alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

HAROLD MOSS 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CURTIS CASEY and OTIS SMITH 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

CASE NO. 2:06-CV-784-MEF-VPM 

 

CONFLICT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

 COMES NOW, Officer Curtis Casey and Lt. Otis Smith, Defendants in the abovecaptioned matter, and in accordance with the order of this Court, make the following disclosure 

concerning parent companies, subsidiaries, partners, limited liability entity members and 

managers, trustees (but not trust beneficiaries), affiliates, or similar entities reportable under the

provisions of the Middle District of Alabama’s General Order No. 3047: 

 X This party is an individual, or 

 X This party is a governmental entity, or 

 X There are no entities to be reported, or 

 The following entities and their relationship to the party are hereby reported: 

 

 Reportable Entity Relationship to Party

 

 ________________________________ _________________________________ 

 

 ________________________________ _________________________________ 

 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MEF-WC Document 14 Filed 03/13/2008 Page 1 of 2
2 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 TROY KING 

 Attorney General 

 /s/ Benjamin H. Albritton

 Benjamin H. Albritton 

 Assistant Attorney General 

 

ADDRESS OF COUNSEL: 

Office of the Attorney General 

11 South Union Street 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

(334) 242-7555 

(334) 242-7433 - fax 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have, this the 13th day of March, 2008, served a copy of the 

foregoing upon the Plaintiff by placing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and 

properly addressed as follows: 

Harold Moss, 170262 

Montgomery Pre-Release Center 

PO Box 75 

Mt. Meigs, AL 36057 

 /s/ Benjamin H. Albritton

 Benjamin H. Albritton 

Assistant Attorney General 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MEF-WC Document 14 Filed 03/13/2008 Page 2 of 2
52.228-4 Workers’ Compensation and WarHazard Insurance Overseas.

As prescribed in 28.309(b), insert the following clause:

Workers’ Compensation and War-Hazard Insurance Overseas (Apr 1984)

(a) This paragraph applies if the Contractor employs any person who, but for a waiver granted by the

Secretary of Labor, would be subject to workers’ compensation insurance under the Defense Base

Act (42 U.S.C.1651, etseq.). On behalf of employees for whom the applicability of the Defense Base

Act has been waived, the Contractor shall (1) provide, before commencing performance under this

contract, at least that workers’ compensation insurance or the equivalent as the laws of the country

of which these employees are nationals may require, and (2) continue to maintain it until

performance is completed. The Contractor shall insert, in all subcontracts under this contract to

which the Defense Base Act would apply but for the waiver, a clause similar to this paragraph (a)

(including this sentence) imposing upon those subcontractors this requirement to provide such

workers’ compensation insurance coverage.

(b) This paragraph applies if the Contractor or any subcontractor under this contract employs any

person who, but for a waiver granted by the Secretary of Labor, would be subject to the War

Hazards Compensation Act (42 U.S.C.1701, etseq.). On behalf of employees for whom the

applicability of the Defense Base Act (and hence that of the War Hazards Compensation Act) has

been waived, the Contractor shall, subject to reimbursement as provided elsewhere in this contract,

afford the same protection as that provided in the War Hazards Compensation Act, except that the

level of benefits shall conform to any law or international agreement controlling the benefits to

which the employees may be entitled. In all other respects, the standards of the War Hazards

Compensation Act shall apply; e.g., the definition of war-hazard risks (injury, death, capture, or

detention as the result of a war hazard as defined in the Act), proof of loss, and exclusion of benefits

otherwise covered by workers’ compensation insurance or the equivalent. Unless the Contractor

elects to assume directly the liability to subcontractor employees created by this clause, the

Contractor shall insert, in all subcontracts under this contract to which the War Hazards

Compensation Act would apply but for the waiver, a clause similar to this paragraph (b) (including

this sentence) imposing upon those subcontractors this requirement to provide war-hazard benefits.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.228 [Reserved]
# SUBCHAPTER C - CONTRACTING METHODS AND CONTRACT TYPES

- PART 1913 - SMALL PURCHASES AND OTHER SIMPLIFIED PURCHASE PROCEDURES 
- PART 1915 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION 
- PART 1917 - SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS 

- PART 1913 - SMALL PURCHASES AND OTHER SIMPLIFIED PURCHASE PROCEDURES    - Subpart 1913.5 - Purchase Orders     - 1913.505   Purchase order and related forms.
    - 1913.505-2   Board order forms in lieu of Optional and Standard Forms.
- PART 1915 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION    - Subpart 1915.1 - General Requirements for Negotiation     - 1915.106   Contract clauses.
    - 1915.106-70   Key personnel and facilities.
- PART 1917 - SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS    - Subpart 1917.1 - Multiyear Contracting     - 1917.102   Policy.
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 1 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 2 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 3 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 4 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 5 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 6 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 7 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 8 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 9 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 10 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 11 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 12 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 13 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 14 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 15 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 16 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 17 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 18 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 19 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 20 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 21 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 22 of 22
2407.102 Policy.

The Senior Procurement Executive is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal

procedures that meet the criteria contained in FAR subpart 7.1 for acquisition planning and

acquisition plan content.

Parent topic: Subpart 2407.1 - Acquisition Plans
Exhibit
10.4 Screenplay Assignment for Mountains of Trouble

    


    SCREENPLAY
ASSIGNMENT

    


    KNOW ALL
MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that, in consideration of one dollar ($1.00) and other
good and valuable consideration, including but not limited to being named sole
producer on this project at a fee equivalent to that recommended by the
Producers Guild of America and sharing screen credit Francis Testa who is
currently revision, recipt is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned, Wm. Alan
Pezzuto (“Assignor”) does hereby  sell, grant convey and assign unto
Asgaard Media (“Assignee”), its successors, assigns and licensees forever, all
right title and interest including but not limited to the exclusive world-wide
Motion Picture and allied rights of the Assignor in and to that certain literary
work to wit: that certain original screenplay written by Wm. Alan Pezzuto
entitled “Mountains of Trouble” hereafter identified as Writers Guild of
America, west (WGAw) Registration number 10000937, which hereto fore may have
been written with the sanction of Assignor.

    


    Dated
This 1st Day of
June, 2008

    


    
      
        
          	
                  /s/Wm.
      Alan Pezzuto

                
	
                  Wm.
      Alan Pezzuto, Assignor

                


        

      

    

     

    AGREED
TO:

    


    
      
        
          	
                  /s/Wm. Alan Pezzuto, On
      behalf of

                
	
                  ASGAARD
      MEDIA

                   Assignee
APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

2007-1358.

#### Zajc v. Hycomp.

Cuyahoga App. No. 88421, 172 Ohio App.3d 117, 2007-Ohio-2637. Discretionary appeal accepted.

O’Donnell, J., would accept the appeal on Proposition of Law No. II only.

Lanzinger, J., would accept the appeal on Proposition of Law Nos. I and II only.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.

Motion for admission pro hac vice of Nancy L. Heilman by Keith A. Ashmus granted.
§ 1040.7 Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation. ( a ) *Remedial action.* If the Director finds that a recipient has discriminated against persons on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, or age in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, the recipient shall take remedial action as the Director considers necessary to overcome the effects of the discrimination.
( b ) *Affirmative action.* In the absence of a finding of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, or age in any program or activity, a recipient may continue to encourage participation by all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, or age.
( c ) *Self-evaluation.* Each recipient shall, within one year of the effective date of this part: ( 1 ) Whenever possible, evaluate, with the assistance of interested persons, including handicapped persons or organizations representing handicapped persons, its current policies and practices and the effects thereof that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part;
( 2 ) Modify any policies and practices which do not or may not meet the requirements of this part; and
( 3 ) Take appropriate remedial steps to eliminate the effects of discrimination which resulted or may have resulted from adherence to these questionable policies and practices.
( d ) Availability of self-evaluation and related materials. Recipient shall maintain on file, for at least three years following its completion, the evaluation required under paragraph (c) of this section, and shall provide to the Director, upon request, a description of any modifications made under paragraph (c)(2) of this section and of any remedial steps taken under paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
[45 FR 40515, June 13, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 51346, Aug. 26, 2003]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Calvin Moore, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 277]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered March 15, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we Eire satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Adams,*18 AD3d 567 [2005]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor’s comment about a photograph during summation did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof. The challenged remark was *826responsive to the defense counsel’s summation (see *People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 399-400 [1981]), within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, and constituted fair comment on the evidence (see *People v Justino,*26 AD3d 345 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 835 [2006]; *People v Urena,*24 AD3d 693 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 819 [2006]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).

The defendant’s pro se contention that his statutory right to release from pretrial detention on speedy trial grounds (see CPL 30.30 [2]) has been rendered academic by the trial and judgment of conviction (see *People ex rel. Chakwin v Warden, N.Y. City Correctional Facility, Rikers Is.,*63 NY2d 120, 125 [1984]).

The defendant’s contention in his pro se brief regarding 911 audiotapes is unpreserved for appellate review (see *People v Sydnor,*254 AD2d 508 [1998]) and, in any event, no *Rosario*violation (see *People v Rosario,*9 NY2d 286 [1961], *cert denied*368 US 866 [1961]) occurred as the 911 callers never testified at the trial (see CPL 240.45 [1]; *People v Simons,*280 AD2d 688 [2001]; *People v Jackson,*271 AD2d 455, 456 [2000]).

The defendant’s contention raised in his supplemental pro se brief that evidence concerning counts of which he was acquitted prejudicially “spilled over” to counts of which he was convicted is unpreserved for appellate review and without merit *(see People v Baghai-Kermani,*84 NY2d 525, 532 [1994]; *People v Clarke,*7 AD3d 537 [2004]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Lunn and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### TITUS v. SPENCER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

February 4, 1915.)

Appeal and Error (§ 1001*) — Review—Verdict—Incompetent Evidence.

A verdict supported only by evidence, which was incompetent under Code Civ. Proc. § 834, forbidding physicians to divulge information acquired by them in their professional capacity, and admitted over objections on that ground, will be reversed.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3922, 3028-3934; Dec. Dig. § 10Q1.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

Action by Edward C. Titus against Lydia A. Spencer, as executrix of the last will and testament of Armon Spencer, deceased. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued January term, 1915, before GUY, BIJUR, and GAVEGAN, JJ.

William H. Darrow, of New York City, for appellant.

Booth & Ellis, of New York City (Raymond C. Thompson, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

GAVEGAN, J.

For the third time this case comes before this court on appeal. On the first and second appeals the judgment for the plaintiff was reversed in each instance and a new trial ordered because of error in the admission of incompetent evidence. (Sup.) 145 N. Y. Supp. 40, and (Sup.) 147 N. Y. Supp. 343. There is still a failure of competent evidence in the case showing what services the plaintiff performed for the decedent. The evidence received was clearly inadmissible under section 834 of the Code, and it was reversible error on the part of the trial justice to overrule defendant’s objection made on that specific ground.

If a proper foundation for the introduction of plaintiff’s books in evidence had been laid in accordance with the rule set forth in Vos*516burgh v. Thayer, 12 Johns. 461, there might have been some evidence to justify the conclusion reached by the court.

A careful examination of the record fails to disclose any other evidence than that which was erroneously admitted as to the nature of the services performed by the plaintiff; the testimony on that point sought to be elicited from the plaintiff’s witness Travell having been properly excluded by the court upon objection raised by defendant. It follows that the judgment, being based entirely upon incompetent evidence, must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
Exhibit 31.4





Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 10A, as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, Enrico Digirolamo, certify that:


1.    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Covisint Corporation; and


2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





July 27, 2016





By: /s/ Enrico Digirolamo  OLAMO


Enrico Digirolamo


Chief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.322 Special assistants to the presiding officer. ( a ) In consultation with the Chief Administrative Judge, the presiding officer may, at his or her discretion, appoint personnel from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel established by the Commission to assist the presiding officer in taking evidence and preparing a suitable record for review. The appointment may occur at any appropriate time during the proceeding but must, at the time of the appointment, be subject to the notice and disqualification provisions as described in § 2.313. The special assistants may function as: ( 1 ) Technical interrogators in their individual fields of expertise. The interrogators shall study the written testimony and sit with the presiding officer to hear the presentation and, where permitted in the proceeding, the cross-examination by the parties of all witnesses on the issues of the interrogators' expertise. The interrogators shall take a leading role in examining the witnesses to ensure that the record is as complete as possible;
( 2 ) Upon consent of all the parties, special masters to hear evidentiary presentations by the parties on specific technical matters, and, upon completion of the presentation of evidence, to prepare a report that would become part of the record. Special masters may rule on evidentiary issues brought before them, in accordance with § 2.333. Appeals from special masters' rulings may be taken to the presiding officer in accordance with procedures established in the presiding officer's order appointing the special master. Special masters' reports are advisory only; the presiding officer retains final authority with respect to the issues heard by the special master;
( 3 ) Alternate Atomic Safety and Licensing Board members to sit with the presiding officer, to participate in the evidentiary sessions on the issue for which the alternate members were designated by examining witnesses, and to advise the presiding officer of their conclusions through an on-the-record report. This report is advisory only; the presiding officer retains final authority on the issue for which the alternate member was designated; or
( 4 ) Discovery master to rule on the matters specified in § 2.1018(a)(2).
( b ) The presiding officer may, as a matter of discretion, informally seek the assistance of members of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel to brief the presiding officer on the general technical background of subjects involving complex issues that the presiding officer might otherwise have difficulty in quickly grasping. These briefings take place before the hearing on the subject involved and supplement the reading and study undertaken by the presiding officer. They are not subject to the procedures described in § 2.313.
PGI 15.403-3 Requiring data other than

certified cost or pricing data.

(6)(ii) Instead of forwarding information directly to Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC), HCAs

shall submit consolidated, validated reports to the DLA Acquisition Compliance, Policy and Pricing

Division Pricing Program Manager (PM) within 20 days after the end of each quarter. Negative

replies are required. The DLA Acquisition Compliance, Policy and Pricing Division Pricing PM will

consolidate all submitted reports and forward the DLA report to DPC. When the DLA Acquisition

Deputy Director is the HCA, contracting officers shall submit reports through the contracting chain

of command, in accordance with procedures established by the contracting office, to the DLA

Acquisition Compliance, Policy and Pricing Division Pricing PM, who will brief the DLA Acquisition

Deputy Director. Submit reports using the spreadsheet at Denials of Requests for Data Other than

Certified Cost or Pricing Data )

https://dlamil.dps.mil/sites/Acquisition/Shared%20Documents/J-72/4_%20Attachment_A-2_Denied_Da

ta_Requests_Template_with_2-Added_Columns.xlsx ).

Parent topic: PGI SUBPART 15.4 – CONTRACT PRICING
Subpart 1034.0 - General    **Parent topic:** PART 1034 - MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION1034.001 Definitions.       As used in this part -          *Development, Modernization, Enhancement (DME)* is the portion of an IT investment/project which deals with developing and implementing new or enhanced technology in support of an agency's mission.          *Major acquisitions for development* are defined as contracts, awarded in support of one or more Major IT investments with DME activities, which meet the contract threshold for fully applying FAR 34.2 procedures.          *Performance-based acquisition management* means a documented, systematic process for program management, which includes integration of program scope, schedule and cost objectives, establishment of a baseline plan for accomplishment of program objectives, and use of earned value techniques for performance measurement during execution of the program. A performance-based acquisition (as defined in FAR 37.101) or an acquisition with a defined quality assurance plan that includes performance standards/measures should be the basis for monitoring the contractor.1034.004 Acquisition strategy.       (a) A program manager's acquisition strategy written at the system or investment level in accordance with FAR 7.103(e) shall include at a minimum:          (1) The relationship of each individual acquisition (Contract, Delivery Order, Task Order, or Interagency Agreement) to the overall investment requirements and management structure;          (2) What work is being performed in-house (by government personnel) versus contracted out for the investment;          (3) A description of the effort, by acquisition, and the plans to include required clauses in the acquisitions;          (4) A timetable of major acquisition award and administration activities, including plans for contract transitions;          (5) An investment/system surveillance plan;          (6) Financial and human resource requirements to manage the acquisition processes through the investment lifecycle;          (7) Consideration of optimal contract types, including considerations of performance based approaches, small business utilization, Section 508, etc.; and          (8) Assurances that the acquisition strategy section and supporting acquisition plans will maximize competition, including enabling downstream competition through avoidance of vendor “lock in”.          (b) The acquisition strategy shall be approved by a chartered interdisciplinary acquisition team that includes a representative of the procurement organization designated in accordance with bureau procedures.
§ 932.9 Packaged olives. *Packaged olives* means ( a ) processed olives in hermetically sealed containers and heat sterilized under pressure, otherwise known as *canned ripe olives* and including the three distinct types, *ripe, green ripe,* and *tree-ripened*; or
( b ) olives, packed in brine, and which have been fermented and cured, otherwise known as *green olives.*