alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1003.11 Filing a petition. ( a ) *Who may file.* Any person may file a petition under this part who is aggrieved by a final disposition of DOE or who is so authorized by a program, statute, rule, regulation, guidance, or DOE delegation of authority.
( b ) *Form of petition.* The person seeking relief under this part must file a petition. The general filing requirements in § 1003.7 apply in addition to the requirements stated in this part.
( c ) *Elements of a petition.* Petitions to the OHA must include, as applicable: ( 1 ) A full and complete statement of all relief requested from the OHA;
( 2 ) A citation to the statute, regulation, delegation, or other authority pursuant to which the OHA has jurisdiction to consider the petition;
( 3 ) A full and complete statement of all relevant facts pertaining to the action that is the subject of the petition and to the OHA relief sought;
( 4 ) A statement of the factual and legal justification for the relief requested in the petition;
( 5 ) A copy of all documents, including, but not limited to, contracts, financial records, communications, plans, analyses, and diagrams related to the petitioner's eligibility for the relief requested in the petition; and,
( 6 ) A motion for stay, if a stay is sought by the petitioner. The OHA may grant a motion for stay filed after the petition only upon a showing of good cause.
( d ) *Service certification.* The petitioner must submit to the OHA a certification that the petitioner has served the notice required pursuant to § 1003.12 of this part. The OHA must receive the certification within 15 days of the date on which the OHA received the petition. The OHA may grant an extension of time only upon a showing of good cause. The certification must include the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of all potentially aggrieved persons or a statement that such information, in whole or in part, is not reasonably ascertainable.
( e ) *Where to file.* A petition must be filed with the OHA in the manner specified in § 1003.9.
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 7 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 1 of 1
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IGUEL E. DIAZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R ALPH M . DIAZ, W a

rde n ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-16520 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-00453-SKO M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia She ila K. Obe rto, M a g istra

te Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d April 13, 2016 ** B e fore : FARRIS, TALLM AN, a n d B YB EE, C i rc uit Judge s. M igue l E. Diaz , a C a l ifornia sta te prisone r, a

ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing va rious fe de ra l 

# FIL ED APR 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** Dia z c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra t e judge . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c la im s. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo,

Hamilton v . Brow n , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th C ir. 2011) (dismi ssa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A); B arre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r) (dism i ssa l unde r § 1915(e )(2)(B )(ii)), and we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Diaz ’ s a c t ion be c a use Dia z fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to sta t e a pla usiblec la im

for re lie f. Se e Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to a void dism i ssa l , “ a c om pla i nt m ust c onta in suffic ie nt fa c t ua l m atte r, a c c e pte d a s true , to sta te a c l a im to re lie f that is pla

usible on its fa c e ” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)); se ealso Farmer v . Bre nnan , 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (se tting forth re quire m e nts for a de libe rate indiffe re nc e c la im ); Simmons v . N

av ajo C ounty , Ariz ., 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ The [Am e ric a

n s with Disa

bilitie s Ac t] prohibits discrim inat ion be c a use of disa bility , not ina de quate tre atm e nt for disa bility .” ); Rhode

s v . Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th C ir. 2005) (e l e m e nts of a re ta lia tion c la im in theprison c onte xt). B e c a use the distric t c ourt dismisse d Diaz ’ s a c t ion for fa i lure to sta te a c la im , we re je c t Diaz ’ s c onte ntion tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by dism issing his ac tion for fa ilure to prose c ute or fa ilure to c om ply with a c ourt orde r. AFFIRM E D. 1 4 - 1 6 5 2 0 2
2448.104-3 Sharing collateral savings.

(a) The authority of the HCA to determine that the cost of calculating and tracking collateral savings

will exceed the benefits to be derived under 48 CFR 48.104-3(a) is delegated to the Contracting

Officer.

Parent topic: PART 2448 - VALUE ENGINEERING
#### § 984.88 Agents.

The Secretary may, by a designation in writing, name any person, including any officer or employee of the Government, or name any subdivision of the United States Department of Agriculture, to act as his agent or representative in connection with any of the provisions of this subpart.
#### § 987.7 Producer.

*Producer* is synonymous with grower and means any person engaged in a proprietary capacity in the production of dates for sale.
#### In the Matter of City of Poughkeepsie, Respondent, v City of Poughkeepsie, Unit, Local 486 Civil Service Employees Association, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated March 31, 1980, which granted the application. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, proceeding dismissed and parties are directed to proceed to arbitration. Compliance with step-by-step grievance procedures contained in collective bargaining agreements are procedural issues that must be decided by the arbitrator and not the court *(Matter of Board of Educ. [Newburgh Teachers’ Assn.],*58 AD2d 636). These are conditions *in*arbitration and not conditions precedent (see *Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.],*51 NY2d 1). Thus, compliance with the grievance procedure established in the collective bargaining at issue here must be decided by the arbitrator. Special Term erred in deciding this issue and granting a stay of arbitration. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

September 19, 2007

NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE

To: ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case Style: McNair v. Allen et al 

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

Referenced Pleading: Notice

Docket Entry Number: 103

The referenced pleading was electronically filed on **September 18, 2007*** in this case and

is not in compliance with the local rules and/or administrative procedures of this court. 

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

OF CIVIL DISCOVERY.

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

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

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

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 104 Filed 09/19/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of John J. Keenan et al., Respondents, v Chemung County Board of Elections, Respondent, and Nanette M. Moss, Appellant.

Submitted August 29, 2007;

decided August 29, 2007

Reported below, 43 AD3d 623.

Motion for leave to file an affidavit amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the affidavit is accepted as filed.
§ 110.51 Amendment and renewal of licenses. ( a ) *Amendments.* ( 1 ) Applications for amendment of a specific license shall be filed on NRC Form 7 in accordance with §§ 110.31 and 110.32 and shall specify the respects in which the licensee desires the license to be amended and the grounds for such amendment.
( 2 ) An amendment is not required for: ( i ) Changes in monetary value (but not amount or quantity);
( ii ) Changes in the names and/or mailing addresses within the same countries of the intermediate or ultimate consignees listed on the license; or
( iii ) The addition of intermediate consignees in any of the importing countries specified in the license (for a nuclear equipment license only).
( b ) *Renewals.* ( 1 ) Applications for renewal of a specific license shall be filed on NRC Form 7 in accordance with §§ 110.31 and 110.32.
( 2 ) If an application to renew a license is submitted 30 days or more before the license expires, the license remains valid until the Commission acts on the renewal application. An expired license is not renewable.
( c ) *General.* In considering an application by a licensee to renew or amend a license, the Commission will apply, as appropriate, the same procedures and criteria it uses for initial license applications.
[75 FR 44092, July 28, 2010]
1942.202-70 Authorized Representative of the Contracting Officer (AR/CO).       The Contracting Officer may designate an appropriately qualified Government employee to act as the Authorized Representative of the Contracting Officer (AR/CO). Such designation shall apply to a single contract, must be in writing, and shall define the scope and limitations of the AR/CO's authority. The instrument designating an AR/CO shall not contain authority to sign or agree to any contract or major modification to a contract. Contractual commitments shall be made only by a duly certified contracting officer. The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1952.242-70, Authorized Representative of the Contracting Officer, in solicitations and contracts when an individual is to be selected and designated by the Contracting Officer to perform administration of a given contract(s).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1942.2 - Assignment of Contract Administration
§ 20.2006 Transfer for disposal and manifests. ( a ) The requirements of this section and appendix G to 10 CFR part 20 are designed to— ( 1 ) Control transfers of low-level radioactive waste by any waste generator, waste collector, or waste processor licensee, as defined in this part, who ships low-level waste either directly, or indirectly through a waste collector or waste processor, to a licensed low-level waste land disposal facility (as defined in part 61 of this chapter);
( 2 ) Establish a manifest tracking system; and
( 3 ) Supplement existing requirements concerning transfers and recordkeeping for those wastes.
( b ) Any licensee shipping radioactive waste intended for ultimate disposal at a licensed land disposal facility must document the information required on NRC's Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest and transfer this recorded manifest information to the intended consignee in accordance with appendix G to 10 CFR part 20.
( c ) Each shipment manifest must include a certification by the waste generator as specified in section II of appendix G to 10 CFR part 20.
( d ) Each person involved in the transfer for disposal and disposal of waste, including the waste generator, waste collector, waste processor, and disposal facility operator, shall comply with the requirements specified in section III of appendix G to 10 CFR part 20.
( e ) Any licensee shipping byproduct material as defined in paragraphs (3) and (4) of the definition of *Byproduct material* set forth in § 20.1003 intended for ultimate disposal at a land disposal facility licensed under part 61 of this chapter must document the information required on the NRC's Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest and transfer this recorded manifest information to the intended consignee in accordance with appendix G to this part.
[63 FR 50128, Sept. 21, 1998, as amended at 72 FR 55922, Oct. 1, 2007]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

JAMES G. HUFFMAN *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:06-CV-748-MEF

 (WO)

SOUTHERN HEALTH SERVICES, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

ORDER ON MOTION

On November 8, 2006 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. In his

motion, Plaintiff seeks to name Clyde Chambliss, Chairman of the Autauga County

Commission, as an additional defendant to this cause of action which concerns an alleged

denial and/or inadequate provision of medical care and treatment. (Id.)

Plaintiff is advised that county commissioners cannot be held liable for actions

undertaken during the daily operation of a county jail. Turquitt v. Jefferson County,

Alabama, 137 F.3d 1285, 1289 (11th Cir. 1998). Moreover, county commissioners are

entitled to absolute immunity under § 1983 for claims arising from the appropriation of funds

for the maintenance of a county jail. Woods v. Garner, 132 F.3d 1417, 1420 (11th Cir. 1998)

(“The budgetary decisions made by defendants for funding the county--including the jail--are

legislative acts protected by legislative immunity.”). See also Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d

1422, 1428 (7th Cir. 1996) (“a prisoner may not attribute any of his constitutional claims to

Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 21 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 1 of 2
higher officials by the doctrine of respondeat superior; the official must actually have

participated in the constitutional wrongdoing.”) (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff’s

motion for leave to amend to name Clyde Chambliss as defendants shall, therefore, be

denied. 

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. No. 20) be and is hereby

DENIED. 

Done, this 14th day of November 2006.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 21 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|  | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                                                                              |                                 |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                   | /s/              Stephen P. Donnelly |
|   | Stephen                      P. Donnelly, Chief                      Financial Officer, Treasurer and SecretarySimclar,                      Inc. |
|   | May                15, 2008                                                                                                                       |

----
#### In re GOODMAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 12, 1906.)

In the matter of Elias B. Goodman.

No opinion. Reference ordered. Settle order on notice.
SUBCHAPTER C—CONTRACTING METHODS

AND CONTRACT TYPES

PART 713—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

PART 714—SEALED BIDDING

PART 715—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

PART 716—TYPES OF CONTRACTS

PART 717—SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS

PART 713—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

713.000 Scope of part.

713.001 Definitions.

Subpart 713.1—Procedures.

713.106-370 Partner vetting.

PART 714—SEALED BIDDING

Subpart 714.4—Opening of Bids and Award of Contract

714.407-3 Other mistakes disclosed before award.

714.407-4 Mistakes after award.

714.408-170 Partner vetting.

PART 715—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

Subpart 715.3—Source Selection

715.303 Responsibilities.

715.303-70 Responsibilities of USAID evaluation committees.

715.305 Proposal evaluation.

715.370 Alternative source selection procedures.

715.370-1 Title XII selection procedure—general.

715.370-2 Title XII selection procedure—collaborative assistance.

Subpart 715.70—Partner Vetting

715.70 Partner vetting.

Subpart 715.6—Unsolicited Proposals

715.602 Policy.

715.604 Agency points of contact.

PART 716—TYPES OF CONTRACTS

Subpart 716.3—Cost Reimbursement Contracts

716.303 Cost-sharing contracts.

716.306 [Reserved]

716.406 Contract clauses.

Subpart 716.5—Indefinite-Delivery Contracts

716.501-270 Partner vetting—indefinite-delivery contracts.

716.505-70 Partner vetting—orders under indefinite delivery contracts.

716.506 Solicitation provision and contract clause.

PART 717—SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS

Subpart 717.70—Pharmaceutical Products

717.770 General.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40749

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO PRIETO-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-357-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Francisco Prieto-Garcia has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Prieto-Garcia has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as PrietoGarcia’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40749 Document: 00513349829 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2016
No. 15-40749

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-40749 Document: 00513349829 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 264 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                           May 5, 2005.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Ways and Means: Mr. Nunes.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CLIFFORD ALSTON, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Action No.: 

 ) 3:06 CV 722 WKW-DRB 

CHRISTOPHER ASKEW, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S WITNESS DISCLOSURE

 Comes now the Plaintiff in the above styled cause and objects to the following 

witness disclosure of the Defendants: 

 Plaintiff objections to the Defendant’s disclosure of a representative of Webb 

Construction Company who will testify regarding Mr. Alston’s employment with Webb 

Construction. Webb Construction Company is not a party to this action and any information 

they may have is neither relevant, proper, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence and is improper character evidence. 

 Plaintiff objections to the Defendant’s disclosure of a representative of Alexander 

Mobile Home who will testify regarding Mr. Alston’s employment with Alexander Mobile 

Home. Alexander Mobile Home is not a party to this action and any information they may 

have is neither relevant, proper, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence and is improper character evidence. 

Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

 

s/Christopher D. Glover__________ 

Christopher D. Glover (GLO007) 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

OF COUNSEL: 

HOGAN AND GLOVER, P.C. 

2017 Morris Avenue, Suite 300 

Birmingham, AL 35203-4138 

Phone: (205) 327-5235 

Fax: (205) 327-5237 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing upon all interested parties 

and counsel of record in this cause via facsimile and by placing a copy of same in the United 

States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows on this the 29th day of August, 2007. 

Keri Donald Simms 

Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom 

505 North 20th Street, Suite 1200 

Birmingham, AL 35203 

 s/Christopher D. Glover

 OF COUNSEL 

Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
Subpart 2014.2 - Solicitation of Bids

Parent topic: PART 2014 - SEALED BIDDING

2014.201 Preparation of invitation for bids.

2014.201-670 Solicitation provisions.

(a) The contracting officer may insert the provision at 2052.214-70, Prebid Conference, in Invitations

for Bids (IFB) where there will be a prebid conference. This provision may be altered by the

contracting officer to fit the circumstances of the procurement.

(b) The contracting officer may insert the provision at 2052.214-71, Bidder Qualifications and Past

Experience in IFBs on an optional basis to fit the circumstances of the requirement;

(c) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 2052.214-72 Bid Evaluation in all IFBs.

Paragraph (f) of this provision is optional.

(d) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 2052.214-73 Timely Receipt of Bids in all

IFBs.

(e) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 2052.214-74 Disposition of Bids in all IFBs.
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 50 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 50 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 50 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CR. NO. 3:06CR210-MEF

)

MELISSA WARD )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR MELISSA WARD

The undersigned, Charles E. Vercelli, Jr., hereby files this Notice of Appearance on

behalf of Defendant Melissa Ward. Please forward all pleadings to the attention of the

undersigned.

Respectfully submitted this the 26 day of October, 2006. th

s/ C. E. Vercelli, Jr._________________________

 CHARLES E. VERCELLI, JR. (VER003)

OF COUNSEL:

VERCELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

1019 S. Perry Street

Montgomery, AL 36104-5049

TEL: 334-834-8805

FAX: 334-834-8807

cvercelli@vercelli-law.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 26, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, using the

CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the United States Attorney

and to all counsel of record. 

s/ C. E. Vercelli, Jr.___________________

Of Counsel

519-06\Not-Appear.1.wpd

Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 10 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 1 of 1