alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 3:06CR208-MEF

 )

JASON EDWARD COFIELD )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Motion for Leave to Dismiss the Indictment (Doc. # 75)

filed on October 5, 2007, and for good cause shown, the Court is of the opinion that the

motion should be granted. It is CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED

that said Motion for Leave to Dismiss the Indictment (Doc. # 75) is GRANTED.

DONE this the 9 day of October, 2007. th

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DISMISSAL OF INDICTMENT

Comes now the United States of America with leave of the Court first had and

obtained and dismisses the Indictment heretofore filed on August 15, 2006, in the above

styled cause.

Respectfully submitted,

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Verne H. Speirs

VERNE H. SPEIRS

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Telephone: (334) 223-7280

Fax: (334) 223-7135

Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 76 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
|                                                                                                  | Skip To Content |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
|                                                                                                  |
| - Home
- Grants
- Publications
- Statistics
- Newsroom
- Programs
- About Us
- FAQs
- Contact Us |

||
||

| **EBP Web Guide**EBP Web Guide Home
Web Sites in this Guide
Site Descriptions
**Browse By  Area**Substance Abuse Prevention
Substance Abuse Treatment
Mental Health Treatment
Prevention of Mental Health Disorders
**Browse By Age Group****or Setting**Children and Adolescents
Adolescents and Adults
Adults Only
Across Lifespan
Schools
Home-based
Workplace

Last Updated October 2007 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELMER COTTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF LAS VEGAS; CLARK

COUNTY TREASURER,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-16742

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00492-RLHPAL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Elmer Cotton appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action concerning the City’s demolition of structures on his

property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

FILED

JAN 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-16742

district court’s summary judgment and statute of limitations determination. 

Hernandez v. Spacelabs Med., Inc., 343 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2003). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed as untimely Cotton’s claims concerning

the City’s alleged failure to provide proper notice regarding the demolition of

structures on his property and the assessment of abatement fees because Cotton

filed this action more than two years after his claims accrued. See Fink v. Shedler,

192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999) (federal courts apply the forum state’s personal

injury statute of limitations for § 1983 claims); Perez v. Seevers, 869 F.2d 425, 426

(9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (Nevada’s statute of limitations for personal injury

claims is two years) (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(4)(e)). Furthermore, Cotton

failed to establish a basis for equitable tolling, see Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.250

(Nevada’s tolling statute), or equitable estoppel, see Cheqer, Inc. v. Painters &

Decorators Joint Comm., Inc., 655 P.2d 996, 998-99 (Nev. 1982) (listing elements

of equitable estoppel).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cotton’s motion to

conduct discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (trial

court’s broad discretion to deny discovery “will not be disturbed except upon the

clearest showing that [the] denial of discovery result[ed] in actual and substantial
3 10-16742

prejudice to the complaining litigant” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

Cotton’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
FILED

May 4, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9703-CC-00103

Appellee, )

) HICKMAN COUNTY

VS. )

)

BRIAN KEITH HARDING, )

)

Appellant. )

O R D E R

This Court released its opinion in the above-styled case, affirming the

judgment, on February 18, 1998. Subsequently, counsel for the appellant filed a timely

motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 14, Tennessee Supreme Court Rules. It appears that

counsel’s notice to the appellant of her intent to withdraw was sent to an incorrect address

and was not received by the appellant. Moreover, through inadvertence, the Court did not

enter an order acting on the motion. Subsequently, mandate was issued on April 30, 1998.

Because it appears that the appellant was not notified of his attorney’s

intention of withdrawing as required by Rule 14, the Court finds that it is necessary to recall

mandate and reenter our opinion.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that mandate, issued on April 30, 1998, is recalled, and this

Court’s opinion, entered on February 18, 1998, is hereby vacated and shall be reentered

as of the date of this order. The public defender’s office shall have 14 days from the date

of this order in which to file a renewed motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Rule 14,

Tennessee Supreme Court Rules. Otherwise, counsel shall file an application for

permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court on behalf of the appellant pursuant

to T.R.A.P. 11. The appellant may remain on the same bond pending the filing and

disposition of an application for permission to appeal. In default of such bond, he shall be

remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Hickman County.

ENTER this the ____ day of May, 1998.

PER CURIAM
Subparts 370.1-370.2 [Reserved]

Parent topic: PART 370 - SPECIAL PROGRAMS AFFECTING ACQUISITION
#### MURPHY, Appellant, v. MURPHY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by Mary Murphy against Patrick Murphy.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, without costs.
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 29 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
327.409 Solicitation provision and contract clause.       The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.227-14, Rights in Data - Exceptional Circumstances, and any appropriate alternates in lieu of the FAR clause at 52.227-14, Rights in Data-General, whenever a DEC executed in accordance with Agency policy and procedures calls for its use. Prior to using this clause, a DEC must be executed in accordance with Agency policy and procedures. The contracting officer should reference the DEC in the solicitation and shall attach a copy of the executed DEC to the contract.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 327.4 - Rights in Data and Copyrights
#### Leon Bernstein, Respondent, v. Alexander Zawaski et al., Doing Business as Zawaski Brothers, Appellants.

Appeal dismissed without pre-

an appellants at Special to vacate the ex parte order entered January 29, 1969 striking their answer and directing an assessment of damages, with $30 coste and disbursements to respondent. When we *763denied plaintiff’s prior motion to dismiss the appeal the record did not disclose sufficient facts from which it could be determined that the appeal was from an ex parte order. It was indicated that the order appealed from had been entered on notice but on defendant’s default. It now appears that this was not the fact. The order had been obtained without any notice to defendants and it is, therefore, unappealable. (See CPLR 5701, subd. [a], par. 2; 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 5701.06; *Matter of 350 West Forty-Sixth St.,*20 A D 2d 685; *McCormick*v. *Mars Assoc.,*25 A D 2d 433.) By moving to vacate the order entered January 29, 1969, a record can be made in which appellants may proffer the excuse, if any, for their failure to comply with the order dated December 26, 1968. Concur— Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, McGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.
1328.310-70 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.       (a) Insert clause 1352.228-70, *Insurance Coverage,* in all contracts when:          (1) Government property is involved;          (2) The contract amount is expected to be over the simplified acquisition threshold, and          (3) The contract will require work on a Government installation          (b)          (1)  			The clause is not required in fixed-price solicitations and contracts if:          (i) Only a small amount of work is required on the Government installation (*e.g.*, a few brief visits per month); or          (ii) All the work on the Government installation is to be performed outside the United States, its possessions and Puerto Rico.          (2) The contracting officer may increase the dollar limits established in the clause when it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Prior to increasing the dollar limits the contracting officer shall seek the advice of Procurement Counsel.          (c) Insert clause 1352.228-71, *Deductibles Under Required Insurance Coverage - Cost-Reimbursement*, in all cost-reimbursement contracts when the clause at 1352.228-70, *Insurance Coverage*, is used.          (d) Insert clause 1352.228-72, *Deductibles Under Required Insurance Coverage - Fixed Price*, in all fixed-price contracts when the clause at 1352.228-70, *Insurance Coverage*, is used.          (e) Insert clauses 1352.228-73 through 1352.228-75, unless otherwise indicated by the specific instructions for their use below, in any contract for the lease of aircraft.          (f) Insert clause 1252.228-73, *Loss of or Damage to Leased Aircraft*, in any contract for the lease of aircraft, except in the following circumstances:          (1) When the hourly rental rate does not exceed $250 and the total rental cost for any single transaction is not in excess of $2,500:          (2) When the cost of hull insurance does not exceed 10 percent of the contract rate; or          (3) When the lessor's insurer does not grant a credit for uninsured hours, thereby preventing the lessor from granting the same to the Government.          (g) Insert clause 1352.228-74, *Fair Market Value of Aircraft*, in all aircraft lease/rentals.          (h) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1352.228-75, *Risk and Indemnities*, in any contract for the lease of aircraft when the Government will have exclusive use of the aircraft for a period of less than thirty days.          (i) Insert clause 1352.228-76, *Approval of Group Insurance Plans*, in all cost reimbursable contracts.          (j) The contractor shall submit the plan to the CO for approval under cost-reimbursement contracts, before buying insurance under a group insurance plan. Any change in benefits provided under an approved plan that can reasonably be expected to increase significantly the cost to the Government shall require similar approval.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1328.3 - Insurance
IV 

House Calendar No. 250 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1101 

[Report No. 109–724] 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 

bill (H.R. 5682) to exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954 a proposed nuclear agreement for cooperation with 

India. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2006 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 

resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to 

accompany the bill (H.R. 5682) to exempt from certain 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 a proposed nuclear agreement for cooperation with India. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider the conference report to 

3 accompany the bill (H.R. 5682) to exempt from certain 

4 requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 a pro5 posed nuclear agreement for cooperation with India. All 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

HRES 1101 RH 

1 points of order against the conference report and against 

2 its consideration are waived. The conference report shall 

3 be considered as read. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 250 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1101 

[Report No. 109

–724] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the conference rement for cooperation with India. Energy Act of 1954 a proposed nuclear agree- empt from certain requirements of the Atomic port to accompany the bill (H.R. 5682) to exDECEMBER 7, 2006 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 2.700 Scope of subpart G.

The provisions of this subpart apply to and supplement the provisions set forth in subpart C of this part with respect to enforcement proceedings initiated under subpart B of this part unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, proceedings conducted with respect to the initial licensing of a uranium enrichment facility, proceedings for the grant, renewal, licensee-initiated amendment, or termination of licenses or permits for nuclear power reactors, where the presiding officer by order finds that resolution of the contention necessitates resolution of: issues of material fact relating to the occurrence of a past event, where the credibility of an eyewitness may reasonably be expected to be at issue, and/or issues of motive or intent of the party or eyewitness material to the resolution of the contested matter, proceedings for initial applications for construction authorization for high-level radioactive waste repository noticed under §§ 2.101(f)(8) or 2.105(a)(5), proceedings for initial applications for a license to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at a geologic repository operations area, and any other proceeding as ordered by the Commission. If there is any conflict between the provisions of this subpart and those set forth in subpart C of this part, the provisions of this subpart control.
#### § 171.7 Interpretations.

Except as specifically authorized by the Commission in writing, no interpretation of the regulations in this part by an officer or employee of the Commission, other than a written interpretation by the General Counsel, will be recognized as binding on the Commission.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Section
      1350 Certification**





In
      connection with the quarterly report of China Industrial Waste Management,
      Inc.
      (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Dong Jinqing,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS.
      1350,
      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) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





November
                14, 2008
            /s/
                Dong JinqingDong
                JinqingChief
                Executive Officer





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 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Arthur W. Wlodarek, Appellant, v Barbara A. Wlodarek, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order unanimously reversed, and matter remitted to Jefferson County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the same memorandum as in *Matter of Wlodarek v Wlodarek*(78 AD2d 981). (Appeal from order of Jefferson County Family Court — support.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
Subpart 615.2—Solicitation and Receipt of

Proposals and Information

Parent topic: PART 615—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

615.204 Contract format.

(e) The Procurement Executive is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 15.204(e).

615.205 Issuing solicitations.

(a) Contracting officers shall release copies of solicitation mailing lists in accordance with FAR

14.205–5(a). However, the list of those firms which actually submit proposals is not releasable.

Requests for information other than solicitation mailing lists shall be handled under the Freedom of

Information Act.

615.205-70 Use of English language.

The requirements of 614.201–70 also apply when contracting by negotiation.

615.209-70 Examination of records.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 652.215–70, Examination of Records, in all

solicitations and contracts other than those described in Federal Acquisition Regulation

15.209(b)(1).
# SUBCHAPTER A - GENERAL

- PART 300 [RESERVED] 
- PART 301 - HHS ACQUISITION REGULATION SYSTEM 
- PART 302 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS 
- PART 303 - IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 
- PART 304 - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 

- PART 300 [RESERVED]   
- PART 301 - HHS ACQUISITION REGULATION SYSTEM    - Subpart 301.1 - Purpose, Authority, and Issuance     - 301.101   Purpose.
    - 301.103   Authority.
    - 301.106   Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
  - Subpart 301.2 [Reserved]
  - Subpart 301.4 - Deviations from the FAR     - 301.401   Deviations.
  - Subpart 301.6 - Career Development, Contracting Authority, and Responsibilities     - 301.602   Contracting officers.
    - 301.602-3   Ratification of unauthorized commitments.
    - 301.603   Selection, appointment, and termination of appointment of contracting officers.
    - 301.603-1   General.
- PART 302 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS    - Subpart 302.1 - Definitions     - 302.101   Definitions.
- PART 303 - IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST    - Subpart 303.1 - Safeguards     - 303.101   Standards of conduct.
    - 303.101-3   Agency regulations.
    - 303.104-7   Violations or possible violations of the Procurement Integrity Act.
  - Subpart 303.2 - Contractor Gratuities to Government Personnel     - 303.203   Reporting suspected violations of the Gratuities clause.
  - Subpart 303.6 - Contracts with Government Employees or Organizations Owned or Controlled by Them     - 303.602   Exceptions.
  - Subpart 303.7 - Voiding and Rescinding Contracts     - 303.704   Policy.
  - Subpart 303.8 - Limitation on the Payment of Funds to Influence Federal Transactions     - 303.808-70   Solicitation provision and contract clause.
  - Subpart 303.10 - Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct     - 303.1003   Requirements.
- PART 304 - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS    - Subpart 304.6 - Contract Reporting     - 304.602   General.
    - 304.604   Responsibilities.
  - Subpart 304.13 - Personal Identity Verification     - 304.1300   Policy.
  - Subpart 304.16 - Unique Procurement Instrument Identifiers     - 304.1600   Scope of subpart.
  - Subpart 304.70 [Reserved]
  - Subpart 304.71 - Review and Approval of Proposed Contract Actions     - 304.7100   Policy.
  - Subpart 304.72 - Affordable Care Act Prevention and Public Health Fund - Reporting Requirements     - 304.7200   Scope of subpart.
    - 304.7201   Procedures.
    - 304.7202   Contract clause.
2936.604 Performance evaluation.

(a) The HCA must establish procedures to evaluate architect-engineer contractor performance as

required in FAR 36.604. Normally, the performance report must be prepared by the contracting

officer's authorized representative or other official who was responsible for monitoring contract

performance and who is qualified to evaluate overall performance. DOL Agency/Office procedures

must prescribe instructions for review of the report, before distribution, as prescribed in FAR

36.604(b).

(b) Performance reports must be made using Standard Form 1421, Performance Evaluation

(Architect-Engineer) as prescribed in FAR 36.702(c). Details covering unsatisfactory performance,

including Government notification to the contractor and written comments by the contractor, must

also be attached to the report.

Parent topic: Subpart 2936.6 - Architect-Engineer Services
1814.302 Bid submission. (NASA

supplements paragraph (b))

(b) NASA contracting officers shall not consider telegraphic bids communicated by the telephone.

Parent topic: Subpart 1814.3—Submission of Bids
ex10-90.htm










December 4, 2009

 

Rajat K. Gupta

McKinsey & Company, Inc.

3 Landmark Square

Suite 100, 21st Floor

Stamford, CT  06901





 

Dear Rajat:

 

This will confirm the following agreement relating to the deferral of your director’s retainers and fees for 2010.

 

1.           All director’s fees and retainer (“Fees”) payable to you in connection with your service on the boards of directors (including committees of such boards) of AMR Corporation and American Airlines, Inc. for the period January 1, 2010 through December 31,
2010, will be deferred and paid to you in accordance with this letter agreement.

 

2.           Fees will be converted to Stock Equivalent Units in accordance with the Procedures for Deferral of Board Retainers and Fees, as amended and restated, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Plan”).

 

3.           On the 30th business day after the date when you cease to be a Director of AMR Corporation and any affiliates, and cease rendering services, the Stock Equivalent Units accrued pursuant to the Plan will be converted to cash and paid to you in a lump sum by multiplying the
number of such Stock Equivalent Units by the arithmetic mean of the high and the low of AMR stock (“fair market value”) during the month when you ceased to be a Director of AMR Corporation and any affiliates, and cease rendering services.  Payment cannot be accelerated.

 

4.           In the event of your death, the number of Stock Equivalent Units as of your date of death will be multiplied by the fair market value of AMR stock during the calendar month immediately preceding your death, and the amount paid to Anita Mattoo Gupta.  The payment
contemplated by this paragraph 4 will be made on the 30th business day following the date of your death.



 



 







 



 

If the foregoing is satisfactory to you, please indicate by signing one of the originals (two are enclosed) and returning it to me.

 



 

 





Very truly yours,

 





/s/ Kenneth W. Wimberly

Kenneth W. Wimberly

Corporate Secretary

















Accepted and agreed:





/s/ Rajat K. Gupta

Rajat K. Gupta









Date: 12/18/2009