alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Leonora Thuna, Respondent-Appellant, v Filip M. Di Sanza, Appellant-Respondent.

— Resettled order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 15, 1980, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Markewich, Silverman and Bloom, JJ. [102 Mise 2d 342.]
§ 1049.6 Exercise of arrest authority—Use of non-deadly force. ( a ) When a Protective Force Officer is authorized to make an arrest as provided in the Act, the Protective Force Officer may use only that degree of non-deadly force that is reasonable and necessary to apprehend and arrest the suspect in order to prevent escape or to defend the Protective Force Officer or other persons from what the Officer reasonably believes to be the use or threat of imminent use of non-deadly force by the suspect. Verbal abuse by the suspect, in itself, is not a basis for the use of non-deadly force by a Protective Force Officer under any circumstances.
( b ) Protective Force Officers should consult the local DOE Office of Chief Counsel and contractor legal counsel for additional guidance on the use of non-deadly force in the exercise of arrest authority, as appropriate.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.1021 First prehearing conference. ( a ) In any proceeding involving an application for a construction authorization for a HLW repository at a geologic repository operations area under parts 60 or 63 of this chapter, or an application for a license to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area pursuant to parts 60 or 63 of this chapter, the Commission or the presiding officer will direct the parties, interested governmental participants and any petitioners for intervention, or their counsel, to appear at a specified time and place, within seventy days after the notice of hearing is published, or such other time as the Commission or the presiding officer may deem appropriate, for a conference to: ( 1 ) Permit identification of the key issues in the proceeding;
( 2 ) Take any steps necessary for further identification of the issues;
( 3 ) Consider all intervention petitions to allow the Presiding Officer to make such preliminary or final determination as to the parties and interested governmental participants, as may be appropriate;
( 4 ) Establish a schedule for further actions in the proceeding; and
( 5 ) Establish a discovery schedule for the proceeding taking into account the objective of meeting the three year time schedule specified in section 114(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 10134(d).
( b ) The Presiding Officer may order any further formal and informal conferences among the parties and interested governmental participants including teleconferences, to the extent that it considers that such a conference would expedite the proceeding.
( c ) A prehearing conference held pursuant to this section shall be stenographically reported.
( d ) The Presiding Officer shall enter an order which recites the action taken at the conference, the schedule for further actions in the proceeding, and any agreements by the parties, and which identifies the key issues in the proceeding, makes a preliminary or final determination as to the parties and interested governmental participants in the proceeding, and provides for the submission of status reports on discovery.
[54 FR 14944, Apr. 14, 1989, as amended at 56 FR 7797, Feb. 26, 1991; 66 FR 55788, Nov. 2, 2001; 69 FR 2266, Jan. 14, 2004]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on November 1, 2010, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Connected Media Experience, Inc. (“CMX”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the . Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Samsung Electronics Co., LTD, Gyeonggi-Do, Republic of Korea; and Xertive, Tel Aviv, Israel, have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CMX intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On March 12, 2010, CMX filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 16, 2010 (75 FR 20003).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 17, 2010. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 12, 2010 (75 FR 62569).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2010-31602 Filed 12-16-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
3009.570-4 Solicitation provision and

contract clause.

(a) Use the provision at (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.209–74, Limitations on Contractors Acting as Lead

System Integrators, in solicitations for the acquisition of a major system when the acquisition

strategy envisions the use of a lead system integrator.

(b) Use the clause at (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.209–75, Prohibited Financial Interests for Lead System

Integrators—

(1) In solicitations that include the provision at (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.209–74; and

(2) In contracts when the contractor will fill the role of a lead system integrator for the acquisition of

a major system.

Parent topic: Subpart 3009.5—Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

#### § 989.61 Above parity situations.

The provisions of this part relating to minimum grade, quality, and condition standards and inspection requirements, within the meaning of section 2(3) of the Act, and any other provisions pertaining to the administration and enforcement of the Order, shall continue in effect irrespective of whether the estimated season average price to producers for raisins is in excess of the parity level specified in section 2(1) of the Act.

[83 FR 53971, Oct. 26, 2018]
Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 14 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 14-2 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 1 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 2 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 3 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 4 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 5 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 6 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 7 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 8 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 9 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 10 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 11 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 12 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 13 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 14 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 15 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 16 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 17 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 18 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 19 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 20 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 21 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 22 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 23 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 24 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 25 of 26
Case 5:21-cv-00025-RV-HTC Document 13-3 Filed 07/27/21 Page 26 of 26
§ 764.456 Applying to be a vendor. ( a ) A vendor for borrower training services must apply to the Agency for approval.
( b ) The vendor application must include: ( 1 ) A sample of the course materials and a description of the vendor's training methods;
( 2 ) Specific training objectives for each section of the course;
( 3 ) A detailed course agenda specifying the topics to be covered, the time devoted to each topic, and the number of sessions to be attended;
( 4 ) A list of instructors and their qualifications;
( 5 ) The criteria by which additional instructors will be selected;
( 6 ) The proposed locations where training will take place;
( 7 ) The cost per participant, including cost for additional members of a farming operation;
( 8 ) The minimum and maximum class size;
( 9 ) The vendor's experience in developing and administering training to farmers;
( 10 ) The monitoring and quality control methods the vendor will use;
( 11 ) The policy on allowing Agency employees to attend the course for monitoring purposes;
( 12 ) A plan of how the needs of applicants with physical, mental, or learning disabilities will be met; and
( 13 ) A plan of how the needs of applicants who do not speak English as their primary language will be met.
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 110 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 110 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 110 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 110 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 110 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 110 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 6 of 6
SUBCHAPTER D—SOCIOECONOMIC

PROGRAMS

PART 3419—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS

PART 3422—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS

PART 3424—PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

PART 3425—FOREIGN ACQUISITION

PART 3419—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS

Subpart 3419.2—Policies

3419.201 General policy.

3419.201-70 Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU).

Subpart 3419.5—Small Business Total Set-Asides, Partial Set-Asides, and Reserves

3419.502 Setting aside acquisitions.

3419.502-8 Rejecting Small Business Administration recommendations.

3419.502-70 Methods of conducting set-asides.

Subpart 3419.8—Contracting With the Small Business Administration (the 8(a) Program)

3419.810 SBA appeals.

3419.812 Contract administration.

PART 3422—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS

Subpart 3422.10—Service Contract Labor Standards

3422.1002 Statutory and Executive order requirements.

3422.1002-1 General.

PART 3424—PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Subpart 3424.1—Protection of Individual Privacy

3424.103 Procedures.

3424.170 Protection of human subjects.

Subpart 3424.2—Freedom of Information Act

3424.201 Authority.

3424.203 Policy.

Subpart 3424.7—The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

3424.701 Authority.

3424.702 Policy.

3424.703 Procedures.

3424.704 Contract clause.

PART 3425—FOREIGN ACQUISITION

Subpart 3425.1—Buy American—Supplies

3425.103 Exceptions.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

v. ) CR NO. 2:06-cr-202-WKW

)

EUGENE CLECKLER and )

KIM CLECKLER, )

)

O R D E R

On December 22, 2006, the Government filed a Motion in Limine (Doc. # 57). 

It is hereby

ORDERED that on or before, January 5, 2007, defendants shall show cause why the

Motion in Limine should not be granted. 

DONE this 4th day of January, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 72 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Robert J. Almstead, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 31, 1968, which determined that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits on the ground that he refused employment without good cause. Claimant, a resident of the State of California, whose last employment in the State of New York was as a mail clerk, filed a claim for benefits effective August 21, 1967. Claimant also had previous experience as a stock clerk. On September 12, 1967 the employment office in California referred him to a job *861as a stock clerk at $80 for a 40 hour week. After an interview, claimant was hired by the prospective employer to commence work on September 13, 1967, but instead he did not report for work. Claimant’s excuses for not accepting the job are without merit. The record discloses, however, that claimant signed a statement on September 19, 1967 in the California employment office, wherein he stated: “I called the employer and told him I decided not to report to the job because I did not like that kind of work.” Claimant, on September 27,1967, appealed the Industrial Commissioner’s determination that he was ineligible to receive benefits and requested a hearing, giving as his reasons: *“*I didn’t feel that there would be any chance of advancement in the work. Also it isn’t in my line of work as I last worked in a mail room.” A refusal by a claimant without good cause to accept an offer for employment for which he is reasonably fitted by training and experience, disqualifies the claimant for benefits. (Labor Law, § 593.) “ The existence of *‘*good cause ’ is factual and the determination of the board on this question if supported by substantial evidence is final.” *(Matter of Walls [Catherwood],*26 A D 2d 883.) Substantial evidence supports the board’s determination. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court; Aulisi, J., not voting.
### %-HE ,+ITORNEY GENERAL TEXAS

July 11, 1957

Hon. Les Procter Opinion No. 

### kfW-183. Distrf ct Attorney Austin, Texas Re: Whether a member of the State Highway Patrol would be eligible for the,position of parole officer under the Adult Probation and Parole Law of 

### 1957,Senate Bill 

### 154,Acts 

### 55thLeg., 

### 1957,Ch. 

### 226,p* 

### 466, assuming ,that such officer resigned his position as a State Highway Patrolman prior to appofntment as a Dear Sir: parole officer LI

You have presented for our determfnatfon the question of whether amember of the Texas Highway Patrol, in view of Section 31 of S.B. 

### 154,Acts 55th Leg., 

### 1957,Ch. 

### 226,p. 466, would be eligible for appointment as aparole officer under such a statute, assuming he resigned his posf.tfon as ahighway patrolman prior to his appofntment as such parole offfcer.

Section 

### 31reads as fol.lows: “Noperson ,who is serving as a sherfff, deputy sheriff, constable 9deputy constable, city policeman, Texas Ranger, state highway patrolman, or similar law enforcement officer, or as a prosecutfng attorney, assIstant prcsenutfng attorney .or investfgator for a prosecutfn,g attorney, shall act as a parole officer or be responsfble for the supervfsion of persons on paroleO1’ It is to be noted that throughout Section 31 the present tense is ysed, and the section can be read, “Noperson who is Lpresently/ servfu as a D-.OState hfghway patrolman D

. . shall act Lpresently/ as a parol,e officer or be responsfble for the supervision of persons on parole.” It is our interpretation of this section, and we belfeve ft to-be.the intent of the Legislature, that the named officers should not act At the same m as a parole officer under this law, and that the situation which Section 31 prohfbfts is the supervfsion of persons on parole by persons then serving as law enforcement officers. Accordingly, if the highway patrol officer or sheriff, or constable, or any of the other named officers in Section 31were toHon. Les Procter, page 2 

### ('dW-183)

resign his position prior officer, we see no reason as such. to ~accepting appointment as aparole why he should not be able to serve Accordingly, It is our opinion that an officer presently serving as amember of the Texas Highway Patrol would be eligible for appointment as aparole officer under the provisions of 5.B. 

### 154,Acts 55th Leg., 

### 1957,Ch. 

### 226,p. 

### 466,in the event he resigned his position with the Texas Highway Patrol prior to his appointment as aparole officer.. SUMMARY Sect ion Ch. 

### 226,p. d1of S.B. 

### 154,4cts 55th Leg., 1957,

4

### 6,would not prohibit then appointment of amember of the Texas Highway Patrol as aparole officer under such statute, provided such highway patrolman resigned his position with the Highway Patrol prior to his appointment as aparole officer. Very truly yours, WILLWILSON

JM:wb APPROVED: CPINION‘COMMITTEE H. Grady Chandler, Chairman Marietta McGregor Payne Wayland C. Rivers, Jr. Roger I. Daily REVIEWEDFORTHEATTORNEYGENERAL Gee; P. Blackburn _- BY:
2937.602 Elements of performance-based contracting.       (a) Performance-based contracting is defined in FAR 37.101 and discussed in FAR 37.6. Although FAR part 37 primarily addresses services contracts, PBC is not limited to these contracts. PBC is the preferred way of contracting for services. (*See* exceptions listed in FAR 37.102.) Generally, when contract performance risk under a PBC specification can be shifted to the contractor to allow for the operation of objective incentives, a contract type with objectively measurable incentives (e.g., Firm-Fixed-Price, Fixed-Price-Incentive-Fee, or Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee) is appropriate. However, when contractor performance (e.g., cost control, schedule, or quality/technical) is best evaluated subjectively using qualitative measures, a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee contract may be used.          (b) A labor hour level-of-effort contract is not considered a PBC.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2937.6 - Preference for Performance-Based Contracting (PBC)
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 51 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 1 of 1
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM EDWARD MOREHEAD, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0884 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Nos. CR1992-090932 and CR1992-091437

The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

William Edward Morehead, Kingman

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Acting Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann, Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Chief 

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the court.

FILED 11-30-2017
STATE v. MOREHEAD

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM: 

¶1 Petitioner William Edward Morehead seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is Morehead’s 

first petition on the forgery case, and his sixth petition on the sexual offense 

case.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden 

to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find the petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. 

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
§ 925.54 Special purpose shipments. ( a ) Regulations in effect pursuant to § 925.41, § 925.52, or § 925.55 may be modified, suspended, or terminated to facilitate handling of grapes for purposes which may be recommended by the committee and approved by the Secretary.
( b ) The committee shall, with the approval of the Secretary, prescribe such rules, regulations, and safeguards as it may deem necessary to prevent grapes handled under the provisions of this section from entering the channels of trade for other than the specific purposes authorized by this section.