alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1013.28 Motions. ( a ) Any application to the ALJ for an order or ruling shall be by motion. Motions shall state the relief sought, the authority relied upon, and the facts alleged, and shall be filed with the ALJ and served on all other parties.
( b ) Except for motions made during a prehearing conference or at the hearing, all motions shall be in writing. The ALJ may require that oral motions be reduced to writing.
( c ) Within 15 days after a written motion is served, or such other time as may be fixed by the ALJ, any party may file a response to such motion.
( d ) The ALJ may not grant a written motion before the time for filing responses thereto has expired, except upon consent of the parties or following a hearing on the motion, but may overrule or deny such motion without awaiting a response.
( e ) The ALJ shall make a reasonable effort to dispose of all outstanding motions prior to the beginning of the hearing.
616.000 Scope of part.       The contracting officer may use any of the contract types described in FAR part 16 for acquisitions made under simplified acquisition procedures. The contracting officer shall document his/her decision to use a contract type in accordance with the requirements of FAR part 16.    **Parent topic:** PART 616—TYPES OF CONTRACTS
2801.604 Contracting Officer's Representative (COR).       Contracting officers may appoint individuals to act as authorized representatives in the monitoring and administration of a contract. Such officials shall be designated as a Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). When a COR is to be designated, contracting officers shall include the clause at JAR 2852.201-70 in all contracts. A COR's authority is limited to the authority set forth in the subject clause.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2801.6 - Career Development, Contracting Authority, and Responsibilities
634.005-6 Full production.

The Deputy Secretary is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 34.005–6 with power of

redelegation to the Under Secretary for Management.

Parent topic: PART 634—MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

#### § 982.455 Exchange of certified merchantable hazelnuts withheld.

Each handler desiring to exchange hazelnuts pursuant to § 982.55 shall prior thereto file a written notification with the Board setting forth for the respective quantities of hazelnuts involved in the exchange, the inspection certificate numbers, quantities, locations, and applicable lot numbers.

[54 FR 46721, Nov. 7, 1989]
NUMBER 13-18-00607-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

EX PARTE FABIAN GARCIA

On appeal from the 206th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER TO FILE APPELLEE’S BRIEF

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellee’s fifth motion for extension of time to file 

the brief. Appellee’s brief was originally due to be filed on June 10, 2020, and the Court 

previously granted appellee four extensions for the filing of appellee’s brief in this cause.

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellee’s fifth motion for

extension of time to file the brief and the extensions previously granted in this cause, is of 

the opinion exigent circumstances exist, and in the interest of justice, appellee’s fifth
2

motion for extension of time to file the brief should be granted. Accordingly, appellee’s 

fifth motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. The Court looks with 

disfavor upon the delay caused by counsel’s failure to have filed a brief in this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Honorable Luis A. Gonzalez, counsel for

appellee, file the appellate brief with this Court on or before March 25, 2021. No further 

motions to extend will be entertained.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the 

17th day of March, 2021.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v ) CR. NO. 3:06-CR-208-MEF

)

JASON EDWARD COFIELD )

ORDER

In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), a detention hearing was

held on September 13, 2006. At the hearing the defendant stated in open court with his counsel

present that he understood his right to a hearing but did not presently contest the government’s

motion, reserving the right to seek release on conditions at a later time. Based on the foregoing,

the court concludes that there are no conditions or combination of conditions which will

reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant or protect the community and that the

defendant should be detained.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the

extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending

appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the

United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

Done this 13 day of September, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 20 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 1 of 1
§ 13.24 Protective order. ( a ) A party or a prospective witness or deponent may file a motion for a protective order with respect to discovery sought by an opposing party or with respect to the hearing, seeking to limit the availability or disclosure of evidence.
( b ) In issuing a protective order, the ALJ may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: ( 1 ) That the discovery not be had;
( 2 ) That the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
( 3 ) That the discovery may be had only through a method of discovery other than that requested;
( 4 ) That certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of discovery be limited to certain matters;
( 5 ) That discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the ALJ;
( 6 ) That the contents of discovery or evidence by sealed;
( 7 ) That a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the ALJ;
( 8 ) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, commercial information, or facts pertaining to any criminal investigation, proceeding, or other administrative investigation not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; or
( 9 ) That the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the ALJ.
2806.501 Requirement.

(a) The Director, Office of Acquisition Management (OAM), Justice Management Division (JMD), is

designated as the DOJ Competition Advocate.

(b) The HCA or designee for each bureau will appoint an official to be the bureau Competition

Advocate. The bureau Competition Advocate shall be vested with the overall responsibility for

competition activities within his or her bureau. The delegated bureau Competition Advocate must be

at or above the level of the BPC organizationally.

Parent topic: Subpart 2806.5 - Advocates for Competition
Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 70 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 70 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
1'/; -""i( 

### c.' ': f 

# , DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY iI-- '0'



### S'

### !- ! ' / 

## I

# ---gNEOFMON~NA---------

'

### .... ',.-' MARC RACICOT, GOVERNOR

(406) 444-6697 fax (406),444-6836

November 5, 1999 Donald Barry \; 'tr Assistant Secretary Of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (3153-mail stop 3156) U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Main Interior Building 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240-0001 Mr. Barry: 

## , 

## - ( 

# . , r LEE METCALF BUILDING 1520 EAST SIXTH AVENUE

PO BOX 200901 HELENA, MONTANA 59620-0901

This letter, in accordance with Federal Regional Haze Regulations (40 CFR Part 51, specifically § 51.308), formally identifies that Deborah Skibicki, Air Quality Specialist and Area Source State Implementation Plan (SIP) Coordinator with the Montana Department ofEnvironmental Quality, will be the contact person for Federal Land Managers ofMontana's mandatory Class I Federal areas with respect to regional haze issues. These issues may include but are not limited to: identification ofvisibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal areas and identification ofelements for inclusion in the visibility monitoring strategy. Montana's mandatory Class I Federal areas under thejurisdiction ofthe U.S. Department ofInterior are listed in the attachment. The State ofMontana welcomes input from the Federal Land Managers regarding regional haze issues, and looks forward to their comments. Deborah Skibicki, the designated contact, can be reached at (406) 444-7916 (phone), (406) 444-6836 (fax), at the above address, or by email at dskibicki@state.mt.us. Sincerely,

# 7'.w<~ Mark Simonich, Director Department ofEnvironmental Quality Attachment
cc: Chris Shaver, Chief

- Air Resources Division National Park Service Sandra Silva, Chief

- Air Quality Branch U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

IIDEO_MET_I'RIISH RIUNITSHARIRPI'ISkibickilldentiryconlactdoi doc 'AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER'

# l_~ 

# __-------

## Montana's mandatory Class I Federal areas under the jurisdiction ofthe U.S. Department ofInterior
Glacier National Park Medicine Lake Wilderness Area (National Wildlife Refuge) Red Rock Lake Wilderness Area (National Wildlife Refuge) UL Bend Wilderness Area (Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge) Yellowstone National Park 

### f'

\IDEO_MET_.PRIIS HR IUN ITSHARIRPPlSkibickilldentif ycontactdoi .doc 

### Attachment
<PAGE>   1
PART II, ITEM 6, EXHIBIT 11.


                               EGAN SYSTEMS, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Nine Months Ended September 30,

                                                                  1996                 1995
<S>                                                           <C>                   <C>


Net income (loss) applicable to common stock                   $    14,154          $  (97,448)


Outstanding shares - common stock at January 1,                 10,185,000           8,435,000


Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants                        -


Weighted average shares issued during period                         -               1,477,777

Weighted average common shares outstanding -
 primary and fully diluted - September 30,                      10,185,000           9,912,777


Net income per common share -
 primary and fully diluted - September 30,                     $      0.00          $    (0.01)
</TABLE>
# Subpart 1803.1—Safeguards

**Parent topic:**PART 1803—IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

## 1803.104 Procurement integrity.

## 1803.104-1 Definitions.

*Agency ethics official* means for Headquarters, the General Counsel and the Associate General Counsel for General Law, and for each center, the Chief Counsel.
<PAGE>   1
PART LL, ITEM 6, EXHIBIT II.

                               EGAN SYSTEMS, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


Computation of per share earnings:

The following data show the amounts used in computing earnings per share and the
effect on (loss) income and the weighted average number of shares of dilutive
potential common stock.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Nine Months Ended
                                                         ---------------------------------
                                                             1998                 1997
                                                         ------------         ------------
<S>                                                      <C>                  <C>
(Loss) income available to common stockholders
 used in primary EPS                                     $    (93,401)        $     13,284

Interest expense on convertible note payable                      625                3,750
                                                         ------------         ------------

(Loss) income available to common stockholders
 after assumed conversions of dilutive securities        $    (92,776)        $     17,034
                                                         ============         ============

Weighted average number of common shares in
 primary EPS                                             $ 18,541,652         $ 15,559,652

Effect of dilutive securities                               2,866,452            3,867,548
                                                         ------------         ------------

Weighted average number of common shares and
 dilutive potential common stock used in
 fully diluted EPS                                       $ 21,408,104         $ 19,427,200
                                                         ============         ============

Net (loss) income per common share:

 Primary                                                 $      (0.01)        $       0.00
                                                         ============         ============

 Fully diluted                                           $       0.00         $       0.00
                                                         ============         ============
</TABLE>


For 1998, the effect of dilutive securities were not included in computing fully
diluted EPS because their effects are anti-dilutive.


                                       10
#### BARTLETT v. STEWART.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1914.)

Action by Charlotte E. Bartlett against James C. Stewart.

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 2.701 Exceptions.

Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 554(a)(4) of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Commission may provide alternative procedures in adjudications to the extent that there is involved the conduct of military or foreign affairs functions.
Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 3 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 1 of 1
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-13-00082-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF K.E. AND R.E., CHILDREN 

 

On Appeal from the 47th District Court 

Armstrong County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2374, Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding 

 

June 6, 2013 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

S.E., the father, appearing pro se, appeals the final order of the trial court in this 

parental-rights termination case.1 M.E., the mother, also appeals.

By letter of May 10, 2013, we notified the father of two matters pertaining to his 

appeal requiring immediate attention. First, the filing fee was unpaid. Second, the 

father’s notice of appeal was untimely although filed within the fifteen-day extension 

period authorized by appellate rule 26.3. Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. We granted the father 

ten days, on peril of dismissal, to pay the filing fee or file an affidavit of indigence and to 

 

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b) (use of initials or other alias to protect identity of 

minor in parental-rights termination cases).
2

file a written explanation reasonably explaining the need for additional time to file his 

notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 26.3, 42.3(a) and (c); Kidd v. Paxton, 1 S.W.3d 

309 (Tex.App.—Amarillo, 1999, pet. denied).

The father did not pay the filing fee or file an affidavit of indigence nor did he file 

a writing explaining the need for additional time to file his notice of appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal of S.E. is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 42.3(a) and 

(c). The appeal of the mother remains pending.

 

Per Curiam
§ 205.382 Issuing an emergency order. ( a ) The Secretary will use the procedures outlined in this section in issuing emergency orders, unless the Secretary determines that alternative procedures are more appropriate for the unique circumstances presented by the emergency. In all instances, the Secretary has final authority on the procedures to be used in issuing an emergency order.
( b ) Upon the Department's receipt of the President's written directive or determination identifying a grid security emergency, the Emergency & Incident Management Council (EIMC) will convene at least one emergency meeting. Resulting from this meeting, the EIMC's responsibilities will include, but not be limited to: ( 1 ) Assigning consultation and situational awareness tasks;
( 2 ) Creating ad hoc task groups;
( 3 ) Assigning recommendation development tasks to the ad hoc task groups it has created; and
( 4 ) Presenting its recommendations to the Secretary as expeditiously as possible and practicable.
( c ) Following receipt of the EIMC's recommendations, unless the Secretary has determined alternative procedures are appropriate, the Secretary will issue an emergency order as quickly as the Secretary determines that the situation requires.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

*

v. * CASE NO. 2:06cr198-WKW-(WO)

*

RONALD MCQUEEN, *

*

Defendant. *

Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

of December 6, 2006

Comes now the defendant and files these objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation and states as follows:

1. Defendant considers his previously filed pleadings, supplements and

responses in conjunction with the facts to be dispositive and adopts the same by

reference as if fully set forth herein.

2. Defendant urges this Court to review the facts, arguments and citations of

authority and reach the conclusion that would grant the relief defendant is seeking.

Specific Objections

3. Page 8 - McQueen objects to the Magistrate’s conclusion that the

marijuana seized at 8833 Ashland Drive was obtained under circumstances meeting

the recognized exception to the warrant requirement of “plain view”. The Court

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 38 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

notes in footnote 3, page 9 that the “court is unable to discern that the marijuana

was stored in place where documents, such as telephone bills and lease agreements

could not be stored.”

4. Page 10-11 - McQueen objects to the Magistrate’s conclusion that the

affidavit in support of the 8833 search sufficiently establishes the reliability of the

informant.

5. Page 11 - McQueen objects to the Magistrate’s conclusion that the

affidavit used to obtain the warrant for the 8833 search contained sufficient

informant to establish a substantial basis for allowing a state court judge to find

probable cause.

6. Page 12 - McQueen objects to the Magistrate’s finding that Officer

Drummond’s knowledge that McQueen had outstanding warrants was sufficient

probable cause to stop the vehicle. Drummond used this as a pretext to make a drug

stop.

7. Page 13 - McQueen objects to the Magistrate’s finding that Mr. Mitchell

had the authority to consent to the search at 2200 Windsor Avenue and that the

search was valid under the Fourth Amendment.

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 38 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

Respectfully submitted,

s/Susan G. James

SUSAN G. JAMES

Attorney at Law

600 South McDonough Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 269-3330

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail: sgjamesandassoc@aol.com

Bar No: JAM012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 19, 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: 

Tommie Hardwick

United States Attorney

P.O. Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama, 36101

Respectfully submitted,

s/Susan G. James

SUSAN G. JAMES

Attorney at Law

600 South McDonough Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 269-3330

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail: sgjamesandassoc@aol.com

Bar No: JAM012

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 38 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DAVID POSCHMANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEW WORLD LANDING OF 

PENSACOLA, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:20cv5992-TKW-HTC

_________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Based on Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal (Doc. 7), it is ORDERED

that this case is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and the Clerk 

shall close the file.

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05992-TKW-HTC Document 8 Filed 03/23/21 Page 1 of 1
§ 1704.5 Procedures for closing meetings, or withholding information, and requests by affected persons to close a meeting. ( a ) A majority of all Members may vote to close a meeting or withhold information pertaining to that meeting. A separate vote shall be taken with respect to any action under § 1704.4. A majority of the Board may act by taking a single vote with respect to a series of meetings, a portion or portions of which are proposed to be closed to the public, or with respect to any information concerning such series of meetings, so long as each meeting in such series involves the same particular subject matters and is scheduled to be held no more than thirty days after the initial meeting in such series. Each Member's vote under this paragraph shall be recorded and proxies are not permitted.
( b ) Any person whose interest may be directly affected if a portion of a meeting is open may request the Board to close that portion on any of the grounds referred to in § 1704.4 (e), (f), or (g). Requests, with reasons in support thereof, should be submitted to the General Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC 20004. On motion of any Member, the Board shall determine by recorded vote whether to grant the request.
( c ) Within one working day of any vote taken pursuant to this section, the Board shall make available a written copy of such vote reflecting the vote of each Member on the question, and if a portion of a meeting is to be closed to the public a full written explanation of its action closing the meeting and a list of all persons expected to attend and their affiliation.
( d ) For every closed meeting, the General Counsel of the Board shall publicly certify that, in his or her opinion, the meeting may be closed to the public and shall state each relevant exemption provision. If the General Counsel invokes the exemption for classified or sensitive unclassified information under § 1704.4(a), he shall rely upon the classification or designation assigned to the document containing such information by the Department of Energy or other originating agency. A copy of such certification, together with a statement setting forth the time and place of the meeting and the persons present, shall be retained by the Board as part of the transcript, recording, or minutes required by § 1704.8.