alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Attachment 5601-1.2 k Table Of Contents    **ACQUISITION STRATEGY FOR SERVICE**                         – September 2018                      **All Offices**1) IAW DoDI 5000.74 the decision authority or designee listed below will be responsible for the review and approval of the acquisition strategy. The Senior Service Manager (SSM) is PEO-SV. PEO or DPEO for service acquisitions assigned to a respective PEO, may approve acquisition strategies.                      2) For TAKO, the approval authority is AMCOM Director, Special Programs (Aviation). For acquisitions exceeding $85.5M that are not performance-based, see SOFARS 5637.170-2.                      3) For those acquisitions that require a formal written acquisition plan as delineated in DFARS 207.103, a separate acquisition plan is not required if the acquisition strategy includes the contents of written acquisition plans (FAR 7.105 and PGI 207.105), as applicable.**S-CAT**                   **REVIEW**                   **APPROVAL****S-CAT V**Acquisitions of services with an estimated total value of the SAT or more, but less than $10M                   KO                   The SSM has delegated approval to the component level. See SOFARS 5637.102.**S-CAT IV**Acquisitions of services with an estimated total value of $10M or more, but less than $100M                   HCD/FCO, Legal, & SOF AT&L-KM/KX/KB                   SSM**S-CAT III**Acquisitions of services with an estimated total value of $100M or more, but less than $250M                   HCD/FCO, Legal, & SOF AT&L-KM/KX/KB                   SSM**S-CAT II**Acquisitions of services with an estimated total value of $250M or more, but less than $1B                   HCD/FCO, Legal, SOF AT&L-KM/KX/KB, & SSM                   Acquisition Executive**Special Interest**As designated by the USD(AT&L)                   HCD/FCO, Legal, SOF AT&L-KM/KX/KB, & SSM                   USD(AT&L)**S-CAT I**Any acquisition of services with an estimated total value of $1B or more than $300M in any one year                   HCD/FCO, Legal, SOF AT&L-KM/KX/KB, & SSM                   USD(AT&L) **Parent topic:** Attachment 5601-1 Table Of Contents
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

November 12, 2015

Hon. Larry Warner

Attorney at Law

3109 Banyan Circle

Harlingen, TX 78550

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Hon. Victoria Guerra

Law Office of Victoria Guerra

3219 N. McColl Blvd.

McAllen, TX 78501

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 15

- 00511

- CV

Tr.Ct.No. 2014

- DCL

- 06699

- H

Style: Claudia Maribel Martinez Sepulveda v. Gilbert Martinez

Appellant’s motion for extension to file findings of fact and conclusions of law in

the above cause was this day DENIED by this Court.

Ve ry truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch
# Subpart 2408.4 - Federal Supply Schedules

Source:                                81 FR 13750, Mar. 15, 2016, unless otherwise noted.                               

**Parent topic:**PART 2408 - REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

## 2408.404 Pricing.

(d) Supplies offered on the schedule are listed at fixed prices. Services offered on the schedule are priced either at hourly rates, or at fixed price for performance of a specific task (*e.g.,* installation, maintenance, and repair). GSA has determined the prices of supplies and fixed-price services, and rates for services offered at hourly rates, to be fair and reasonable for the purpose of establishing the schedule contract. GSA's determination does not relieve the ordering activity Contracting Officer from the responsibility of making a determination of fair and reasonable pricing for individual orders, BPAs, and orders under BPAs. Contracting Officers shall follow the general principles and techniques outlined in FAR Section 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques, to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable, keeping in mind that the complexity and circumstances of each acquisition should determine the level of detail of the analysis required.   

## 2408.405-6 Limiting sources.

(c)(2) Justifications for limiting sources, under the Federal Supply Schedules when exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, must be prepared and approved using the latest version of HUD Form 24013. 

(d)(3) HUD's Chief Procurement Officer, as the Head of Contracting Activity, has delegated the authority to the Deputy Chief Procurement Officer to approve, in writing, justifications for limited source considerations for a proposed Federal Supply Schedule order or Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) with an estimated value exceeding $13.5 million, but not exceeding $68 million.
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 7 of 7
2027.305-70 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.       The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2052.227-70, Drawings, Designs, Specifications, and Data, in all solicitations and contracts in which drawings, designs, specifications, or other data will be developed and the NRC is required to retain full rights to them (except for the contractor's right to retain a copy for its own use). When any of the clauses prescribed at FAR 27.409, Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses, are included in the solicitation/contract, this clause will not be used.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2027.3 - Patent Rights Under Government Contracts
#### BROPHY Appellant, v. CAMPBELL, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by Annie Brophy against Isabella B. Campbell.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

THOMAS, J., dissents.
#### Tremont Savings & Loan Association, Appellant, v. Prestige Homes, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Samuel S. Parmet et al., Respondents.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 10, 1969, which, on its motion to settle the record on another pending appeal by it (CPLR 5525), deleted the testimony of a- witness and certain exhibits from the proposed record on appeal. The other appeal is from an order of the same court dated January 15, 1969 which denied plaintiff’s motion for entry of a deficiency judgment, after a hearing. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiff against respondents Parmet, and motion remitted to the Special Term for settlement of the record on appeal in accordance with the views herein, and for such further and other action, if any, as Special Term may deem appropriate and which is not inconsistent herewith. In our opinion the stipulated list of building violations, as contained in the handwritten notes of the witness, and referred to by him in his testimony, should have been included in the record on appeal. Absent a critical date for submission of the list [exhibit] we feel that the rendition of the decision denying leave to enter a deficiency judgment was precipitate. On remission, the Special Term may receive into evidence the handwritten notes of the witness, or a true copy thereof, as the same may be found and settled by the Special Term. Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 188

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 6, 2005.

Whereas in 1736 Benjamin Franklin founded the Union Fire

Company, the first volunteer fire company;

Whereas there are more than 1,100,000 firefighters in the

United States;

Whereas approximately 75 percent of all firefighters are volunteers who receive little or no compensation for their heroic work;

Whereas career and combination fire departments protect 3

out of 4 Americans;

Whereas there are more than 30,000 fire departments in the

United States;

Whereas approximately 100 firefighters die in the line of duty

each year;

Whereas more than 340 firefighters died responding to the

terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001;

Whereas firefighters respond to more than 24,000,000 calls

during an average year;

Whereas firefighters also provide emergency medical services

and life safety education; and

Whereas it is estimated that on April 7, 2005, more than

2,000 firefighters will attend the 17th Annual National
2

•HRES 188 EH

Fire and Emergency Services Dinner and Seminars:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors and

recognizes the more than 1,100,000 firefighters in the United

States for their contributions to and sacrifice for the Nation.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 10.13


AMENDMENT

TO THE 

HONEYWELL SUPPLEMENTAL DEFINED BENEFIT RETIREMENT PLAN



	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
           Pursuant
 to the authority granted to proper officers of Honeywell International Inc.
 (the “Company”) by the Management Development and Compensation Committee of
 the Board of Directors on December 11, 2009, the Honeywell Supplemental
 Defined Benefit Retirement Plan shall be amended effective January 1, 2010 to
 include as eligible pay for an eligible participant (defined below) the
 greater of (a) the incentive compensation received under the terms of the
 Honeywell International Inc. Incentive Compensation Plan for Executive
 Employees (“ICP”) in 2009 (earned in 2008), or (b) the incentive compensation
 received under the terms of the ICP in 2010 (earned for 2009); provided,
 however, that if incentive compensation is included under clause (a), the
 value of the incentive compensation received in 2009 (earned in 2008) shall
 be reduced by the actual incentive compensation received and credited to
 Honeywell’s qualified pension plans and/or non-qualified pension plans in
 2010 (earned for 2009) to avoid double counting. If incentive compensation is
 included under clause (a), such incentive compensation shall be treated under
 the applicable pension formula as eligible pay earned in 2009 and paid in
 2010.

 
	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
           This
 amendment shall be subject to the following conditions:

 






	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 (a)

 	
 an eligible
 participant is a participant who, on March 15, 2010, is earning a pension
 benefit under the Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan and is employed by the
 Company in Band 5, 6 or 7, other than a participant who receives zero
 incentive compensation in 2010 (earned for 2009) and is coded in the
 Company’s records as having a performance planning reason for such (e.g.,
 “performance issue” (PI) or “performance termination” (PT)); and

 
	
  

 	
 (b)

 	
 the amounts
 required to be included in eligible pay shall not be included more than one
 time.

 






	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 HONEYWELL
 INTERNATIONAL INC.

 
	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 /s/ Mark
 James

 
	
  

 	
 Mark James

 
	
  

 	
 Senior Vice
 President – Human Resources and Communications

 
	
  

 	
  

 
	
 Dated:
 January 12, 2010
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 2.407 Applicability of other sections.

The provisions of subparts A, C, G, L, and N of this part relating to construction permits, operating licenses, and combined licenses apply, respectively, to construction permits, operating licenses, and combined licenses subject to this subpart, except as may be qualified by the provisions of this subpart.
Subpart 1404.4 - Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry    **Parent topic:** PART 1404 - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS1404.402 General.       (a) The DOI has entered into an agreement with the DOD to be covered by the National Industrial Security Program (NISP). The agreement is contained in 443 DM 1, Appendix 1.          (b) Classified acquisitions or contracts (see FAR 4.401) shall be subject to the instructions contained in the DOD publications listed in FAR 4.402(b).1404.403 Responsibilities of contracting officers.       (a) For proposed solicitations that may require access to Departmental classified information, the CO shall consult with the Office of Managing Risk and Public Safety for guidance on NISP in accordance with 443 DM 1.          (b) For proposed contracts where the contractor provides service for the handling and transmission of registered or certified mail at activities that customarily receive and transmit classified information (see FAR 4.401), the contractor shall be cleared to the degree of SECRET. This clearance shall be obtained through the Office of Managing Risk and Public Safety in accordance with 442 DM 8.          (c) For proposed contracts where guard services are assigned to safeguard Department activities in possession of classified information (see FAR 4.401), review and approval shall be obtained from the Office of Managing Risk and Public Safety in accordance with 442 DM 8.
Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 29 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 29 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 29 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 29 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 29 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 29 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 6 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CLIFFORD ALSTON, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Action No.: 

 ) 3:06 CV 722 WKW-DRB 

CHRISTOPHER ASKEW, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

NOTICE CONCERNING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND MEDIATION

 Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendants met and conferred on August 13, 2007 

to discuss the possible resolution of this case through settlement. During the course of the 

discussions, the parties candidly discussed the strengths and weaknesses of their cases and 

the possible resolution of the case through settlement. While no settlement could be reached 

during this conference, the parties agreed that there is a reasonable chance that this case can 

be settled short of trial with the assistance of a mediator. Accordingly, the parties have 

agreed to use Marty Van Tassel of Sirote Permute and they are in the process of scheduling 

a mediation with Mr. Van Tassel’s office. 

 

s/Christopher D. Glover__________ 

Christopher D. Glover (GLO007) 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

OF COUNSEL: 

HOGAN AND GLOVER, P.C. 

2017 Morris Avenue, Suite 300 

Birmingham, AL 35203-4138 

Phone: (205) 327-5235 

Fax: (205) 327-5237 

Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 27 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

 s/K. Philip Luke_____________

 K. Philip Luke 

 Attorney for Defendants 

OF COUNSEL:

MILLER, HAMILTON, SNIDER & ODOM, L.L.C. 

505 North 20th Street, Suite 500 

Birmingham, AL 35203 

Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 27 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
§ 202.23 Procedure in the event of a demand for production or disclosure. ( a ) Whenever a demand is made upon an employee or former employee of the DOE for the production of material or the disclosure of information described in § 202.21(a), he shall immediately notify the Regional Counsel for the region where the issuing authority is located. The Regional Counsel shall immediately request instructions from the General Counsel of DOE.
( b ) If oral testimony is sought by the demand, an affidavit, or, if that is not feasible, a statement by the party seeking the testimony or his attorney, setting forth a summary of the testimony desired, must be furnished for submission by the Regional Counsel to the General Counsel.
#### § 171.1 Purpose.

The regulations in this part set out the annual fees charged to persons who hold licenses, Certificates of Compliance, sealed source and device registrations, and quality assurance program approvals issued by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including licenses, registrations, approvals, and certificates issued to a Government agency.

[56 FR 31504, July 10, 1991]
#### § 1013.25 Witness fees.

The party requesting a subpoena shall pay the cost of the fees and mileage of any witness subpoenaed in the amounts that would be payable to a witness in a proceeding in United States District Court. A check for witness fees and mileage shall accompany the subpoena when served, except that when a subpoena is issued on behalf of the authority, a check for witness fees and mileage need not accompany the subpoena.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 213

Raising a question of the privileges of the House. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2005

Ms. PELOSI submitted the following resolution; which was laid on the table 

RESOLUTION

Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States authorizes the 

House of Representatives to ‘‘determine the Rules of its 

Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a 

Member’’; 

Whereas, in 1968, in compliance with this authority and to 

uphold its integrity and ensure that Members act in a 

manner that reflects credit on the House of Representatives, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

was established; 

Whereas the ethics procedures in effect during the 108th 

Congress, and in the three preceding Congresses, were 

enacted in 1997 in a bipartisan manner by an overwhelming vote of the House of Representatives upon the 

bipartisan recommendation of the ten-member Ethics Re-
2

HRES 213 LTH 

form Task Force, which conducted a thorough and 

lengthy review of the entire ethics process; 

Whereas in the 109th Congress, for the first time in the history of the House of Representatives, decisions affecting 

the ethics process have been made on a partisan basis 

without consulting the Democratic Members of the Committee or of the House; 

Whereas the Chairman of the Committee, and two of his Republican colleagues, were dismissed from the Committee; 

Whereas, in a statement to the press, the departing Chairman of the Committee stated ‘‘[t]here is a bad perception 

out there that there was a purge in the Committee and 

that people were put in that would protect our side of the 

aisle better than I did,’’ and a replaced Republican Member, also in a statement to the press, referring to his dismissal from the Committee, noted his belief that ‘‘the decision was a direct result of our work in the last session’’; 

Whereas the newly appointed Chairman of the Committee improperly and unilaterally fired non-partisan Committee 

staff who assisted in the ethics work in the last session; 

and 

Whereas these actions have subjected the Committee to public ridicule, produced contempt for the ethics process, created the public perception that their purpose was to protect a Member of the House, and weakened the ability of 

the Committee to adequately obtain information and 

properly conduct its investigative duties, all of which has 

brought discredit to the House: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Speaker shall appoint a bipartisan 

2 task force with equal representation of the majority and 
3

HRES 213 LTH 

1 minority parties to make recommendations to restore pub2 lic confidence in the ethics process; and be it further 

3 Resolved, That the task force report its findings and 

4 recommendations to the House of Representatives no later 

5 than June 1, 2005.

Æ
2406.501 Requirement.

The Senior Procurement Executive is the head of the agency for the purposes of FAR 6.501 and

designates the Departmental competition advocate.

Parent topic: Subpart 2406.5 - Competition Advocates
LEGAL02/30203492v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MILDRED W. ANDERSON, et al., )

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-739-LESCSC

v. )

)

PACTIV CORPORATION and 

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION

)

)

)

Defendants. )

)

DEFENDANT LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT SIX

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and 7(b), Defendant Louisiana-Pacific Corporation 

(“Louisiana-Pacific”) moves this Court for an Order dismissing Count Six of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint. As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Count Six fails to state a 

valid claim under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine. Therefore, 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Count Six must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted. 

Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 12 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 1 of 4
2

LEGAL02/30203492v1

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of December, 2006.

/s/Bernard Taylor

Bernard Taylor (admitted pro hac vice)

Douglas S. Arnold (admitted pro hac vice)

Orlyn O. Lockard, III (admitted pro hac vice)

Counsel for Defendant Louisiana-Pacific

Corporation

OF COUNSEL:

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

One Atlantic Center

1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Tel: (404) 881-7000

Fax: (404) 881-7777

bernard.taylor@alston.com

doug.arnold@alston.com

skip.lockard@alston.com

ADDITIONAL COUNSEL:

Dennis R. Bailey 

ASB No. 4845-I71D

R. Austin Huffaker 

ASB NO. 3422-F55R

RUSHTON, STAKELY, JOHNSON, & GARRETT, P.A.

184 Commerce Street

Post Office Box 270

Montgomery, AL 36101

Tel: (334) 206-3100

Fax: (334) 262-6277

drb@rsjg.com (Bailey)

rah2@rsjg.com (Huffaker)

Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 12 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 2 of 4
3

LEGAL02/30203492v1

Laura Proctor

ASB 1504-R54L

Associate General Counsel

Louisiana-Pacific Corporation

414 Union Street North, Suite 2000

Nashville, Tennessee 37219

Tel: (615) 986-5878

Fax: 1-866-741-5091

laura.proctor@lpcorp.com

Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 12 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 3 of 4
4

LEGAL02/30203492v1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of December, 2006, I filed the foregoing via the 

CM/ECF system which will send notice of said filing to the following:

W. Eason Mitchell

Gregory A. Cade

Fred R. DeLeon

W. Lee Gresham, III

Robert Leslie Palmer

Mark R. TerMolen

John C. Berghoff, Jr.

Matthew C. Sostrin

John A. Earnhardt

H. Thomas Wells, Jr.

Richard Elder Crum

/s/Orlyn O. Lockard, III

Of Counsel

Case 2:06-cv-00739-LES-CSC Document 12 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 4 of 4