alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1013.47 Limitations. ( a ) The notice of hearing with respect to a claim or statement must be served in the manner specified in § 1013.8 of this part within 6 years after the date on which such claim or statement is made.
( b ) If the defendant fails to file a timely answer, service of notice under § 1013.10(b) of this part shall be deemed a notice of a hearing for purposes of this section.
( c ) The statute of limitations may be extended by agreement of the parties.
# SUBCHAPTER E—GENERAL CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS   

- PART 3427—PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS 
- PART 3428—BONDS AND INSURANCE 
- PART 3430—COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION 
- PART 3431—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 
- PART 3432—CONTRACT FINANCING 
- PART 3433—PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS 

- PART 3427—PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS    - Subpart 3427.4—Rights in Data and Copyrights     - 3427.409   Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
- PART 3428—BONDS AND INSURANCE    - Subpart 3428.3—Insurance     - 3428.311   Solicitation provision and contract clause on liability insurance under cost-reimbursement contracts.
    - 3428.311-2   Agency solicitation and contract clauses.
- PART 3430—COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION    - Subpart 3430.201—CAS Program Requirements     - 3430.201   Contract requirements.
    - 3430.201-5   Waiver.
- PART 3431—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES    - Subpart 3431.1—Applicability     - 3431.101   Objectives.
  - Subpart 3431.2—Contracts With Commercial Organizations     - 3431.205   Selected costs.
    - 3431.205-71   Noncontractor travel.
- PART 3432—CONTRACT FINANCING    - 3432.000   Scope of part.
  - 3432.006   Reduction or suspension of contract payments upon finding of fraud.
  - 3432.006-3   Responsibilities.
  - Subpart 3432.4—Advance Payments for Other Than Commercial Acquisitions     - 3432.402   General.
    - 3432.407   Interest.
  - Subpart 3432.7—Contract Funding     - 3432.706   Contract clauses.
    - 3432.706-2   Clauses for limitation of cost or funds.
- PART 3433—PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS    - Subpart 3433.1—Protests     - 3433.103   Protests to the agency.
Exhibit 10.8

                           LETTER OF CREDIT AMENDMENT


LETTER OF CREDIT NUMBER S2777072                          AMENDMENT REF. NO. 002

AMENDMENT ISSUANCE DATE:  SEPTEMBER 19, 2001

BENEFICIARY
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE                      APPLICANT
CO. OF PITTSBURGH PA                               RENT-A-WRECK OF AMERICA, INC.
P.O. BOX 923                                       ON BEHALF OF CONSOLIDATED
WALL STREET                                        AMERICAN RENT INSURANCE
NEW YORK, NY 10268                                 COMPANY, LTD.
ATTN:  MR. ART STILWELL                            10324 SOUTH DOLFIELD ROAD

ORIGINAL LETTER OF CREDIT DATED JULY 30, 2001

THE ABOVE MENTIONED LETTER OF CREDIT IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: -

APPLICANT'S NAME SHOULD CORRECTLY READ AS:

         RENT-A-WRECK OF AMERICA
         ON BEHALF OF CONSOLIDATED AMERICAN RENTAL
         INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.
         103 24 SOUTH DOLFIELD ROAD
         OWINGS MILLS, MARYLAND 21117

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CREDIT REMAIN UNCHANGED.


                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE (S)
#### § 1304.101 Purpose and scope.

This part sets forth the policies and procedures of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (Board) regarding access to systems of records maintained by the Board under the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a. The provisions in the Act shall take precedence over any part of the Board's regulations in conflict with the Act. These regulations establish procedures by which an individual may exercise the rights granted by the Privacy Act to determine whether a Board system contains a record pertaining to him or her; to gain access to such records; and to request correction or amendment of such records. These regulations also set identification requirements and prescribe fees to be charged for copying records.
Subpart 613.2—Actions At or Below the

Micro-Purchase Threshold

Parent topic: PART 613—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

613.201 General.

(g)

(1) The procurement Executive is the agency head's designee for the purpose of FAR 13.201(g)(1).
Subpart 3052.1—Instructions for Using Provisions and Clauses    **Parent topic:** PART 3052—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES3052.101 Using part 3052.       (b) Numbering.          (2)(i) Provisions or clauses that supplement the FAR.          (A) Agency-prescribed provisions and clauses permitted by HSAR and used on a standard basis (i.e., normally used in two or more solicitations or contracts regardless of contract type) shall be prescribed and contained in the HSAR. Component desiring to use a provision or a clause on a standard basis shall submit a request containing a copy of the clause(s), justification for its use, and evidence of legal counsel review to the CPO in accordance with (HSAR) 48 CFR 3001.304 for possible inclusion in the HSAR.          (B) Provisions and clauses used on a one-time basis (i.e., non-standard provisions and clauses) may be approved by the contracting officer, unless a higher level is designated by the Component. This authority is subject to:          (*1*) Evidence of legal counsel review in the contract file;          (*2*) Inserting these clauses in the appropriate sections of the uniform contract format; and          (*3*) Ensuring the provisions and clauses do not deviate from the requirements of the FAR and HSAR.                                  **Note to 3052.101:**                                  The solicitation provisions and contract clauses matrix referencing all HSAR provisions and clauses is available at *https://www.dhs.gov/publication/hsar-provision-and-clause-matrix*.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 2:06cr193-MEF

 )

JOSHUA WAYNE HESTER )

JOSHUA WAYNE HESTER’S NOTICE OF INTENT TO CHANGE PLEA

Comes now Joshua Wayne Hester, by undersigned counsel, who hereby gives notice of

his intent to change his plea in the above-entitled cause from not guilty to guilty.

s/Stephen R. Glassroth

STEPHEN R. GLASSROTH

Counsel for Joshua Wayne Hester

AL Bar Code: GLA005

The Glassroth Law Firm, P.C.

Post Office Box 910

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0910

Phone (334) 263-9900

Fax (334) 263-9940

E-mail srg@glassrothlaw.com

 

Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 35 Filed 11/15/2006 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on November 15, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel

of record in this matter.

s/Stephen R. Glassroth

STEPHEN R. GLASSROTH

Counsel for Joshua Wayne Hester

AL Bar Code: GLA005

The Glassroth Law Firm, P.C.

Post Office Box 910

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0910

Phone (334) 263-9900

Fax (334) 263-9940

E-mail srg@glassrothlaw.com

Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 35 Filed 11/15/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### Frank Manning, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[814 NYS2d 611]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered March 21, 2005, dismissing the complaint pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered April 17, 2003, which granted defendant’s oral motion at a compliance conference to dismiss the complaint on the ground of plaintiffs repeated failure to comply with prior court orders, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The judgment is not appealable as of right since it is based on an order that did not decide a motion made on notice *(Hladun-Goldmann v Rentsch Assoc., 8*AD3d 73 [2004], citing *Diaz v New York Mercantile Exch.,*1 AD3d 242 [2003]). Nevertheless, we deem the notice of appeal to be a motion for leave to appeal (CFLR 5701 [c]), and grant such leave, as the record is suf*362ficient to permit review of the motion court’s implicit findings that plaintiff’s fourth bill of particulars, like the first three, goes beyond the scope of the complaint, and that plaintiff’s noncompliance with three prior conditional orders directing service of a bill of particulars limited to the allegations of the complaint was willful and contumacious. Upon such review, we note, as we did in affirming the third order (11 AD3d 335 [decided Oct 19, 2004, after entry of order underlying the judgment on appeal]) that the second order denied a motion to amend the complaint so as to encompass the additional occurrences alleged in the bills of particulars, and find that the fourth bill of particulars alleges occurrences not alleged in the complaint in violation of three prior orders directing plaintiff not to do so. The only possible explanation is a willful and contumacious refusal to accept the boundaries of the case as set by the complaint and the court. Under the circumstances, dismissal of the complaint was a proper exercise of discretion (CPLR 3042 [c], [d]; 3126 [3]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 71 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 71 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### § 1003.8 Effective date of orders.

Any order issued under this part is effective as against all persons having actual or constructive notice thereof upon issuance, in accordance with its terms, unless and until it is stayed or suspended. An order is deemed to be issued on the date, as specified in the order, on which it is signed by the Director, unless the order provides otherwise.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ex parte Jeremiah Dunnigan

. , * Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding

No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 132

- CR * May 26, 20 2 2

* Per Curiam Memorand um Opinio n

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J. )

This court has considered Jeremiah Dunnigan ’s application for writ of habeas

corpus and concludes that the application for writ of habeas corpus should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s

opinion , the application for habeas corpus is dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 188 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 188

  Recognizing and honoring firefighters for their many contributions 
                 throughout the history of the Nation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2005

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi (for himself, Mr. Cox, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. 
    King of New York, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Tom Davis of 
Virginia, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Andrews, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Harman, 
     Mr. Markey, Mr. Dicks, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mrs. 
    Christensen, Mr. Etheridge, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. 
 Langevin, Ms. Norton, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mrs. Lowey, 
Ms. Harris, Mr. Shays, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Pearce, Mrs. Jones of 
Ohio, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Wilson 
   of South Carolina, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. 
   McIntyre, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of 
 California, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Souder, Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Jindal, 
 Mr. Linder, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Neal 
   of Massachusetts, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Engel, Mr. 
 Pombo, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Berry, Mr. 
      Jefferson, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Ehlers, and Mr. Fitzpatrick of 
Pennsylvania) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing and honoring firefighters for their many contributions 
                 throughout the history of the Nation.

Whereas in 1736 Benjamin Franklin founded the Union Fire Company, the first 
        volunteer fire company;
Whereas there are more than 1,100,000 firefighters in the United States;
Whereas approximately 75 percent of all firefighters are volunteers who receive 
        little or no compensation for their heroic work;
Whereas career and combination fire departments protect 3 out of 4 Americans;
Whereas there are more than 30,000 fire departments in the United States;
Whereas approximately 100 firefighters die in the line of duty each year;
Whereas more than 340 firefighters died responding to the terrorist attacks on 
        September 11, 2001;
Whereas firefighters respond to more than 24,000,000 calls during an average 
        year;
Whereas firefighters also provide emergency medical services and life safety 
        education; and
Whereas it is estimated that on April 7, 2005, more than 2,000 firefighters will 
        attend the 17th Annual National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner and 
        Seminars: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors and recognizes 
the more than 1,100,000 firefighters in the United States for their 
contributions to and sacrifice for the Nation.
                                 <all>
```
222 So.2d 879

#### William P. McALLISTER v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 49862.

June 5, 1969.

In re: William P. McAllister applying for writ of habeas corpus.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Andrew G. Búcaro, Judge of the Second Municipal Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 13th day of October, 1969, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through its attorneys shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

It is further ordered that in the meantime and until the further orders of this court all proceedings against the relator in said Second Municipal Court shall be stayed and suspended.
45.201 Solicitation.    (S-90) When GFP is anticipated, include enclosure 18b, GFP Attachment (https://www.ditco.disa.mil/contracts/SampleDocTemplates.asp) or the downloaded GFP attachment from the GFP module (https://piee.eb.mil/), in all solicitations.       For letter solicitations, or any solicitation not using a standard 13 digit solicitation number, the GFP Attachment Excel document at 18b is the preferred format.       When the amount of GFP could vary in performance based acquisitions or other similar acquisition types, the GFP Attachment Excel document may list a reasonable range for the quantity of GFP to be provided in the solicitation. This will allow the offeror to propose the exact number of GFP items within the listed range. **Parent topic:** SUBPART 45.2 — SOLICITATION AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES
Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 15 Filed 10/06/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 986.88 Duration of immunities.

The benefits, privileges, and immunities conferred by virtue of this part shall cease upon termination hereof, except with respect to acts done under and during the existence of this part.
3019.708-70 Solicitation provision and contract clauses.       (a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.219–71, DHS Mentor-Protégé Program in all solicitations that anticipate the need for a subcontracting plan.          (b) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.219–72, Evaluation of Prime Contractor Participation in the DHS Mentor-Protégé Program, in all solicitations containing (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.219–71, DHS Mentor-Protégé Program and (FAR) 48 CFR 52.219–9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 3019.7—The Small Business Subcontracting Program
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 15
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 2 of 15
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 3 of 15
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 4 of 15
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 5 of 15
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 6 of 15
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 7 of 15
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 8 of 15
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 9 of 15
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 10 of 15
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 11 of 15
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 12 of 15
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 13 of 15
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 14 of 15
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 42-2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 15 of 15
###### Editorial Note on Part 1045

#### Editorial Notes:Nomenclature changes to part 1045 appear at 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023, and 88 FR 82238, Nov. 24, 2023.

§ 1045.105 What is the method to request the declassification of RD, FRD or TFNI?

Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 1045 appear at 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023, and 88 FR 82238, Nov. 24, 2023.

(a) If a person believes RD, FRD, or TFNI should not be classified, he or she may submit a declassification proposal. Proposals must be submitted in writing and must include a description of the information concerned and may include a reason for the request. If submitted by a person with access to RD, FRD, or TFNI, the request must be submitted through secure means. The proposal is processed as follows:

(b) The Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security considers declassification proposals from the public and Government agencies and their contractors for the declassification of RD, FRD, and TFNI on an ongoing basis. For FRD, the Director, Office of Classification, will coordinate the declassification proposal with the appropriate DoD official (as specified in DoD Instruction 5210.02 or subsequent instructions).

(c) Declassification proposals may be sent to the Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, EHSS-1/Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. For FRD, the proposal may be sent to the Director, Office of Classification, or the appropriate DoD official (as specified in DoD Instruction 5210.02 or subsequent instructions). DOE and DoD must coordinate with one another concerning declassification proposals for FRD.

[83 FR 66007, Dec. 21, 2018, as amended at 88 FR 41295, June 26, 2023]
2007-1960.

#### Miller v. Eberlin.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Timothy A. Miller. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
914.502 Conditions for use.

(c) Use of the two-step sealed bidding method shall be approved by the Head of the Contracting

Activity. The contracting officer shall submit a written request for approval justifying its use in

accordance with 48 CFR 14.502.

Parent topic: Subpart 914.5 - Two-Step Sealed Bidding
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No.: 3:06cr208-MEF

 )

JASON EDWARD COFIELD )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW the undersigned counsel, Donnie W. Bethel, and enters his appearance

on behalf of Defendant, Jason Edward Cofield, in the above-styled case.

Dated this 6 day of September, 2006. th

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Donnie W. Bethel

DONNIE W. BETHEL

Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail:don_bethel@fd.org

IN Bar Code: 14773-49

Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 10 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No.: 3:06cr208-MEF

 )

JASON EDWARD COFIELD )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 6, 2006, 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:

Verne H. Speirs, Esq., Assistant U. S. Attorney, One Court Square, Suite 201, Montgomery,

Alabama 36104. 

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Donnie W. Bethel

DONNIE W. BETHEL

Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail:don_bethel@fd.org

IN Bar Code: 14773-49

Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 10 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Ceasar Sanchez, Respondent, v Edward Hammock, as Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole, et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered April 10,1980 in Clinton County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, annulled a determination of the respondents setting the petitioner’s minimum period of imprisonment and ordered a *de novo*minimum period of imprisonment hearing. Special Term’s reason for the action it took was “that upon the limited record presented to this Court a proper review of most of petitioner’s contentions is not possible”. The record discloses that the petitioner was convicted upon a plea of guilty of the crimes of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree for which concurrent sentences of zero to five years were imposed on January 19,1979. On April 4,1979 the petitioner had a minimum period of imprisonment hearing and the period of five years was selected based upon the seriousness of the crimes of manslaughter and acting with a loaded weapon. The petitioner appealed that decision to an appellate unit and it affirmed, listing five factors, including the facts that the convictions “involved the death of an individual” and “the possession and/or use of a weapon”. In accordance with the established procedure the petitioner was given the opportunity to respond in writing and he did so, relying upon the absence of any prior criminal record; that he was intoxicated when the crime occurred; that he had never been involved with drugs or alcohol before the commission of the crime; and that the crime did not involve premeditation. The respondent affirmed the initial appellate unit decision on July 26, 1979. After the decision of this case by Special Term, the Court of Appeals decided the case of *Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole*(50 NY2d 69, 77), wherein it was stated: “In light of the board’s expertise and the fact that responsibility for a difficult and complex function has been committed to it, there would have to be a showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety before intervention would be warranted.” Regardless of the allegations of the petitioner, there has been no showing of irrationality or impropriety on the part of the board in fixing the minimum period of imprisonment. This is particularly so where the sentence for manslaughter in the first degree could have carried a maximum term of 25 years in the first instance and the seriousness of the crime is beyond dispute *(Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, supra).*Judgment reversed, on the law, determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.