alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1552.332-39 Unenforceability of

unauthorized obligations (far deviation).

As prescribed in 1513.507(b) and 1532.1070, use clause 1552.332-39 (FAR DEVIATION) instead of

the nondeviated version for purchase orders, modifications and contracts that include commercial

supplier agreements.

Unenforceability of Unauthorized Obligations (FAR Deviation) (OCT 2021)

(a) Except as stated in paragraph (b) of this clause, when any supply or service acquired under this

contract is subject to any commercial supplier agreement (as defined in 1502.100) that includes any

language, provision, or clause requiring the Government to pay any future fees, penalties, interest,

legal costs or to indemnify the Contractor or any person or entity for damages, costs, fees, or any

other loss or liability that would create an Anti-Deficiency Act violation (31 U.S.C. 1341), the

following shall govern:

(1) Any such language, provision, or clause is unenforceable against the Government.

(2) Neither the Government nor any Government authorized end user shall be deemed to have

agreed to such language, provision, or clause by virtue of it appearing in the commercial supplier

agreement. If the commercial supplier agreement is invoked through an “I agree” click box or other

comparable mechanism (e.g., “click-wrap” or “browse-wrap” agreements), execution does not bind

the Government or any Government authorized end user to such clause.

(3) Any such language, provision, or clause is deemed to be stricken from the commercial supplier

agreement.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this clause does not apply to indemnification or any other payment by the

Government that is expressly authorized by statute and specifically authorized under applicable

agency regulations and procedures.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: Subpart 1552.3 - FAR and EPAAR Class Deviations
#### § 900.109 Mediation agreement.

An agreement arrived at by mediation shall not become effective until approved by the Secretary, and the Secretary will not approve an agreement if there is evidence of fraud, if there is a lack of evidence to support the agreement, or if the agreement provides for any unfair trade practice.
LNR

Partners, LLC(logo)



ANNUAL STATEMENT



OF



COMPLIANCE OF LNR PARTNERS, LLC



The undersigned, Job Warshaw, being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the
“Special Servicer”), as special servicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement, hereby certifies, as
of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an authorized officer of the Special Servicer
and not in his individual capacity, as follows:



|1. |  | A review of the activities performed
by the Special Servicer during the period commencing on January 1, 2017 and ending on December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting
Period”), and of the Special Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under
my supervision; and      
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|2. |  | To the best of my knowledge, based
on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting
Period.



| | LNR PARTNERS, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company
| | ------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                       
| | By:                                                   
| |                                                       
| |                                                       



Dated: February 20, 2018





---



1601
Washington Avenue●Suite
700● Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone:
(305) 695-5600 ● Fax: (305) 695-5601
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ARTHUR JAMES TIGNER, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW

 ) 

OFFICER SELLER, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

COMES NOW Amanda Kay Morgan of the law firm of Webb & Eley, P.C., and moves 

this Court for permission to withdraw from the representation of Jay Jones1

, Sheriff of Lee 

County, Alabama, Sergeant Timothy Jones2

, Corrections Officer David Sellers3, and Corrections 

Officer Danny Tucker, the Defendants in the above-styled cause. As grounds for this Motion, 

the undersigned states that she will be no longer be employed with the firm of Webb & Eley, 

P.C. Ashley Hawkins Freeman of the firm of Webb & Eley, P.C. will be entering a Notice of 

Appearance for Defendants Jay Jones, Sheriff of Lee County, Alabama, Sergeant Timothy Jones, 

Corrections Officer David Sellers, and Corrections Officer Danny Tucker contemporaneously 

with the filing of this Motion. 

 WHEREFORE, Amanda Kay Morgan respectfully requests an order from this Court that 

releases her from representation of Defendants Jay Jones, Sheriff of Lee County, Alabama, 

Sergeant Timothy Jones, Corrections Officer David Sellers, and Corrections Officer Danny 

Tucker. 

 

1

 Sheriff Jay Jones is incorrectly designated in the Plaintiff’s Complaint as “Sheriff J. Jone.” 

2

 Sergeant Timothy Jones is incorrectly designated in the Plaintiff’s Complaint as “Sgt. Jone.”

3

 Corrections Officer David Sellers is incorrectly designated in the Plaintiff’s Complaint as “Officer Seller.”

Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 20 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of January, 2007. 

s/Amanda Kay Morgan 

AMANDA KAY MORGAN Bar No. ALL079 

Attorney for Defendants 

WEBB & ELEY, P.C. 

7475 Halcyon Pointe Drive 

Post Office Box 240909 

Montgomery, Alabama 36124 

Telephone: (334) 262-1850 

Fax: (334) 262-1889 

E-mail: amorgan@webbeley.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on this the 3rd day of January, 2007, I have electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, and that I have mailed a true 

and correct copy of the foregoing by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following nonCM/ECF participant: 

Arthur James Tigner 

AIS 152184 

Bullock Correctional Facility 

PO Box 5107 

Union Springs, AL 36089-5107 

 s/Amanda Kay Morgan 

 OF COUNSEL 

Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 20 Filed 01/04/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### § 1015.200 Scope.

The subpart sets forth the standards for administrative collection of claims under this part. This subpart corresponds to 31 CFR part 901 of the Treasury Federal Claims Collection Standards.
#### § 13.44 Right to administrative offset.

The amount of any penalty or assessment which has become final, or for which a judgment has been entered under § 13.42 or § 13.43, or any amount agreed upon in a compromise or settlement under § 13.46, may be collected by administrative offset under 31 U.S.C. 3716, except that an administrative offset may not be made under this subsection against a refund of an overpayment of Federal taxes, then or later owing by the United States to the defendant.
#### § 987.79 Derogation.

Nothing contained in this part is, or shall be construed to be, in derogation or in modification of the rights of the Secretary or of the United States to exercise any powers granted by the act or otherwise, or, in accordance with such powers, to act in the premises whenever such action is deemed advisable.
#### § 13.25 Fees.

The party requesting a subpoena shall pay the cost of the fees and mileage of any witness subpoenaed in the amounts that would be payable to a witness in a proceeding in United States District Court. A check for witness fees and mileage shall accompany the subpoena when served, except that when a subpoena is issued on behalf of the authority, a check for witness fees and mileage need not accompany the subpoena.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.

) 2:06cr206-MHT

ALETHIA SCOTT )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that sentencing shall resume on March

1, 2007, at 8:30 a.m. at the Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United

States Courthouse Complex, Courtroom 2FMJ, One Church

Street, Montgomery, Alabama 36104.

DONE, this the 21st day of February, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 65 Filed 02/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
Order entered March 22, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00863-CR

LAWRENCE FRANK CROUSE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 002-87861-2011

ORDER

The Court has before it the State’s March 4, 2013 motion to unseal State’s Exhibit nos. 3 

and 4 and Defendant’s Exhibit no. 3 so that the State may refer to the exhibits in its brief. The 

exhibits involved are appellant’s Presbyterian Hospital discharge instructions, Presbyterian 

Hospital records, and LifePath treatment records. The State asserts the exhibits were unsealed at 

the beginning of the trial, admitted into evidence, and that witnesses testified about information 

contained in the exhibits. The trial court resealed the exhibits at the conclusion of the trial. The 

State contends there is no legal basis for sealing the exhibits. The State says appellant raised an 

issue specifically challenging State’s Exhibit nos. 3 and 4, and the State had to refer to the sealed 

exhibits in response. The State asks that we unseal the exhibits so that its brief may be made 
available to the public without violating the trial court’s order. Appellant did not respond to the 

State’s motion.

The State does not complain it did not have access to the sealed exhibits in order to 

prepare its brief. Nor does the State complain the records are not available for this Court’s 

review. Rather, the State’s focus appears to be on its ability to cite to the exhibits and to have its 

brief available to the public. 

Various witnesses testified to the contents of the exhibits during trial, but the trial court 

did not seal the entire record related to that testimony. Rather, the trial court, in the interest of 

protecting appellant’s rights under HIPPA, determined the medical record exhibits should be 

sealed. Based on the argument presented in the State’s motion, we cannot conclude the trial 

court abused its discretion by ordering the exhibits to be sealed.

Accordingly, we DENY the State’s motion to unseal the exhibits without prejudice to the 

State reasserting its motion to the submissions panel. 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
February 29, 2016 Memorandum Subject: February 11, 2016 Meeting Between the Gas Processors Association (GPA) and its Members and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

### (2.:-J

..

### i

### ~**Christ~;~St~eman,** Policy Advisor Outreach and Information Division, From: Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) To: Docket- EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0606 This memorandum to docket provides a briefsummary ofthe main discussion points made atthe subject meeting for the proposed rulemaking: "Review ofNew Sources and Modifications in Indian Country: Federal Implementation Plan for Managing Air Emissions from True Minor Sources Engaged in Oil and Natural Gas Production in Indian Country," (80 Federal Register 56554, September 18, 2015). Meeting details: When: February 11, 2016; 10:00-11:00 a.m. ET Where: EPA Offices, RTP, NC EPA rf t pa tctpan s: Name EPA Office Bruce Moore Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards Christopher Stoneman Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards GregNizich Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards Greg Green Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards Jameel Alsalam Office ofAtmospheric Programs Suzanne Waltzer Office ofAtmospheric Programs Melissa Weitz Office ofAtmospheric Programs GPA and its Members:

Name Company· MatthewHite GPA Melanie Roberts Targa Laura Hig_gins DCP Claudio Galli En bridge Jaron Hill Williams Karen Lyall ONEOK Richard Quinnette ONEOK JeffStovall CrestwoodThe EPA met with GPA and its members at the energy organization's request. During the meeting, several topics were discussed related to the proposed rulemaking. The topics were:

• Creation ofsynthetic minor sources using streamlinedpermitting approaches; • Coverage ofgas processing plants underthe proposed Federal Implementation Plan (FIP); • Allowing existing sources voluntarily to adopt limits under the FIP; • Transition for areas ofIndian country under the proposed FIP from attainmentto nonattainment; and • Need for consistent approach nationally in the FIP. The EPA answered basic questions clarifying its thinking onthe proposed rule and offered to be available for further discussions and/or exchanges oftechnical information. This memorandum will be filed inthe docket for the above actions and will be available for public review.



### 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTINE BENNETT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv723-MHT

)

ARMY FLEET SUPPORT, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

 On this date, the court entered an order inadvertently scheduling a status conference

for 10:00 p.m. on November 19, 2007. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the order (doc. # 53) be and is hereby CORRECTED to reflect that

this matter is set for a status conference on November 19, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in chambers.

Done this 2 day of November, 2007. nd

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 54 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### § 987.76 Compliance.

No handler shall handle any dates (including dates for further processing) except in conformity with, and as authorized by or pursuant to, the applicable provisions of this part, including but not being limited to the regulations relating to grade, size, and volume; and no handler shall use or otherwise dispose of restricted dates or any other dates which have not been certified for handling or for further processing except in conformity with, and as authorized by or pursuant to, the applicable provisions of this part.
:n,".nT/iT ! U:. , i Or_'rl'l\!:iruninii\

j 

### SERVED JANUAR Y 4,201 0 i

U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C
I N TH E MATTE RO F 

### RECURREN T TRAININ G CENTER , INC
.

FA A DOCKE T No
. CP09GL000 8 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S No
. FAA-2009-097 1 

### ORDE RGRANTIN G MOTIO N FO RCONTINUANC E Thi s matte r

currentl y i s schedule dt o b e hear dbeginnin g Januar y 14 , 2010
. Responden t

Recurren t

Trainin g Center , Inc
. (hereinafte r "Respondent" ) o n Decembe r 28 , 2009 , file daMotion for

Continuance
. In support i t state s tha t

Respondent' s principa l office r mus t b e out o f th e country throughou t

Januar y an dFebruary
. I t state s als o that Complainan t

Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (hereinafte r "Complainant" ) ha s bee n contacte dan ddoe s not

objec t t o th e request . Finally , Responden t ask s that th e hearing b e reschedule dfor

adat e after

Apri l 4 , 201 0 i n th e even t that th e partie s determin e that fiulhe r discover y i s warranted. Fo r goo dcaus e shown
. Respondent' s Motion for Continuanc e i s hereb y GRANTED
. Th e proceedin g wil l b e reschedule dfor adat e afte

r Apri l 4,2010 , b y subsequen t

order
. 

# 1 ^ ^£c.^4/(' , (p^'^^^'^pz ^ Richar dC
. Goodwi n U.S
. Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP09GL000 8 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Charle s R
. Bamett , III , Respondent' s Counse l 1664 Moorlan dLan e Crystal Lake , IL 60014-298 5 TEL : 815-356-864 7 FAX : 815-356-704 2 Brian aMorgan , Complainant' s Counse l Grea t Lake s Region , AGL-7 M Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 230 0 Eas t Devo n Avenu e De s Plaines , I L 60018-469 6 TEL : 847-294-731 3 FAX : 847-294-749 8 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s by U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Federa

l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430
.
#### § 1042.600 Covered programs.

The financial assistance programs to which this part applies are listed in Appendix A to 10 CFR part 1040.
§ 110.111 Waiver of a rule or regulation. ( a ) A participant may petition that a Commission rule or regulation be waived with respect to the license application under consideration.
( b ) The sole ground for a waiver shall be that, because of special circumstances concerning the subject of the hearing, application of a rule or regulation would not serve the purposes for which it was adopted.
( c ) Waiver petition shall specify why application of the rule or regulation would not serve the purposes for which it was adopted.
( d ) Other participants may, within 10 days, file a response to a waiver petition.
( e ) When the Commission does not preside, the presiding officer will certify the waiver petition to the Commission, which, in response, will grant or deny the waiver or direct any further proceedings.
( f ) Regardless of whether a waiver is granted or denied, a separate petition for rulemaking may be filed pursuant to subpart K of this part.
[43 FR 21641, May 19, 1978, as amended at 62 FR 59277, Nov. 3, 1997]
#### § 75.4 Federal and State cooperation.

Pursuant to the Act, the Administrator is authorized to cooperate with the appropriate State agencies in carrying out provisions of the Act and these regulations through Memoranda of Understanding. The Memorandum of Understanding shall specify the duties to be performed by the parties concerned with each party directing its own activities and utilizing its own resources.
SUBCHAPTER F - SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF

CONTRACTING

PART 1535 - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING

PART 1536 - CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

PART 1537 - SERVICE CONTRACTING

PART 1539 - ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

PART 1535 - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING

1535.007 Solicitations.

1535.007-70 Contract clauses.

PART 1536 - CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

Subpart 1536.2 - Special Aspects of Contracting for Construction

1536.209 Construction contracts with architect-engineer firms.

Subpart 1536.5 - Contract Clauses

1536.521 Specifications and drawings for construction.

Subpart 1536.6 - Architect-Engineer Services

1536.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.

1536.602-2 Establishment of evaluation boards.

PART 1537 - SERVICE CONTRACTING

Subpart 1537.1 - Service Contracts - General

1537.110 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

PART 1539 - ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Subpart 1539.1 - Commercial Supplier Agreements

Subpart 1539.2 - Open Source Software

§ 1539.2071 Contract clause.
§ 16.11 Written decision. ( a ) The hearing official will issue a written opinion no later than 60 days after the hearing.
( b ) The written opinion must include: ( 1 ) A statement of the facts presented to demonstrate the nature and origin of the alleged debt;
( 2 ) The hearing official's analysis, findings, and conclusions;
( 3 ) The amount and validity of the debt; and
( 4 ) The repayment schedule, where appropriate.
Case 3:06-cv-00687-WHA-DRB Document 29 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. )

)

 EUGENE L. CLECKLER ) CR. NO. 2:06cr202-001-WKW

O R D E R

The defendant was adjudged guilty by a jury on January 12, 2007. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. That sentencing of the defendant be, and the same is, hereby set on April 10, 2007, at

10:15 a.m. in the Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street,

Montgomery, Alabama.

2. That in accordancewith Rule 32(f)(1), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, on or before

March 20, 2007, counsel for the defendant and the Government shall communicate in writing to the

probation officer, and to each other, any objections they have as to any material information,

sentencing classifications, sentencing guideline ranges, and policy statements contained in or omitted

from the presentence report.

3. That, unless excused in writing by the Chief U.S. Probation Officer of this district,

counsel for the parties shall be available for a conference with the probation officer on March 21,

2007, at 9:00 a.m., to discuss and resolve, if possible, factual and legal issues contained in the

presentence report. If the probation officer determines or if any of the parties request that a personal

meeting be held to resolve the issues, such meeting shall be at the U.S. Probation Office, Frank

M. Johnson, Jr., U.S. Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, AL, on the above

date and time. Such request for a personal conference shall be made to the probation officer within

five (5) calendar days after receipt of the presentence report. Otherwise, the conference shall be held

telephonically. Any motion for downward departure shall be filed on or before the conference date

with the probation officer, unless based on unknown and unforeseen circumstances arising after that

date, in which case the motion must be filed promptly upon discovery of such circumstances.

Nothing contained in this Order shall be construed as impairing the rights of any party as

established in the Constitution or laws of the United States.

DONE this 16th day of January, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 82 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
§ 14.1 Scope of regulations. ( a ) The terms “Nuclear Regulatory Commission” and “NRC” as used in this part mean the agency established by section 201(a) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, but do not include any contractor with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
( b ) The regulations in this part supplement the Department of Justice's regulations in 28 CFR parts 14 and 15.
( c ) These regulations apply to administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, as amended, asserted on or after the effective date of this rule, for money damages against the United States for damage to or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the NRC while acting within the scope of his or her office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.
( d ) These regulations also set forth the procedures when lawsuits are commenced against an employee of the NRC resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle while acting within the scope of his or her employment.