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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

HAROLD MOSS 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CURTIS CASEY and OTIS SMITH 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

CASE NO. 2:06-CV-784-MEF-VPM 

 

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS

 COME NOW Defendants Officer Curtis Casey and Lt. Otis Smith, by and through the 

undersigned counsel, and for their Answer to the above-styled action, state as follows: 

 Defendants deny each and every material allegation made in the Complaint, and demand 

strict proof thereof. 

 Defendants deny that they violated any of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

 Defendants deny that they caused or allowed to continue any unconstitutional condition 

of the Plaintiff’s confinement. 

DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

 The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

The Defendants are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United 

States Constitution. 

The Defendants are immune from suit due to qualified immunity. 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MEF-WC Document 11 Filed 11/15/2006 Page 1 of 2
 Respectfully submitted, 

 TROY KING (KIN047) 

 Attorney General 

 /s/ Benjamin H. Albritton

 Benjamin H. Albritton (ALB008) 

 Assistant Attorney General 

 

ADDRESS OF COUNSEL: 

Office of the Attorney General 

11 South Union Street 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

(334) 242-7555 

(334) 242-7433 - fax 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have, this the 15th day of November, 2006, served a copy of the 

foregoing upon the Plaintiff by placing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and 

properly addressed as follows: 

Harold Moss, 170262 

Montgomery Pre-Release Center 

PO Box 75 

Mt. Meigs, AL 36057 

 /s/ Benjamin H. Albritton

 Benjamin H. Albritton 

Assistant Attorney General 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MEF-WC Document 11 Filed 11/15/2006 Page 2 of 2
§ 960.4-2-5 Erosion. ( a ) *Qualifying condition.* The site shall allow the underground facility to be placed at a depth such that erosional processes acting upon the surface will not be likely to lead to radionuclide releases greater than those allowable under the requirements specified in § 960.4-1. In predicting the likelihood of potentially disruptive erosional processes, the DOE will consider the climatic, tectonic, and geomorphic evidence of rates and patterns of erosion in the geologic setting during the Quaternary Period.
( b ) *Favorable conditions.* ( 1 ) Site conditions that permit the emplacement of waste at a depth of at least 300 meters below the directly overlying ground surface.
( 2 ) A geologic setting where the nature and rates of the erosional processes that have been operating during the Quaternary Period are predicted to have less than one chance in 10,000 over the next 10,000 years of leading to releases of radionuclides to the accessible environment.
( 3 ) Site conditions such that waste exhumation would not be expected to occur during the first one million years after repository closure.
( c ) *Potentially adverse conditions.* ( 1 ) A geologic setting that shows evidence of extreme erosion during the Quaternary Period.
( 2 ) A geologic setting where the nature and rates of geomorphic processes that have been operating during the Quaternary Period could, during the first 10,000 years after closure, adversely affect the ability of the geologic repository to isolate the waste.
( d ) *Disqualifying condition.* The site shall be *disqualified* if site conditions do not allow all portions of the underground facility to be situated at least 200 meters below the directly overlying ground surface.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08471**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  08471\08471_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 08471\08471_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 08471\08471_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 08471\08471_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08471\08471_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08471\08471_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08471\08471_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08471\08471_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08471\08471_PartF.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08471\08471_PartG.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08471\08471_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\08417_Follow Up Questions.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\08471_A5-2 MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\08471_A5-3 Water Balance-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x x 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\08471_C3-29 Bottom Ash Conversion Option 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x x 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\08471_C3-29 Bottom Ash Conversion Option 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x x 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\08471_C3-29 Bottom Ash Conversion Option 3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\08471_D3-1 RET-POND-1 Retired Ash Pond Flow Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\08471_D3-1 SPD-1 Ash Pond Flow Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\08471_Sect. 2.3 Fly Ash Handling Block Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\08471_Sect. 3.3 Bottom Ash Handling Block Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\Follow Up Response\08471_Follow Up Email.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\Follow Up Response\08471_Part C Revised 02.16.2011.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\Follow Up Response\08471_Part C Revised 2 02.16.2011.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\Follow Up Response\08471_Part C Revised 3 02.16.2011.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\Follow Up Response\08471_Part C Revised 4 02.16.2011.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08471\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\Follow Up Response\Part C revised 2-16-11.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08471\08471_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in theSteam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### § 170.325 Subaward.

*Subaward* has the meaning given in 2 CFR 200.1.

[85 FR 49526, Aug. 13, 2020]
#### § 1400.220 What contracts and subcontracts, in addition to those listed in 2 CFR 180.220, are covered transactions?

Although the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.220(c) allows a Federal agency to do so (also see optional lower tier coverage in the figure in the appendix to 2 CFR part 180), the Department of the Interior does not extend coverage of nonprocurement suspension and debarment requirements beyond first-tier procurement contracts under a covered nonprocurement transaction.
#### § 1532.1115 Can the EPA extend a CAA or CWA disqualification to other facilities?

The CAA specifically authorizes the EPA to extend a CAA disqualification to other facilities that are owned or operated by the convicted person. The EPA also has authority under subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, or under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, to take discretionary suspension and debarment actions on the basis of misconduct leading to a CAA or CWA conviction, or for activities that the EPA debarring official believes were designed to improperly circumvent a CAA or CWA disqualification.
§ 200.203 Requirement to provide public notice of Federal financial assistance programs. ( a ) The Federal awarding agency must notify the public of Federal programs in the Federal Assistance Listings maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA). ( 1 ) The Federal Assistance Listings is the single, authoritative, governmentwide comprehensive source of Federal financial assistance program information produced by the executive branch of the Federal Government.
( 2 ) The information that the Federal awarding agency must submit to GSA for approval by OMB is listed in paragraph (b) of this section. GSA must prescribe the format for the submission in coordination with OMB.
( 3 ) The Federal awarding agency may not award Federal financial assistance without assigning it to a program that has been included in the Federal Assistance Listings as required in this section unless there are exigent circumstances requiring otherwise, such as timing requirements imposed by statute.
( b ) For each program that awards discretionary Federal awards, non-discretionary Federal awards, loans, insurance, or any other type of Federal financial assistance, the Federal awarding agency must, to the extent practicable, create, update, and manage Assistance Listings entries based on the authorizing statute for the program and comply with additional guidance provided by GSA in consultation with OMB to ensure consistent, accurate information is available to prospective applicants. Accordingly, Federal awarding agencies must submit the following information to GSA: ( 1 ) *Program Description, Purpose, Goals, and Measurement.* A brief summary of the statutory or regulatory requirements of the program and its intended outcome. Where appropriate, the Program Description, Purpose, Goals, and Measurement should align with the strategic goals and objectives within the Federal awarding agency's performance plan and should support the Federal awarding agency's performance measurement, management, and reporting as required by Part 6 of OMB Circular A-11;
( 2 ) *Identification.* Identification of whether the program makes Federal awards on a discretionary basis or the Federal awards are prescribed by Federal statute, such as in the case of formula grants.
( 3 ) *Projected total amount of funds available for the program.* Estimates based on previous year funding are acceptable if current appropriations are not available at the time of the submission;
( 4 ) *Anticipated source of available funds.* The statutory authority for funding the program and, to the extent possible, agency, sub-agency, or, if known, the specific program unit that will issue the Federal awards, and associated funding identifier (*e.g.,* Treasury Account Symbol(s));
( 5 ) *General eligibility requirements.* The statutory, regulatory or other eligibility factors or considerations that determine the applicant's qualification for Federal awards under the program (*e.g.,* type of non-Federal entity); and
( 6 ) *Applicability of Single Audit Requirements.* Applicability of Single Audit Requirements as required by subpart F of this part.
#### § 905.36 Marketing criteria.

Western shall retain applicable provisions of existing marketing criteria for projects where resource commitments are extended beyond the current expiration date of long-term firm power sales contracts. Western must retain important marketing plan provisions such as classes of service, marketing area, and points of delivery, to the extent that these provisions are consistent with the PMI. The PMI, eligibility and allocation criteria for potential new customers, retained or amended provisions of existing marketing criteria, the project-specific resource definition, and the size of a project-specific resource pool shall constitute the future marketing plan for each project.
StokerandCooper,2007
#### § 1108.235 Institution of higher education.

*Institution of higher education* has the meaning specified at 20 U.S.C. 1001.
Subpart 5304.1 - CONTRACT EXECUTION

Parent topic: Part 5304 - Administrative Matters

5304.101 Contracting Officer’s Signature

Contracting officers are required to sign all contract actions (either via wet signature, signature as

produced by CON-IT, or digital signature produced with a DoD Public Key Infrastructure certificate

using a Common Access Card), ensure contractor signatures are obtained, and maintain signed

contractual documents within the official contract file.

5304.102 Early Effective Date

1. Approval authority for the use of an early effective date is the chief of the contracting office. After

reaching agreement on terms, conditions, price, and if funds are available, the contracting officer

may advise a prospective contractor in writing of the Government’s intent to use an effective date

before the contract mailing (award/signed) date.

2. Notice to the contractor should state that any costs recognized in a resulting contract should be

limited to those allowable, allocable and reasonable; costs that would normally be recognized if

incurred after contract award. The Notice to the contractor should state, that if there is no contract,

all incurred costs should be at the contractor’s own risk.

3. Approval Authority should provide contractual coverage with a letter contract, or other

appropriate undefinitized contractual action, if the Government intends to direct a prospective

contractor, to accept benefits of efforts, or make payments before definitive contract mailing date.

4. Approval Authority should obtain legal review for early effective dates established more than 30

days prior to the envisioned contract award date.
### •^CKtTOPFRArinAi Q '^trOPfRATiON S

• ' Alwaysd o wha t yo u ar cafrai d t o do. " Emerso n „•'' ^ ^•'- ^ ^ ' •--''2 - 0 0 1 3 Februar

y201 2 Docke t Managemen t Facilit y US Dept . O fTransportatio n Docke t # FAA-2012-008 9 120 0 Ne wJerseyAve . S E Wes t Buildin g Groun d Floor , Roo m -W-120140- - --- ' - - —- - . Washington , D

C 2059 0 Gentlemen : M yfamil yan d I liv e i n th e Lansing , Michigan , are a an d fl yo n average , onc e pe rmonth . On e o fou rmai n destination s i s Minneapolis-St . Pau l t o visi t ou rolde rdaughte rwh o i s completin g a medica l residency there .

•r Recently , tw o ver yclos e friend s move d t o th e Washingto n D.C . area . Unti l Su n Countrybega n flyin g fro m Lansin g t o bot h o fthes e destinations , w e hav e neve rflow n fro m Lansing ; rathe rw e woul d driv e t o eithe rDetroi t o rFlint , a much greate rdistance . No wwit h Lansin g bein g a viabl e option , w e are minute s fro m th e airpor t her e an d ar e no wutilizin g it' s option . Su n Countryhas mad e thi s possible . Perhap s fro m a purel yselfis h perspective , w e woul d hop e Su n Countryi s allowe d t o continu e t o lan d a t Reaga n i n Washington . M yfamil yan d I wil l fl ybot h wes t an d eas t fro m Lansin g wel l int o th e foreseeable futur e wit h Su n Country . Than k you . Sincerely , Edwar d J . Brow n 214 5 Haslet t Rd . Williamston , M l 4889 5 (517)655-272 9
#### Dorothy M. Papadakos, Appellant-Respondent, v. Peter J. Papadakos, Respondent-Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Peter J. Papadakos, Respondent-Appellant, v. Dorothy M. P. Papadakos, Appellant-Respondent. (Action No. 2.)

This is a purported appeal by the former attorneys of Dorothy Mae Papadakos, a party in these consolidated actions, from that part a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated May 16, 1967, which limited the award of counsel fees to said party to $30,000 and disallowed costs. The parties themselves cross-appealed from the judgment, but their appeals are not considered herein. Purported appeal dismissed, without costs. In an order of Special Term dated September 11, 1967, it was provided, *inter alia,*that the attorneys be permitted to intervene in the appeal by plaintiff in Action No. 1 *“to*the limited extent of submitting papers and briefs to *sustam*the amount of counsel fees awarded by the" judgment ” (emphasis supplied). They were not given permission to prosecute the appeal and argue that the legal fees awarded were inadequate. They were only given permission to intervene in the appeal for the purpose of sustaining the fee awarded. Although respondent-appellant has argued in his brief that the fee award should be reduced, we do not have before us the record upon which the trial court made its determination. Therefore, we have not considered such argument. .Christ, Acting, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register: September 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 189)]
[Notices]               
[Page 60490-60491]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30se10-120]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7191]

 
Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Haremhab, The General Who Became King''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of

[[Page 60491]]

Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that an 
object to be included in the exhibition ``Haremhab, The General Who 
Became King,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported 
pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at 
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, from on or about November 
16, 2010, until on or about July 4, 2011, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including the 
object list, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the 
Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The 
mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor 
(Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: September 24, 2010.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Bureau of 
Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-24588 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
222 So.2d 63

#### SUCCESSION of William Hutchinson ROBINSON.

No. 49715.

May 9, 1969.

In re: Mrs. Mary Belle Flournoy Robinson applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 218 So.2d 383.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error in the judgment complained of.
#### WINDER et al. v. POLLACK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

March 4, 1915.)

1. Evidence (§ 147*) — Admissibility—Negative Evidence.

In an action for goods sold, defendant’s books of account, containing no entry of the receipt of certain goods, and the testimony of defendant’s bookkeeper that the books contained no such entry, were not adpiissible to show nondelivery of such goods.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 435 — 437; Dec. Dig. § 147.*]

2. Appeal and Error (§ 1050*) — Harmless Error — Admission of Evidence.

Where the issue óf delivery was sharply contested, the erroneous admission of such books and such testimony was seriously prejudicial.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig, §§ 1068, 1069, 4153-4157, 4166; Dec. Dig. § 1050.*]'

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.

Action by Joseph Winder and another against Julius Pollack. From a judgment entered .in favor of defendant upon the verdict of a jury, plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued February term, 1915, before GUY, PENDLETON, and SHEARN, JJ.

Meyer Levy, of New York City, for appellants.

John L. Bernstein, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

SHEARN, J.

The action was brought to recover $237.84, balance due for merchandise sold and delivered. One item was in dispute, that of October 10, 1914, consisting of 24 ladies’ coats, át $6 each. Defendant also claimed payment in full by a check for $106.

[1, 2] As to the defense of payment, it was uncontradicted that the check was deposited in regular course, but came back from the bank dishonored. To resist the claim of delivery of the 24 coats, the court permitted defendant to introduce in evidence his books of account, to show the negative fact that they contained no entry of the receipt of the coats, and his bookkeeper was permitted to testify that the books contained no such entry. Obviously this was error (Linden v. Thieriot, 96 App. Div. 256, 89 N. Y. Supp. 273), and seriously prejudicial in a case where the issue of delivery was sharply contested and was submitted to a jury.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
Editorial Note on Part 72
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 72.86 Criminal penalties. ( a ) Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides for criminal sanctions for willful violation of, attempted violation of, or conspiracy to violate, any regulation issued under sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the Act. For purposes of section 223, all the regulations in part 72 are issued under one or more of sections 161b, 161i, or 161o, except for the sections listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The regulations in Part 72 that are not issued under sections 161b, 161i, or 161o for the purposes of section 223 are as follows: §§ 72.1, 72.2, 72.3, 72.4, 72.5, 72.7, 72.8, 72.9, 72.13, 72.16, 72.18, 72.20, 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28, 72.32, 72.34, 72.40, 72.46, 72.56, 72.58, 72.60, 72.62, 72.84, 72.86, 72.90, 72.96, 72.108, 72.120, 72.122, 72.124, 72.126, 72.128, 72.130, 72.182, 72.194, 72.200, 72.202, 72.204, 72.206, 72.210, 72.214, 72.220, 72.230, 72.238, and 72.240.
[57 FR 55078, Nov. 24, 1992, as amended at 59 FR 36040, July 13, 1994; 64 FR 53616, Oct. 4, 1999; 64 FR 56122, Oct. 15, 1999; 65 FR 50617, Aug. 21, 2000]
#### § 830.5 Enforcement.

The requirements in this part are DOE Nuclear Safety Requirements and are subject to enforcement by all appropriate means, including the imposition of civil and criminal penalties in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR part 820.
#### § 1201.112 Conflict of interest.

The DOT Component making a financial assistance award must establish conflict of interest policies for Federal awards, including policies from DOT Headquarters. The non-Federal entity must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest to the DOT Component or pass-through entity in accordance with applicable Federal awarding agency policy.