alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PART 43 – CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS

SUBPART 43.1 – GENERAL

43.102 Policy.

43.103 Types of contract modifications.

SUBPART 43.1 – GENERAL

(Revised August 10, 2018 through PROCLTR 2018-16)

43.102 Policy.

(b)(S-90) Administrative cost. The administrative cost for contract modifications issued by DLA

Aviation, DLA Contracting Services Office, DLA Disposition Services, DLA Distribution, DLA Energy,

DLA Land and Maritime, DLA Strategic Materials, and DLA Troop Support Industrial Hardware is

$250. The administrative cost for contract modifications issued by DLA Troop Support Construction

and Equipment, Clothing and Textile, Subsistence, and Medical is $750. These fees are in addition to

consideration cost (see 43.102(b)(S-91)); and costs for Government reinspection or retest, if

necessary.

(S-91) Consideration cost. The contracting officer determines the most appropriate calculation

method. The formula below is provided as a potential method for calculating consideration for

issuing the modification.

Formula: (((((E-1)/(E+1))+1)/100)*M*V) + D

Key: E = # of Extensions: The number of extension request instances that contractor asks for at the

time of the modification (i.e., 1 for 1st request, 2 for 2nd request, and 10 for 10th request).

M = Lateness (expressed in months): The number of months the contractor has requested an

extension. For example, if the contractor requests an extension of 30 days for the “current” delivery

time, M would be 1. For 120 days, M would be 4. If this is the contractor’s second request, and they

want another 120 days, M would still be 4.

V = Value of Extended Portion of Contract: The value of the material that is going to be delayed. If

the total contract dollar value is for $50K and the whole contract is going to be late, V would be

$50K. If the contractor is going to deliver half of the contract on time but needs more time on the

other half, then V would be $25K.

D = Direct Cost: Fixed costs associated with writing the modification, re-inspecting material, and

any other cost the Government incurs for making the change ($250 as the base).

Examples:

1. Contract is for $1.5M contractor needs a 30 day
extension:(((((1-1)/(1+1))+1)/100)*1*1,500,000)+250 = $15,250

2. Same contract, but now they need an additional 90

days:(((((2-1)/(2+1))+1)/100)*3*1,500,000)+250 = $60,250.00

3. Same contract, they have delivered half of their order, but they need 120 days to finish:

(((((3-1)/(3+1))+1)/100)*4*750,000)+250 = $45,250

43.103 Types of contract modifications.

(b) Unilateral.

(S-90) In cases when the contractor is unable to sign a bilateral modification deobligating an

unliquidated obligation (ULO), the contracting officer may issue a unilateral deobligation

modification with concurrence of Office of Counsel.
Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 26 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 1:06-cr-170-WHA-DRB 

 )

ROY DALE WALLACE )

GOVERNMENT'S AMENDED MOTION FOR DETENTION HEARING

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

Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3142(e) and (f) moves for

a detention hearing for the above-captioned defendant.

1. Eligibility of Cases

This case is eligible for a detention order because this case involves:

Crime of violence (18 U.S.C. 3156)

 X Maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death

 X 10 + year drug offense

 Felony, with two prior convictions in the above categories

 X Serious risk the defendant will flee

 Serious risk of obstruction of justice

Felony involving a minor victim

Felony involving possession possession or use of a firearm or other destructive

device (as defined by 18 U.S.C. 921) or any other dangerous weapon

Failure to register a sex offender (18 U.S.C 2250)

2. Reason For Detention

The Court should detain defendant because there are no conditions of release which will

reasonably assure:

Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 200 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 1 of 2
 X Defendant's appearance as required

 X Safety of any other person and the community

3. Rebuttable Presumption

The United States will invoke the rebuttable presumption against defendant under Section

3142(e). The presumption applies because:

X Probable cause to believe defendant committed 10 + year drug offense or an offense

in which a firearm was used or carried under Section 924(c)

 Previous conviction for "eligible" offense committed while on pretrial bond

 A period of five years has not elapsed from defendant's conviction or release from

imprisonment for the offense described above

4. Time For Detention Hearing

The United States requests the Court conduct the detention hearing:

At the initial appearance

 X After continuance of 3 days

The Government requests leave of Court to file a supplemental motion with additional

grounds or presumption for detention should this be necessary.

Respectfully submitted this the 10th day of October, 2006.

LEURA G. CANARY 

United States Attorney

s/A. Clark Morris

A. CLARK MORRIS

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334)223-7280

Fax: (334)223-7135

E-mail: clark. morris@usdoj.gov

ASB-1613-N77A

Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 200 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 205.370 Applicability.

Sections 202(c) and 202(d) of the Federal Power Act are applicable to any “entity” which owns or operates electric power generation, transmission or distribution facilities. An “entity” is a private or public corporation (utility), a governmental agency, a municipality, a cooperative or a lawful association of the foregoing. Under this section, the DOE has the authority to order the temporary connection of facilities, or the generation or delivery of electricity, which it deems necessary to alleviate an emergency. Such orders shall be effective for the time specified and will be subject to the terms and conditions the DOE specifies. The DOE retains the right to cancel, modify or otherwise change any order, with or without notice, hearing, or report. Requests for action under these regulations will be accepted from any “entity,” State Public Utility Commission, State Energy Agency, or State Governor. Actions under these regulations also may be initiated by the DOE on its own motion. Orders under this authority may be made effective without prior notice.
Subpart 1252.1—Instructions for Using

Provisions and Clauses

Parent topic: PART 1252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND C ONTRACT CLAUSES

1252.101-70 Using this part.

TAR provisions or clauses that supplement the FAR shall follow the following numbering conventions

in accordance with FAR 52.101(b)(2)(i):

(a) Agency-prescribed provisions and clauses permitted by TAR and used on a standard basis (i.e.,

normally used in two or more solicitations or contracts regardless of contract type) shall be

prescribed and contained in the TAR. Operating Administrations (OAs) desiring to use a provision or

a clause on a standard basis shall submit a request containing a copy of the clause(s), justification

for its use, and evidence of legal counsel review to the Office of the Senior Procurement Executive in

accordance with 1201.304 for possible inclusion in the TAR (see FAR 52.101(b)(2)(i)(A)).

(b) Provisions and clauses used on a one-time basis (i.e., non-standard provisions and clauses) may

be approved by the contracting officer, unless a higher level is designated by the OA (see FAR

52.101(b)(2)(i)(C)). This authority is permitted subject to—

(1) Evidence of legal counsel review in the contract file;

(2) Inserting these clauses in the appropriate sections of the uniform contract format; and

(3) Ensuring the provisions and clauses do not deviate from the requirements of the FAR and TAR.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 1 1

- 00 431

- CR
IN RE Jesse RAMIREZ Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 13, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On June 22, 2011, relator Jesse Ramirez filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions. However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the t rial court for which he is currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See
Robinson v. State , 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by
counsel. See Robinson , 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010

- CR

- 8528

- A , styled State of Te xas v. Jesse Ramirez , pending in the 144t h Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Angus K. McGinty presiding.04

- 11

- 00 431

- CR

- 2

- discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro se motions filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 52.8( a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
#### PECOS MERCANTILE CO. v. TOOLEY et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

November 27, 1912.)

No. 2,401.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas; Thomas S. Maxey, Judge.

J. A. Gillett, of-El Paso, Tex., for appellant.

T. A. Falvey, Wm. H. Burges, and Robt. L. Holliday, all of El Paso, Tex., for appellees.

Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and FOSTER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the marshaling of liens on the mortgaged property of the bankrupt. On the facts shown, the subrogation and priority- allowed.the First National Bank of El Paso over the appellant was just and equitable, and the decree appealed from is affirmed.
|us bank(logo) | All of us serving you
|------------- | ---------------------





Annual Statement of Compliance

Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Trust 2013-C7



VIA: EMAIL



Morgan Stanley Capital I
Inc.

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036

Attention: Stephen Holmes

stephen.holmes@morganstanley.com



| | Re: | ThePooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”)
dated as of January 1, 2013 among Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. as depositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National
Association, as master servicer and special servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as trust advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
as custodian and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, certificate administrator, certificate registrar and authenticating
agent
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I, Kimberly O. Jacobs,
a Senior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator, as a certifying servicer hereby certify
that:



(1) A review of the activities
of the Certificate Administrator during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of the performance
of the Certificate Administrator under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and



(2) To the best of my knowledge,
based on such review, the Certificate Administrator has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such Reporting Period



Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have
the meanings set forth in the Agreement.



Date: March 1, 2018



U.S. Bank National Association as Certificate Administrator





|By: | /s/ Kimberly
    O. Jacobs | 
|--- | -------------------------- | 
|    | Kimberly O. Jacobs         | 
|    | Senior Vice President      |
#### In the Matter of Jerry Adams, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[817 NYS2d 159]

Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kavanagh, J.), entered June 9, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services calculating the length of petitioner’s sentence.

Petitioner, having been convicted of multiple crimes, was sentenced in 1981 to an aggregate prison term of 4 to 8 years. Following his release to parole supervision, he was convicted of another crime and sentenced in 1985 as a second felony offender to IV2 to 3 years in prison. Petitioner was again paroled and, upon his convictions for numerous additional crimes, was sentenced in 1989 as a second violent felony offender to an aggregate prison term of 20 to 40 years. Petitioner subsequently *1238commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting that his 1985 and 1989 sentences should be construed as running concurrently with the remaining years on the preexisting unexpired sentences, rather than consecutively thereto, since the commitment orders were silent in that regard. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

Because petitioner was sentenced as a second felony offender and a second violent felony offender in 1985 and 1989, respectively, it is mandatory that such sentences run consecutively to his prior undischarged sentences, notwithstanding the fact that the sentencing courts did not expressly indicate same in the commitment orders *(see*Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]; *Matter of Williams v Goord,*25 AD3d 838, 838 [2006]; *Matter of Soriano v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*21 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2005]; *Matter of Santiago v Van Zandt,*236 AD2d 728, 729 [1997], *appeal dismissed*89 NY2d 1085 [1997]). Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that the length of his sentence was improperly calculated.

Peters, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of National Property Investors 8 (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(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 results of operations of the Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: May 14, 2008     
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: May 14, 2008     



This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 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, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv755-MHT

) 

WALTER WOOD, in his )

individual capacity, )

)

Defendant. )

J.B., a minor child, by and )

through his next friend, )

Addie Ward, on behalf of )

himself and all others )

similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv908-MHT

) (WO) 

WALTER WOOD, in his )

individual capacity, )

)

Defendant. )

JUDGMENT
In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered

this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the

court as follows:

(1) Judgment is entered in favor of defendant Walter

Wood and against plaintiff J.B. on plaintiff

J.B.’s federal claim, with plaintiff J.B. taking

nothing as to his federal claim.

(2) Plaintiff J.B.’s remaining state-law claims are

dismissed without prejudice.

It is further ORDERED that costs are taxed against

plaintiff J.B., for which execution may issue.

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this

document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant

to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE, this the 25th day of March, 2010.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                    5

       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       0
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                          304,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       319,000
<PP&E>                               6,355,000
<DEPRECIATION>                       2,184,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       4,490,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               14,654,000
<BONDS>                                      0
<COMMON>                               417,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   26,000
<PREFERRED>                             26,000
<OTHER-SE>                       (15,374,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         4,490,000
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             0
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          458,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     255,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (662,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (662,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                         (662,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (0.03)
        




</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 115 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**







**CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**


**SECURITIES
      EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b)**


**OR
      RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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




In
      connection with the Annual Report on
      Form 10-K of the Tennessee Valley Authority (the “Company”) for the year ended
      September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tom D. Kilgore, President and Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, for the purposes of complying with Rule
      13a-14(b), or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) the
      Report fully complies with
      the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/
                Tom D. KilgoreTom
                D. KilgorePresident
                and Chief Executive OfficerDecember 12,
                2007
Subpart 1222.1—Basic Labor Policies    **Parent topic:** PART 1222—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS1222.101 Labor relations.1222.101-70 Admittance of union representatives to DOT installations.       (a) It is DOT policy to admit labor union representatives of contractor employees to DOT installations to visit work sites and transact labor union business with contractors, their employees, or union stewards pursuant to existing union collective bargaining agreements. Their presence shall not interfere with the contractor's work progress under a DOT contract, nor violate the safety or security regulations that may be applicable to persons visiting the installation. The union representatives will not be permitted to conduct meetings, collect union dues, or make speeches concerning union matters while visiting a work site.          (b) Whenever a union representative is denied entry to a work site, the person denying entry shall make a written report to the labor advisor for the applicable Operating Administration or to the DOT labor coordinator, the Office of the General Counsel, Office of General Law, within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, within two working days after the request for entry is denied. The report shall include the reason(s) for the denial, the name of the representative denied entry, the union affiliation and number, and the name and title of the person that denied the entry.1222.101-71 Contract clauses.       (a) When applicable, the contracting officer may insert the clause at 1252.222–70, Strikes or Picketing Affecting Timely Completion of the Contract Work, in solicitations and contracts.          (b) When applicable, the contracting officer may insert the clause at 1252.222–71, Strikes or Picketing Affecting Access to a DOT Facility, in solicitations and contracts.
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 2 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 2 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 2 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 2 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 4 of 4
3031.205-32 Precontract costs.

(a) The decision to incur precontract costs is that of the contractor. DHS employees may not

authorize, demand, or require a contractor to incur precontract costs. The contracting officer must

advise the prospective contractor that any costs incurred before contract award are incurred at the

contractor's sole risk and that if negotiations fail to result in a binding contract, payment of these

costs will not be made by the Government. See (HSAR) 48 CFR 3031.205–32(b) regarding exception

due to reconciliation of costs.

(b) When the contracting officer determines that incurring precontract costs was necessary to meet

the proposed contract delivery schedule of a cost-reimbursement contract, the clause at (HSAR) 48

CFR 3052.231–70, Precontract Costs, may be inserted in the resultant contract.

Parent topic: Subpart 3031.2—Contracts with Commercial Organizations