alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 140.72 Indemnity agreements. ( a ) The Commission will execute and issue agreements of indemnity with each non-profit educational institution subject to this subpart pursuant to the regulations in this part or such other regulations as may be issued by the Commission. Such agreements, as to any licensee, shall be effective on: ( 1 ) The effective date of the license (issued pursuant to part 50 of this chapter) authorizing the licensee to operate the nuclear reactor involved; or
( 2 ) The effective date of the license (issued pursuant to part 70 of this chapter) authorizing the licensee to possess and store special nuclear material at the site of the nuclear reactor for use as fuel in operation of the nuclear reactor after issuance of an operating license for the reactor, whichever is earlier. No such agreement, however, shall be effective prior to September 26, 1957.
( b ) ( 1 ) The general form of indemnity agreement to be entered into with licensees subject to this subpart is contained in § 140.95 appendix E.
( 2 ) The form of indemnity agreement to be entered into by the Commission with any particular licensee under this subpart shall contain such modifications of the form in § 140.95 appendix E, as are provided for in applicable licenses, regulations or orders of the Commission.
( 3 ) Each licensee who has executed an indemnity agreement under this subpart shall enter into such agreements amending such indemnity agreement as are required by applicable licenses, regulations or orders of the Commission.
[27 FR 2885, Mar. 29, 1962, as amended at 33 FR 15999, Oct. 31, 1968]
PGI 225.871-4 Statutory waivers.

Forward any request for waiver under a cooperative project to the Deputy Secretary of Defense,

through the Principal Director,Defense Pricing and Contracting. The waiver request shall include a

draft Determination and Findings for signature by the Deputy Secretary of Defense establishing that

the waiver is necessary to significantly further NATO standardization, rationalization, and

interoperability.

Parent topic: PGI 225.871 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) cooperative projects.
39.9002 Documentation requirements for IT

procurement.

(a) The requiring activity shall include the following in the acquisition package sent to the

contracting officer:

(1) A statement clearly describing why the IT is needed and the program, project, Automated

Information System being supported by the IT procurement.

(2) A description of what is being acquired. Identify the product (including its intended purpose, if

unclear from the product name), manufacturer, model number, version number, quantity, unit cost,

and any other attributes, such as essential physical characteristics. For support services, include a

SOO, SOW, or PWS, as applicable.

(3) The exact location where the IT items and services are needed and points of contact with

commercial and DSN telephone numbers.

(4) A copy of the market survey for each recommended source (reference FAR Part 10).

(5) A copy of the funding documentation.

(6) For sole source (e.g., only one source, specific make or model, or compatibility-limited),

documentation to support a justification for other than full and open competition or limited source

justification (reference FAR 6.3 and 8.405-6) and brand name situations (reference FAR 11.105).

(7) Copies of any additional information and support documentation necessary.

(b) The requiring activity shall—

(1) Prepare additional documentation or Business Case Analysis (BCA) as part of the contract file for

an acquisition as needed.

(2) Submit acquisitions valued below $50,000 in accordance with local procedures, or as appropriate

for the complexity of the requirement.

(3) Outline and compare the status quo method of business with three alternatives for acquisitions

greater than or equal to $50,000 and less than $250,000.

(4) In addition to the requirements of (b)(2) above, provide a comparison of expected costs, benefits,

impacts, and risks that would result from implementing alternative IT investments for acquisitions

greater than or equal to $250,000 and less than $1,000,000.

(5) In addition to the requirements of (b)(2) and (b)(3) above, conduct a more in-depth analysis for

acquisitions greater than or equal to $1,000,000 or having a significant impact on DoD logistics

operations. The analysis shall include a study of the impact on DLA as a whole, as well as the

quantitative and qualitative ramifications of the alternatives described within the investment; and

consider the broad implications of the implementation of each alternative, including local and global

implications, as well as immediate and future costs and savings.

Parent topic: SUBPART 39.90 – PROCEDURES, APPROVALS AND TOOLS
652.000 Scope of part.       This part sets forth solicitation provisions and contract clauses, in addition to those prescribed in FAR Part 52, for use in DOS acquisitions.    **Parent topic:** PART 652—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY GRAY, JR., #196022, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-749-ID

)

INEZ ALEXANDER, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

On February 20, 2007, the plaintiff filed a document (Court Doc. No. 10) in which he

appears to seek relief from that portion of the order entered on August 25, 2006 (Court Doc. No. 3)

requiring that he pay the requisite filing fee from funds which become available to him. Under the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), "a prisoner [who] brings a civil action ... shall be required to

pay the full amount" of the applicable filing fee due to his initiation of the action in this court.

Specifically, this section directs that the court must “assess and, when funds exist, collect” the

$350.00 filing fee from all monies available to the indigent plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff’s motion

to vacate is without legal basis. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the motion to vacate order be and is hereby DENIED.

Done this 21st day of February, 2007.

 /s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00749-ID-SRW Document 11 Filed 02/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### § 1015.213 Analysis of costs.

DOE will prepare periodic comparisons of costs incurred and amounts collected. Data on costs and corresponding recovery rates for debts of different types and in various dollar ranges will be used to compare the cost effectiveness of alternative collection techniques, establish guidelines with respect to points at which costs of further collection efforts are likely to exceed recoveries, assist in evaluating offers in compromise, and establish minimum debt amounts below which collection efforts need not be taken.
222 So.2d 886

#### M. A. HOLAHAN, Trustee in the matter of Paul J. Durand v. Veronica GUIROVICH, wife of/and Paul J. Durand, et al.

No. 49841.

June 9, 1969.

In re: Mrs. Veronica Guirovich Durand et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 20 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 20 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 20 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 20-2 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Subpart 3017.2—Options

Parent topic: PART 3017—SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS

3017.202 Use of options.

(a) Contracting officers shall not use unpriced options.

3017.204 Contracts.

3017.204-90 Detention Facilities and Services (ICE).

The ICE Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA), without delegation, may enter into contracts of up

to fifteen years' duration for detention or incarceration space or facilities, including related services.
Exhibit 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of FNB United Corp., a North Carolina corporation (the Corporation), does hereby certify that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the Form 10-Q) of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 10, 2010 |  | /s/ R. LARRY CAMPBELL  
|                        |  | R. Larry Campbell      
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                        | 
|Date: November 10, 2010 |  | /S/ MARK A. SEVERSON   
|                        |  | Mark A. Severson       
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a
separate disclosure document.



55
exv10w7






Exhibit 10.7




AMENDMENT NO. 2




TO



EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



     AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) made to the Employment Agreement dated as of the March 31, 2008, as
first amended effective as of December 31, 2008 (together, the “Employment Agreement”), by and
between Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Geoff Ballotti
(the “Executive”). Except as provided herein all terms and conditions set forth in the Employment
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have previously entered into the Employment Agreement;
and



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement to clarify
certain terms regarding the amount of the Executive’s severance benefit provided under the
Employment Agreement in order to address Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.



     NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of December 16, 2009, the Employment Agreement is hereby amended
as follows:



     1. The first sentence of Section VI(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its
entirety and replaced with the following two sentences:




If the Executive’s employment terminates during the Period of Employment
due to either a Without Cause Termination or a Constructive Discharge
(each as defined below): the Company shall pay the Executive (or his
surviving spouse, estate or personal representative, as applicable), in
accordance with paragraph (d) below, a lump sum payment equal to 200%
multiplied by the sum of (x) the Executive’s then current Base Salary,
plus (y) an amount equal to the highest Incentive Compensation Award
paid to the Executive with respect to the three fiscal years of the
Company immediately preceding the fiscal year in which Executive’s
termination of employment occurs, but in no event shall the amount set
forth in this subsection (y) exceed 100% of the Executive’s then current
Base Salary. In the event of the Executive’s termination during the
three years following the Effective Date such amount in subsection (y)
shall be no less than the then current base salary.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Amendment to be executed this
16th day of December 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE



 	 
	 	/s/ Geoff Ballotti
 	 
	 	Geoff Ballotti 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Mary R. Falvey
 	 
	 	 	Mary R. Falvey 	 
	 	 	Executive Vice President and

Chief Human Resources Officer 	 
	 




2
10

Record of Discussion

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED

Lockheed Martin Ralph Sykes 6/4/2014 Concur.

Lockheed Martin Eric Jones 6/4/2014 Concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other/Additional Information:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4667

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JEFFREY S. SHIFLER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00320-JFM-1)

Submitted: September 15, 2009 Decided: October 6, 2009

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John L. Machado, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MACHADO, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Jeffrey S. Shifler pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to interference with attendance at public schools and interference with housing, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 3631(a) (2006), and he was sentenced to fifty-one months’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Shifler was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal, asserting Shifler waived his appellate rights in the plea agreement. Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript

of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 h earing, we conclude that Shifler knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. Further, because counsel did not raise any sentencing issues outside the scope of the waiver, and we discern none, the terms of the agreement will be enforced. Accordingly, we grant

the Government’s motion to dismiss as to Shifler’s sentence. However, because the appeal waiver pertains only to Shifler’s sentence, we have reviewed the convictions pursuant to our obligation under Anders . As we have found no meritorious issues for appeal, we affirm Shifler’s convictions.

23 This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
SUBPART 23.3 – HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION AND MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS    *(Revised*          *September 19, 2016*          *through PROCLTR 16-09)* **Parent topic:** PART 23 – ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, AND DRUG–FREE WORKPLACE23.302 Policy.    For shipments into foreign countries, the contracting officer shall comply with requirements applicable to each country.
#### § 20.1006 Interpretations.

Except as specifically authorized by the Commission in writing, no interpretation of the meaning 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 to be binding upon the Commission.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

#### § 4.61 Presiding officer.

One or more members of the Commission or one or more administrative law judges appointed pursuant to section 3105 of title 5 of the United States Code shall: (a) Preside at a hearing and (b) make findings of fact and conclusions of law if an applicant or recipient waives a hearing and submits written information or argument for the record in accordance with § 4.51(d).

[35 FR 11459, July 17, 1970]
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

John Vernon Hearnsberger, Appellant

No. 06

- 16

- 00008

- CV v.

Panola County, Texas; Jack Ellett; David Jeter and Ronald Clinton, Appellee s Appeal from the County Court at Law of

Panola County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2015

- 371 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and

Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, John Vernon Hearnsberger, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED AUGUST 26, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORR ISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### In the Matter of James R. Limongelli, Petitioner, v. Donald S. Hostetter et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority, Respondents.

Proceeding dismissed on the merits and respondents’ determination dated October 22, 1969, which revoked petitioner’s tavern liquor license, confirmed, with costs. In our opinion, the determination under review was supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, petitioner’s default in appearance was deliberate and he has failed to show a meritorious defense to the charges against him. Finally, petitioner has failed to establish that an application to respondents for a new hearing at which he would appear would have been futile. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7335 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount allowed 

as a deduction for interest on education loans paid by married couples. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2018 

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the amount allowed as a deduction for interest on education loans paid by married couples. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness and Opportu5 nities for Married Households With Student Loans Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN DEDUCTION FOR INTEREST ON EDU7 CATION LOANS PAID BY MARRIED COUPLES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 221(b)(1) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘($5,000 

10 in the case of a joint return)’’ after ‘‘$2,500’’. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7335 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply to amounts paid in taxable years 

3 beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
§ 300.12 Acceptance of reports and registration of entity emission reductions. ( a ) *Acceptance of reports.* EIA will review all reports to ensure they are consistent with this part and with the Technical Guidelines (incorporated by reference, see § 300.13). EIA will also review all reports for completeness, internal consistency, arithmetic accuracy and plausibility. Subject to the availability of adequate resources, EIA intends to notify entities of the acceptance or rejection of any report within six months of its receipt.
( b ) *Registration of emission reductions.* EIA will review each accepted report to determine if emission reductions were calculated using an acceptable base period (usually ending no earlier than 2002), and to confirm that the report complies with the other provisions of this part. EIA will also review its records to verify that the reporting entity has submitted accepted annual reports for each year between the establishment of its base period and the year covered by the current report. EIA will notify the entity that reductions meeting these requirements have been credited to the entity as “registered reductions” which can be held by the reporting entity for use (including transfer to other entities) in the event a future program that recognizes such reductions is enacted into law.
( c ) *Rejection of reports.* If EIA does not accept a report or if it determines that emission reductions intended for registration do not qualify, EIA will return the report to the sender with an explanation of its inadequacies. The reporting entity may resubmit a modified report for further consideration at any time.
( d ) *EIA database and summary reports.* The Administrator of EIA will establish a publicly accessible database composed of all reports that meet the definitional, measurement, calculation, and certification requirements of these guidelines. EIA will maintain separate subtotals of direct emissions, indirect emissions and carbon fluxes. A portion of the database will provide summary information on the emissions and registered emission reductions of each reporting entity.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

)

In the Matter of the Extradition of )

MARIA del ROSARIO MORENO-VAZQUEZ ) 3:06-CV-761-MEF-CSC

a/k/a MARIA COONLEY )

)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Comes now the undersigned attorney, Andrea Tisi, Senior Trial Attorney for the

U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs and enters her appearance as

an attorney of record for the United States of America, in the above-styled case.

Respectfully submitted this 6th day of June, 2008.

 By: /s/ Andrea Tisi

Andrea Tisi

Senior Trial Attorney

Office of International Affairs

Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Phone: (202) 353-4469

Fax: (202) 514-0080

E-mail: Andrea.Tisi@usdoj.gov

s/ Christopher Snyder 

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

131 Clayton Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334) 223-7280

Fax: (334) 223-7135

E-mail: christopher.a.snyder@usdoj.gov

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 31 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on June 6, 2008, 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: Ben Elton Bruner. 

/s/ Andrea Tisi

ANDREA TISI

/s/ Christopher Snyder

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 31 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 2 of 2
# 5235.070-1 Indemnification under research and development contracts.

   (a) DASN(P) is the approval authority.

 (b) Submit requests for indemnification approval          to DASN(P) by email at usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the subject          “[Activity Name] DFARS 235.070-1 – Indemnification Request under R&D Contracts.” 

**Parent topic:**5235.070 Indemnification against unusually hazardous risks.