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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION

ALMA T. McBROOM, *

PLAINTIFF *

VS. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06 CV767-F

JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER *

GENERAL UNITED STATES POSTAL *

SERVICE; NATIONAL POSTAL *

MAIL HANDLERS UNION; THE *

MONTGOMERY ALABAMA AREA *

LOCAL AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS *

UNION, AFL-CIO; and VANESSA *

GORDON, *

DEFENDANTS *

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

COMES NOW Defendant, VANESSA GORDON by and through 

counsel and propounds the following Discovery Request on 

Plaintiff: 

1. State your full name, address, social security 

number, and date of birth.

2. Please state the full name and complete address of 

all treating physicians who have found, treated, 

and diagnosed you to be disabled as alleged in your 

Complaint.

3. Please state why it took you until March 30, 2006 

to “discover” a grievance has allegedly not been 

filed by the Local Union.

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 55 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 1 of 3
4. Please state by what authority the Local Union is 

required to file a grievance on your behalf.

5. Please provide all jobs you have held for the last 

10 years by name, complete address and reason for 

leaving.

6. Please state whether you have ever been convicted 

of a crime.

7. Please state why you have ever previously been a 

Plaintiff or Defendant in a lawsuit and provide the 

name of the case and it’s Case Number along with 

when and where it was filed.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

1. Please provide all documents that would support 

your claim of total disability as alleged in your 

complaint.

2. Please provide all documents that support your 

claim that the Local Union failed to pursue a 

grievance on your behalf.

3/29/07 /s/ William P. Roberts, II

DATE SIGNATURE OF COUNSEL

COUNSEL FOR:

VANESSA GORDON

HOWELL, SARTO & HOWELL

P.O. Box 681864

147 E. Main St.

Prattville, AL 36068-1864

(334)365-2286

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 55 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the 

foregoing upon the following by U. S. Mail, first class, 

postage pre-paid and through the Court’s electronic filing 

system: 

Debrorah Nicknson 

2820 Fairlane Drive, A-10

Montgomery, AL 36116

Brenda C. Zwack 

O’DONNELL, SCHWARTZ, & ANDERSON, P.C.

1300 L. Street NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20005-4126

Patrick Nakamura 

NAKAMURA, QUINN & WALLS LLP 

2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 130

Birmingham, AL 35209

Dated: March 29, 2007 /s/ William P. Roberts, II

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 55 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.625 Additional considerations. ( a ) The Commission will not conduct more than one review of site suitability issues with regard to a particular site prior to filing and review of part two of the application described in § 2.101(a-1) of this part.
( b ) The Commission, upon its own initiative, or upon the motion of any party to the proceeding filed at least 60 days prior to the date of the commencement of the evidentiary hearing on site suitability issues, may decline to initiate an early hearing or render an early partial decision on any issue or issues of site suitability: ( 1 ) In cases where no partial decision on the relative merits of the proposed site and alternative sites under subpart A of part 51 is requested, upon determination that there is a reasonable likelihood that further review would identify one or more preferable alternative sites and the partial decision on one or more site suitability issues would lead to an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources prior to the submittal of the remainder of the information required by § 50.30(f) of this chapter that would prejudice the later review and decision on such alternative sites; or
( 2 ) In cases where it appears that an early partial decision on any issue or issues of site suitability would not be in the public interest considering: ( i ) The degree of likelihood that any early findings on those issues would retain their validity in later reviews;
( ii ) The objections, if any, of cognizant State or local government agencies to the conduct of an early review on those issues; and
( iii ) The possible effect on the public interest and the parties of having an early, if not necessarily conclusive, resolution of those issues.
DISCIPLINARY CASES

2007-0344.

#### Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Mishler.

On December 27, 2007, this court issued an order directing the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline to transmit certain exhibits to the court in this case. On January 15, 2008, the board transmitted a portion of the exhibits and filed a motion requesting an additional ten days to locate the remaining exhibits. Upon consideration thereof,

It is ordered that the motion for extension of time is hereby granted. The board shall file the remaining exhibits with the court on or before ten days from the date of this order.
§ 436.2 General objectives. The objectives of Federal energy management and planning programs are: ( a ) To apply energy conservation measures to, and improve the design for construction of Federal buildings such that the energy consumption per gross square foot of Federal buildings in use during the fiscal year 1995 is at least 10 percent less than the energy consumption per gross square foot in 1985;
( b ) To promote the methodology and procedures for conducting life cycle cost analyses of proposed investments in building energy systems, building water systems and energy and water conservation measures;
( c ) To promote the use of energy savings performance contracts by Federal agencies for implementation of privately financed investment in building and facility energy conservation measures for existing Federally owned buildings; and
( d ) To promote efficient use of energy in all agency operations through general operations plans.
[55 FR 48220, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 60 FR 18334, Apr. 10, 1995; 61 FR 32649, June 25, 1996]
Editorial Note on Part 32
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 32 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 32.12 Same: Records and material transfer reports. ( a ) Each person licensed under § 32.11 shall maintain records of transfer of byproduct material and file a report with the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards by an appropriate method listed in § 30.6(a) of this chapter, including in the address: ATTN: Document Control Desk/Exempt Distribution. ( 1 ) The report must clearly identify the specific licensee submitting the report and include the license number of the specific licensee.
( 2 ) The report must indicate that the byproduct material is transferred for use under § 30.14 of this chapter or equivalent regulations of an Agreement State.
( b ) The report must identify the: ( 1 ) Type and quantity of each product or material into which byproduct material has been introduced during the reporting period;
( 2 ) Name and address of the person who owned or possessed the product or material, into which byproduct material has been introduced, at the time of introduction;
( 3 ) The type and quantity of radionuclide introduced into each product or material; and
( 4 ) The initial concentrations of the radionuclide in the product or material at time of transfer of the byproduct material by the licensee.
( c ) ( 1 ) The licensee shall file the report, covering the preceding calendar year, on or before January 31 of each year. In its first report after December 17, 2007, the licensee shall separately include data for transfers in prior years not previously reported to the Commission or to an Agreement State.
( 2 ) Licensees who permanently discontinue activities authorized by the license issued under § 32.11 shall file a report for the current calendar year within 30 days after ceasing distribution.
( d ) If no transfers of byproduct material have been made under § 32.11 during the reporting period, the report must so indicate.
( e ) The licensee shall maintain the record of a transfer for one year after the transfer is included in a report to the Commission.
[72 FR 58487, Oct. 16, 2007, as amended at 73 FR 5719, Jan. 31, 2008; 73 FR 42673, July 23, 2008]
#### Richard Hojohn, as Administrator of the Estates of Thomas L. Scott et al., Deceased, Respondent, v Leonard Hamilton et al., Defendants, and Chrysler Corporation et al., Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered January 30, 1980 in Fulton County, denying appellants’ motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3). This death action arises out of an accident which occurred in Suffolk County, when the vehicle in which plaintiffs intestates were passengers was struck by a vehicle owned by defendant Carol A. Horvath and operated by defendant John G. Horvath. After the action had been commenced by plaintiff in Fulton County where he resided, defendants Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler Motors Corporation moved, pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3), for a change of venue to Suffolk County on the grounds that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. A party moving for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3) must name its witnesses, make it clear to the court that they will testify on behalf of the movant, specify the substance of the testimony which it is claimed each such witness will give, and state that upon advice of counsel it is believed that such testimony will be material and necessary upon the trial of the action *(Radatron, Inc. v Z. Z. Auto Tel,*30 AD2d 760). The papers submitted on behalf of the appellant in this case fail to contain such detail. Furthermore, Fulton County has a six-month trial delay, while Suffolk County has a 42-month delay. The appellant has not made a sufficient showing to establish that Special Term abused its discretion in denying the motion for a change of venue. Accordingly, the order appealed from should be affirmed *(Kucich v Leibowitz,*68 AD2d 1002). Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Casey, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 32

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 32 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 32.59 Same: Leak testing of each source.

Each person licensed under § 32.57 shall perform a dry wipe test upon each source containing more than 3.7 kilobecquerels (0.1 microcurie) of americium-241 or radium-226 before transferring the source to a general licensee under § 31.8 of this chapter or under equivalent regulations of an Agreement State. This test must be performed by wiping the entire radioactive surface of the source with a filter paper with the application of moderate finger pressure. The radioactivity on the filter paper must be measured using methods capable of detecting 0.185 kilobecquerel (0.005 microcurie) of americium-241 or radium-226. If a source has been shown to be leaking or losing more than 0.185 kilobecquerel (0.005 microcurie) of americium-241 or radium-226 by the methods described in this section, the source must be rejected and must not be transferred to a general licensee under § 31.8 of this chapter, or equivalent regulations of an Agreement State.

[77 FR 43694, July 25, 2012]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRCT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

VS. CASE NUMBER: 3:06CR205-MEF

HENRY ERIK YAPIAS,

Defendant.

MOTION TO CONTINUE

COMES now, the Defendant, HENRY ERIK YAPIAS, by and through CJA Panel Attorney

SYDNEY ALBERT SMITH, files herein a motion to continue this matter from trial now set for

Monday, November 27, 2006, and cites as grounds therefore as follows:

1. Counsel was contacted on this date by the Office of the Federal Defenders and requested

to and did accept an appointment as counsel for the Defendant.

2. Counsel was advised that the matter had gone before the Court for a change of plea,

however, a conflict of interest was discovered before said plea was entered and previous counsel,

Jennifer Hart of the Federal Defenders Office was required to withdraw.

3. Counsel was advised by the office of the Honorable Magistrage Judge Charles Coody

contemperaneously with receiving basic documents from the Federal Defenders Office in this case

that the matter was set for trial on November 27, 2006, and that a motion to continue should be filed.

4. Counsel has a sentencing in State v. Oscar Roy Doster, Covington County, on November

22, 2006. The Office of counsel is planned to be closed on Thursday and Friday, November 23 and

24. 

5. Counsel has a previously set professional obligation in Mobile, Alabama on Monday,

November 27, 2006, and previously set criminal proceedings in the Circuit Court of Coffee County,

Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 19 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 1 of 2
Enterprise Division on Wednesday, November 29, 2006.

6. Counsel understands that the only reason the plea of guilty did not go forth was a lately

discovered conflict by counsel with the Federal Defenders Office, not necessarily the way the

counsel was conducting the representation. If such is the case, the plea should go forth as soon as

the undersigned counsel can see the defendant who counsel is advised is incarcerated in the

Montgomery City Jail. Counsel intends to see the Defenant on Tuesday, November 28, 2006.

PREMSIE considered, this Honorable Court is requested to continue the trial setting of this

case from the November 27, 2006, term of court.

Respectfully submitted this the 21st day of November, 2006.

S/Sydney Albert Smith

Sydney Albert Smith

ASB-3560-H70S

Attoney at Law

P. O. Drawer 389

Elba, AL 36323

Phone: 334-897-3658 

Fax: 334-897-3658

sydneyalbertsmith@charter.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have servede a copy of the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using

the CM/ECF sydtem which will send notifications of such filing to the following:

Chris Snyder, Assistant Unites States Attorney

Jennifer A. Hart, Federal Defenders Middle District of Alabama.

S/Sydney Albert Smith

Sydney Albert Smith

ASB-3560-H70S

Attoney at Law

P. O. Drawer 389

Elba, AL 36323

Phone: 334-897-3658 

Fax: 334-897-3658

sydneyalbertsmith@charter.net

Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 19 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 2 of 2
# Subpart 2804.4 - Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry

**Parent topic:**PART 2804 - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

## 2804.402 General.

Classified acquisitions or contracts, which require access to classified material, as defined in FAR 4.402, for their performance shall be subject to the policies, procedures, and instructions contained in departmental regulations and shall be processed in a manner consistent with those regulations. Contractors at all tiers are required to comply with all such policies, procedures, and instructions.     

## 2804.402-70 Contractor personnel security program.

It is DOJ policy that all acquisitions which allow unescorted contractor access to Government facilities or sensitive information contain, as appropriate, requirements for appropriate personnel security screening by the contractor. To the maximum extent practicable, contractors shall be made responsible for the performance of personnel security screening. The personnel security screening may vary from one acquisition to another, depending upon the type, context, duration and location of the work to be performed. Classified contracts are exempted from the requirements of this section because they are governed by the requirements of Executive Order 12829 (January 6, 1993).
Exhibit 11

                     CTC COMMUNICATIONS CORP.
       STATEMENTS REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
              (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT FOR PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                    June 30,            June 30,
                                                      1997                1996
                                                  -------------       -------------
PRIMARY
<S>                                               <C>                 <C>
Average shares outstanding                               9,757        $      9,585

Net effect of stock options, if dilutive,
  based on the treasury stock method
  using the average market price                           954               1,396
                                                  -------------       -------------
                                 Total                  10,711              10,981

Net income                                        $      1,374        $      1,194
                                                  -------------       -------------
Net income per share                              $       0.13                0.11
                                                  -------------       -------------
FULLY DILUTED

Average shares outstanding                               9,757        $      9,585

Net effect of stock options, if dilutive,
  based on the treasury stock method
  using the period-end market price                      1,056               1,396
                                                  -------------       -------------
                                 Total                  10,813              10,981

Net income                                        $      1,374        $      1,194
                                                  -------------       -------------
Net income per share                              $       0.13                0.11
                                                  -------------       -------------
</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

CLARENCE GLENN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv789-MHT

) 

MARCIA MONTGOMERY, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the petition to remand (doc. no.

4) is set for submission, without oral argument, on

October 13, 2006, with all briefs due by said date.

DONE, this the 29th day of September, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00789-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report of ImClone Systems Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel
S. Lynch, Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer, Acting Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

    (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/   DANIEL S. LYNCH
-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel S. Lynch
Acting Chief Executive Officer
July 3, 2003

                                    Page 42
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE 
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Terence Sien, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Alpha Spacecom, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c)

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|December 24, 2003 | /s/ Terence Sien

Name:  Terence Sien
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
|----------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 2:06-cv-00784-MEF-WC Document 2 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00784-MEF-WC Document 2 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00784-MEF-WC Document 2 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 3 of 3
#### § 150.14 Commission regulatory authority for physical protection.

Persons in Agreement States possessing, using or transporting special nuclear material of low strategic significance in quantities greater than 15 grams of plutonium or uranium-233 or uranium-235 (enriched to 20 percent or more in the U-235 isotope) or any combination greater than 15 grams when computed by the equation grams = grams uranium-235 + grams plutonium + grams uranium-233 shall meet the physical protection requirements of § 73.67 of 10 CFR part 73.

[44 FR 43285, July 24, 1979, as amended at 44 FR 68199, Nov. 28, 1979]
806.004-70 Definition.

As used in this part -

Health-care resources has the same definition as that provided in 873.102.

Parent topic: PART 806 - COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS