alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Subpart 304.6 - Contract Reporting

**Parent topic:**PART 304 - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

## 304.602 General.

Follow internal department procedures for reporting information to the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) and for resolving technical or policy issues relating to FPDS contract reporting.   

## 304.604 Responsibilities.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acquisition officials and staff shall report their contract information in FPDS accurately and timely.
§ 205.81 What to file. ( a ) A person filing under this subpart shall file a “Request for Interpretation,” which should be clearly labeled as such both on the request and on the outside of the envelope in which the request is transmitted, and shall be in writing and signed by the person filing the request. The person filing the request shall comply with the general filing requirements stated in § 205.9 in addition to the requirements stated in this subpart.
( b ) If the person filing the request wishes to claim confidential treatment for any information contained in the request or other documents submitted under this subpart, the procedures set out in § 205.9(f) shall apply.
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 13 Filed 06/12/2008 Page 1 of 1
845.402-70 Policy.       (a) For other than firm-fixed-price contracts, contractor-acquired property items not anticipated at time of contract award, or not otherwise specified for delivery on an existing line item, shall, by means of a contract modification, be specified for delivery to the Government on an added contract line item. The value of such contractor-acquired property item shall be recorded at the original purchase cost. Unless otherwise noted by the contractor at the time of delivery to the Government, the placed-in-service date shall be the date of acquisition or completed manufacture, if fabricated.          (b) Following delivery and acceptance by the Government of contractor-acquired property items, if these items are to be retained by the contractor for continued use under a successor contract, these items become Government-furnished property (GFP). The items shall be added to the successor contract as GFP by contract modification.          (c) Individual contractor-acquired property items should be recorded in the contractor's property management system at the contractor's original purchase cost.          (d) All other contractor inventory that is excess to the needs of the contract shall be disposed of in accordance with FAR subpart 45.6.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 845.4 - Title to Government Property
# PGI 225.770-5 Waiver of prohibition.

(c) Send a copy of the report to the Office of the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (Contract Policy) (DPC/CP) via email at osd.pentagon.ousd-a-s.mbx.asda-dp-c-contractpolicy@mail.mil.          

**Parent topic:**PGI 225.770 Prohibition on acquisition of certain items from Communist Chinese military companies.
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 13 Filed 02/13/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 13 Filed 02/13/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 13 Filed 02/13/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 13 Filed 02/13/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 13 Filed 02/13/2007 Page 5 of 5
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

RUSSELL E. GARNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv781-MHT

) 

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT )

INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion for leave to conduct

discovery past discovery cut-off date (Doc. No. 25) is

granted.

DONE, this the 15th day of March, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 26 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### Gregory Zrake, Appellant, v New York City Department of Education, Respondent.

Submitted November 13, 2007;

decided December 18, 2007

Reported below, 41 AD3d 118, 2007 NY Slip Op 78817(U).

*1002Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed Supreme Court’s order denying appellant’s motion for leave to reargue and renew, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Philip S. Whaley, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, plea vacated and matter remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings on the indictment. Memorandum: The District Attorney with commendable candor has conceded that appellant, taken into custody pursuant to an arrest warrant based on a felony complaint, may not waive his constitutional rights in the absence of counsel. Appellant’s oral statements were thus incorrectly held to be admissible, and must be suppressed *(People v Samuels,*49 NY2d 218) and his plea of guilty vacated *(People v Harris,*48 NY2d 208). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court—assault, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
Note Regarding this
Exhibit:  This document provides a written description of an oral
contract entered into between OneUp Innovations, Inc. and
Downshire Capital on March 11, 2009.

    


    Parties:

    


    Downshire
Capital Inc

    1980
Sherbrooke West, Suite 1110

    Montreal,
PQ H3H 1E8

    


    OneUp
Innovations, Inc. (the “Company”)

    2745
Bankers Industrial Drive

    Atlanta,
GA 30360

    


    Date:

    


    March 11,
2009

    


    Material
Terms:

    


    Downshire
Capital Inc, agreed to accept 2.5% of the amount raised by the Company in a
private placement, in stock, for making an introduction of Hope Capital, Inc. to
the Company  It was further agreed that the stock he received as a
finders’ fee would be shared with Artfield Investments, Inc., the party that
introduced the Company to Downshire Capital Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Case No. 3:06CR210-MEF

)

MELISSA WARD )

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

A pretrial conference was held on November 13, 2006 before the undersigned

Magistrate Judge. Present at this conference was the Honorable Charles E. Vercelli, Jr.,

Counsel for the defendant, and Assistant United States Attorney Christopher Snyder,

counsel for the government. As a result of the conference, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. Jury selection is set for November 27, 2006. The trial of this case is set for the

trial term commencing on November 27, 2006 before Chief United States District

Judge Mark E. Fuller and is expected to last two (2) trial days.

2. There are no motions currently.

3. Proposed voir dire questions shall be filed on or before November 20, 2006.

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

questionnaire.

4. All Motions in Limine shall be filed on or before November 20, 2006. Motions

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

the motion.

Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 16 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 1 of 2
5. Proposed jury instructions shall be filed on or before November 20, 2006.

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

notice is filed on or before noon on November 15, 2006. The government and defendant

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

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

be expected to be prepared to go to trial on November 27, 2006. The court will not

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

accepted. In other words, the defendant and the government should not wait until the last

minute for a defendant to enter a guilty plea, and both the defendant and the government

should all be ready to go to trial on November 27, 2006, as to all defendants, even though

a particular guilty plea was not accepted by the court.

Done this 14th day of November, 2006.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 16 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 2 of 2
Served: December 23, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Special Rules for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (WithinPerimeter Exemptions, i.e., Service to Another Airport 1,250 Miles Away or 

Less from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport)

(Docket DOT-OST-2000-7182)

Notice of Transfer of Within-Perimeter Slots at Ronald Reagan Washington National 

Airport to Southwest Airlines Co. due to its Merger with AirTran Airways Inc.

NOTICE

This Notice updates the record concerning slot exemptions issued to AirTran Airways Inc. 

(AirTran).

Prior to its 2011 acquisition by Southwest Airlines Co. (Southwest), AirTran held six withinperimeter slot exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) under the

Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century and the Vision 100-

Century of Aviation Act.

1

 AirTran utilized these exemptions to provide two daily round trips 

between DCA and Atlanta and one daily round trip between DCA and Fort Myers, Florida.2

 

Since 2011, Southwest has been working to complete the operational its merger with AirTran. 

As permitted by 49 U.S.C. 41714(j), the DCA exemptions that had been awarded to AirTran are

now held and operated by Southwest, under the same terms and conditions.

We shall serve this Notice on all persons on the service list for this docket. 

 1 See Orders 2003-1-6 (Jan. 22, 2003), 2004-4-2 (April 1, 2004), 2004-8-27 (Aug. 27, 2004), 2007-5-12 (May 23, 

2007), Docket DOT-OST-2000-7182. 2 The Department had also granted an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 41714(d) to AirTran to operate two slots, used for 

service to Atlanta, at new times (a slot slide). The exemption pertaining to those slots remains in effect for 

Southwest. See Order 2008-3-25 (March 28, 2008), Docket DOT-OST-2003-15968.
PGI 219.705-6 Postaward responsibilities of

the contracting officer.

(f) When reviewing subcontracting reports, contracting officers may use the document entitled “DoD

Subcontracting Program—Business Rules and Processes for (1) Electronic Subcontracting Reporting

System (eSRS) and (2) Preparing and Reviewing Related Subcontract Reports.” The document is

available at http://business.defense.gov/Acquisition/Subcontracting/.

Parent topic: PGI 219.705 Responsibilities of the contracting officer under the subcontracting

assistance program.
§ 490.602 Special orders. ( a ) DOE may require by general or special orders that any person— ( 1 ) File, in such form as DOE may prescribe, reports or answers in writing to specific questions relating to any function of DOE under this part; and
( 2 ) Provide DOE access to (and for the purpose of examination, the right to copy) any documentary evidence of such person which is relevant to any function of DOE under this part.
( b ) File under oath any reports and answers provided under this section or as otherwise prescribed by DOE, and file such reports and answers with DOE within such reasonable time and at such place as DOE may prescribe.
PGI 239.7406 Certified cost or pricing data and data other than certified cost or pricing data.       Examples of instances where certified cost or pricing data, if required in accordance with FAR 15.403-4, or data other than certified cost or pricing data, if required in accordance with FAR 15.403-3, may be necessary to support price reasonableness include—          (1) Nontariffed services;          (2) Special rates and charges not included in a tariff, whether filed or to be filed;          (3) Special assembly rates and charges;          (4) Special construction and equipment charges;          (5) Contingent liabilities that are fixed at the outset of the service;          (6) Proposed cancellation and termination charges under the clause at 252.239-7007, Cancellation or Termination of Orders, and reuse arrangements under the clause at 252.239-7008, Reuse Arrangements;          (7) Rates contained in voluntary tariffs filed by nondominant common carriers; or          (8) A tariff, whether filed or to be filed, for new services installed or developed primarily for Government use.    **Parent topic:** PGI 239.74 -TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
871.210 PART 872 [RESERVED]

(a) Contracting officers must use the following clauses, as appropriate, in solicitations and contracts

for vocational rehabilitation and employment services as they pertain to training and rehabilitation

services and contracts for counseling services:

(1) 852.271-72, Time Spent by Counselee in Counseling Process.

(2) 852.271-73, Use and Publication of Counseling Results.

(3) 852.271-74, Inspection of Instruction, Counseling or Testing Operations.

(b) See 837.110-70(a) for clause 852.237-74, Non-Discrimination in Service Delivery.

Parent topic: Subpart 871.2 - Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-cr-210-MEF

)

MELISSA WARD )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the defendant's Motion to Continue Sentencing and to Object

to Presentence Report (Doc. #23) filed on January 24, 2007 and the response of the

government thereto, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in part. The

sentencing hearing set in this case on February 15, 2007 is continued to March 28, 2007 at

9:00 A.M. at the United States Courthouse, One Church Street, Courtroom 2A, Montgomery,

Alabama.

Counsel for the parties are directed to contact the Chief U.S. Probation Officer of this

district to reschedule the date for meeting with the probation officer to discuss and resolve,

if possible, factual and legal issues contained in the presentence report.

DONE this the 1st day of February, 2007. 

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 26 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
4.1


 


CANCELLATION NOTICE


 


To:          Toronto Dominion (Texac) LLC as
Facility Agent


 


From:     UPC Broadband Holding B.V.


 


Date:      11 February 2010


 


UPC
Broadband Holding B.V. Senior Secured Credit Facility Agreement originally
dated 16th January, 2004 (as amended) (the Credit Agreement)


 


1.                                      We wish to
cancel the existing Additional Facility I Commitment, as defined in the Additional
Facility Accession Agreement dated 9 March 2005 (as cancelled in part in 2007),
in whole, in the amount of EUR 250,000,000.


 


2.                                      Terms defined
in the above Credit Agreement have the same meaning in this notice.


 


 


UPC
BROADBAND HOLDING B.V.


 


By:
Authorised Signatory
Editorial Note on Part 30
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 30 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 30.20 Gas and aerosol detectors containing byproduct material. ( a ) Except for persons who manufacture, process, produce, or initially transfer for sale or distribution gas and aerosol detectors containing byproduct material, any person is exempt from the requirements for a license set forth in section 81 of the Act and from the regulations in parts 19, 20, 21, and 30 through 36 and 39 of this chapter to the extent that such person receives, possesses, uses, transfers, owns, or acquires byproduct material in gas and aerosol detectors designed to protect health, safety, or property, and manufactured, processed, produced, or initially transferred in accordance with a specific license issued under § 32.26 of this chapter, which license authorizes the initial transfer of the product for use under this section. This exemption also covers gas and aerosol detectors manufactured or distributed before November 30, 2007, in accordance with a specific license issued by a State under comparable provisions to § 32.26 of this chapter authorizing distribution to persons exempt from regulatory requirements.
( b ) Any person who desires to manufacture, process, or produce gas and aerosol detectors containing byproduct material, or to initially transfer such products for use under paragraph (a) of this section, should apply for a license under § 32.26 of this chapter and for a certificate of registration in accordance with § 32.210 of this chapter.
[77 FR 43689, July 25, 2012]
----

| 1.   | The                servicing information required to be provided to Wachovia by First                American under the Agreement has been so                provided; |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | I                am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by First American                under the Agreement and based upon my knowledge and, except as disclosed                in the annual compliance assessment required to be delivered to Wachovia                (which has been so delivered to Wachovia), in all material respects                throughout the relevant reporting period First American has fulfilled                its                obligations under the Agreement;                and |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | Attached                to this Compliance Certification is a list of all material failures                and                the nature and status thereof.                [NONE] |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
PGI 206.305 Availability of the justification.

See OUSD(A&S) DPAP memorandum, “Noncompetitive Contracts Awarded Based on Urgency,”

dated April 13, 2015, for further guidance on the justification and approval documents required for

contracts awarded using the unusual and compelling urgency exception.

Parent topic: PGI 206.3 -OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1381

In Re: DALE E. HAMILTON,

Debtor.

In Re: CHARLENE S. HAMILTON,

Debtor.

_________________________

DALE E. HAMILTON,

Debtor - Appellant,

versus

GERALD M. O'DONNELL,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1735-A, BK-97-12554-MVB)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Dale E. Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Gerald M. O'Donnell, Alexandria, Virginia, Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders (1) dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court's order dismissing,

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322(a)(6), 1325(a)(6) (1994), his petition filed under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and (2) denying

his motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record discloses

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
exv10w45






Exhibit 10.45




2009 AMENDMENT TO

STOCK GRANT AGREEMENT




     This 2009 Amendment (the “Amendment”) is entered into effective December 31, 2009, and amends
the Stock Grant Agreement dated as of October 1, 2003 (the “Grant Agreement”) between Peabody
Energy Corporation (the “Company”) and Gregory H. Boyce (the “Grantee”).



RECITALS




      WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company deems it appropriate and in the best
interests of the Company and the Grantee to amend the Grant Agreement as described herein,
effective on the date set forth above;



     NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, the parties hereby agree as follows:



     1. Section 1.3 of the Grant Agreement, which defines “Cause,” is revised to read in
its entirety as follows:




Section 1.3 — “Cause” shall mean “Cause” as defined in Grantee’s employment
agreement with the Company.



     2. Section 1.8 of the Grant Agreement, which defines “Good Reason,” is revised to read in its entirety as follows:




Section 1.8 — “Good Reason” shall mean “Good Reason” as defined in Grantee’s
employment agreement with the Company.



     3. Section 3.3 of the Grant Agreement, which sets forth the vesting conditions for
the award, is revised so the first sentence reads as follows:




Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Company Stock shall become vested
and nonforfeitable on December 31, 2010.



     4. Section 3.3(f) of the Grant Agreement is revised to read in its entirety as follows:




     (f) In the event that Grantee’s employment with the Company is terminated for
any other reason, all unvested Company Stock previously granted to Grantee shall be
immediately forfeited unless otherwise provided in Grantee’s employment agreement
with the Company in effect on the date of his employment termination.



     5. In all other respects, the Grant Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and
effect.



[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]




 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed and delivered by the parties hereto
on the date first set forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:

Name:
	 	/s/ W. A. Coley
 

W. A. Coley
	 	 
	 

	 	Its:
	 	Chair, Compensation Committee	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 /s/ G. H. Boyce  	 
	 	GREGORY H. BOYCE 	 
	 	 	 
	 




2