alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NUMBER 2:06-CR-202-WKW

EUGENE L. CLECKLER

TO: CLERK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 

Please enter my appearance as counsel for the defendant in the above styled case.

Dated August 19, 2006 

On ________________________

 Court Appointed 

 XXX Retained

 RONALD R. BRUNSON 

Name of Trial Counsel

 McCORD and BRUNSON 

Firm Name

 2126 MORRIS AVENUE 

Address

 BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203 

City, State. &-Zip

 205-252-2100 205-252-2187 

Telephone Fax No.

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 22 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 1 of 1
Subpart 1699.7—Cost Accounting Standards

Parent topic: PART 1699—COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

1699.70 Cost accounting standards.

With respect to all experience-rated contracts currently existing under the FEHB Program, the Cost

Accounting Standards, found at 48 CFR part 9904, of the Code of Federal Regulations, do not apply.
# SUBCHAPTER H—CLAUSES AND FORMS   

- PART 3452—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 

- PART 3452—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES    - Subpart 3452.2—Text of Provisions and Clauses     - 3452.201-70   Contracting Officer's Representative (COR).
    - 3452.202-1   Definitions—Department of Education.
    - 3452.204-70   Records management.
    - 3452.204-71   Contractor security vetting requirements.
    - 3452.208-72   Paperwork Reduction Act.
    - 3452.209-70   Conflict of interest certification.
    - 3452.209-71   Conflict of interest.
    - 3452.215-70   Release of restricted data.
    - 3452.216-70   Additional cost principles.
    - 3452.216-71   Award-Term.
    - 3452.224-70   Release of information under the Freedom of Information Act.
    - 3452.224-71   Notice about research activities involving human subjects.
    - 3452.224-72   Research activities involving human subjects.
    - 3452.224-73   Protection of student privacy in compliance with FERPA.
    - 3452.227-70   Publication and publicity.
    - 3452.227-71   Advertising of awards.
    - 3452.227-72   Use and non-disclosure agreement.
    - 3452.227-73   Limitations on the use or disclosure of Government-furnished information marked with restrictive legends.
    - 3452.228-70   Required insurance.
    - 3452.231-71   Invitational travel costs.
    - 3452.232-70   Limitation of cost or funds.
    - 3452.232-71   Incremental funding.
    - 3452.232-72   Limitation of Government's obligation.
    - 3452.233-70   Agency level protests.
    - 3452.237-70   Services of consultants.
    - 3452.237-71   Observance of administrative closures.
    - 3452.239-70   Internet protocol version 6 (IPv6).
    - 3452.239-71   Department information security and privacy requirements.
    - 3452.242-70   Litigation and claims.
    - 3452.242-71   Notice to the Government of delays.
    - 3452.242-73   Accessibility of meetings, conferences, and seminars to persons with disabilities.
    - 3452.243-70   Key personnel.
    - 3452.247-70   Foreign travel.
#### § 205.170 Purpose and scope.

This subpart establishes the procedures for requesting and conducting a DOE conference, hearing, or public hearing. Such proceedings shall be convened in the discretion of the DOE, consistent with the requirements of the FEAA.
#### Olds Motor Works *v.*Olds Oakland Company.

July 15, 1913.

Rehearing denied July 21, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. June 25, 1912.

*Candler, Thomson & Eirsch,*for plaintiff in error.

*Napier, Wright & Cox,*contra.

TTtt.t., J.

1. Where a demurrer to a petition was filed, and on the hearing the court made an order sustaining all the grounds of the demurrer except three, and directing that the case be dismissed unless the plaintiff would, within five days, offer an amendment to meet the grounds of demurrer which were sustained, and within the time allowed the plaintiff did amend the petition to meet the grounds of demurrer, which amended petition was likewise demurred, to, and the court on hearing the second demurrer overruled the same, except two grounds which were sustained, the original order of the court is to be treated as a conditional and not an absolute and final judgment, as it did not finally dispose of the ease.

(a) A trial judge may, in an or.der sustaining a demurrer, provide that the plaintiff have an opportunity to amend his petition so as to meet the grounds of demurrer. *Lamar Drug Co.*v. *First National Bank,*127 *Ga.*448 (4), 452 (56 S. E. 486) ; *Buchan*v. *Williamson,*131 *Ga.*501, 507 (62 S. E. 815). See, in this connection, *Dudley*v. *Mattery,*4 *Ga.*52.

*(h)*Where, in such a case as above set forth, the amended petition is sufficient to withstand the amended demurrer, the case is still in court, and will not be dismissed.

2. The court did not err in overruling the demurrers to the amended petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 23.4                                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS   We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-198158 on Form S-3, No. 333-215229 on  Form S-3ASR and No. 333-212913 on Form S-8 of Hannon Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc. of our report  dated March 8, 2019, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Buckeye Wind Energy Class B Holdings LLC and  Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2018  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Hannon Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc. for the year  ended December 31, 2018.     Chicago, Illinois  March 26, 2019
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Adult EducationAdult LiteracyAlphabetsClassroom TechniquesEducational StrategiesEnglish (Second Language)Literacy EducationMedia SelectionPhoneme Grapheme CorrespondenceReading InstructionReading MaterialsReading SkillsReading StrategiesSkill Development

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
Granite Construction Company

1900 Glendale Avenue
Sparks, NV 89431

January 14, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation
Docket Management System
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption 12541 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and
Part II of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regu latory Docket No. FAA-2015-1644.

Dear Madam, Sir,

Granite Construction Company currently holds an Exe mption numbered 12541 (hereinafter the Exemption) issued for the purpose of performing aer ial imaging and data collection. Granite Construction Company herby requests an amendment to that Exemption to include additional small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) that fully c omplies with the conditions of the Exemption to support client requests (public interest).

The requested system (to be used under the same ter ms and conditions contained in the original Exemption) to be added to our existing Exemption is cited below.

• 3DR – Iris Plus

• 3DR – Solo

• DJI – Inspire 1

• DJI – Phantom 3

• DJI – Phantom 2

• DJI – S1000

• Trimble – ZX5

• Typhoon – Q500

The FAA previously determined the airworthiness of the 3DR IRIS in Exemption No. 12368 (Dark Technologies, LLC). The FAA previously determ ined the airworthiness of the 3DR Solo in Exemption No. 11832 (AUV, LLC). The FAA previously determined the airworthiness of the DJI Inspire 1 in Exemption No. 11295 (RoboFlight System s LLC). The FAA previously determined the airworthiness of the DJI Phantom 3 in Exemption No. 12997 (New England Studio LLC). The FAA previously determined the airworthiness of the DJI Phantom 2 in Exemption No. 11260 (First Flight Photography, LLC). The FAA previously determined the airworthiness of the DJI S1000 in Exemption No. 11881 (Empire Unmanned LLC). The FAA previously determined the airworthiness of the Trimble ZX5 in Exemption No. 1 1110B (Trimble navigation LTD.). The FAA previously determined the airworthiness of the Typhoon Q500 in Exemption No. 11696 (Midwest UAV Imaging).Granite Construction Company states that no conditi ons or limitation from our original request

have changed and all operations of the additional U AS will be in full compliance with the terms and condition of the Exemption.

Please contact Sergio Callegari, Construction Techn ologies Engineer, 775-352-5417, Sergio.callegari@gcinc.com should you have any questions concerning this requ est for an amendment to the Exemption.

Sergio Callegari Construction Technologies Engineer
| (logo) plante moran | **Plante & Moran, PLLC**

10 South Riverside Plaza

9th floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: 312.207.1040

Fax: 312.207.1066

plantemoran.com |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

 

We have examined National TaxSearch, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forthe National Tax Search TaxQ system (the “Platform”) as of and forthe year ended December 31, 2016. The Company has determined that only certainservicing criteria, 1122(d)(l)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v),1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to theactivities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activitiesperformed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.

 

Management is responsible forthe Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliancewith the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination wasconducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteriaand performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included a selection of a sample of transactionsand compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination periodand determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performedthose activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing ofselected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations,reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered bythis report. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may haveoccurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this reportfor the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination doesnot provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with theservicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for thePlatform is fairly stated in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC

 

Chicago, IL

January 27, 2017

 

 

(logo) Praxity 

MEMBER

GLOBAL ALLIANCE OF 

INDEPENDENT FIRMS
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 37 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 1 of 1
634.003 Responsibilities.

(a) The Procurement Executive is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 34.003(a).

(b) The Under Secretary for Management is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 34.003(c) and

the acquisition executive for the purposes of A–109.

Parent topic: PART 634—MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION
§ 1013.13 Parties to the hearing. ( a ) The parties to the hearing shall be the defendant and the authority.
( b ) Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3730(c)(5), a private plaintiff under the False Claims Act may participate in these proceedings to the extent authorized by the provisions of that Act.
#### § 986.9 Crack.

*Crack* means to break, crack, or otherwise compromise the outer shell of a pecan so as to expose the kernel inside to air outside the shell.
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 2.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval.

This part contains no information collection requirements and therefore is not subject to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*).

[61 FR 43408, Aug. 22, 1996]
PUBLIC LAW 109–327—OCT. 12, 2006 120 STAT. 1767

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4109:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 151 (2005): Dec. 18, considered and passed House.

Vol. 152 (2006): Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–327

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6101 Liberty

Road in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ‘‘United States Representative Parren J.

Mitchell Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE PARREN J. MITCHELL

POST OFFICE.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 6101 Liberty Road in Baltimore, Maryland, shall

be known and designated as the ‘‘United States Representative

Parren J. Mitchell Post Office’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘United States Representative Parren J. Mitchell Post Office’’.

Approved October 12, 2006.

Oct. 12, 2006

[H.R. 4109]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this is case suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JTK/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO ROQUE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-72619

Agency No. A013-013-784

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Antonio Roque, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable for alien smuggling. We have

FILED

JAN 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JTK/Research 2 07-72619

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s findings of fact, Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 744 (9th

Cir. 2007), and review de novo questions of law, Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d

586, 591 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Roque was

removable for alien smuggling where the record establishes that he provided a safe

house and helped arranged transportation for undocumented aliens. See

Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2005) (to

establish that petitioner engaged in alien smuggling, government “need not prove

direct participation in the physical border crossing”). 

We reject Roque’s contention that the IJ improperly relied on hearsay

evidence. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 309-10 (9th Cir. 1995) (the IJ may

consider evidence if it “is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair”). 

Roque’s remaining contentions are not persuasive. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Subpart 1824.1—Protection of Individual

Privacy

Parent topic: PART 1824—PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

1824.102 General.

(1) For NASA rules and regulations implementing the Privacy Act, see Privacy—NASA Regulations,

(14 CFR 1212). The Act applies to any contractor maintaining a system of records to accomplish a

NASA mission.

(2) Systems of records to which the Privacy Act does not apply include—

(i) Records maintained by a contractor on individuals employed by the contractor on its own behalf

for the purpose of providing supplies and services to the Federal Government; and

(ii) Records that—

(A) Are maintained under contracts with educational institutions to provide training;

(B) Are generated on students working under the contract relative to their attendance (admission

forms, grade reports, etc.);

(C) Are similar to those maintained on other students; and

(D) Are commingled with their records on other students.
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 54 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 1
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. * CASE NO: 2:06cv00755-CSC 

 * 

 * 

WALTER WOOD, in his individual * 

capacity, * 

 * 

 Defendant. * 

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. * CASE NO: 2:06cv00908-MEF 

 * 

 * 

WALTER WOOD, in his individual * 

capacity, * 

 * 

 Defendant. * 

NOTICE CONCERNING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND MEDIATION

 Plaintiffs’ counsel and counsel for the Defendant Walter Wood, 

communicated on October 11, 2007, by telephone per their respective affairs. 

Counsel for both Plaintiffs and Defendants discussed settlement of this case in 

limited terms, but agreed at this time, the case is not in a position to be settled. 

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 67 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 3
 

_/s/Michael J. Crow____________ 

 MICHAEL J. CROW (CR039) 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

 

OF COUNSEL: 

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, 

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 

P.O. Box 4160 

Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 

(334) 269-2343 

 _/s/Robert D. Drummond______ 

ROBERT D. DRUMMOND (DRU004) 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

OF COUNSEL: 

Attorney at Law 

323 De LaMare 

Fairhope, AL 36532 

(251) 990-6249 

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 67 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on the 15th day of October 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 

P.O. Box 66 

Mt. Meigs, AL 36057 

Michael Crow 

P.O. Box 4160 

Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 

Robert D. Drummond 

Attorney at Law 

323 De LaMare 

Fairhope, AL 36532 

/s/Robert D. Drummond, Jr.______ 

 OF COUNSEL 

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 67 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 3
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

NATHAN C. BELL, ) 

)

Plaintiff, ) 

)

v. ) Civil Action No.: 1:06-cv-644-WKW

)

DARRELL L. SPRAGGINS, )

)

Defendant. )

SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER

OR OTHERWISE RESPOND

Comes now the Defendant, by and through Leura G. Canary, United States

Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and respectfully requests that their time to

answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in the above-styled matter be extended for a

period of thirty (30) days, and as grounds states as follows:

1. The Defendant’s answer in this cause are currently due to be filed on

Monday, September 18, 2006. From the pleadings in this matter the Plaintiff may be

attempting to bring suit against a federal official in his individual capacity. As this Court

is aware, the United States Attorney may not undertake the representation of a federal

employee in his individual capacity without the approval of the Department of Justice. 

2. To date, the representation request of the named individual Defendant is

still being processed within the involved federal agency and has not yet been approved by

the United States Department of Justice. 

Case 1:06-cv-00644-WKW-SRW Document 4 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

3. Also hindering the Defendant’s ability to reply is the agency has yet to

complete a litigation report in this matter. The nature of Plaintiff’s allegations has

required the agency to perform a complete audit of the plaintiff’s claims files. It is

anticipated that all steps necessary will be completed within the next twenty (20) days and

that an answer or other response can be filed within thirty (30) days..

4. In the interest of judicial economy, the undersigned requests an extension of

thirty (30) days in which to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. It is

anticipated that during this time the named individual will be granted representation and

that the undersigned will thus have the authority to enter an answer or other response for

all Defendants at the same time. 

Respectfully submitted this 18 day of September, 2006. th

LEURA G. CANARY

United States Attorney

 By: s/R. Randolph Neeley 

Assistant United States Attorney

Bar Number: #9083-E56R

Attorney for Defendant

United States Attorney’s Office

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, AL 36101-0197

Telephone: (334) 223-7280

Facsimile: (334) 223-7418

E-mail: rand.neeley@usdoj.gov

Case 1:06-cv-00644-WKW-SRW Document 4 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 18, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, and I hereby certify that I have

mailed, by United States Postal Service, a copy of same to the following non-CM/ECF

participant:

Nathan C. Bell

1002 Williams Avenue

Dothan, AL 36303

s/R. Randolph Neeley 

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 1:06-cv-00644-WKW-SRW Document 4 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 3 of 3
§ 110.124 Rearrangement or suspension of a hearing. When a participant gives notice of intent to introduce classified information and other participants do not have the required security clearances, subject to § 110.121, the Commission may: ( a ) Suspend or rearrange the normal order of the hearing to give other participants an opportunity to obtain the required security clearances with minimum delay in the conduct of the hearing; or
( b ) Take such other action as it determines to be in the public interest.