alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# SUBCHAPTER C—CONTRACTING METHODS AND CONTRACT TYPES   

- PART 1213—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES 
- PART 1214 [RESERVED] 
- PART 1215—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION 
- PART 1216—TYPES OF CONTRACTS 
- PART 1217—SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS 

- PART 1213—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES    - Subpart 1213.70—Department of Transportation Procedures for Acquiring Training Services     - 1213.7000   Applicability.
    - 1213.7001   Solicitation provision and contract clause.
- PART 1214 [RESERVED]   
- PART 1215—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION    - Subpart 1215.4—Contract Pricing     - 1215.404   Proposal analysis.
    - 1215.404-470   Payment of profit or fee.
  - Subpart 1215.6—Unsolicited Proposals     - 1215.603   General.
    - 1215.604   Agency points of contact.
    - 1215.606   Agency procedures.
- PART 1216—TYPES OF CONTRACTS    - Subpart 1216.2—Fixed-Price Contracts     - 1216.203   Fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment.
    - 1216.203-4   Contract clauses.
    - 1216.203-470   Solicitation provision.
  - Subpart 1216.4—Incentive Contracts     - 1216.406-70   DOT contract clauses.
  - Subpart 1216.5—Indefinite-Delivery Contracts     - 1216.505   Ordering.
  - Subpart 1216.6—Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts     - 1216.603   Letter contracts.
    - 1216.603-4   Contract clauses.
- PART 1217—SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS    - Subpart 1217.70—Fixed-Price Contracts for Vessel Repair, Alteration, or Conversion     - 1217.7000   Definition.
    - 1217.7001   Clauses.
3047.305-70 Solicitation provisions.

The contracting officer shall insert the following provisions in solicitations, as applicable:

(a) (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.247–70, F.o.b. Origin Information, with Alternates I or II, as applicable,

shall be inserted in accordance with (FAR) 48 CFR 47.305–3(b);

(b) (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.247–71, F.o.b. Origin Only, shall be inserted in accordance with (FAR) 48

CFR 47.305–3(e); and

(c) (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.247–72, F.o.b. Destination Only, shall be inserted in accordance with (FAR)

48 CFR 47.305–4(b).

Parent topic: Subpart 3047.3—Transportation in Supply Contracts
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 114

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a postage stamp 

should be issued honoring American farm women. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2005

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

a postage stamp should be issued honoring American 

farm women.

Whereas American farm women have for centuries been critical to the survival of the family farm; 

Whereas in 1862 the newly formed Department of Agriculture released a study showing that on 3 out of 4 farms 

the wife ‘‘works harder’’ and ‘‘endures more, than any 

other on the place’’; 

Whereas American farm women played an important role in 

the United States victories in the World Wars, when they 

and their families took on even greater responsibilities on 

the farms, maintaining the food and fiber needs of our 

country as millions of men left the farms to fight in the 

wars; 
2

•HRES 114 IH 

Whereas women have been actively involved in critical farm 

decisions, such as the buying and selling of land and 

farm equipment, estate planning, and developing new 

production practices; and 

Whereas American farm women play an integral role in farm 

tasks, such as tending to animals, field work, bookkeeping, and raising children: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that—

3 (1) the United States Postal Service should 

4 issue a postage stamp honoring American farm 

5 women; and 

6 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee 

7 should recommend to the Postmaster General that 

8 such a stamp be issued.

Æ
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
Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 5 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
---

Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION








In connection with the Annual Report of Rockies Region 2006 Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certify pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





(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 Registrant.








/s/ Richard W. McCullough

March 31, 2010Richard W. McCulloughChief Executive OfficerPetroleum Development CorporationManaging General Partner/s/ Gysle R. Shellum

March 31, 2010Gysle R. ShellumChief Financial OfficerPetroleum Development CorporationManaging General Partner





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided by the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I

JN ml D/sM/1crc'4t fo 1#J-/N/ic7J 797f5

FoR 1//EM/DD1F9/5TA/cToF ,9I1MM,

Div1si'N

1-

RaipAwL,ri5o

Peéit1aYJstL(/b/cT/oN/Vt, /

7a3

W,&rIen /Ieirne64

'p(\

S

4\\ (A t3k- c—j

C

'1 J1\ LJ4\' \e 4t5S

ri-SecI.

o \3A—)03,

JJ 4 ii o p T \'

cc4 Ckrk (4rJ& tJooJc//

T ' i c ov s br&

kc \oer\ \ecA\

T 3 re

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 05/06/2008 Page 1 of 4
1,

I

c6c kkdcre 3 a

4Tor Ikc't 13 nt reorc!S,

4

/i/J)g/o3 1h4 (u'P 1 ___

code.

_________ c- -\-'S

CL LTiii1- cJ

10t) ! 4

HL rc \o

brr\ck.LhcL \J vru(

'

s co

rr & c

\&r sc\c 3eYr

c

cr' a a c'r 4c ce

flcn ( GSr'J eco)

€ L CL 6.. zc

a_U CUS £)1oc&1€t

--. ic L-(G ( k

_______ '_jDct1Scr\ -cC

____

tir 1\ c1S vii- J1.cer\ce.

/

i4-'r\

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 05/06/2008 Page 2 of 4
o P51/? 'l/c.

I eYe bi cert,Y lAd a tA_M4Y

$S za _zo g, rcis've z €'of7 of 'Ac

on LY.a^,Ma toa P1e/aZi

frc (ely all seI aS /4'/MWS)

CC, / on, Tray Xi )'ig, /?1a4a,' ,%tatn eY6tnefaI /15', 141 j'n

sret, Th/rIf4''r, ho/2iJO/'1FY, ,%L 3e: 131) -DISZ

Cci WtzYo/9R /1''m2t'z',4 J6, ,3ai/otl( t::•oyT'ct,o,ia1

C .&' S1o1, ZJi?1'r7 5/Y/flQ93 /91 3o6'?-^/O

cc.' ofF/cE of TAe riM/C uH/riL $i19TE5 Disilfici Coi/A't.

/?oA7//17o)V722e/'Y1 ,L 3Woi-07//j

fla,oi4

/3a//ocJl'correot,onaJ

LI/I, o "1 S AK, . ,41L 3O 1 - S ft' 7

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 05/06/2008 Page 3 of 4
/i,A i. C

/9oP' /r' -z

/C,I?X 57c7

1i/?,n J,K IL 3ecf-{/'7

of72 e

/N/7ZO rrn- D,

/ 3M'/ -'2//

t-'C? t 1 1 I,I1tI11IIIlI11ttIfUI1IIIfUhIiEI(tLIIlfIJhtfIIIlIIII(hI

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 59 Filed 05/06/2008 Page 4 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Case No. 2:06CR198-WKW

)

RONALD MCQUEEN )

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

A pretrial conference was held on September 25, 2006 before the undersigned

Magistrate Judge. Present at this conference was the Honorable Denise Simmons,

counsel for the defendant, and Assistant United States Attorney Tommie Hardwick,

counsel for the government. As a result of the conference and the court having continued

the trial of this case, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. Jury selection is set for January 8, 2007. The trial of this case is set for the

trial term commencing on January 8, 2007, before United States District Judge

William K. Watkins and is expected to last three (3) trial days.

2. The following motion is currently pending: Defendant’s Motion to Suppress. This

motion is set for a hearing on November 13, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4B, United

States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama. The court will

also conduct a pretrial conference at the conclusion of the hearing.

3. Proposed voir dire questions shall be filed on or before December 27, 2006.

Counsel should not include questions seeking information which is provided in the jury

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 32 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 1 of 2
questionnaire.

4. All Motions in Limine shall be filed on or before December 27, 2006. Motions

in Limine must be accompanied by a brief. Failure to file a brief will result in denial of

the motion.

5. Proposed jury instructions shall be filed on or before December 27, 2006.

6. The court will not consider a plea pursuant to Rule 11(c) (1)(A) or (C) unless

notice is filed on or before noon on December 27, 2006. The government and defendant

are informed that if a defendant waits until the last minute to enter a plea, and if that plea,

for whatever reason, is not accepted by the court, the defendant and the government will

be expected to be prepared to go to trial on January 8, 2007. The court will not continue

the trial of this case as to any defendant because a defendant’s plea was not accepted. In

other words, the defendant and the government should not wait until the last minute for a

defendant to enter a guilty plea, and both the defendant and the government should all be

ready to go to trial on January 8, 2007, as to all defendants, even though a particular

guilty plea was not accepted by the court.

Done this 28 day of September, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 32 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### Louise Blair et al., Appellants, v Martin’s, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

In a products liability action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 8,1980, which is in favor of the defendant, after a jury trial limited to the issue of liability. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The trial court erred in allowing the introduction by defendant of plaintiff Louise Blair’s (hereinafter plaintiff) hospital record without laying a proper foundation by eliciting testimony from someone with knowledge of the hospital’s record-keeping procedures that such record was made in the regular course of hospital business, that it was the regular business of the hospital to make such record, and that the record was made at or soon after the information was obtained (see CPLR 4518, subd [a]; *Matter of Leon RR,*48 NY2d 117,122). Given this clear error, we need not decide whether the information sought to be introduced was germane to treatment (see *Williams v Alexander,*309 NY 283) and whether plaintiff’s statement, thus recorded, is admissible as an admission against interest (see 5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 4518.12). Notwithstanding this error, we are constrained to affirm on the ground that plaintiffs never established a prima facie case. Plaintiff had purchased a pair of plastic boots for under $10 from defendant which proved defective, exchanged them for a similar pair which she wore for months, had new “lifts” installed by her local shoemaker, and wore them for several more months. She established that as she was descending the subway steps without holding the railing, she fell, and upon getting up, found the heel had separated from one of her boots. She then continued on her errands, passing by defendant’s store. She finally sought medical treatment several hours later. At the trial she offered no expert testimony as to the cause of the accident. Given these facts, we believe plaintiffs failed to establish, beyond the barest conclusory allegation, that the accident was caused by a defect present in the boots at the time plaintiff purchased them and not by a defect caused as a result of alteration by her shoemaker (who was unavailable to testify at the trial) or by the boots simply having worn out. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
#### § 984.64 Disposition of substandard walnuts.

During any period when regulations are in effect pursuant to § 984.50, substandard walnuts may be disposed of only for manufacture into oil, livestock feed, or such other uses as the Board determines to be noncompetitive with existing domestic and export markets for merchantable walnuts and with proper safeguards to prevent such walnuts from thereafter entering channels of trade in such markets. Each handler shall submit, in such form and at such intervals as the Board may determine, reports of his production and holdings of substandard walnuts and the disposition of all substandard walnuts to any other person, showing the quantity, lot, date, name and address of the person to whom delivered, the approved use and such other information pertaining thereto as the Board may specify.

[88 FR 56749, Aug. 21, 2023]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

J.B., a minor child, by and through *

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on *

Behalf of himself and all others *

similarly situated; *

*

Plaintiff, *

vs. * CASE NO: 2:06cv00755-MHT

*

*

WALTER WOOD, in his individual *

capacity, *

*

Defendant. *

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

J.B., a minor child, by and through *

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on *

Behalf of himself and all others *

similarly situated; *

*

Plaintiff, *

vs. * CASE NO: 2:06cv00908-MEF

*

*

WALTER WOOD, in his individual *

capacity, *

*

Defendant. *

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL FILING IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT

WALTER WOOD’S MOTION MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff J.B. hereby submits the following exhibit in response to his Motion

for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff hereby submits the following exhibit:

31. Case Action Summary for R.P. v. Department of Youth Services,

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 42 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 1 of 3
CV-2002-34; J.N. v. DYS, CV-02-94; C.F. v. Walter Wood, CV-02-119, all in the

Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Alabama.

_/s/Robert D. Drummond, Jr._________

ROBERT D. DRUMMOND, JR. (DRU004)

Attorney for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

323 De La Mare Avenue

Fairhope, Alabama 36532

(251) 990-6249

_/s/Michael J. Crow______________

MICHAEL J. CROW (CRO039)

Attorney for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.

P.O. Box 4160

Montgomery, AL 36103-4160

(334) 269-2343 - Telephone

(334) 954-7555 - Facsimile

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 42 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 9

th

day of July, 2007, I electronically filed the

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send

notification of such filing to the following:

T. Dudley Perry

P.O. Box 66

Mt. Meigs, AL 36057

Michael Crow

P.O. Box 4160

Montgomery, AL 36103-4160

Robert D. Drummond

Attorney at Law

323 De LaMare

Fairhope, AL 36532

/s/Robert D. Drummond, Jr.______

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 42 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 42-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 42-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 42-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 42-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 42-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 42-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 42-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 7 of 7
Subpart 2801.1 - Purpose, Authority,

Issuance

Parent topic: PART 2801 - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ACQUISITION REGULATION SYSTEM

2801.101 Purpose.

(a) The Justice Acquisition Regulation (JAR) provides agency guidance, in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 1.301(a)(2), and establishes, in this chapter, procurement regulations

that supplement the FAR, 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) chapter 1, and must be utilized

conjunction with the FAR.

(b)

(1) The JAR contains Department of Justice (DOJ) policies that govern DOJ's acquisition process or

otherwise control acquisition relationships between DOJ's contracting activities and contractors. The

JAR contains -

(i) Requirements of law;

(ii) Deviations from the FAR requirements; and

(iii) Policies that either have a significant effect beyond the internal procedures of DOJ or a

significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.

(2) Relevant internal DOJ policies, procedures, guidance, and information not meeting the criteria in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section are issued by DOJ in other announcements, internal policies,

procedures, or guidance.

2801.105 Issuance.

2801.105-2 Arrangement of regulation.

The JAR is subdivided into parts, which correspond to FAR parts. The numbering system permits the

discrete identification of every JAR paragraph. This numbering system permits immediate

identification of each JAR part with coverage of the same subject matter and same numbering

system as in the FAR. Supplementary material for which there is no counterpart in the FAR is

identified by a numerical suffix of 70 or higher in the final position of the reference number.
2801.106 OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction

Act.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) and the Office of Management and

Budget's (OMB) implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, require that reporting and

recordkeeping requirements affecting ten (10) or more members of the public be cleared by OMB.

The OMB control number for the collection of information under this chapter is 1103-0018.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

August 31, 2006

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: United States of America v. Moreno-Vazquez

Case Number: 3:06-cv-00761-MEF

This Notice of Correction was filed in the referenced case this date to add the redacted exhibit

documents to the previous entry. 

The correct PDF documents are attached to this notice for your review. Reference is made

to document # 1 filed on August 23, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 6 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 1 of 1
SUBPART 34.71 – COST AND SOFTWARE

DATA REPORTING

(Revised June 10, 2020 through PROCLTR 2020-05)

Parent topic: PART 34 – MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION

34.7101 Solicitation provision and contract clause.

(a)(S-90) Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) requirements apply to sustainment solicitations

and contracts/subcontracts that supports Major Defense Acquisition Programs and Major Automated

Information Systems over $50 million, regardless of contract type, in accordance with DoD Manual

5000.04-M-1, Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Manual, and DoD Instruction 5000.73, Cost

Analysis Guidance and Procedures. If CSDR requirements apply to a DLA acquisition, the

contracting officer shall coordinate the Request for Proposal (RFP) CSDR plan content and

negotiation with the responsible Program Management Office (PMO). Procuring organizations shall

submit their proposed RFP plan, or a request for waiver (see 34.7101(a)(S-91), to DLA Acquisition

Pricing at least 70 days prior to the estimated RFP release date. DLA Acquisition Pricing will review

the proposed RFP plan or request for waiver and forward it to the Deputy Director, Cost Assessment

(DDCA), Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) for final approval within 60 days of the RFP

release date. After negotiations and award, procuring organizations shall forward final CSDR plans

to DLA Acquisition Pricing within 30 days from date for award for submission to OSD. The Cost

Assessment and Program Evaluation (OSD CAPE) Office maintains polices and guidance concerning

CSDR requirements at Cost Assessment Data Enterprise (CADE) Cost and Sortware Data Reporting

(CSDR) Policies ( https://cade.osd.mil/policy/csdr-timeline ).

(S-91) In accordance with DoD Manual 5000.04-M-1, DDCA has the authority to approve waivers for

CSDR requirements. Procuring organizations shall forward requests for waivers to DLA Acquisition

Pricing, accompanied by—

(i) For commercial acquisitions, a copy of the commercial item determination and a memorandum

supporting the rationale for a waiver based on commerciality, both signed by the contracting officer;

or

(ii) For competitive acquisitions, documentation supporting the basis for the contracting officer’s

determination that adequate competition will continue to exist.