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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA BURKETT, Administratrix, *

of the ESTATE OF JEREMY *

BURKETT, Deceased, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * 1:06 CV-755-DRB

*

TIMOTHY EUGENE MCCRAY, et al. *

*

Defendants *

*

vs. *

*

SOUTHERN GENERAL INSURANCE, *

et al. *

*

Third-Party Defendants. *

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW Herman Cobb and Leon A. Boyd, V of Cobb, Derrick, Boyd & White, 

on behalf of the Counter Defendant, Patricia Burkett, as the Administratrix of the Estate of 

Jeremy Burkett, deceased, in the above styled action and file this as their Entry of Appearance.

Dated this the 25th day of January, 2007.

ATTORNEYS FOR COUNTER DEFENDANT:

/s/ Leon A. Boyd, V

HERMAN COBB (COB004)

LEON A. BOYD, V (BOY035)

OF COUNSEL:

COBB, DERRICK, BOYD & WHITE

Post Office Box 2047

Dothan, Alabama 36302

Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 45 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 1 of 4
334-677-1000

334-6773500 (fax)

bo@cobbfirm.com

Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 45 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 2 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document upon the following 

by either electronic service or by placing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage 

prepaid and properly addressed this the 25

th day of January, 2007.

David J Harrison

PO Box 994

Geneva, Alabama 36340

William A. Mudd

505 N 20th Street

1200 Financial Center

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Christoffer Peter Bolvig, III

Hall Conerly & Bolvig PC 

1400 Financial Center 

505 North 20th Street 

Birmingham, AL 35203-2626

Johnnie M. Graham

Phillips & Graham 

P O Box 2303 

Albany, GA 31702-2303

Randolph H. Phillips

Phillips & Graham 

609 Pine Avenue 

Post Office Box 2303 

Albany, GA 31702

David Woodham Rousseau

Law Office of David W Rousseau 

211 W Adams Street 

Dothan, AL 36303-4401

Tommy Ray Scarborough

Tommy R. Scarborough, LLC 

119 S Foster Street 

Suite 101 

Dothan, AL 36301

Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 45 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 3 of 4
Cindy Lorraine Self

Lamar Miller Norris Haggard & Christie 

501 Riverchase Parkway East 

Suite 100 

Birmingham, AL 35244

/s/ Leon A. Boyd, V

OF COUNSEL

Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 45 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 4 of 4
Part II, Section B, 1: Operation Description (Inks, Coatings and Adhesives Applications)
#### Rafael Diaz et al., Appellants, v Ford Motor Company et al., Defendants, and Bronx Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 606]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Roman, J.), entered on or about May 23, 2005, which, to the extent appeal-able, denied plaintiffs’ motion for renewal of their prior motion *340for leave to amend their bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The accident allegedly occurred in 1990, and this action was commenced three years later. Bills of particulars were served in 1994 and 1995, and plaintiffs were deposed in 1997 and 1998. The note of issue was filed in April 2003. In August 2004, plaintiffs moved to amend their bill of particulars to include purported new injuries reflected in recent medical reports. These reports, which were unsworn, unnotarized and unaccompanied by any affidavit or medical affirmation, did not constitute competent proof in support of the motion. Submission of affirmations on the renewal motion did not cure the defect in the original motion, nor did the medical reports provide a nexus between the alleged newly discovered injuries and the accident *(Fuentes v City of New York,*3 AD3d 549 [2004]).

Plaintiffs contend that defendants were placed on notice of the substance of the purported new injuries by deposition testimony and related documentation. However, they did not point to any specific references in the record in support of this assertion. They have also consistently failed to explain the inordinate periods of delay, especially insofar as the note of issue was already filed *(id.; Del Rosario v 114 Fifth Ave. Assoc.,*266 AD2d 162 [1999]). We further reject plaintiffs’ current claim that they were only seeking to supplement (CPLR 3043 [b]) rather than to amend (CPLR 3042 [b]) the bill of particulars, a characterization that is strikingly at odds with the form and content of the motion itself and with their proposed “amended bill of particulars.”

Plaintiffs have not cogently explained why the purported new evidence could not, with reasonable diligence, have been provided with the original motion *(C.R. v Pleasantville Cottage School,*302 AD2d 259 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 66 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 66 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 2 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 66 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 3 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 66 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 4 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 66 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 5 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 66 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 6 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 66 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 7 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 66 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 8 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 66 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 9 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 66 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 10 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 66 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 11 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 66 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 12 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 66 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 13 of 14
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 66 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 14 of 14
PGI 209.270-4 Procedures.       (1) Policies and procedures applicable to aviation critical safety item design control activities are in DoD Manual 4140.01, Volume 11, DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Procedures: Inventory Accountability and Special Management and Handling, DoD Aviation Critical Safety Item (CSI)/Flight Safety Critical Aircraft Part (FSCAP) Program. This regulation provides direction on establishing criticality determinations, identification of aviation critical safety items in the Federal Logistics Information System, and related requirements.          (2) Procedures for management of aviation critical safety items and ship critical safety items are available at http://www.dscr.dla.mil/ExternalWeb/UserWeb/AviationEngineering/Technic.... This web site provides detailed life-cycle procedures for aviation and ship critical safety items, from initial identification through disposal, as well as a detailed list of definitions applicable to aviation and ship critical safety items.    **Parent topic:** PGI 209.270 Aviation and ship critical safety items.
#### § 54.22 Contents of application—technical specifications.

Each application must include any technical specification changes or additions necessary to manage the effects of aging during the period of extended operation as part of the renewal application. The justification for changes or additions to the technical specifications must be contained in the license renewal application.
#### § 436.24 Uncertainty analyses.

If particular items of cost data or timing of cash flows are uncertain and are not fixed under § 436.14, Federal agencies may examine the impact of uncertainty on the calculation of life cycle cost effectiveness or the assignment of rank order by conducting additional analyses using any standard engineering economics method such as sensitivity and probabilistic analysis. If additional analysis casts substantial doubt on the life cycle cost analysis results, a Federal agency should consider obtaining more reliable data or eliminating the building energy or water system alternative.

[55 FR 48220, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 61 FR 32651, June 25, 1996]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v ) CR. NO. 1:06CR197-MEF

)

RODERICK CHARLES MELVIN )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and Motion to

Appointment to Appoint CJA Panel Attorney (doc. #21) filed by the defendant, it is

ORDERED that the motion to withdraw be and hereby GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that Malcolm Newman be and is hereby appointed to represent the defendant

for all further proceedings. Appointed counsel shall file a notice of appearance with this

court.

Done this 21 day of November, 2006. st

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cr-00197-MEF-CSC Document 24 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and income statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,123
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,995
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,810
<PP&E>                                             697
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,885
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     30,000
<COMMON>                                           669
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,145
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,627
<SALES>                                         29,111
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,111
<CGS>                                           26,254
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,673
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,844
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                184
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       184
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.3


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 10A, as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, Samuel M. Inman, III, certify that:


1.    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Covisint Corporation; and


2.    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;





July 27, 2016





By: /s/ Samuel M. Inman, III


Samuel M. Inman, III


Chief Executive Officer
PGI 216.505-70 Orders under multiple-award contracts.       (b) For task orders issued under multiple-award indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity services contracts, contracting officers shall, when minimum labor category qualifications exist in the underlying contract–          (1) Ensure solicitations contain minimum labor category qualifications deemed necessary for successful task order performance, such as education and years of work experience, that are consistent with the contract’s requirements;          (2) When allowed under the terms of the contract, identify any exceptions from labor category qualifications, such as education and years of work experience, proposed by the contractor as an alternative. When exceptions exist, contracting officers shall –          (i) Identify any proposed exception from the labor category qualifications in the contract file, considering any potential performance and price impacts on the agency’s requirements, and          (ii) Document the reasons for accepting any proposed alternatives to the contract requirements; and          (3) Include verification procedures within the quality assurance surveillance plan to ensure contractor personnel providing the service meet qualification requirements identified for the labor categories specified in the task order and contract. Verification, such as validation of contractor personnel education and years of relevant work experience, ensures the Government receives adequate services, as identified in task order and contract performance requirements (see FAR 46.104 and 46.407).    **Parent topic:** PGI 216.505 Ordering.
#### § 611.1 Purpose.

This part is issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140, as amended by section 129 of Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009, Public Law 110-329, section 312 of Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010, Public Law 111-85, section 40401(b) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, and section 50142 of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117-169. Specifically, section 136(e) directs DOE to promulgate an interim final rule establishing regulations that specify eligibility criteria and that contain other provisions that the Secretary deems necessary to administer this section and any loans made by the Secretary pursuant to this section.

[89 FR 33202, Apr. 29, 2024]
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*January 24, 2008*

[Cite as *01/24/2008 Case Announcements,*2008-0hio-211.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2007-1396.

#### State v. Elwell.

Lorain App. No. 06CA008923, 2007-Ohio-3122. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On July 30, 2007, appellant filed a notice of pending motion to *1494certify a conflict. Whereas appellant has not notified this court of the decision on the pending motion to certify a conflict,

It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause within fourteen days of the date of this entry why this court should not proceed to consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 111(6).
1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1328

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Thomas Wilson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 15, 2005 Filed: October 4, 2005

___________ Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Thomas Wilson appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine, entered after the district court 1 denied Wilson’s initial and amended motions to withdraw his guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d). Wilson filed his initial motion to withdraw, without supporting reasons, under Rule 11(d)(1), which provides: “A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty . . . (1) before the court accepts the plea, for2 The government’s brief urged that Wilson’s waiver extended to the provisions of Rule 11(d)(2)(B) but on oral argument did not urge that contention in light of Morales . We need not decide that issue.
-2- any reason or no reason.” The district court correctly concluded that Wilson knowingly and voluntarily waived this right. At his Rule 11 hearing, the district court explained to Wilson that to remain free until sentencing, he had to give up his otherwise “unconditional right to withdraw [his] plea,” and Wilson agreed. See United States v. Stricklin , 342 F.3d 849, 850 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirming conviction based on waiver of Rule 11 right to withdraw guilty plea).

Wilson then filed an amended motion to withdraw based on new information that he argued would permit him to impeach two incriminating witness proffers in the government’s case file. Under Rule 11(d)(2)(B): “A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty . . . (2) after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if: . . . (B) the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Wilson did not offer a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea, particularly where the factual basis recited by the government at the Rule 11 hearing and acknowledged by Wilson to reflect his participation in the conspiracy, did not include the disputed proffer testimony. See United States v. Morales , 120 F.3d 744, 748 (8th Cir. 1997) (“[M]iscalculat[ing] the strength of the government’s case . . . . is not . . . a ‘fair and just reason’ for withdrawal of a guilty plea . . . .”). 2
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________
EX-35.4
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1086-120, 12th Floor
550 Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC  28202
1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement
dated as of February 1, 2013, by and among GS Mortgage Securities
Corporation II, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as
Master Servicer and Certificate Administrator, LNR Partners, LLC, as
Special Servicer, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Operating
Advisor and U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee, with respect to
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-GC10 (the
"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall
have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.07 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive
Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from
   January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"), and of
   its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my
   supervision, and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has
   fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
   respects throughout the Reporting Period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 7th
day of March 2014.


/s/ Daniel Bober
Daniel Bober
Executive Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(logo) Together we'll go far
29–006 

108TH CONGRESS REPT. 108–490 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 2 

PAPERWORK AND REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 

2004 

MAY 17, 2004.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, from the Committee on Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 

[To accompany H.R. 2432] 

The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 2432) to amend the Paperwork Reduction Act and titles 5 and 31, United States Code, to reform Federal paperwork 

and regulatory processes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 

amended do pass. 

2 


Insert offset folio 2 here HR490.001
3 

CORRECTION—STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires a statement of general performance goals. The Committee expects that the studies and reports authorized by this bill 

will increase the probability of results in paperwork reduction, assist Congress in its review of agency regulatory proposals, and improve public and Congressional understanding of the true costs and 

benefits of regulations. 

Æ
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 511 

Honoring and thanking United States Capitol Police Assistant Chief of Police 

James Patrick Rohan on the occasion of his retirement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 26, 2005 

Mr. NEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring and thanking United States Capitol Police Assistant Chief of Police James Patrick Rohan on the occasion 

of his retirement. 

Whereas Assistant Chief of Police James Patrick Rohan was 

appointed as a United States Capitol Police private in 

1975; 

Whereas Assistant Chief of Police Rohan, throughout his career, has distinguished himself through countless commendations and recognition for professionalism and extraordinary service for the United States Capitol Police; 

Whereas Assistant Chief of Police Rohan, through extraordinary efforts and dedication during his outstanding career of over 30 years rose from the rank of private to the 

position of Assistant Chief of Police, the second in command of the United States Capitol Police; and 
2 

•HRES 511 IH 

Whereas Assistant Chief of Police Rohan, throughout his tenure with the United States Capitol Police, contributed 

immeasurably to the increased professionalism of the 

force and has made a significant contribution to enhancing the security of Congress: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors 

2 and thanks James Patrick Rohan and his family on the 

3 occasion of his retirement for a lifelong professional com4 mitment of service to the United States Capitol Police and 

5 of ensuring the safety and security of Congress. 

Æ
###### Editorial Note on Part 712

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 712 appear at 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023.

#### § 712.4 Exemptions.

The Department is authorized to grant exemptions from the requirements in § 712.11 of this part as it determines are authorized by law. Exemptions from requirements in this part are allowed only on a case-by-case basis. All requests for an exemption should be submitted in writing from the Manager to the Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security for coordination, and approval by the cognizant Under Secretary. A request for an exemption shall be approved only if the cognizant Under Secretary determines that the exemption will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise consistent with the national interest. The procedures in this section shall not be used to establish stricter recertification standards than those required by § 712.11.

[83 FR 18200, Apr. 26, 2018, as amended at 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023]
Editorial Note on Part 61
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 61 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 61.82 Commission inspections of land disposal facilities. ( a ) Each licensee shall afford to the Commission at all reasonable times opportunity to inspect radioactive waste not yet disposed of, and the premises, equipment, operations, and facilities in which radioactive wastes are received, possessed, handled, treated, stored, or disposed of.
( b ) Each licensee shall make available to the Commission for inspection, upon reasonable notice, records kept by it pursuant to the regulations in this chapter. Authorized representatives of the Commission may copy and take away copies of, for the Commission's use, any record required to be kept pursuant to this part.