alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# SUBCHAPTER D—SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS    

- PART 1622—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS 
- PART 1624—PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 

- PART 1622—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS       - Subpart 1622.1—Basic Labor Policies     - 1622.103-70   Contract clause.
- PART 1624—PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION       - Subpart 1624.1—Protection of Individual Privacy     - 1624.104   Contract clause.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Hospodar, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered September 5, 1979, upon resentence, affirmed. No opinion. This case is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

1

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

___________

No. 95-2479

___________

Melvin Anderson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

R.H. Rison, Warden, USMCFP, *

Springfield, MO; S.D. Paciorek; * [UNPUBLISHED]

G. Klingingner, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: July 16, 1996

 Filed: July 26, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Anderson, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district

court's order denying Anderson leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and

dismissing without prejudice his complaint alleging violations of his civil

rights in this Bivens action. We reverse and remand for further

1

proceedings.

Anderson alleged that federal prison officials and physicians

unlawfully detained him in the United States Medical Center for Federal

Prisoners at Springfield (USMCFP), placed him in a seclusion stripped cell

for four days which was lighted twenty-four hours a day and had a video

camera, and placed him in a four-point restraint, seized blood, and forcefed him without his consent for
-2-

the purpose of punishing him and murdering him. As part of an initial

review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the magistrate judge ordered defendants

to show cause why leave to proceed IFP should be denied.

In response, defendants submitted affidavits from a USMCFP staff

attorney and physician attesting to the circumstances under which Anderson

was transferred, placed in a seclusion cell, force-fed, and restrained for

the purpose of administering medical tests. The district court concluded

Anderson's claims were frivolous, denied him leave to proceed IFP, and

dismissed the complaint without prejudice. 

We conclude that the district court acted improperly when it ordered

defendants to show cause why IFP status should be denied, and then

considered (and credited) documentary evidence and affidavits submitted in

response, to determine whether Anderson's claims were frivolous. A

decision to grant leave to proceed IFP is to be decided initially on the

basis of the complaint; if the complaint is frivolous, it should be

dismissed out of hand. Gentile v. Missouri Dep't of Corrections & Human

Resources, 986 F.2d 214, 217 (8th Cir. 1993). If the complaint is not

frivolous or malicious, IFP status should be granted, and process issued

and served. Id. The complaint did not contain "claim[s] based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory" or present "claims whose factual

contentions [were] clearly baseless." Neitzke v Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

327 (8th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, we conclude the district court abused its discretion in

denying Anderson leave to proceed IFP, and dismissing without prejudice

Anderson's complaint. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)

(standard of review). In light of our disposition of this appeal,

Anderson's motion for production of documents is moot. 
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Subpart 645.1—General    **Parent topic:** PART 645—GOVERNMENT PROPERTY645.107 Contract clauses.645.107-70 DOSAR contract clause and solicitation provision.       (a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 652.245–70, Status of Property Management System, in solicitations when any of the following conditions apply:          (1) Highway motor vehicles or aircraft, regardless of cost, are provided by the Government or acquired by the contractor for the account of the Government;          (2) Software exceeding $500,000 in value, including labor costs to develop, is provided by the Government or acquired by the contractor for the account of the Government; or          (3) Personal property greater than $25,000 (and not in paragraph (a)(1) of this subsection) is provided by the Government or acquired by the contractor for the account of the Government. The personal property must be complete within itself; does not lose its identity or become a component part of other property when put into use; and is of a durable nature with an estimated useful life expectancy to exceed two years.          (b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 652.245–71, Special Reports of Government Property, in all solicitations and contracts that contain the provision at 652.245–70.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

PROGRESSIVE AM. INS. CO., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv717-ID

v. )

 )

CAROL THORN, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

The parties are hereby reminded of the obligation, imposed by Rule 26(f) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to confer and to develop a proposed discovery plan. 

The Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable,

but no later than June 6, 2007.

The longstanding practice in this district is that dispositive motions shall be filed

no later than 90 days prior to the pretrial date. If the parties seek to vary from that

schedule, they should present, in the plan, specific case related reasons for the requested

variance. 

This case will be set for trial before the undersigned judge during one of that

judge's regularly scheduled civil trial terms. The pretrial date is normally set within 4 to

6 weeks of a scheduled trial term. The dates of each judge's civil trial terms are available

on the court's website, www.almd.uscourts.gov.

The court may or may not hold a scheduling conference before issuing a

Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 44 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

scheduling order. If the court holds a scheduling conference, counsel may participate in

the scheduling conference by conference call.

The scheduling order entered by the court will follow the form of the Uniform

Scheduling Order adopted by the Judges of this court. The Uniform Scheduling Order is

also available on the court's website. 

The report of the parties should comply with Form 35 of the Appendix of Forms to

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Done this 23 day of May, 2007. rd

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 44 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 5:03-cr-00053-MCR Document 81 Filed 05/09/05 Page 1 of 7
Case 5:03-cr-00053-MCR Document 81 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 7
Case 5:03-cr-00053-MCR Document 81 Filed 05/09/05 Page 3 of 7
Case 5:03-cr-00053-MCR Document 81 Filed 05/09/05 Page 4 of 7
Case 5:03-cr-00053-MCR Document 81 Filed 05/09/05 Page 5 of 7
Case 5:03-cr-00053-MCR Document 81 Filed 05/09/05 Page 6 of 7
Case 5:03-cr-00053-MCR Document 81 Filed 05/09/05 Page 7 of 7
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 :

___________________________________

PLAINTIFF OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., P.C.’S INDEX TO EXHIBITS IN

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SKILSTAF, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

EXHIBIT A PEER REVIEW LITERATURE ON

RADIOFREQUENCY SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

EXHIBIT B CSC CLAIM COMPANY DENIAL OF WORKERS’

COMPENSATION BENEFIT FORMS

EXHIBIT C TEX.LAB.CODE § 408.023

EXHIBIT D 1/17/05 REVIEW DENIAL OF BENEFITS

LETTER (W/O ENCLOSURES)

EXHIBIT E 5/20/05 REVIEW DENIAL OF BENEFITS

LETTER (W/O ENCLOSURES)

AFFIDAVIT OF KIM ROGAL-DEOLIVEIRA

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 44 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 2
REC6159______________________________

Robert E. Cole, Esquire

Attorney for Plaintiff

Atty. I.D. No. 73263

437 Chestnut Street, Suite 218

Philadelphia, PA 19106

(215) 922-2050

recoleesq6@juno.com

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 44 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 2 of 2
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

September 21, 2006

NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

Re: Clifford Alston v. Christopher Askew, et al.

Civil Action No. #3:06-cv-00722-DRB

The above-styled case has been reassigned to Judge W. Harold Albritton, III.

Please note that the case number is now #3:06-cv-00722-WHA. This new case number should

be used on all future correspondence and pleadings in this action.

 

Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 4 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 1015.100 Scope.

This subpart describes the scope of the standards set forth in this part. This subpart corresponds to 31 CFR part 900 in the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) Federal Claims Collection Standards.
252.245-7003 Contractor Property Management System Administration.       As prescribed in 245.107 (3), insert the following clause:          CONTRACTOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION (APR 2012)          (a) *Definitions.* As used in this clause—          “Acceptable property management system” means a property system that complies with the system criteria in paragraph (c) of this clause.          “Property management system” means the Contractor’s system or systems for managing and controlling Government property.          “Significant deficiency” means a shortcoming in the system that materially affects the ability of officials of the Department of Defense to rely upon information produced by the system that is needed for management purposes.          (b) *General.* The Contractor shall establish and maintain an acceptable property management system. Failure to maintain an acceptable property management system, as defined in this clause, may result in disapproval of the system by the Contracting Officer and/or withholding of payments.          (c) *System criteria.* The Contractor’s property management system shall be in accordance with paragraph (f) of the contract clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.245-1.          (d) *Significant deficiencies.* (1) The Contracting Officer will provide an initial determination to the Contractor, in writing, of any significant deficiencies. The initial determination will describe the deficiency in sufficient detail to allow the Contractor to understand the deficiency.          (2) The Contractor shall respond within 30 days to a written initial determination from the Contracting Officer that identifies significant deficiencies in the Contractor's property management system. If the Contractor disagrees with the initial determination, the Contractor shall state, in writing, its rationale for disagreeing.          (3) The Contracting Officer will evaluate the Contractor's response and notify the Contractor, in writing, of the Contracting Officer’s final determination concerning—          (i) Remaining significant deficiencies;          (ii) The adequacy of any proposed or completed corrective action; and          (iii) System disapproval, if the Contracting Officer determines that one or more significant deficiencies remain.          (e) If the Contractor receives the Contracting Officer’s final determination of significant deficiencies, the Contractor shall, within 45 days of receipt of the final determination, either correct the significant deficiencies or submit an acceptable corrective action plan showing milestones and actions to eliminate the significant deficiencies.          (f) Withholding payments. If the Contracting Officer makes a final determination to disapprove the Contractor’s property management system, and the contract includes the clause at                 252.242-7005             , Contractor Business Systems, the Contracting Officer will withhold payments in accordance with that clause.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 252.245 RESERVED
#### Wiley, administrator, *v.*Wooten *et al.*

Hill, J.

A testatrix devised certain realty to her son for and during his natural life, and at his death to go to his wife, if she survived him. for.and during her natural life; and at the death of the survivor, either himself or wife, having no children or issue of children, “the said property at the period last aforementioned to be equally divided among my other children, according to the scheme mentioned in the second and third1 items of my said will.” The second item of the will provided that certain lands be sold as soon after the death of testatrix as practicable1, and the entire proceeds of the land, and the proceeds of the notes, accounts, and other personal property of the testatrix be equally divided, share and share alike, between certain named children of testatrix. The third item of the will provided that “the above bequest to my children respectively shall be' paid to their respective children in the event either one of my children shall die before I do; that is to say, each family of my grandchildren shall receive the legacy to which their parent would have been entitled had he or she been in life at the time of my death.” Mrs. A., a daughter of testatrix and one of the devisees under item two of the will, died before the testatrix and before the life-tenant or his wife. Mrs. A. had two children -who survived her. One of these, Florence, died after the testatrix and after the wife of the life-tenant, but before his death. Florence died testate, making several specific bequests, and gave the residue of her estate to her two named nieces, the children of her deceased brother, who are parties to this ease. The life-tenants under the will died without children. The property devised to them was then sold under authority, and the proceeds held by the administrator de bonis non cum testamento annexo, undisposed of. The administrator filed his petition asking direction of the court as to whether the two nieces of Florence were entitled to participate in the distribution of the funds in his hands arising as above stated. To the judgment of the court that they were so entitled exception was taken. *Held:*

*(a)*Under the will the granddaughter of the testatrix, Florence, took a remainder interest in the property devised to the life-tenants named, *17contingent upon the event of their. death without children, or issue of children.’

May 14, 1913.

Petition for direction. Before Judge J. B. Park. Putnam superior court. March term, 1912.'

*Hall & Hall,*for plaintiff.

*W. B. Wingfield,*for defendants.

(Z>) This interest was devisable; and the life-tenants having died without leaving children, or issue of children, the nieces of Florence, as her devisees, are entitled to participate in the distribution of her remainder interest.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
2007-1881.

#### Tuohy v. Taylor.

Defiance App. No. 4-06-23, 2007-Ohio-3597. This cause is pending before the court on the certification of a conflict from the Court of Appeals for Defiance County. Upon consideration of appellants’ application for dismissal,

It is ordered by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

V. ) CASE NO: 1:06-cr-185-DRB

)

BOBBY R. HARDRICK, II )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW the undersigned counsel, Donnie W. Bethel, and enters his appearance on

behalf of Defendant, Bobby R. Hardrick, II, in the above-styled case.

Dated this 29 day of September, 2006. th

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Donnie W. Bethel

DONNIE W. BETHEL

Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail:don_bethel@fd.org

IN Bar Code: 14773-49

Case 1:06-cr-00185-CSC Document 9 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

V. ) CASE NO: 1:06-cr-185-DRB

)

BOBBY R. HARDRICK, II )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 29, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

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

following: 

Kent B. Brunson

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Nathan T. Golden

Department of the Army

Office of Staff Judge Advocate

Military Justice

Building 5700, Novosel Street

Ft. Rucker, Alabama 36362

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Donnie W. Bethel

DONNIE W. BETHEL

Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail:don_bethel@fd.org

IN Bar Code: 14773-49

Case 1:06-cr-00185-CSC Document 9 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 EASTERN DIVISION

CLIFFORD ALSTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-cv-722-WKW

)

CHRISTOPHER ASKEW, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The parties have notified the court this case has settled. All remaining dates and

deadlines, including the pretrial and trial date are CANCELLED. The parties are ORDERED to

file a joint stipulation of dismissal on or before October 30, 2007.

DONE this 17th day of October, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 38 Filed 10/17/2007 Page 1 of 1
227 So.2d 595

#### Guillaume DANOS, Sr., Administrator of the Succession of Bazelike Mire, Wife of/and Urbin Danos, also known as Urbain Danosse v. WATERFORD OIL COMPANY et al.

No. 50136.

Nov. 12, 1969.

In re: Guillaume Danos, Sr., Administrator, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Lafourche. 225 So.2d 708.

*857Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ES-05-10943.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ES-05-10943.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
1542.1203 Processing agreements.       (a) The responsible contracting office shall:          (1) Obtain from the Contractor a list of all affected contracts, the names and addresses of the contracting offices responsible for these contracts, and the required documentary evidence.          (2) Verify the accuracy of the list of contracts through the Contract Information System.          (3) Draft and execute a supplemental agreement to one of the contracts affected but covering all applicable outstanding and incomplete contracts affected by the transfer of assets or change of name. A supplemental agreement number need not be obtained for contracts other than for the one under which the supplemental agreement is written. The supplemental agreement will contain a list of the contracts affected and, for distribution purposes, the names and addresses of the contracting offices having contracts subject to the supplemental agreement.          (b) Agreements and supporting documents covering successors in interest shall be reviewed for legal sufficiency by legal counsel.          (c) After execution of the supplemental agreement, the designated office shall forward an authenticated copy of the supplemental agreement to the Director, Policy, Training and Oversight Division, and to each affected contract office.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1542.12 - Novation and Change of Name Agreements
§ 97.130 Recording of assignments. ( a ) Any assignment of an application for a certificate, or of a certificate of plant variety protection, or of any interest in a variety, or any license or grant and conveyance of any right to use of the variety, may be submitted for recording in the Office in accordance with section 101 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2531).
( b ) No instrument shall be recorded which is not in the English language or which does not identify the certificate or application to which it relates.
( c ) An instrument relating to title of a certificate shall identify the certificate by number and date, the name of the owner, and the name of the variety as stated in the certificate. An instrument relating to title of an application shall identify an application by number and date of filing, the name of the owner, and the name of the variety as stated in the application.
( d ) If an assignment is executed concurrently or subsequent to the filing of an application, but before its number and filing date are ascertained, the assignment shall identify the application by the date of the application, the name of the owner, and the name of the variety.
[58 FR 42435, Aug. 9, 1993, as amended at 60 FR 17190, Apr. 4, 1995]