alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subpart 1527.4 - Rights in Data and Copyrights    **Parent topic:** PART 1527 - PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS1527.404 Basic rights in data clause.       The Contracting Officer shall insert in the *Limited Rights Notice* when using Alternate II of FAR 52.227-14 the following purposes for disclosure of limited data outside the Government.          (a) Use (except for manufacture) by support service contractors;          (b) Evaluation by nongovernment evaluators;          (c) Use (except for manufacture) by other contractors participating in the Government's program of which the specific contract is a part, for information and use in connection with the work performed under each contract;          (d) Emergency repairs or overhaul work;          (e) Release to a foreign government, or instrumentality thereof, as the interests of the United States Government may require, for information or evaluation, or for emergency repair or overhaul work by such government.1527.409 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.       The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause in 1552.227-76 in all Superfund solicitations and contracts in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold and, as appropriate, in simplified acquisitions for Superfund work. The clause may be used in other contracts if considered necessary by the Contracting Officer. Contracts for other than Superfund work shall include Alternate I in this clause in lieu of paragraph (d).
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., )

P.C. d/b/a THE PAIN CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv728-MHT

) 

SKILSTAF, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., )

P.C. d/b/a THE PAIN CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv711-MHT

) 

SKILSTAF, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the parties show cause, if any

there be, in writing by October 13, 2006, as to why both

of the above-styled cases should not be consolidated.

DONE, this the 20th day of September, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 23 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 1 of 1
613.307-70 File folders for purchase orders, delivery orders, blanket purchase agreements, and purchase card transactions.       Contracting officers shall use Forms DS–1918, Purchase Order File; DS–1919, Delivery Order File; DS–1920, Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) File; and DS–3014, Purchase Card Transaction File (Actions Exceeding $3,000 Through $25,000), to record relevant data and document those acquisitions, respectively.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 613.3—Simplified Acquisition Methods
NOTICE OF CORRECTION

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: McNair v. Allen et al 

Case Number: 2:06-cv-00695-WKW 

Referenced Pleading: Notice of Appearance - Cohen - Doc. 139

This Notice of Correction was filed in the referenced case this date to correct the PDF

documents attached to this notice. Please see the correct PDF documents to this notice.

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 142 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIE MCNAIR, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 2:06-cv-695-WKW 

 ) 

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. ) 

___________________________________ 

 ) 

JAMES CALLAHAN, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2:06-cv-919-WKW 

 ) 

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. ) 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record: 

 Enter the undersigned’s appearance as counsel in this case for Plaintiff James Callahan. 

The undersigned is admitted pro hac vice in this action, previously representing only Plaintiff 

McNair. 

Date: November 8, 2007 /s/ Stephanie Cohen

STEPHANIE COHEN 

Bar Number (SDNY): SM7006 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

White & Case LLP 

1155 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036 

Telephone: (212) 819-8200 

Facsimile: (212) 354-8113 

stephcohen@whitecase.com

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 142-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on November 8, 2007, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with 

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

the following: J. Clayton Crenshaw, James W. Davis, Corey Maze and Jasper Roberts. 

/s/ Peter B. Patterson, Jr. 

Peter B. Patterson, Jr. 

White & Case LLP 

1155 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036 

Telephone: (212) 819-8200 

Facsimile: (212) 354-8113 

 ppatterson@whitecase.com

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 142-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### Gihon, LLC, Respondent, v 501 Second Street, LLC, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 178]

In an action, inter alia, for á judgment declaring the parties’ rights and obligations under a commercial lease, the defendant appeals from a money judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, j), dated June 29, 2004, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $16,200.

Ordered that the money judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Despite the defendant’s contentions, neither Lien Law § 39 nor the lease prohibited the plaintiff from entering the money judgment as a lien against the subject premises. The money judgment dated June 29, 2004 was properly entered through the signature of the court clerk *(see*CPLR 5016), and once that judgment was properly entered, “by operation of law, [it] created a lien on the defendant’s real property in. [Kings] county,” including the subject premises *(Bank of N.Y. v Magri, 226*AD2d 412 [1996]; *see*CPLR 5018 [a]; 5203; *Matter of Leonard v Brescia Lbr. Corp.,*174 AD2d 621, 622 [1991]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

April 12, 2007

NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE

To: ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case Style: Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Prather 

Case Number: 3:06-cv-00733-MHT

Referenced Pleading: Request for admissions and Notice of service

Docket Entry Numbers: 20 & 21

The referenced pleading was electronically filed on ** April 12, 2007 ** in this case and is not

in compliance with the local rules and/or administrative procedures of this court. 

******This pleading is discovery and is not allowed pursuant to Local Rule 5.1 NON-FILING

OF CIVIL DISCOVERY.

The pleading is hereby STRICKEN from the record and the parties are instructed to disregard

the entry of this pleading on the court’s docket. Parties should be aware that the striking of

this entry does not affect their responsibilities as to the discovery process.

Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 22 Filed 04/12/2007 Page 1 of 1
# Subpart 2413.1 - General [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**PART 2413 - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Citizens Financial Corp.**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Robert J. Schoonover, President and Chief Executive Officer of Citizens Financial Corp., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Citizens Financial Corp; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results in operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 12, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6464

STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SIDNEY HARKLEROAD, Superintendent; THEODIS

BECK, Secretary of Corrections,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-03-41-1)

Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 5, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Williams that failure

to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Williams failed to object to

the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Williams has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny Williams’ leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
§ 795.4 Family members. Effective for the 1987 through 1990 crops, an individual shall not be denied a determination that such individual was a “person” solely on the basis that: ( a ) A family member cosigns for, or makes a loan to, such individual and leases, loans or gives equipment, land or labor to such an individual; and
( b ) Such family members were organized as separate units prior to December 31, 1985.
[52 FR 26295, July 14, 1987]
#### § 966.131 Investigations.

The committee may authorize investigations of applications by its employees, and such other persons as may be necessary to procure adequate information to pass upon the merits of such applications.

[22 FR 9132, Nov. 16, 1957. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961]
Exhibit 10.14


 





FIRST AMENDMENT


TO


SHOPPING CENTER PURCHASE AND SALE
AGREEMENT


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT
TO SHOPPING CENTER PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made as of December 8, 2017 by and between RAMCO-GERSHENSON
PROPERTIES, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“Seller”), and THE PHILLIPS EDISON GROUP LLC, an Ohio limited
liability company (“Purchaser”).


 


WITNESSETH:


 


A.       Seller,
as Seller, and Purchaser, as Purchaser, are parties to a certain Shopping Center Purchase and Sale Agreement dated November 21,
2017 (“Agreement”) with respect to the shopping center commonly known as Rolling Meadows Shopping Center located
in Rolling Meadows, Illinois as more particularly described in the Agreement.


 


B.       Seller
and Purchaser desire to amend the Agreement as more particularly set forth below.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration
of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein and in said Purchase Agreement, Seller and Buyer agree as follows:


 


1.       Capitalized
terms used herein but not defined shall have the meanings when used herein set forth for the same in the Agreement.


 


2.       Section
2.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the phrase “Seventeen Million Five Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars
($17,500,000.00)” and by substituting the phrase “Seventeen Million Three Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars
($17,350,000.00)” in lieu thereof.


 


3.       Upon
the full execution and delivery hereof, this Amendment shall constitute timely delivery of a Satisfaction Notice by Purchaser to
Seller as permitted under Section 3.5 of the Agreement.


 


4.       As
amended hereby, the Agreement is hereby restated and republished in its entirety and the same shall be deemed to be in full force
and effect. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterpart originals, each of which, when taken together, shall be
deemed to be one and the same instrument. Executed copies of this Amendment may be delivered between the parties via e-mail.


 






     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties have executed this Amendment.


 


	 	SELLER:
	 	 	 	 
	 	RAMCO-GERSHENSON PROPERTIES, L.P.,
	 	a Delaware limited partnership
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	Ramco-Gershenson Properties Trust,
	 	 	a Maryland real estate investment trust, its
	 	 	General Partner
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	/s/ Catherine Clark	 
	 	 	Name:	Catherine Clark	 
	 	 	Its:	Executive Vice President – Transactions	 


 


 


 


 




     


     


    

 





	 	PURCHASER:
	 	 	 	 
	 	THE PHILLIPS EDISON GROUP LLC,
	 	an Ohio limited liability company
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	/s/ Tanya E. Brady	 
	 	 	 	Tanya E. Brady, Vice President
IN THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * CR. NO. 1:06-cr-170 WHA

 *

ROY DALE WALLACE *

Defendants. *

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLEA

COMES, James R. Cooper, Jr. who on behalf of his client Roy Wallace, does give notice

that Mr. Wallace intends to change his plea from Guilty to Not Guilty.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

 s/ James R. Cooper, Jr.

James R. Cooper, Jr. (COO021)

COOPER & COOPER

312 Scott Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

(334) 262-4887

(334) 262-4880 (Facsimile)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 22n day of February, 2007 , I have served a copy of the

foregoing Notice to Change Plea Upon Ms. Morris, AUSA , at the last known address of: P.O.

Box 197, Montgomery, Al By placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail properly

addressed and postage prepaid and electronically.

s/James R. Cooper, Jr.

JAMES R. COOPER, JR.

Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 355 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
cc:

Roy Dale Wallace

Montgomery City Jail

P.O. Box 159

Montgomery, Al 36104

Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 355 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
# Subpart 1524.1 - Protection of Individual Privacy

**Parent topic:**PART 1524 - PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

## 1524.104 Solicitation provisions.

The Contracting Officer shall insert the provision at 1552.224-70, Social Security Numbers of Consultants and Certain Sole Proprietors and Privacy Act Statement, in all solicitations.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 17 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 17

 Recognizing the thousands of Freemasons in every State in the Nation 
and honoring them for their many contributions to the Nation throughout 
                              its history.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

  Mr. Gillmor (for himself and Mr. Kingston) submitted the following 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the thousands of Freemasons in every State in the Nation 
and honoring them for their many contributions to the Nation throughout 
                              its history.

Whereas Freemasons, whose long lineage extends back to before the Nation's 
        founding, have set an example of high moral standards and charity for 
        all people;
Whereas the Founding Fathers of this great Nation and signers of the 
        Constitution, most of whom were Freemasons, provided a well-rounded 
        basis for developing themselves and others into valuable citizens of the 
        United States;
Whereas members of the Masonic Fraternity, both individually and as an 
        organization, continue to make invaluable charitable contributions of 
        service to the United States;
Whereas the Masonic Fraternity continues to provide for the charitable relief 
        and education of the citizens of the United States;
Whereas the Masonic Fraternity is deserving of formal recognition of their long 
        history of care-giving for the citizenry and their example of high moral 
        standards; and
Whereas Freemasons have always revered and celebrated St. John's Day, June 24th, 
        as dedicated to their patron saints: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives recognizes the 
thousands of Freemasons in every State in the Nation and honors them 
for their many contributions to the Nation throughout its history.
                                 <all>
```
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00447-CV

EB INTERNATIONAL, LLC, AND HIDALGO LOGISITICS, LLC, D/B/A HIDALGO COLD 

STORAGE, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

v.

JENROB INVESTMENTS, LP, A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

On Appeal from the

332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-1857-12-B-1

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 6, 2014
#### § 996.4 Handle.

*Handle* means to engage in the receiving or acquiring, cleaning and shelling, cleaning inshell, or crushing of domestic or imported peanuts and in the shipment (except as a common or contract carrier of peanuts owned by another) or sale of cleaned-inshell or shelled peanuts or other activity causing peanuts to enter into human consumption channels of commerce: *Provided,* That this term does not include sales or deliveries of peanuts by a producer to a handler or to an intermediary person engaged in delivering peanuts to handler(s): *And provided further,* That this term does not include sales or deliveries of peanuts by such intermediary person(s) to a handler.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

STEVE ADAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:06cv707-ID

vs. )

)

MERCHANTS FOODSERVICE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

On October 19, 2007, the court held a mediation conference in this case. At the

conclusion of the conference the parties announced to the court that they had reached an

amicable settlement of all issues. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that on or before November 9, 2007, the parties shall file a joint

stipulation for dismissal.

Done this 19th day of October, 2007.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 29 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### Lenora Schreiber, Respondent, v. Harry D. Schreiber, Appellant.

In an action to recover arrears in alimony pursuant to the terms of a separation agreement which was incorporated into a decree of divorce, defendant appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 1, 1969 and July 9, 1969, which respectively (1) denied his motion to strike the action from the calendar with conditional leave to conduct an examination before trial and (2) granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate defendant’s notice of examination of plaintiff. Order dated July 1,1969, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Order dated July 9, 1969, reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion denied. The examination of plaintiff as specified in defendant’s notice of examination dated June 9, 1969 shall proceed at the place set forth in the notice at such time as shall be fixed in a new written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by defendant, or at such other time and place as may be mutually agreed upon. In our opinion, defendant has shown that the information which he seeks by way of examination before trial is both material and necessary in his defense of this action. Since this cannot be considered a matrimonial action (CPLR 105, subd. [m]), it was not incumbent upon defendant to show special circumstances (cf. *Frank*v. *Frank,*267 App. Div. 505). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

RAMON MENDEZ,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND

JOHN E. WETZEL, ET AL.,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 72 EM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of December , 2020, the “Application for Leave to File

Reargument Nunc Pro Tunc” is DENIED.
§ 1040.82 Application. ( a ) These regulations apply to each program or activity which receives Federal financial assistance provided by DOE.
( b ) These regulations do not apply to— ( 1 ) An age distinction contained in that part of a Federal, State, or local statute or ordinance adopted by an elected, general purpose legislative body which: ( i ) Provides any benefits or assistance to persons based on age; or
( ii ) Establishes criteria for participation in age-related terms; or
( iii ) Describes intended beneficiaries or target groups in age-related terms.
( 2 ) Any employment practice of any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or any labor-management joint apprenticeship training program.
[50 FR 8089, Feb. 27, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 51348, Aug. 26, 2003]