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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          53,220
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,525
<PP&E>                                       6,013,070
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,470,519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,835,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          128,448
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,835,335
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               174,575
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               123,013
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             100,128
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,566)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Subpart 2101.1 - Purpose, Authority, Issuance    **Parent topic:** PART 2101 - FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM2101.101 Purpose.       (a) This subpart establishes Chapter 21, Office of Personnel Management Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Federal Acquisition Regulation, within title 48, the Federal Acquisition Regulations System, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The short title of this regulation shall be LIFAR.          (b) The purpose of the LIFAR is to implement and supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) specifically for acquiring and administering a contract, or contracts, for life insurance under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Program.2101.102 Authority.       (a) The LIFAR is issued by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management in accordance with the authority of 5 U.S.C. Chapter 87 and other applicable laws and regulations.          (b) The LIFAR does not replace or incorporate regulations found at 5 CFR part 870, which provide the substantive policy guidance for administration of the FEGLI Program under 5 U.S.C. chapter 87. The following is the order of precedence in interpreting a contract provision under the FEGLI Program:          (1) 5 U.S.C. chapter 87.          (2) 5 CFR part 870.          (3) 48 CFR chapters 1 and 21.          (4) The FEGLI Program contract.2101.103 Applicability.       The FAR is generally applicable to contracts negotiated in the FEGLI Program pursuant to 5 U.S.C. chapter 87. The LIFAR implements and supplements the FAR where necessary to identify basic and significant acquisition policies unique to the FEGLI Program.2101.104 Issuance.2101.104-1 Publication and code arrangement.       (a) The LIFAR and its subsequent changes are published in:          (1) Daily issues of the Federal Register; and          (2) The Code of Federal Regulations, in cumulative form.          (b) The LIFAR is issued as chapter 21 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.2101.104-2 Arrangement of regulations.       (a) *General.* The LIFAR conforms with the arrangement and numbering system prescribed by FAR 1.104 and 1.303. However, when a FAR part or subpart is adequate for use without further OPM implementation or supplementation, there will be no corresponding LIFAR part, subpart, etc. The LIFAR is to be used in conjunction with the FAR and the order for use is:          (1) FAR;          (2) LIFAR.          (b) *Citation.*          (1)  			In formal documents, such as legal briefs, citation of Chapter 21 material that has been published in the Federal Register will be to title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.          (2) In informal documents, any section of chapter 21 may be identified as “LIFAR” followed by the section number.
#### § 1016.5 Submission of procedures by access permit holder.

No access permit holder shall have access to Restricted Data until he has submitted to the DOE a written statement of his procedures for the safeguarding of Restricted Data and for the security education of his employees, and DOE shall have determined and informed the permittee that his procedures for the safeguarding of Restricted Data are in compliance with the regulations in this part and that his procedures for the security education of his employees, who will have access to Restricted Data, are informed about and understand the regulations in this part. These procedures must ensure that employees with access to Restricted Data are informed about and understand who is authorized or required to classify and declassify RD and FRD information and classified matter as well as how documents containing RD or FRD are marked (see 10 CFR part 1045) and safeguarded.

[82 FR 41506, Sept. 1, 2017]
2416.603-2 Application.

(c) The HCA shall approve additional time periods for definitization of letter contracts authorized by

the Contracting Officer pursuant to FAR 16.603-2(c).

Parent topic: Subpart 2416.6 - Time-And-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts
§ 217.51 General procedures. When the Department of Energy plans to execute its allocations authority to address a supply problem within its resource jurisdiction, the Department shall develop a plan that includes the following information: ( a ) A copy of the written determination made, in accordance with section 202 of E.O. 12919, that the program or programs that would be supported by the allocation action are necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense;
( b ) A detailed description of the situation to include any unusual events or circumstances that have created the requirement for an allocation action;
( c ) A statement of the specific objective(s) of the allocation action;
( d ) A list of the materials, services, or facilities to be allocated;
( e ) A list of the sources of the materials, services, or facilities that will be subject to the allocation action;
( f ) A detailed description of the provisions that will be included in the allocation orders, including the type(s) of allocation orders, the percentages or quantity of capacity or output to be allocated for each purpose, and the duration of the allocation action (*i.e.,* anticipated start and end dates);
( g ) An evaluation of the impact of the proposed allocation action on the civilian market; and
( h ) Proposed actions, if any, to mitigate disruptions to civilian market operations.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.1311 Conditions in a notice or order. ( a ) A notice or order granting a hearing or permitting intervention shall— ( 1 ) Restrict irrelevant or duplicative testimony; and
( 2 ) Require common interests to be represented by a single participant.
( b ) If a participant's interests do not extend to all the issues in the hearing, the notice or order may limit her/his participation accordingly.
#### § 205.6 Extension of time.

When a document is required to be filed within a prescribed time, an extension of time to file may be granted by the office with which the document is required to be filed upon good cause shown.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

CAMELLIA THERAPEUTIC )

FOSTER AGENCY, LLC, etc., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv735-MHT

) 

BOB RILEY, etc., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

In light of the appearance of counsel for plaintiff,

it is ORDERED that the referral order entered on August

18, 2006 (doc. no. 3) is vacated.

DONE, this the 13th day of September, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 6 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,
that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Scott A. Caldwell his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name and/or his behalf, to do any and all
acts and things and to execute any and all instruments which said attorney-in-fact and agent may deem necessary or advisable to enable Allied Nevada Gold Corp. to comply with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any rules,
regulations or requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission in respect thereof, including, without limitation, the power and authority to sign his name in any and all capacities (including his capacity as a Director and/or Officer of
Allied Nevada Gold Corp.) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Allied Nevada Gold Corp. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 and the undersigned hereby ratifies and confirms all that said attorney-in-fact and agent or any substitute or
substitutes for, shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have subscribed
these presents on the dates stated.



|                         |  |                                 |  |               
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------- |  | --------------
|Signature                |  | Title                           |  | Date          
|                         |  |                                
|/S/    ROBERT M.
BUCHAN  |  | Executive Chairman and Director |  | March 10, 2010
|Robert M. Buchan         |  |                                 |  |               
|                         |  |                                
|/S/    JOHN W.
IVANY     |  | Director                        |  | March 10, 2010
|John W. Ivany            |  |                                 |  |               
|                         |  |                                
|/S/    CAMERON A.
MINGAY |  | Director                        |  | March 10, 2010
|Cameron A. Mingay        |  |                                 |  |               
|                         |  |                                
|/S/    TERRY M.
PALMER   |  | Director                        |  | March 10, 2010
|Terry M. Palmer          |  |                                 |  |               
|                         |  |                                
|/S/    CARL
PESCIO       |  | Director                        |  | March 10, 2010
|Carl Pescio              |  |                                 |  |               
|                         |  |                                
|/S/    D. BRUCE
SINCLAIR |  | Director                        |  | March 10, 2010
|D. Bruce Sinclair        |  |                                 |  |               
|                         |  |                                
|/S/    ROBERT G.
WARDELL |  | Director                        |  | March 10, 2010
|Robert G. Wardell        |  |                                 |  |
2003.203 Reporting suspected violations of the gratuities clause.       (a) Suspected violations of the “Gratuities” clause, FAR 52.203.3, must be reported orally or in writing directly to the NRC Office of the Inspector General. A report must include all facts and circumstances related to the case. Refer to 5 CFR part 2635 for an explanation regarding what is prohibited and what is permitted.          (b) When appropriate, discussions with the contracting officer or a higher procurement official, procurement policy staff, and the procurement legal advisor before filing a report are encouraged.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2003.2 - Contractor Gratuities to Government Personnel
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.

) 2:06cr209-MHT

BRIDGET Y. TAYLOR )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to transfer to Boot

Camp facility (Doc. No. 42) is denied.

DONE, this the 22nd day of February, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 43 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cr-00203-MHT-CSC Document 19 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### Min Yoon, Respondent, v Sara Costello et al., Appellants.

[815 NYS2d 781]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered May 2, 2005, which granted plaintiffs motion for discovery sanctions to the extent of striking defendants’ answer and denied defendants’ motion to vacate their default and for leave to move for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The sanction of striking the answer was warranted in light of defendants’ repeated and persistent failure to comply with several disclosure orders (CPLR 3126). Plaintiff, as the moving party, established that defendants’ failure to comply was willful and contumacious *(see Reidel v Ryder TRS, Inc.,*13 AD3d 170 [2004]; *Pimental v City of New York,*246 AD2d 467 [1998]).

Moreover, defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default by timely opposing plaintiffs motion or properly seeking an adjournment. The per diem attorney’s failure to appear on the return date in the mistaken belief that the motion would be called later on the calendar, and defense counsel’s purported need to obtain an affidavit from his client’s accountant, who, the motion court subsequently discovered, *408never served as defendants’ accountant and had never been in possession of any of defendants’ documents, left defendants without a reasonable excuse for their default (see *Silverman & Weinraub v Gillon,*1 AD3d 142 [2003]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

#### § 982.35 Vacancy.

To fill any vacancy occasioned by the death, removal, resignation, or disqualification of any member or alternate of the Board, a successor for his unexpired term shall be nominated and selected in the manner provided in §§ 982.32 and 982.33, so far as applicable, unless selection is deemed unnecessary by the Secretary.
162 So.2d 571

#### STATE of Louisiana v. INVESTIGATION BY Jim GARRISON, District Attorney, Orleans Parish.

No. 47223.

April 8, 1964.

In re: Warren C. Holden, C. J. Broussard, O. C. Roberts, M. A. Forman, Jr., and Elbert I. Buckner applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ refused. See per curiam in State v. Open Hearing Investigation, 245 La. 1059,162 So.2d 565.

FOURNET, C. J., dissents from the ruling of the majority in this matter. (See written reasons in State v. Open Hearing Investigation, 245 La. 1059, 162 So.2d 565.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion that the writs should be granted. (See reasons assigned).
1832.1110 Solicitation provision and contract clauses. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)).       (a) [Reserved]          (b) In accordance with FAR 32.1106(b), the use of a nondomestic EFT mechanism is authorized. When a nondomestic EFT mechanism is used, the contracting officer shall replace the paragraph at FAR 52.232–34(c) with a description of the EFT mechanism that will be used for the contract.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1832.11—Electronic Funds Transfer
2830.201-5 Waiver.

The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 30.201-5. Pursuant to FAR 30.201-5, this

authority may not be delegated to any official in the agency below the senior contract policymaking

level.

Parent topic: Subpart 2830.2 - CAS Program Requirements
#### In the Matter of Joseph Berkowitz et al., Appellants, v. James M. Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, and Dorothy T. Straub et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Eager, Tilzer, McNally and Steuer, JJ.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 13a0131n.06

No. 12-5794

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ERNEST WOODRUFF,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

TENNESSEE

Before: MARTIN and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. Ernest Woodruff, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals a district court order

denying his motion for leave to file a delayed direct appeal. 

Woodruff pleaded guilty to three counts of aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery and

two counts of brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. On February 13, 2006,

the district court sentenced Woodruff to a total term of 462 months of imprisonment. Woodruff did

not file a notice of appeal. On May 18, 2012, Woodruff filed a motion for permission to file a

delayed direct appeal, asserting that his attorney had not filed a notice of appeal even though he had

requested that counsel do so. The district court denied the motion, noting that the period for filing

a notice of appeal had expired more than six years ago. On appeal, Woodruff raises arguments

pertaining to his convictions and sentences. He also contends that his attorney’s failure to file a

notice of appeal deprived him of due process.

The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of *

Kentucky, sitting by designation.
No. 12-5794

- 2 -

We review the denial of an extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal for an abuse

of discretion. United States v. Dotz, 455 F.3d 644, 647 (6th Cir. 2006). The district court did not

abuse its discretion because the court is authorized to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal

for only thirty days following the expiration of the fourteen-day period for filing a timely notice of

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), (b)(4). This time had already expired when Woodruff filed

his motion. Because the district court was not authorized to grant Woodruff’s motion under the

applicable rules of appellate procedure, it committed no abuse of discretion in denying the motion. 

Woodruff’s substantive arguments are not properly before us because Woodruff did not timely

appeal his judgment of conviction.

The district court’s order is affirmed.
3003.1004 Contract clauses.

(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.203–70, Instructions for

Contractor Disclosure of Violations, in solicitations and contracts containing the clause at (FAR) 48

CFR 52.203–13.

Parent topic: Subpart 3003.10—Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of Personnel Management

# AGENCY:

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

# ACTION:

Projected date for publishing a revised notice for a new system of records.

# SUMMARY:

Based on the comments it has received in response to its October 5, 2010 and November 15, 2010 notices for this new system of records, OPM/Central-15, Health Claims Data Warehouse, OPM has determined that it will publish a revised systems notice. The revised notice will provide more detailed information regarding OPM authorities for maintaining the system, systems security measures that will be taken to protect the records, and the circumstances under which records will be released from the system. OPM plans to publish the revised notice by January 31, 2011. Although the comment period for the initial systems notice is closed as of December 15, 2010, the public will be provided an opportunity to comment on the revised notice before the system becomes operational.

# DATES:

The comment period for the initial systems notice closed on December 15, 2010; OPM plans to publish a revised systems notice by January 31, 2011.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gary A. Lukowski, PhD, Manager, Data Analysis, at 202-606-1449.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

John Berry,

Director.

[FR Doc. 2010-31555 Filed 12-10-10; 10:11 am]

BILLING CODE 6325-46-P
#### John Katsoudas, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[815 NYS2d 243]

*741In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Elliot, J.), dated September 14, 2004, as granted the cross motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subject to liability for personal injuries caused by a defective street or sidewalk condition absent proof of prior written notice or an exception thereto *(see Poirier v City of Schenectady,*85 NY2d 310, 313 [1995]). The Court of Appeals has recognized two exceptions to this rule, “namely, where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence [and] where a ‘special use’ confers a special benefit upon the locality” *(Amabile v City of Buffalo,*93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; *see Lopez v G&J Rudolph Inc.,*20 AD3d 511, 512 [2005]; *Filaski-Fitzgerald v Town of Huntington,*18 AD3d 603, 604 [2005]; *Gold v County of Westchester,*15 AD3d 439, 440 [2005]).

Here, the defendant City of New York established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defect *(see Mahler v Incorporated Vil. of Port Jefferson,*18 AD3d 450, 451 [2005]; *Gold v County of Westchester, supra; Corey v Town of Huntington,*9 AD3d 345, 346 [2004]; *Acheson v City of Mount Vernon,*6 AD3d 468, 469 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City affirmatively created the alleged defect *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The testimony of the defendant Joseph Montalbano, Jr., to the effect that the depressions in the roadway appeared at some unspecified time after some Department of Environmental Protection employees came by the area and perhaps performed some unknown task near the accident site, was too speculative to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Palkovic v Town of Brookhaven,*166 AD2d 566, 567 [1990]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
1437.7102 Clauses.

The CO shall insert the clause at 1452.237-70, Information Collection - Department of the Interior, in

all solicitations and contracts which are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

Parent topic: Subpart 1437.71 - Information Collection Services