alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Northwest Mink Ranches, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. Centennial Insurance Co. et al., Appellants.

Order entered on July 30, 1968, granting motion to strike interrogatories modified, on the law and the facts, to the following extent: (a) so as to deny plaintiffs’ motion to strike interrogatories numbered 7,16,17, 22 and 23; (b) so as to deny the motion to strike interrogatories numbered 10 and 11 except to the extent those interrogatories seek information concerning adults in 1965 and kits in 1967; (e) so as to deny the motion to strike interrogatory numbered 19 insofar as made on behalf of respondent Northwest Mink Ranches, Inc.; (d) so as to strike interrogatory numbered 12 upon consent of the parties; and except as so modified the order appealed from is affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants. These items relate to the complaint and the issues raised by the pleadings. In view of the unique nature of the litigation the items presently allowed are *“*material and necessary ” within the fair intendment of CPLR 3101. Concur—Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, McGivern, Nunez and McNally, JJ.
ex10_4.htm


     

    
      Registered
Trademark Certificate

      


      


      


      Approved
commodities: (Type 16)

      


      Grainypaper,
color crepe paper, Paper baby diaper, beer coaster, newspaper, magazines,
etc.

      


      


      Registrant:
Mr. Liu Rui Sheng

      


      


      Registrant
address: No.2 Chang zhong Road, Chang An town, Dongguan, China

      


      


      Regirstration
Period: From 7th Oct,
2004 to 26th Oct,
2014

      


      


      Issue
by:(Stamped) China Administration for Industry and Commerce

       

      


      


      Approved
proof of Trademark Transferred

      Approved
No. 3404040 Trademark transferred

      


      Transferee:
Dongguan CHDITN Printing Co, Ltd

      


      Transferee
Address: 6th
Economic Develop area, Wusha Liwu,

                        Chang
An Town, Dongguan City.

      


       

      


      


      
        	
                 
      

              	
                Note:
      -This prood of Trademark transferred should use along with the Registered
      Trademark certificate;

              


      

      
        	
                 
      

              	
                      -The
      Date on the Proof would be same as the effective date of the trademark
      transferred;

              


      

      
        	
                 
      

              	
                      -If
      there are more than one Transferees, the first one would be the
      representative, and the transferee address would be the representative
      address.
Case 2:06-cv-00769-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00769-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00769-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 3 of 3
SUBPART 15.3 – SOURCE SELECTION

( Revised June 9, 2021 through PROCLTR 20 21-11 )

Parent topic: PART 15 – CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

15.303 Responsibilities.

(a) For acquisitions valued at $1 billion or greater, the SPE shall appoint the the the Source

Selection Authority (SSA), who shall be at the Senior Executive Service/General Officer/Flag Officer

(SES/GO/FO) level. For acquisitions greater than or equal to $100 million and less than $1 billion,

the HCA is authorized to appoint the SSA. The HCA may delegate SSA appointment authority no

lower than the CCO. For acquisitions estimated between $10 million and $100 million, the SSA will

be the contracting officer unless the HCA or the HCA delegee appoints someone else.

(c)(3)(i) Contracting officers shall include procurement note L08 in solicitations when using the

Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) to evaluate offerors’ past performance for best value

source selections valued under $10 million.

*****

L08 Use of Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) in Past Performance Evaluations (JUN 2020)

(1) The Government will use the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) (

https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/ ) (formerly Past Performance Information Retrieval System –

Statistical Reporting (PPIRS-SR)) to evaluate suppliers’ past performance.

(2) SPRS collects quality and delivery data on previously awarded contracts and orders from existing

Department of Defense reporting systems to classify each supplier’s performance history by Federal

supply class (FSC) and product or service code (PSC). The SPRS application provides the contracting

officer quantifiable past performance information regarding a supplier's quality and delivery

performance for the FSC and PSC of the supplies the Government is purchasing.

(3) The contracting officer will use the quality and delivery classifications identified for a supplier in

SPRS to evaluate a supplier’s past performance in conjunction with the supplier’s references (if

requested). The Government will use this past performance information in accordance with the basis

for award stated in the solicitation.

(4) SPRS generates classifications daily for each contractor. The SPRS Software User's Guide for

Awardees/Contractors ( https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_Awardee.pdf ) and the SPRS

Government User Guide ( https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_Government.pdf ) provide

instructions for accessing SPRS classifications. Contractors have access to SPRS for their own

classifications only. Suppliers are encouraged to review their own classifications; the SPRS reporting

procedures and classification methodology detailed in the SPRS Software User's Guide for

Awardees/Contractors ( https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_Awardee.pdf ); and the SPRS

Evaluation Criteria ( https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_DataEvaluationCriteria.pdf ). The SPRS

Software User's Guide for Awardees/Contractors (

https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_Awardee.pdf ) provides the method to challenge a rating

generated by SPRS.
*****
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7792

JESSE MAVERICK MINTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK PERRY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld, 

Magistrate Judge. (1:12-cv-00497-LPA)

Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesse Maverick Minton, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jesse Maverick Minton seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Minton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Minton’s motions for a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. )

)

ROY DALE WALLACE ) CR. NO. 1:06cr170-09-WHA

O R D E R

The defendant by consent has appeared before a United States Magistrate Judge and has entered

a plea of guilty. The Magistrate Judge has accepted the plea of guilty and has adjudicated the defendant

guilty. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. That sentencing of the defendant be, and the same is, hereby set on May 21, 2007, at 10:00

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

Alabama.

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

April 30, 2007, counsel for the defendant and the Government shall communicate in writing to the

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

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

presentence report.

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

for the parties shall be available for a conference with the probation officer on May 31, 2007, at 9:30

a.m., to discuss and resolve, if possible, factual and legal issues contained in the presentence report. If

the probation officer determines or if any of the parties request that a personal meeting be held to resolve

the issues, such meeting shall be at the U.S. Probation Office, One Church Street, Montgomery, AL,

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

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

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

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

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

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

established in the Constitution or laws of the United States.

DONE this 5th day of March , 2007.

 /s/ W. Harold Albritton 

Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 364 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Claim of May Sanders, Respondent, v Langas*700ter Central School System et al., Appellants, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 1, *1979,*which discharged the Special Disability Fund from liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. On May 8, 1975, claimant’s decedent, employed by the Lancaster Central School System as a schoolgrounds keeper, suffered a fatal myocardial infarction which the board found compensable. The carrier filed a claim for reimbursement out of the Special Disability Fund pursuant to subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workers’ Compensation Law, alleging in the claim that the decedent had a prior physical impairment of coronary artery disease and arteriosclerotic heart disease. The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the board’s decision that the employer did not have knowledge of the decedent’s prior physical impairment is supported by substantial evidence. Whether the employer had such knowledge is a question of fact for the hoard’s determination and its decision may not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence *(Matter of Milner v Country Developers,*43 AD2d 595). Here, the school superintendent, Dr. Hayes, testified that he did not have the "slightest idea” of the nature of decedent’s heart problem. The testimony of the other two witnesses is of no avail to the employer because it was vague and equivocal. Mr. Bauer conceded that he had never seen any medical reports describing claimant’s disability, except for one which described his situation as a "strained heart muscle”. He did not have direct supervision over the decedent and he could only recall that the decedent had headaches. Moreover, in regard to his knowledge of the decedent’s strained heart muscle, he testified that the decedent "got over it and he came back to work”, and he attached no permanency to it. Likewise, Mr. Barrows, when asked if he had any basis or reason to assume that the decedent’s condition was permanent, testified, "No, I didn’t.” Thus, the board’s decision that the employer did not have the requisite knowledge under subdivision 8 of section 15 is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed *(Matter of Carasia v New York Times Co.,*65 AD2d 836). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Special Disability Fund against the employer and its insurance carrier. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Casey, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 26
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear at 87 FR 71455, Nov. 22, 2022.

§ 26.113 Splitting the urine specimen. ( a ) Licensees and other entities may, but are not required to, use split-specimen methods of collection.
( b ) If the urine specimen is to be split into two specimen bottles, hereinafter referred to as Bottle A and Bottle B, the collector shall take the following steps: ( 1 ) The collector shall instruct the donor to urinate into a specimen container;
( 2 ) The collector, in the presence of the donor and after determining specimen temperature as described in § 26.111(a), shall split the urine specimen. The collector shall pour 30 mL of urine into Bottle A and a minimum of 15 mL of urine into Bottle B. If the quantity of urine available for Bottle B is less than 15 mL, the collector shall pour the remaining urine into Bottle B and forward the specimens in Bottles A and B to the HHS-certified laboratory for drug and validity testing; and
( 3 ) The collector shall ask the donor to observe the splitting of the urine specimen and to maintain visual contact with both specimen bottles until the Federal CCF(s) for both specimens are completed, the specimens are sealed, and the specimens and form(s) are prepared for secure storage or shipping.
( c ) Licensees and other entities may use aliquots of the specimen collected for validity screening and initial validity and drug testing at the licensee testing facility, as permitted under § 26.31(d)(3)(ii), or to test for additional drugs, as permitted under § 26.31(d)(1)(i)(A), but only if sufficient urine is available for this testing after the specimen has been split into Bottle A and Bottle B.
2007-2099.

#### Keister v. Eberlin.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Larry Thomas Keister. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
#### HERRMAN, Appellant, v. LELAND, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

Action by James S. Herrman against Francis L. Leland.

No opinion. Order denying motion for reargument affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 643.
Incorporation by Reference

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401

May 20, 2013

The contents of the following docket is hereby incorporated by reference into and is

considered to be included in, contained in and have been placed in Docket EPA-HQOAR-2012-0401 (Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: RFS Pathways II and 

Technical Amendments to the RFS 2 Standards):

 EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161: Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Renewable 

Fuel Program

Specifically the following files in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161 are incorporated 

by reference in the context of the analysis of canola oil biodiesel lifecycle GHG 

emissions:

2005 Petroleum Baseline Lifecycle GHG Results

1.) EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-3151 (Memorandum describing spreadsheets that 

calculate petroleum baseline lifecycle GHG emissions)

2.) EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-3151.1 (Lifecycle calculations for the gasoline 

baseline, diesel baseline, tailpipe values for ethanol and biodiesel, and landuse change emissions due to oil sands production)

Accessing dockets:

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through 

www.regulation.gov or in hard copy at EPA’s Docket Center, Public Reading Room, 

EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 

20004. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Unassociated Document


     

    
      EXHIBIT
10.24

      


      Base
Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas by and between Seminole Energy
Services, L.L.C. and Kentucky USA Energy, Inc.
Case 3:06-cv-00777-MHT-TFM Document 10 Filed 10/24/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00777-MHT-TFM Document 10 Filed 10/24/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00777-MHT-TFM Document 10 Filed 10/24/2006 Page 3 of 3
IV 

House Calendar No. 31 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 242 

[Report No. 109–60] 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

Mr. PUTNAM, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with 

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported 

from the Committee on Rules. 

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the 

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to 

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported on the legislative day of April 28, 2005 (1) pro6 viding for consideration or disposition of a conference re7 port to accompany the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 
2 

HRES 242 RH 

1 95) establishing the congressional budget for the United 

2 States Government for fiscal year 2006, revising appro3 priate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2005, and setting 

4 forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 

5 through 2010 or (2) establishing a separate order relating 

6 to budget enforcement. 

House Calendar No. 31 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 242 

[Report No. 109–60] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

tions reported from the Committee on Rules. with respect to consideration of certain resoluAPRIL 27, 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
# c rh c 'U' 4,\\.'

# i\1 C) li"' N f) 

## It\\'ftf) I) Commonwealth oj Massachusetts

OFFICE ADDRESS 125 Access Road Norwood, MA 02062 

## NorwoodMemorialAirport Russ Maguire, A.A.E.,ACE, Airport Manager .

HAND DELIVERED·AND BYELECTRONIC MAIL July 19, 2013 

### Boston Executive Helicopters Attn: Chris Donovan, President 125 Access Road Norwood, MA 02062 RE: 

### Boston ExecutiveHelicopters' Fuel Farm Dear Chris: MAILING ADDRESS 125 Access Road Norwood , MA 02062

As a matter of record: During its monthly public meeting held Wednesday, July 17, 2013, the Norwood Airport Commission (NAC) met with your company, 

### Boston Executive Helicopters (BEH), to specifically resolve two outstanding matters. These involved: 1. FAA's design standard relative to the Norwood Airport's gate 3 taxi-lane object free area (TOFA), as it applies to your company's construction and operational plans; 2. BEH's fueling plans and procedures with respect to the TOFA, and the abutting property interests ofothers Regarding the NAC's first concern, as indicated in Wednesday's meeting, the board considers this matter resolved. As for the second concern, at Wednesday's meeting, your company delivered to the Airport Commission documents that now more comprehensively address BEH's fueling plans and procedures, especially with . respect to the TOFA and the abutting property interests ofothers. Following your company's presentation Wednesday, the NAC approved the continuation of your company's hangar construction and fuel farm installation.

Phone: (781) 255-5616 I Fax: ( 81 )255- 617 I rmaguire@norwoodrna.gov

# / However, as noted in the meeting, BEH still needs to deliver to the NAC additional documents and revised plans, which your company has agreed to. These documents would include: I. A 

### revised fuel storage drawing(s), which you've indicated has already been approved by the Norwood Fire Department and Board ofSelectmen; 2. A 

### foundation plan; 3. A 

### shoring plan; 4. A 

### copy of BEH's filing to the Norwood Conservation Commission (Con Com) showing the spill containment properties ofyour fuel fann, which you've indicated as having met the approval ofthe Norwood Con Com; 5. An updated construction schedule Per Wednesday's meeting, BEH has furthermore agreed to an aircraft fueling restriction east of its leasehold since this involves abutting leaseholds; and this restriction will remain in place until such time that BEH can demonstrate to the Airport Commission that the property rights ofothers will not be violated. Finally, on behalfofthe board, thanks very much for taking the time at Wednesday's meeting to more fully explain BEH's plans . Good luck as your company moves forward with construction. Sincerely,



# ~~ Russ Maguire, Manager Norwood Memorial Airport

Cc: Norwood Airport Commission,· Norwood Board ofSelectmen,· John Carroll, Norwood Town Manager,· Chief Tony Greeley, Norwood Fire Department,· A! Goetz, Agent, Norwood Conservation Commission
COURTROOM DEPUTY’S MINUTES MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/INITIAL APPEARANCE DATE: August 17, 2006

 BOND HEARING

 DETENTION HEARING Digital Recording 4:17 - 4:26

 PRELIMINARY (EXAMINATION)(HEARING)

 REMOVAL HEARING (R.40)

 ARRAIGNMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESIDING MAG. JUDGE: Susan Russ Walker DEPUTY CLERK: Joyce Taylor

CASE NO. 2:06mj82-SRW DEFENDANT NAME: Kimberly Joyce Sellers

AUSA: David Cooke DEFT. ATTY: Leslie Smith

Type Counsel: ( )Retained; ( ) CJA; ( ) Waived; (/ ) FPD

USPO/USPTS: Tamara Martin

Interpreter needed: ( / ) NO; ( )YES Name:

____________________________________________________________________________

/ Date of Arrest August 17, 2006 or  Arrest Rule 5

/ Deft First Appearance. Advised of rights/charges.  Prob/Sup Rel Violator

/ Financial Affidavit executed. ORAL MOTION for appointment of Counsel.

/ ORAL ORDER appointing Federal Public Defender - Notice of Appearance to be filed

 Panel Attorney Appointed;  to be appointed - prepare voucher

 Deft. Advises he will retain counsel. Has retained _____________________

/  Government’s ORAL Motion for Detention Hrg.  to be followed by written

motion; / Government’s WRITTEN Motion for Detention Hrg. filed

/ Detention Hearing / set for 8/22/06 at 10:00 a.m.

 ORDER OF TEMPORARY DETENTION PENDING HEARING to be entered

 ORDER OF DETENTION HEARING PENDING TRIAL to be entered

 Release order entered. Deft advised of conditions of release

  BOND EXECUTED (M/D AL charges) $. Deft released

 BOND EXECUTED (R. 5) - deft to report to originating district as ordered

 Bond not executed. Defendant to remain in Marshal’s custody

 Deft. ORDERED REMOVED to originating district

/ Waiver of  preliminary hearing; / Waiver Rule 5 hearing

 Court finds PROBABLE CAUSE. Defendant bound over to the Grand Jury

 ARRAIGNMENT HELD. Plea of NOT GUILTY entered. Set for

DISCOVERY DISCLOSURE DATE: 

 WAIVER of Speedy Trial. CRIMINAL TERM: 

 NOTICE to retained Criminal Defense Attorney handed to counsel

Case 2:06-mj-00082-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 1