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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

IPF AMERICA, INC. )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO: 06-cv-00616-MHT-SRW

)

EISENMANN CORPORATION )

 AND )

HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING )

 OF ALABAMA, L.L.C., )

)

Defendants. )

OBJECTION TO PETITION TO TRANSFER LIEN

COMES NOW the Petitioner, IPF America, Inc., by and through its counsel of

record, and files this Objection to Petition to Transfer Lien in the above-styled case and

states as reasons therefore:

1. Defendant’s Eisenmann’s Petition to Transfer Lien does not state a claim for

which this Court can grant relief insomuch as Petitioner maintains that this Court does

not have subject matter jurisdiction over these proceedings as raised in our earlier motion

to remand this matter to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama.

2. Petitioner maintains that the proceedings to transfer the lien is not a “civil

action arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, 28 U.S.C. §

1331” nor is it properly before the Court as a diversity of citizenship action subject to 28

U.S.C. § 1332. 

3. Defendant Eisenmann does not state in their Petition to transfer the lien any

grounds for invoking federal jurisdiction in this matter and relies solely on the provisions

Case 2:06-cv-00616-MHT-SRW Document 9 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 3
of section 35-11-233 of the Code of Alabama (1975) as justification for seeking relief

before this Court.

 WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff respectfully requests

that this Honorable Court find that this matter does not properly invoke federal subject

matter jurisdiction and remand all proceedings in this case to the Circuit Court for

Montgomery County, Alabama.

Submitted on this the 16th day of August, 2006.

___/s/ Robert W. Hendrick_______

Robert W. Hendrick (HEN056)

Post Office Box 877

Wetumpka, Alabama 36092

(334) 263-0014

Case 2:06-cv-00616-MHT-SRW Document 9 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served an exact copy of this Objection to Petition to

Transfer Lien to counsel for the Defendants by placing a copy of the same in the United

States Mail, properly addressed and postage prepaid, to the addresses listed below on this

the 16th day of August, 2006.

Alvin Latham (Peck) Fox, Jr.

Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC

201 Monroe Street, Suite 1650

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Thomas Louis Coppedge

Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C.

1901 Sixth Avenue North

2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza

Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2618

Richard Neal, Esq.

700 Hyundai Blvd.

Montgomery, Alabama 36105

____/s/ Robert W. Hendrick______

Robert W. Hendrick (HEN056)

Case 2:06-cv-00616-MHT-SRW Document 9 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 3 of 3
Subpart 308.4 - Federal Supply Schedules

Parent topic: PART 308 - REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

308.405-6 Limited source justification and approval.

(d)

(1) As required by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.405-1 or 8.405-2, the responsible program

office must provide a written justification for an acquisition under the Federal Supply Service

program that restricts the number of schedule contractors or when procuring an item peculiar to

one manufacturer.
Subpart 2936.2 - Special Aspects of

Contracting for Construction

Parent topic: PART 2936 - CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

2936.201 Evaluation of contractor performance.

The HCA must establish procedures to evaluate construction contractor performance and prepare

performance reports as required by FAR 36.201.

2936.209 Construction contracts with architect-engineer

firms.

As required by FAR 36.209, no contract for construction of a project may be awarded to the firm that

designed the project, or to its subsidiaries or affiliates, without the written approval of the Assistant

Secretary for Administration and Management. Any request for approval must include the reason(s)

why award to the design firm is required; an analysis of the facts involving potential or actual

organizational conflicts of interest including benefits and detriments to the Government and the

prospective contractor; and the measures which are to be taken to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate

conflicts of interest.
AFS-10-200-E December 21, 2010 Exemption No. 10185 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0265

Mr. Boyd W. Pierce

Director of Maintenance

West Air Inc.

5005 East Anderson Avenue Fresno, CA 93727

Dear Mr. Pierce:

This letter is to inform you that we have deni ed your petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 10, 2010, you petitioned th e Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of West Air, Inc. (W es t Air), for an exemption from part 43 Appendix A(c)(32) and §§ 43.3(g) and 43.3(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow West Air’s pilots to install navigational databases.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition woul d be detrimental to West Air.

The FAA has issued a denial of exemption in ci rcumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 7460 (c opy enclosed), the FAA found the petitioner failed to show how allo wing its pilots to update the navigational databases in its part 135 aircraft would offer a level of safety equivalent to that provided by § 43.3(g).

In Exemption No. 7460, the FAA referen ced Amendment No. 43-36, Revisions to

Maintenance and Preventive Maintenance Rule ; Final Rule (61 FR 19498, May 1, 1996). In the preamble to this amendment, we rec ognize the regulatory burde n placed on part 135 operators by prohibiting pilots from updating eas ily replaceable databases. Certain aviation2

communication and navigation systems are now designed for easy removal and database update, and the amendment allows pilots condu cting specific operations to perform these tasks. These operators are required to have a maintenance organization in place to support their part 135 operations, and their aircraft are more complex in design and construction.

The FAA continues to believe that requiring preventive mainte nance to be performed by a properly certified person creates a higher level of safety for operations conducted under part 135. We find that developing procedures and training pilots in those procedures to update global positioning system databases is not sufficient to maintain a level of safety equivalent to that provided when a cert ificated mechanic performs this task.

Having reviewed your reasons for re questing an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presen ted by the petitioner in the enclosed denial of exemption;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying th e enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which th e FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of West Air, Inc., for an exemption from part 43 Appendix A(c)(32) and §§ 43.3(g) and 43.3(a) of 14 CFR.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
#### Commercial Trading Company, Inc., Appellant, v. 120 Jane Corp., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Order entered July 6, 1966, (1) granting motion of respondent 120 Jane Corp. for summary judgment in each of three consolidated actions and for an order directing discharge of the *Us pendens*filed in the mortgage foreclosure action and canceling the mortgage, and (2) denying cross motion of appellant Commercial Trading Company, Inc., for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying respondent’s motion, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event. The litigation concerns the validity of a guarantee, and of the mortgage securing it, given by- respondent “ not in furtherance of its corporate purposes ” (see Business Corporation Law, § 908). Respondent is a close corporation, running its affairs with apparently the loosest informality. Its stock is stated to be owned in equal shares by the wives of its three directors. It appears that the instruments in question were executed on behalf of respondent with the approval of the directors and two of the stockholders. Respondent impugns the instruments on the ground that they were neither authorized at a meeting of stockholders as required by section 908 of the Business Corporation Law, nor consented to in writing by the third stockholder, Mrs. Arbitman, pursuant to section 615. We agree with respondent that section 203 does not shield appellant from the eonsequences of noneompliance with section 908 (cf. *Shorell Labs.*v. *H. Allen Lightman, Inc.,*24 A D 2d 856; 1 Model Bus. Corp. Act Ann., § 6, par. 4, p. 204), and that Mrs. Arbitman did not consent in writing is undisputed. The record, however, discloses issues of acquiescence and ratification on the part of Mrs. Arbitman which if determined against her may be sufficient in equity to bar respondent’s challenge (see *Diamond*v. *Diamond,*307 N. Y. 263, 266; *Kent*v. *Quicksilver Min. Co.,*78 N. Y. 159, 187; *Capitol Wine & Spirit Corp.*v. *Pokrass,*277 App. Div. 184 [Van Voorhis, J.]., affd. 302 N. Y. 734). Thus, director Goldman states that he was told by Mr. Arbitman “in behalf of both himself and his wife, that they consented and *534had no objection.” Mrs. Arbitman asserts that neither she nor her husband consented, yet no affidavit by the latter is submitted. Again no denial or explanation is offered of her alleged delay in objecting to the transaction after its consummation. Appellant appears to have been a stranger to the participants in respondent’s enterprise and is entitled to have such evidentiary conflicts trial-tested. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.
WELLSFARGO

**CommercialMortgage Servicing**D1086-120, 12th Floor 550 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 

WellsFargo Bank, N.A. 

**ANNUALSTATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

           Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as ofSeptember 1, 2012, by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgages Inc., asDepositor, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services,a division of PNC Bank,National Association, as Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, asOperating Advisor, Citibank,N.A., as Certificate Administrator and U.S. Bank National Association,as Trustee, with respectto Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2012-GC8 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have themeanings assigned in the Agreement.           Pursuantto Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive VicePresident of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that: 

1.2.

Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"), and of itsperformance perthe Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision,and To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, hasfulfilled all ofits obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe ReportingPeriod. 

           INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as ofthe 13th dayofMarch 2014. 

  /s/ Daniel Bober      DanielBober ExecutiveVice President WellsFargo Bank
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,554,120
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,554,120
<PP&E>                                       7,357,031
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,911,151
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          122,704
<BONDS>                                        510,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,278,447
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,911,151
<SALES>                                      1,543,252
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,553,371
<CGS>                                          205,613
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  205,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               519,401
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,828,357
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,828,357
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,828,357
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    98.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    98.81
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:06-cv-00718-MHT-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00718-MHT-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 2 of 2
2953.103 Acquisition Screening and Review - over $100,000 DL 1-2004.       The requiring organization must complete the following form for all acquisitions above the *simplified acquisition threshold.* This form will then be submitted through the contracting officer to the Office of Small Business Programs for review.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2953.1 - General
Subpart 5647.4 - AIR TRANSPORTATION BY

U.S. FLAG CARRIERS

Parent topic: Part 5647 - TRANSPORTATION

5647.402 Policy

5647.402-9000 Flight Service Contract Distribution and Reporting.

(a) Whenever flight services are procured from an USAF Air Mobility Command (AMC) approved

carrier (FAA 135 carriers), a copy of the contract must be forwarded to: HQ AMC/A3BS, 402 Scott

Drive, Unit 3A1, Scott AFB, IL 62225-5302. The point of contacts are the AMC Transportation

Assistants, at DSN 779-4801. If EDA distribution is utilized, provide an e-mail notice of the contract

posting to the EDA site.

(b) Report the following information on contracts with USAF AMC approved carriers to AMC

Transportation Assistants on a quarterly basis:

(1) Total cost of contract awards;

(2) Total number of passengers;

(3) Provide a list of open contracts for the period, including contract number, contractor’s name,

total award dollars, and the number of passengers carried.

HQ, United States Special Operations Command

Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (SOF AT&L-K)

SOFARS 5647

February 2007
1346.710 Contract clauses.       The warranty clauses and alternates under FAR Subpart 46.710 may be used in solicitations and contracts.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1346.7 - Warranties
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MAY'S DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, )

INC., individually and as class )

representative of all those gasoline )

station owners similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-702-MEF

)

TOTAL CONTAINMENT, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of James

E. Blazek, Richard B. Eason, and Donna M. Borrello (Doc. # 25), it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as moot.

DONE this the 28th day of September, 2006.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 51 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 1 of 1
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3576 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain other footwear valued over $20 

a pair with coated or laminated textile fabrics. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2006 

Mr. CARPER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain other footwear 

valued over $20 a pair with coated or laminated textile 

fabrics. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN OTHER FOOTWEAR VALUED OVER $20 

4 A PAIR WITH COATED OR LAMINATED TEX5 TILE FABRICS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
2 

•S 3576 IS 

‘‘ 9902.64.08 Footwear, other than men’s 

or women’s, except vulcanized footwear and footwear 

with waterproof molded bottoms, including bottoms 

comprising an outer sole and 

all or part of the upper, valued over $20/pair, designed 

to be worn in lieu of, but not 

over, other footwear as a 

protection against water, oil, 

grease or chemicals or cold 

or inclement weather where 

such protection includes protection against water that is 

imparted by the use of a 

coated or laminated textile 

fabric (provided in subheading 6402.99.20) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
419.602-3 Resolving differences between the agency and the Small Business Administration.       The HCA is authorized to appeal the issuance of a COC to SBA Headquarters as provided by FAR 19.602-3(a).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 419.6 - Certificates of Competency and Determinations of Responsibility
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of National Property Investors 8 (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(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 results of operations of the Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: November 13, 2007
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: November 13, 2007



This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
§ 984.48 Marketing estimates and recommendations. ( a ) Each marketing year the Board shall hold a meeting, prior to October 20, for the purpose of recommending to the Secretary a marketing policy for such year. Each year such recommendation shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of at least 60% of the Board and shall include the following: ( 1 ) Its estimate of the orchard-run production in the area of production for the marketing year;
( 2 ) The Board's estimate of the handler inventory on September 1 of inshell and shelled walnuts;
( 3 ) Its estimate of the walnuts in the production;
( 4 ) The Board's estimate of the trade demand for such marketing year for shelled and inshell walnuts, taking into consideration trade inventory, imports, prices, competing nut supplies, and other factors;
( 5 ) The Board's recommendation for desirable handler inventory of inshell and shelled walnuts on August 31 of each marketing year;
( 6 ) Its opinion as to whether grower prices are likely to exceed parity; and
( 7 ) Its recommendation for change, if any, in grade and size regulations.
( b ) [Reserved]
[39 FR 35330, Oct. 1, 1974; 39 FR 35999, Oct. 7, 1974, as amended at 41 FR 31543, July 29, 1976; 73 FR 11339, Mar. 3, 2008; 88 FR 56748, Aug. 21, 2023]
Subpart 937.2 - Advisory and Assistance Services    **Parent topic:** PART 937 - SERVICE CONTRACTING937.204 Guidelines for determining availability of personnel.       (a) The determination, that there is sufficient DOE personnel with the requisite training and capabilities for each evaluation or analysis of proposals, shall be determined in accordance with 915.207-70(f)(2)(i).          (b) If it is determined that there is no such DOE personnel available, then other Federal agencies may have the required personnel with the requisite training and capabilities for the evaluation or the analysis of proposals. The determination, to use employees of other Federal agencies for the evaluation or analysis of proposals, shall be in accordance with 915.207-70(f)(2)(ii).          (d) The determination, to employ non-Federal evaluators or advisors, shall be determined in accordance with 915.207-70(f)(3).          (e) The determination that covered personnel are unavailable for a class of proposals, necessitating employment of non-Federal evaluators or advisors, shall be determined in accordance with 915.207-70(f)(3).