Open Competition

After Exclusion of Sources

Parent topic: PART 1306 - COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

1306.202 Establishing or maintaining alternative sources.

The authority to exclude a source from a contract action in order to establish or maintain an

alternate source is set forth in CAM 1301.70
Exhibit












Exhibit 10(aq)




	
							
	 
	Non-Employee Director Compensation

	 
	Effective March 2017

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Board Member Fees:
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Annual Retainer:
	 
	$
	60,000
	

	 

	 
	Annual Equity Award:
	 
	$
	105,000
	

	(1)(2)

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	$
	165,000
	

	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Lead Director Fee:
	 
	$
	20,000
	

	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Committee Chair Fees:
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Audit
	 
	$
	15,000
	

	 

	 
	Compensation
	 
	$
	15,000
	

	 

	 
	Nominating & Governance
	 
	$
	10,000
	

	 

	 
	Regulatory & Compliance
	 
	$
	15,000
	

	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Meeting Fees:
	 
	$
	1,500
	

	(3)

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	(1)
	Target Value of restricted stock units
	 
	 
	 

	(2)
	New Directors receive an award of a pro-rated number of shares of the most recent annual grant based on the months remaining until the next annual grant

	(3)
	For meetings attended in excess of 24 in a year
14/TI/c D/iTA/C1 CoTofTI/iUA//TZ2S7A77^

Ic/f f/7/DDLffl/sr/f/c7of'J?J/9fl,9/7f9

So vTH1N,.

JN S A -: 2

Ra. Cfl'74 ,9c77oA1IYo, J;o -c V 703

Vs

I

p

a

p

%II?

J'A nF5 a6 9 &'i /1

Co ict,',v/ -,,7t.//-,V A' ,&' 5107

U/hal? Sft,,2 '?-s/'7

f1/77c'N UIVz2M Z 6' 1/5 C 5225 ,'fi' t4q/ Ta1

fti9/3f,9s cc,qus 4Y,9 ff/f5c/v J/VsT,77E Cu37/7Y

6PaiciJ. anl,z2 / -/7 -2o

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 51 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 1 of 3
ei4 Ax piL, Lt,x éAd ci', t _/ 7 c/ayoif 7rnatY

J'c'rve a cqY af'Ae

117e'/ Ge'i e Th/ #0f?, T'Y /i iy Lv, US'. Ma i 'I,, /a5tayt /TC/ai, arn-/,'Yo,eY/Y alliessel

C/1//LIe77,/vN1U.va CV- 7L

c, Non, 7X,

/?1aIima Itcf2tf &1CflCYaI

I / $ 11I1, 'ofl sbreei, 7 I 'I 1/or' r /o1?j'IPX ñ2 31 3

cc I4 Ien /(E4/A"FTN JIVES,

Co '/ctiarnz/ ac, 1, /Y

f',o1i&,XS,1a7

L//?,'i? i 1rr?js 3Oc $7c7

cc di9cf o,'ZAI CJE4'X

1//V/TED s7972 1O/f7X/cT'at7 7,1/

-fñJ J/'/'7i/

A'a 4 2 / ii ço 

, f f /i''- -'9

n/cc /JaT,c/(

Co precé, /" z 'Y

t//2,,j7 se'r"ncs,,92 J'1-s/o7

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 51 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 2 of 3
Jc1'-1c

5/o7 AL 36j.

2O PM 4 T

0

7/L

_*. Ii

I,

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 51 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00676-ID-DRB Document 6 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00676-ID-DRB Document 6 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 2 of 2
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00672- CR

Jam es Roge rs, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 368 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 11- 913- K3 68, H ONO RAB LE LLOY D DOUGLAS S HAVER, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted J ames Rogers o f the offe nses of ag g ravated assault and unlawful possession of a firea

rm by a felon and assessed his punishment at seventy -five y ear s’ imprisonment

on eac h count. See Tex. P enal Code §§ 22.02, 46.04.

Roge rs’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported b y a brief c oncluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brie f mee ts the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by prese nting a p ro fe s sional evalua tion of the

rec ord demonstrating why there are no arguable g rounds to be advanc ed. See also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 7 5 (1 9 8 8 ); High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jack son v. State , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. St a t e , 4 3 6 S

. W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Roge rs and a dvised him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. SeeAnders , 386 U.S. at 744. Roge rs reque sted and rec eived two extensions of time to file h i s p ro se

brief but did not file it.

We have revie wed the rec ord and find no reve rsible err or. See Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We ag ree with counsel that t he appea l is frivolous, and her motion to withdraw is
g rante d. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Affir med Filed: June 26, 2013 Do Not Publish

2
Exhibit 33.3



|     |  |                     
|---- |  | --------------------
|LOGO |  | 1 Mortgage Way      
|     |  | Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

PHH Mortgage Corporation (the Asserting Party) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2015 and for the period from
January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR), except for criteria set forth in
Section 229.1122(d)(3)(i)(c), (d)(4)(xv) and (d)(1)(iii) of the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the servicing activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report (the
Applicable Servicing Criteria). The criteria set forth in Section 229.1122 (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(4)(iv), (d)(4)(vii), (d)(4)(viii) and (d)(4)(xi) of the CFR are performed by outsource providers on behalf of the Asserting Party;
however, the Asserting Party has monitored the outsourcing of these criteria and assumes responsibility for compliance. The transactions covered by this report include all non-agency loan sale agreements executed after January 1, 2006 as well
as all re-securitization transactions after January 1, 2006 for which the Asserting Party served as servicer (the Platform).

The
Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

Deloitte & Touche, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an
attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

PHH Mortgage
Corporation

Date: February 26, 2016



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ Glen A. Messina                   
|Glen A. Messina                       
|President                             
|                                      
|/s/ Martin L. Foster                  
|Martin L. Foster                      
|Senior Vice President  Loan Servicing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES KUCZMASKI, etc., )

et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv731-MHT

) 

US FOODSERVICE, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to amend complaint

(doc. no. 16) is granted. The court assumes that

defendant has no objection to the allowance of the

amendment; however, if it does, it must file the

objection within seven days from the date of this order.

DONE, this the 10th day of October, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 17 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7370
STEPHEN LOUIS MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY T. DIXON; J. B. FRENCH; ROBEY LEE; KEN HARRIS; R. D. BRITTON; BENNIE MACK; CARLTON JOYNER; FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; LYNN PHILLIPS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-93-644-5-CT-BR) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Louis Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Jacob Leonard Safron, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Moore v. Dixon , No. CA-93-644-5-CT-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 1995). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT





This agreement (the “Amendment Agreement”) dated as of May 6, 2009 amends the Management Agreement dated May 7, 2007 and amendment as of April 30, 2008 (collectively the “Management Agreement”), made by and between
CHRISTOPHER ROBIN RELPH (the “Executive”) and BUCKINGHAM EXPLORATION INC. (the “Company”) (collectively, the “Parties”), in respect of the provision of management services and compensation for those services as specified in the Management Agreement.





WHEREAS:





A.  The Company is engaged in the acquisition of mining rights and the exploration of mining properties.





B.  The Company and the Executive entered into the Management Agreement for their mutual benefit.





C.  The Parties wish to decrease the compensation payable by the Company to the Executive for services rendered under the Management Agreement.





THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSESthat the Parties have agreed that the terms and conditions of the relationship as provided in the Management Agreement shall be amended as follows:





1.
Amendment. Section 3.1 of the Management Agreement shall be deleted and replaced with the following:





“The fixed remuneration of the Executive for his services shall be at the rate of US$10,000 per month commencing December 1, 2008, payable at the beginning of each month, or accruing as a debt owing by the Company to the Executive.”





2.
Effective date of Amendment.  This Amendment Agreement shall have effect as of December 1, 2008.





3.
Agreement Affirmed. The Parties affirm the Management Agreement in all other respects.





4.
Counterparts. This Amendment Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.  In the event that the document is signed by one party and faxed to another, the Parties agree
that a faxed signature shall be binding upon the Parties to this Amendment Agreement as though the signature was an original.





5.
Counsel.  The Parties expressly acknowledge that each has been advised to seek separate counsel for advice in this matter and has been given a reasonable opportunity to do so.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the Parties to it, the day, month and year first written.




BUCKINGHAM EXPLORATION INC.






by its authorized signatory




Per
/s/ Christopher Robin Relph
Christopher Robin Relph
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer




Executive:




/s/ Christopher Robin Relph


Christopher Robin Relph
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

FRANK BLAIR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, AMERICOLD 

LOGISTICS, LLC, DAWN 

SANFORD, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 

2:06-cv-651 

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, Aetna Life Insurance Company 

(“Aetna”) identifies Aetna Inc. 

s/James S. Christie, Jr. 

James S. Christie, Jr. (CHR011) 

s/Amelia T. Driscoll 

Amelia T. Driscoll (DRI016) 

One Federal Place 

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

1819 Fifth Avenue North 

Birmingham, AL 35203-2104 

Telephone: (205) 521-8000 

Facsimile: (205) 521-8800 

jchristie@bradleyarant.com

adriscoll@bradleyarant.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Aetna Life Insurance Company 

Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 07/24/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 I hereby certify that on July 24, 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: 

 

Ralph Bohanan, Jr. 

Bohanan & Knight, P.C. 

Suite 318 North 

Birmingham, Alabama 35243 

ralphb@bohananknight.com 

and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service on 

this 24th day of July, 2006 the document to the following non-CM/ECF 

participants: 

 None. 

 

s/Amelia T. Driscoll 

Amelia T. Driscoll (DRI016) 

One Federal Place 

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

1819 Fifth Avenue North 

Birmingham, AL 35203-2104 

Telephone: (205) 521-8000 

Facsimile: (205) 521-8800 

One of the Attorneys for Defendant 

Aetna Life Insurance Company 

1/1473846.1

Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 07/24/2006 Page 2 of 2
# e Memorandu m U.S
. Departmen t o f Transportatio n Offic e o f th e Secretar

y o f Transportatio n Subject : Reques t

for Ext^sio n a

t Kingman , Page , Prescott , an d mho w Low,/?yi 2 From : Denni s J
. DeVany , Chie f ^cf- ^ EA S & Domesti c Analysi s Division , X-5 3 Date : Decembe r 21,201 0 Repl y t o Michae l Martin , Attn , of : X-5 3 Ext
. 6649 4
To : Docket s Operations , M-3 0
Orde r 2010-11-17 , Novembe r

17 , 2010 , requeste dproposal s for Essentia l Ai r

Servic e (EAS ) a t Kingman , Page , Prescott , an dSho w Lo w t o b e submitte db y Decembe r 21
. O n Decembe r

21 , th e Departmen t

receive dareques t

for an extensio n fro mGul f

stream Internationa l Airline s (Gulfstream ) t o exten dth e submissio n deadlin e for proposal s for th e four communitie s t o January 6 , 2011
. After reachin g out

t o th e communitie s for

thei r feedbac k an dreceivin g n o objections , w e are hereb y grantin g th e extensio n basedo n th e reques t fro mGulfstream
. Proposal s for Kingman , Page , Prescott , an dSho w Lo w ar e no w du e n o late r tha n Thursday , Januar y 6 , 2011
.
#### § 990.60 Agents.

As provided under 7 CFR part 2, the Secretary may name any officer or employee of the United States or name any agency or division in the United States Department of Agriculture, to act as their agent or representative in connection with any of the provisions of this part.
#### § 984.83 Rights of the Secretary.

The members and alternates of the Board and any agent or employee appointed or employed by the Board, shall be subject to removal or suspension by the Secretary, at his discretion, at any time. Each and every decision, determination, or other act of the Board shall be subject to the continuing right of the Secretary to disapprove of the same at any time, and upon such disapproval, shall be deemed null and void.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not

precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60748

(Summary Calendar)

SEBASTIAN MELERINE, III,

Petitioner,

versus

ELEVATING BOATS INC; DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review from the Benefits Board,

United States Department of Labor

November 13, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner, Sebastian Melerine, III (“Melerine”) appeals the Benefits Review Board’s order

affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding of disabilit y for the limit

ed period of June1 In the alternative, Melerine argues that the ALJ improperly relied on the opinion of Dr. Richard Warren

Levy, a neurosurgeon, who found the radiographs presented for diagnosis were of such poor quality that a finding of

a herniated disc could not be supported. Thus, Melerine requests that a repeat MRI be authorized to aid in a definitive

diagnosis.

2 16, 1989 through September 29, 1989 against his former employer, Elevating Boats, Inc. Melerine

specifically argues that the ALJ’s finding that his disabilit y ceased on September 29, 1989 is contrary

to the evidence and that he is, in fact, entitled to continuing compensation benefits 1 and attorney’s

fees. We have reviewed the record and the briefs, and conclude that the ALJ’s findings are supported

by substantial evidence. The judgment of the Benefits Review Board is therefore AFFIRMED.