alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27

The schedule contains summarized financial information extracted from the
Questar Pipeline Company Consolidated Income Statement and Balance Sheet
for the period ended June 30, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such unaudited financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,662
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,451
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,032
<PP&E>                                         715,523
<DEPRECIATION>                                 236,247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 528,240
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,908
<BONDS>                                        245,011
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,551
<OTHER-SE>                                     194,210
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   528,240
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,265
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,813
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,091
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,609
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,409
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,200
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES KUCZMASKI, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-731

)

v. )

)

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

__________________________________________)

JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AGREEMENTS UNDER SEAL

Plaintiffs James Kuczmaski, Adam Pike, Ryan Phillips, Josh Stone, Suhane

Lowery, Kevin Bell, Kevin Moorer, Hamp Crum, III, and Fredrick S. Kuczmaski

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant U.S. Foodservice, Inc. (“Defendant”), by and

through undersigned counsel, file this Joint Motion for Leave to File Agreements under

Seal. The Parties have previously advised the Court that they have reached agreement to

settle this matter, which involves claims brought by Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor

Standards Act (the “FLSA”). On July 10, 2007, the Court entered an Order dismissing

the lawsuit in its entirety, with prejudice. [Doc. 38-1.] Agreements settling claims under

the FLSA require approval by the Court. See, e.g., Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United

States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982). The Parties are separately filing a Joint

Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement. The Parties, however, wish to keep the

terms of their agreements settling this matter strictly confidential. Through this Motion,

the Parties seek to file their agreements for the disposition of this matter under seal for

the Court’s approval.

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 40 Filed 09/04/2007 Page 1 of 3
Accordingly, the Parties respectfully move the Court for an Order allowing them

to file their settlement agreements under seal, for the Court’s subsequent review and

approval.

Respectfully submitted, this 4

th

day of September 2007.

s/ Gregory O. Wiggins

Gregory O. Wiggins

WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN

& PANTAZIS, LLC

The Kress Building

301 19th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Phone: (205) 314-0543

Tucker F. Burge

BURGE & BURGE

850 Park Place Tower

2001 Park Place North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Counsel for Plaintiffs

s/ Tammy L. Baker

Tammy L. Baker, ASB-9522-B62T

BakerT@jacksonlewis.com

JACKSON LEWIS LLP

2001 Park Place North

Suite 650

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Phone: (205) 332-3106

Fax: (205) 332-3131

Counsel for Defendant

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 40 Filed 09/04/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on September 4, 2007, the undersigned electronically filed

the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system that will send

notification of such filing to the following:

Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq.

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC

The Kress Building

301 19th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Tucker F. Burge, Esq.

Burge & Burge

850 Park Place Tower

2001 Park Place North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

s/ Tammy L. Baker

Tammy L. Baker

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 40 Filed 09/04/2007 Page 3 of 3
1034.004 Acquisition strategy.

(a) A program manager's acquisition strategy written at the system or investment level in

accordance with FAR 7.103(e) shall include at a minimum:

(1) The relationship of each individual acquisition (Contract, Delivery Order, Task Order, or

Interagency Agreement) to the overall investment requirements and management structure;

(2) What work is being performed in-house (by government personnel) versus contracted out for the

investment;

(3) A description of the effort, by acquisition, and the plans to include required clauses in the

acquisitions;

(4) A timetable of major acquisition award and administration activities, including plans for contract

transitions;

(5) An investment/system surveillance plan;

(6) Financial and human resource requirements to manage the acquisition processes through the

investment lifecycle;

(7) Consideration of optimal contract types, including considerations of performance based

approaches, small business utilization, Section 508, etc.; and

(8) Assurances that the acquisition strategy section and supporting acquisition plans will maximize

competition, including enabling downstream competition through avoidance of vendor “lock in”.

(b) The acquisition strategy shall be approved by a chartered interdisciplinary acquisition team that

includes a representative of the procurement organization designated in accordance with bureau

procedures.

Parent topic: Subpart 1034.0 - General
Subpart 2831.1 - Applicability    **Parent topic:** PART 2831 - CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES2831.101 Objectives.       (a) The SPE is the official authorized to grant individual deviations from the cost principles of FAR part 31.          (b) Requests for class deviations from the cost principles set forth in FAR part 31 will be forwarded through the SPE prior to submission to the CAAC.2831.109 Advance agreements.       (a) DOJ and bureau contracting officers are encouraged to negotiate advance agreements concerning the treatment of special or unusual costs to avoid possible subsequent disputes or disallowance of costs based upon unreasonableness or nonallowability. All such agreements shall be negotiated in accordance with FAR 31.109, prior to the contractor incurring such costs.          (b) All determinations required by this subpart shall be reviewed and approved at a level above the contracting officer prior to negotiation of the proposed agreement. The approved determination shall be placed in the contract file.          (c) Advance agreements will be signed by both the contractor and the contracting officer, and made a part of the contract file. Copies of executed advance agreements will be distributed to the cognizant audit office, when applicable.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

J.B., a minor child, by and through

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on

behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated;

Plaintiff,

Vs.

WALTER WOOD, in his individual

capacity,

Defendant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

CASE NO.: 2:06cv00755-MHT

CLASS ACTION

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE

HIS BRIEF ON CLASS ACTION STATUS

Plaintiff J.B. seeks an Order from the Court requesting an extension to file

his brief on Class Action status.

As grounds for his motion, he would show the following:

1. Plaintiff’s counsel had a family emergency occur on March 1, 2007.

Therefore, they need a one (1) day extension to file their brief on March 5, 2007.

_/s/Robert D. Drummond, Jr._____________

ROBERT D. DRUMMOND, JR. (DRU004)

Attorney for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

323 De La Mare Avenue

Fairhope, Alabama 36532

(251) 990-6249

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 19 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 1 of 2
_/s/Michael J. Crow_______________

MICHAEL J. CROW (CRO039)

Attorney for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.

P.O. Box 4160

Montgomery, AL 36103-4160

(334) 269-2343 - Telephone

(334) 954-7555 – Facsimile

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 2

nd

day of March, 2007, 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:

T. Dudley Perry, Jr.

Counsel, DYS

1000 Industrial School Road

Mt. Meigs, Alabama 36057

__/s/Michael J. Crow______________

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 19 Filed 03/02/2007 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                             772
<SECURITIES>                                    107451
<RECEIVABLES>                                   256000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    266667
<INVENTORY>                                       5325
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                138296
<PP&E>                                            7576
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  254077
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            90754
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         83
<COMMON>                                         31766
<OTHER-SE>                                     7326576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    254077
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 25488
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19238)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (20038)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (20038)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)
        

</TABLE>
#### Ellahi Malik MEHR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-1042.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 15, 2007.

Decided: Aug. 27, 2007.

Robert M. Price, Law Office of Robert M. Price, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Angela N. Liang, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department Of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ellahi Malik Mehr, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s order of removal. We deny the petition for review.

Mehr first asserts that the immigration judge erred in denying a fourth continuance to allow him to await approval *212of a labor certification, and that the Board erred in affirming that ruling. An immigration judge “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2007). We review the denial of a motion for continuance for abuse of discretion. *Onyeme v. INS,*146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir.1998). In *Lendo v. Gonzales,*493 F.3d 439 (4th Cir.2007), we concluded that the immigration judge’s refusal to grant even one continuance to await the possible grant of a labor certification was not an abuse of discretion. Here, the immigration judge granted Mehr three continuances to allow processing of the labor certification. Having informed Mehr that the third continuance would be the last, the immigration judge refused to allow further delay. This denial does not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Mehr also asserts that his prosecution by the Department of Homeland Security resulted from his registration pursuant to the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (“NSEERS”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1303, 1305 (2000), and that a decision to prosecute based on alienage, ethnicity, or religion violates his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. We conclude that this claim entitles Mehr to no relief. *See Kandamar v. Gonzales,*464 F.3d 65, 73-74 (1st Cir. 2006); *Zafar v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*461 F.3d 1357, 1367 (11th Cir.2006); *Ahmed v. Gonzales,*447 F.3d 433, 439-40 (5th Cir.2006); *Ali v. Gonzales,*440 F.3d 678, 681 n. 4 (5th Cir.2006); *see also*8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(g) (West 2005) (providing courts have no jurisdiction to review Government’s decision to “commence proceedings, adjudicate eases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter”).

Accordingly, we deny Mehr’s petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
42.1503 Procedures.    (a)(1) Contracting officers are responsible for coordination with the technical office, quality assurance, DCMA counterparts, and other end users of the product or service, as necessary, to complete their assessment and input past performance information into CPARS. The DLA Acquisition Procurement Process and Systems Division will track compliance on a monthly basis and report to the DLA Acquisition Director.       (h)(3) The DLA Acquisition Procurement Process and Systems Division is the CPARS focal point. Each procuring organization shall designate a FAPIIS point of contact (POC) to input information provided by the contracting officer into FAPIIS. FAPIIS POCs shall notify the contracting officer when the record has been submitted. The contracting officer shall document the contract file to show that the action was reported to FAPIIS. The procuring organization FAPIIS POC shall report contract terminations to the DLA Acquisition Procurement Process and System Division FAPIIS POC via email to FAPIISInbox@dla.mil and include the contract number, date and type of termination, any change, and when data was reported to FAPIIS. **Parent topic:** SUBPART 42.15 – CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
**Exhibit 32**CERTIFICATIONI, Leo S. Ullman, Chief Executive Officer of Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. (the “Company”),pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify as follows:1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30,2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and2. The information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certification this 9th day of August, 2007.   /s/ LEO S. ULLMAN    Leo S. Ullman, Chief Executive Officer  
 

 
CERTIFICATIONI, Lawrence E. Kreider, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. (the“Company”), pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify asfollows:1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30,2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and2. The information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certification this 9th day of August, 2007.   /s/ LAWRENCE E. KREIDER, JR.    Lawrence E. Kreider, Jr., Chief Financial Officer
COURTROOM DEPUTY’S MINUTES MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/INITIAL APPEARANCE DATE: August 1, 2006

 BOND HEARING

 DETENTION HEARING Digital Recording 3:46 - 3:50

 PRELIMINARY (EXAMINATION)(HEARING)

 REMOVAL HEARING (R.40)

 ARRAIGNMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESIDING MAG. JUDGE: Susan Russ Walker DEPUTY CLERK: Joyce Taylor

CASE NO. 2:06mj72-DRB DEFENDANT NAME: Joshua Wayne Hester

AUSA: David Cooke DEFT. ATTY: Stephen Glassroth

Type Counsel: (/ )Retained; ( ) CJA; ( ) Waived; () FPD

USPO/USPTS: Tamara Martin

Interpreter needed: ( / ) NO; ( )YES Name:

____________________________________________________________________________

/ Date of Arrest August 1, 2006 or  Arrest Rule 40

/ Deft First Appearance. Advised of rights/charges.  Prob/Sup Rel Violator

 Financial Affidavit executed. ORAL MOTION for appointment of Counsel.

 ORAL ORDER appointing Federal Public Defender - Notice of Appearance to be filed

 Panel Attorney Appointed;  to be appointed - prepare voucher

 Deft. Advises he will retain counsel. Has retained _____________________

/  Government’s ORAL Motion for Detention Hrg.  to be followed by written

motion; / Government’s WRITTEN Motion for Detention Hrg. filed

/ Detention Hearing/Preliminary Examination set for August 2, 2006 at 3:00 p.m.

 ORDER OF TEMPORARY DETENTION PENDING HEARING to be entered

 ORDER OF DETENTION HEARING PENDING TRIAL to be entered

 Release order entered. Deft advised of conditions of release

  BOND EXECUTED (M/D AL charges) $. Deft released

 BOND EXECUTED (R. 40) - deft to report to originating district as ordered

 Bond not executed. Defendant to remain in Marshal’s custody

 Deft. ORDERED REMOVED to originating district

 Waiver of  preliminary hearing;  Waiver Rule 40 hearing

 Court finds PROBABLE CAUSE. Defendant bound over to the Grand Jury

 ARRAIGNMENT HELD. Plea of NOT GUILTY entered. Set for

DISCOVERY DISCLOSURE DATE: 

 WAIVER of Speedy Trial CRIMINAL TERM: 

/ NOTICE to retained Criminal Defense Attorney handed to counsel

Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 4 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.708 Admissions. ( a ) Apart from any admissions made during or as a result of a prehearing conference, at any time after its answer has been filed, a party may file a written request for the admission of the genuineness and authenticity of any relevant document described in or attached to the request, or for the admission of the truth of any specified relevant matter of fact. A copy of the document for which an admission of genuineness and authenticity is requested must be delivered with the request unless a copy has already been furnished.
( b ) ( 1 ) Each requested admission is considered made unless, within a time designated by the presiding officer or the Commission, and not less than ten (10) days after service of the request or such further time as may be allowed on motion, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party either: ( i ) A sworn statement denying specifically the relevant matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why it can neither truthfully admit nor deny them; or
( ii ) Written objections on the ground that some or all of the matters involved are privileged or irrelevant or that the request is otherwise improper in whole or in part.
( 2 ) Answers on matters to which such objections are made may be deferred until the objections are determined. If written objections are made to only a part of a request, the remainder of the request must be answered within the time designated.
( c ) Admissions obtained under the procedure in this section may be used in evidence to the same extent and subject to the same objections as other admissions.
[69 FR 2256, Jan. 14, 2004, as amended at 88 FR 57877, Aug. 24, 2023]
#### Moutz F. Soudani, Respondent, v New York Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 7, 1979, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the first cause of action, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the judgment entered thereon July 10, 1979, in the sum of $500,000 with interest, modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to vacate the judgment for the plaintiff and to deny plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, without costs and without prejudice to renewal after completion of pretrial discovery proceedings. Prior to the time she became his wife, an insurance policy in the sum of $500,000 was obtained on the life of the late wife of the plaintiff, together with whom he was in the restaurant business. Shortly thereafter, she was a victim of a homicidal beating by a person or persons yet unknown. The insurance company raises various grounds for denying recovery on the policy. However, we believe that there should be completion of all of the pretrial discovery proceedings before there is a final determination in this matter. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Sandler, Bloom and Yesawich, JJ.
§ 97.23 Voluntary withdrawal and abandonment of an application. ( a ) An application may be voluntarily withdrawn or abandoned by submitting to the Office a written request for withdrawal or abandonment, signed by the applicant or his or her attorney or agent of record, if any, or the assignee of record, if any.
( b ) An application which has been voluntarily abandoned may be revived within 3 months of such abandonment by the payment of the prescribed fee and a showing that the abandonment occurred without fraudulent intent.
( c ) An original application which has been voluntarily withdrawn shall be returned to the applicant and may be reconsidered only by refiling and payment of new filing and examination fees.
[58 FR 42435, Aug. 9, 1993, as amended at 60 FR 17189, Apr. 4, 1995; 85 FR 431, Jan. 6, 2020]
1413.306 Standard Form 44, Purchase order-invoice-voucher.       HCAs are responsible for establishing bureau procedures to control the use of the SF 44 and accounting for all purchases made using the form. Bureau procedures shall include instructions covering:          (a) Maintenance of a list of designated individuals authorized to make purchases using the form;          (b) Controls for issuing the form to authorized individuals; and          (c) Review of purchase transactions using the form to assure compliance with authorized procedures.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1413.3 - Simplified Acquisition Methods