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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 1:06-cr-0201-WHA 

 ) 

OSCAR MARTINEZ-RAMIREZ, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 NOTICE OF INTENT TO CHANGE PLEA

COMES NOW, the defendant, Oscar Martinez-Ramirez, by and through the 

undersigned counsel, Richard K. Keith, and notifies the Court of his intent to change his 

previously entered plea of not guilty to guilty. Defendant waives his right to plea in front 

of a district judge and consents to do so before a magistrate judge. 

Respectfully submitted this 26th day of February, 2007. 

s/ Richard K. Keith 

RICHARD K. KEITH (KEI003)

Attorney for Defendant 

KEITH & DUBIN, P.C.

22 Scott Street 

Montgomery, AL 36104-4012 

Telephone: (334) 264-6776 

Facsimile: (334) 265-5362 

Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 47 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 26, 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: 

A. Clark Morris, AUSA 

Post Office Box 197 

Montgomery, AL 36101-0197 

s/ Richard K. Keith 

OF COUNSEL

Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 47 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
§ 205.305 Transferability. ( a ) An authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to a foreign country granted by order of the ERA under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act shall not be transferable or assignable. Provided written notice is given to the ERA within 30 days, the authorization may continue in effect temporarily in the event of the involuntary transfer of this authority by operation of law (including transfers to receivers, trustees, or purchasers under foreclosure or judicial sale). This continuance is contingent on the filing of an application for permanent authorization and may be effective until a decision is made thereon.
( b ) In the event of a proposed voluntary transfer of this authority to export electricity, the transferee and the transferor shall file jointly an application pursuant to this subsection, setting forth such information as required by §§ 205.300 through 205.304, together with a statement of reasons for the transfer.
( c ) The ERA may at any time subsequent to the original order of authorization, after opportunity for hearing, issue such supplemental orders as it may find necessary or appropriate.
SUBPART 45.1 – GENERAL

(Revised September 19, 2016 through PROCLTR 16-09)

Parent topic: PART 45 – GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

45.101 Definitions.

“ Property Administrator” See 1.670.

“Stock Provided to Vendor (SPTV)” is SAP terminology that identifies and tracks items or

components issued to DLA Distribution or a contractor for assembly or modification to make an enditem. Examples include items or components required for kits, uniforms, MREs, and government

furnished material.

“Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI)” is used to characterize various programs in which Governmentowned property is managed by the contractor.

45.103 General.

45.103-70 Furnishing Government Property to Contractors.

(1) For DLA managed items, the product specialist makes the determination and documents the

requirement in the Material Master. The requirement will be identified on the PR.

(2) DLR sites shall follow the processes and systems at the Military Services sites.

45.105 Contractors’ Property Management System

Compliance.

(a) Conduct an analysis of the contractor’s property management policies, procedures, practices,

and systems, as frequently as conditions warrant, in accordance with DoDI 4161.02, Accountability

and Management of Government Contract Property , dated April 27, 2012 (

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/416102p.pdf ); and the

DoD Guidebook for Contract Property Administration , dated December 2014 (

https://www.dau.edu/guidebooks/Shared%20Documents%20HTML/Guidebook%20for%20Contract%

20Property%20Administration.aspx ).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Billie Anthony Byrams, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered December 19, 1968, affirmed. Appellant stands convicted of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny. The only matter of concern is the trial court’s denial of his requests for (1) a copy of the minutes of a prosecution witness’ Grand Jury testimony and (2) examination of pertinent portions of a memo book belonging to the same witness, a police officer. It appears that appellant is indigent, having had assigned counsel, and would therefore have been entitled to a free copy of the Grand Jury minutes had a specific request therefor been properly made *{People*v. *Jaglom,*17 N Y 2d 162). It also appears that the request for examination of the memo book was first made upon trial, counsel having failed to subpoena it prior thereto in accordance with *557sections 610-b and 613 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since it is clear any error in denying these requests might be disregarded as harmless after examination of these minutes and the book (see, e.g., *People*v. *Hernandez,*10 N Y 2d 774), on our own motion we directed the District Attorney to make the minutes and book available to appellate counsel and requested that the latter advise us of any view he or trial counsel might have as to whether the withholding thereof was prejudicial to appellant (see *People*v. *Hawa,*15 A D 2d 740, affd. 13 S'Y 2d 718). We thereafter received a communication from appellate counsel indicating that both he and trial counsel believe withholding of the minutes and book was prejudicial to appellant in depriving him of grounds for cross-examination. However, we have also examined copies of the minutes and book and find nothing therein to support counsel’s eonelusory assertion of prejudice. In light of the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt and the absence of any inconsistency whatsoever between the memo book notations, the Grand Jury testimony and the testimony upon trial, we conclude that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error. Production of the minutes and book would have availed appellant nothing as respects a challenge to the subject witness’ credibility. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
§ 20.2008 Disposal of certain byproduct material. ( a ) Licensed material as defined in paragraphs (3) and (4) of the definition of *Byproduct material* set forth in § 20.1003 may be disposed of in accordance with part 61 of this chapter, even though it is not defined as low-level radioactive waste. Therefore, any licensed byproduct material being disposed of at a facility, or transferred for ultimate disposal at a facility licensed under part 61 of this chapter, must meet the requirements of § 20.2006.
( b ) A licensee may dispose of byproduct material, as defined in paragraphs (3) and (4) of the definition of *Byproduct material* set forth in § 20.1003, at a disposal facility authorized to dispose of such material in accordance with any Federal or State solid or hazardous waste law, including the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
[72 FR 55922, Oct. 1, 2007]
EX-10.2






 SECOND AMENDMENT



Reference is made to that certain Employment Agreement dated July 12, 2004 as amended by the First
Amendment dated December 27, 2008 (collectively “the Agreement”) between Tractor Supply Company
(hereinafter “Company”) and James F. Wright (hereinafter “Executive”).



The following (“the Second Amendment”), when signed by the parties hereto, will be deemed an
amendment to the Agreement (“the Second Amendment”).



1) The following is deemed inserted as subsection 4.3:




“Section 4.3 By Retirement



The Executive’s employment pursuant to this Agreement may be terminated at any time by the
Retirement (as such term is defined in the Retirement Policy of Company) of the Executive. In the
event that the Executive’s employment is terminated pursuant to this Section 4.3, the Executive
shall receive: (1) an amount equal to Executive’s annual Base Salary, multiplied by a fraction the
numerator of which is the number of calendar days from commencement of the year in which Executive
retires through the Executive’s final workday for Company and the denominator of which is 365
(three hundred sixty-five), (2) Executive’s earned (i.e.‘banked’) but-as-yet unpaid Long-Term cash
bonus, (3) benefits to be paid or provided to the Executive under this Agreement through the Date
of Termination [as defined in (renumbered pursuant to the First Amendment) Section 4.11 hereof] and
(4) any other unpaid benefits to which the Executive is otherwise entitled under any plan, policy
or program of the Company (including any Retirement Plan) applicable to the Executive as of the
Date of Termination.”



2) The following is deemed inserted as subsection 4.4 (a)




	 	(a)	 	(i) on the Date of Termination, in addition to any and all other payments provided
pursuant to the Agreement and to any other Plans, Executive will be entitled to receive an
amount equal to his then-current year’s base compensation. Further, 100% of Executive’s
theretofore granted-but-unvested stock options and granted-but-unvested restricted stock
units will be deemed vested. The Exercisability Period of each of Executive’s stock
options will expire on a date the earlier of (i) three years from the date of Termination
(one year, rather than three years, in the case of Death) or (ii) the original expiration
date of the subject stock option.






(ii) Executive’s earned (i.e.‘banked’) but-as-yet unpaid Long-Term cash bonus will be
calculated and paid in full.



All other terms and conditions of the Agreement are hereby ratified and reaffirmed.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto confirm their understanding of the foregoing.



Tractor Supply Company



By: /s/ Anthony F. Crudele

Its: Executive Vice President – Chief Financial

Officer and Treasurer

/s/ James F. Wright

James F. Wright


DATED: February 11, 2010
753.300 Scope of subpart.       USAID forms are not illustrated in the AIDAR. Copies of any USAID form prescribed in the AIDAR may be obtained as provided in 753.107.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 753.3—Illustration of Forms
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CR. NO. 2:06cr203-MHT

)

JOSEPH LEE STRINGER )

FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE

WHEREAS, on January 29, 2007, this Court entered an Amended

Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, ordering defendant Joseph Lee

Stringer to forfeit his interest in the Taurus, Model Ultralight,

.38 Special Revolver, bearing serial number VJ987235.

The United States published notice of this forfeiture in the

Montgomery Independent newspaper in accordance with the law and as

specified in the Amended Preliminary Order, and further notified

all third parties of their right to petition the Court within

thirty (30) days for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of their

alleged legal interest in the firearm; 

No timely petition has been filed; and,

The Court finds that defendant Joseph Lee Stringer had an

interest in the firearm that is subject to forfeiture pursuant to

Title 18, United States Code, Section 924 and Title 28, United

States Code, Section 2461(c). The United States has established

the requisite nexus between such property in the commission of the

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(3).

Case 2:06-cr-00203-MHT-CSC Document 36 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that

the motion for a final order of forfeiture (Doc. No. 34) is granted

as follows:

1. The following firearm is hereby forfeited to the United

States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 924 and

Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c): One Taurus, Model

Ultralight, .38 Special Revolver, bearing serial number VJ987235;

2. All right, title and interest to the firearm described

above is hereby condemned, forfeited and vested in the United

States and shall be disposed of according to law;

3. The United States District Court shall retain

jurisdiction in the case for the purpose of enforcing this Order;

and,

4. The Clerk of the Court shall forward two certified copies

of this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office.

SO ORDERED this the 6th day of June, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00203-MHT-CSC Document 36 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
Subpart 1646.2—Contract Quality Requirements    **Parent topic:** PART 1646—QUALITY ASSURANCE1646.201 Contract Quality Policy.       (a) This section prescribes general policies and procedures to ensure that services acquired under the FEHB contract conform to the contract's quality and audit requirements.          (b) OPM will periodically evaluate the contractor's system of internal controls under the quality assurance program required by the contract and will acknowledge in writing whether or not the system is consistent with the requirements set forth in the contract. After the initial review, subsequent reviews may be limited to changes in the contractor's internal control guidelines. However, a limited review does not diminish the contractor's obligation to apply the full internal control system.          (c) OPM will issue specific quality performance standards for the FEHB contracts and will inform carriers of the applicable standards prior to negotiations for the contract year. OPM will benchmark its standards against standards generally accepted in the insurance industry. The contracting officer may authorize nationally recognized standards to be used to fulfill this requirement. FEHB carriers will comply with the performance standards issued by OPM.          (d) In addition to reviewing carriers' quality assurance programs, OPM will periodically audit contractors, subcontractors and Large Providers' books and records to assure compliance with FEHB law, regulations, and the contract.
223 So.2d 408

#### JAHNCKE SERVICE, INC. v. FERTEL CORPORATION and M. A. Donnelly.

No. 49854.

June 13, 1969.

In re: Jahncke Service, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 220 So.2d 555.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue ; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### § 205.14 Ratification of prior directives, orders, and actions.

All interpretations, orders, notices of probable violation or other directives issued, all proceedings initiated, and all other actions taken in accordance with part 205 as it existed prior to the effective date of this amendment, are hereby confirmed and ratified, and shall remain in full force and effect as if issued under this amended part 205, unless or until they are altered, amended, modified or rescinded in accordance with the provisions of this part.
1632.806-70 Contract clause.       The clause set forth in 1652.232–73 shall be inserted in all FEHBP contracts.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1632.8—Assignment of Claims
Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 2 of 2
H. Res. 315 

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

June 16, 2005. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 2863) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2006, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined 

to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the 

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 

rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During 

consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 

Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition 

on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment 
2 

•HRES 315 EH 

has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 

XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. 

When the committee rises and reports the bill back to the 

House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
____________________________/

Opinion filed July 17, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Franklin County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

Chuck Collins of the Collins Law Firm, Monticello, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, PADOVANO, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.

JOHNNY C. JONES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-2507
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.909 Rearrangement or suspension of proceedings. In any proceeding subject to this part where a party gives a notice of intent to introduce Restricted Data or other National Security Information, and the presiding officer determines that any other interested party does not have required security clearances, the presiding officer may in their discretion: ( a ) Rearrange the normal order of the proceeding in a manner which gives such interested parties an opportunity to obtain required security clearances with minimum delay in the conduct of the proceeding.
( b ) Suspend the proceeding or any portion of it until all interested parties have had opportunity to obtain required security clearances. No proceeding shall be suspended for such reasons for more than 100 days except with the consent of all parties or on a determination by the presiding officer that further suspension of the proceeding would not be contrary to the public interest.
( c ) Take such other action as they determine to be in the best interest of all parties to the public.
[41 FR 53329, Dec. 6, 1976, as amended at 88 FR 57877, Aug. 24, 2023]
#### § 985.3 Person.

*Person* means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or any other business unit.
# Subpart 908.8 - Acquisition of Printing and Related Supplies

**Parent topic:**PART 908 - REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

## 908.802 Policy.

(b) Inclusion of printing requirements (limited exceptions are set forth in paragraphs 35-2 through 35-4 of the Government Printing and Binding Regulations) in contracts for supplies and services is prohibited unless specifically approved by the Director, Office of Administrative Services, Headquarters. Contracting officers shall insert the clause at 952.208-70, Printing, in all contracts.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FORM 10-Q AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>           6,421,516
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>          3,596,551
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                     65,920
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>               46,271
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  3,708,742
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>         151,849
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>               151,849
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                         0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>        6,381,858
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>             150,570
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>             150,570
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>               0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                 0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>       (2,824,965)
<NET-ASSETS>                    3,556,893
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                       0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                     227
<OTHER-INCOME>                          0
<EXPENSES-NET>                     87,375
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>           (87,148)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                0
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>               0
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>             (87,148)
<EQUALIZATION>                          0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                   0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>             0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                     0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>            (87,148)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>              0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>              18,219
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                    87,425
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>            3,600,467
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>               24.62
<PER-SHARE-NII>                     (0.57)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                 24.05
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                       2.4

</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ALMA T. MCBROOM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06CV767-MEF

)

JOHN E. POTTER, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This case is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, filed August 25, 2006.

The court wishes the plaintiff to fully understand the limited nature of being allowed

to proceed in forma pauperis which only permits the plaintiff to commence this suit without

prepayment of fees and court costs. The plaintiff should understand she may incur expenses

as a result of the prosecution of this case. In the event of a trial, the plaintiff may compel the

attendance of witnesses through subpoena only by tendering to each witness payment of a

one-day witness fee, plus mileage. Also, court costs, which vary, but which can be very

substantial, are normally assessed against the losing party. This means that a plaintiff who

loses a case, even though proceeding in forma pauperis, may be charged with, and obligated

to pay, all court costs.

Now, having advised the plaintiff of the possible expense of litigation, the court

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 5 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERS that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) is hereby

GRANTED.

DONE, this 8th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 5 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 2 of 2