alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division 

                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 8, 2011, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et sect.*                     (“the Act”), Connected Media Experience, Inc. (“CMX”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Robin Berjon, Paris, France, has been added as a party to this venture.                 

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CMX intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. 

                    On March 12, 2010, CMX filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 16, 2010 (75 FR 20003).                 

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 1, 2010. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 17, 2010 (75 FR 79024).                 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011-6922 Filed 3-24-11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
### §19jj. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 101–337, §1, July 27, 1990, 104 Stat. 379; Pub. L. 104–333, div. I, title VIII, §814(h)(1), (2), Nov. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 4199, defined terms as used in this subchapter. See section 100721 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
### §460m–5. Administration

The Ozark National Scenic Riverways shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535),1 as amended and supplemented, and in accordance with other laws of general application relating to the areas administered and supervised by the Secretary through the National Park Service; except that authority otherwise available to the Secretary for the conservation and management of natural resources may be utilized to the extent he finds such authority will further the purposes of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 88–492, §6, Aug. 27, 1964, 78 Stat. 609.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), referred to in text, is act Aug. 25, 1916, ch. 408, 39 Stat. 535, known as the National Park Service Organic Act, which enacted sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this title and provisions set out as a note under section 100101 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs. Sections 1 to 4 of the Act were repealed and restated as section 1865(a) of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and section 100101(a), chapter 1003, and sections 100751(a), 100752, 100753, and 102101 of Title 54 by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 4(a)(1), 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3260, 3272. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables. For disposition of former sections of this title, see Disposition Table preceding section 100101 of Title 54.

1 See References in Text note below.
### §410iii–9. Endowment

#### (a) In general

In accordance with the provisions of subsection (b), the Secretary is authorized to receive and expend funds from an endowment to be established with the National Park Foundation, or its successors and assigns.

#### (b) Conditions

Funds from the endowment referred to in subsection (a) shall be expended exclusively as the Secretary, in consultation with the Commission, may designate for the interpretation, preservation, and maintenance of the Park resources and public access areas. No expenditure shall be made pursuant to this section unless the Secretary determines that such expenditure is consistent with the purposes of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 107–373, §11, Dec. 19, 2002, 116 Stat. 3108.)
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally

disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may

be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 8/21/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES C. HOGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 95-1539

 (D.C. No. 95-D-369) 

ARI ZAVARAS, JEANEENE MILLER, (D. Colo.)

WILLIAM BOYER, MAURICE LLOYD,

DAVID HOLESTINE, ANA GARCIA; 

GALE NORTON, Attorney General of 

Colorado,

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**

Plaintiff James C. Hogan, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s order

entering summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. We exercise

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
-2-

Plaintiff, a convicted felon in the custody of the Colorado Department of

Corrections, was given the opportunity to participate in a community-based release

program called the Intensive Supervision Program (“ISP”). As a condition of the ISP,

Plaintiff had to participate in a mental health treatment program. Plaintiff failed to attend

a scheduled therapy session and received a Code of Penal Discipline (“COPD”)

conviction. Subsequently, Plaintiff was removed from the ISP and placed in a Colorado

Department of Corrections facility. 

Plaintiff filed a § 1983 action against Defendants for alleged Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,

Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising from the COPD conviction and

removal from the ISP. Defendants moved for summary judgment and to dismiss. After

de novo review, the district court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation, and granted

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. 

On appeal, Plaintiff contends the district court erred in entering summary judgment

against him. Plaintiff asserts: (1) the district court improperly resolved disputed issues of

material fact; (2) he adequately alleged a denial of due process; and (3) Defendant Ana

Garcia violated his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights. 

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the magistrate’s recommendation, the

district court’s order, and carefully examined the entire record on appeal. Based upon our
1 We deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike State Defendant’s Answer Brief.

-3-

review of the record, we find no reversible error and AFFIRM for substantially the

reasons set forth in the magistrate’s recommendation.1

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0080

_____________________________
J AMES L. T HOMAS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James C. Hankinson , Judge

. March 5, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , B ILBREY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Office of Candice K. Brower, Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, and Michael J. Titus, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Tallah assee , for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### § 94.42 Repayment and waiver of repayment.

A victim or representative shall reimburse the program upon a determination by the Director that an interim emergency award or final award was: Made to an ineligible victim or claimant; based on fraudulent information; or an overpayment. Except in the case of ineligibility pursuant to a determination by the Director, in consultation with appropriate DOJ officials, under § 94.21(b), the Director may waive such repayment requirement in whole or in part, for good cause, upon request.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00321-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.C., D.C., AND 

L.C., CHILDREN

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 231st District 

Court

of Tarrant County (231-460107-09)

January 26, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the order of the trial court is 

affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
1

IN THE UNITED STATE BANKRUPTCY COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

)

FLOORING SOLUTIONS, INC. ) CHAPTER 7

) Bankruptcy

) Case No. 16-12380-BFK

) 

DEBTOR. )

RESPONSE TO APPLICATION TO EMPLOY COUNSEL TO THE TRUSTEE, 

DOCKET No. 64

COMES NOW the Debtor, Flooring Solutions, Inc., (“Debtor” or “FSI”) by and 

through counsel, and hereby responds to the Trustee’s application to employ counsel filed 

July 29, 2016. More specifically, Debtor objects as follows:

1. The Trustee seeks to employ attorney Kevin M. O’Donnell (“O’Donnell”) and his 

firm, Henry & O’Donnell, P.C.

2. As acknowledged in O’Donnell’s verified statement, he has represented creditor 

Sonabank in this matter. 

3. To date, O’Donnell has not sought to withdraw from such representation.

4. On June 15, 2016, O’Donnell, filed a Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay 

on behalf of Sonabank. 

5. O’Donnell’s request was granted on or about July 19, 2016 because the Trustee 

endorsed an agreed order to that effect. 

6. On July 28, 2016, Attorney Roy Terry, counsel for the court appointed receiver,

Tim Dudley, represented to the Court that he believed Sonabank (while 

represented by O’Donnell) and/or Mr. Dudley had seized Debtor’s bank account 

and depleted the assets in the account. 

Case 16-12380-BFK Doc 70 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 11:21:46 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
2

7. The funds in Debtor’s bank account were depleted despite Sonabank’s loan 

documents specifically excluding a lien on certain assets. 

8. At the hearing on July 28, 2016, the Honorable Judge Kenney acknowledged that 

there may be recourse against Sonabank and/or Mr. Dudley for improperly 

depleting Debtor’s bank account to the detriment of other creditors. 

9. Therefore, Debtor vehemently objects to O’Donnell serving as counsel for the 

Trustee as he and his firm are not disinterested and Debtor submits that this 

renders O’Donnell not qualified to serve as counsel for the Trustee. 

WHEREFORE, Debtor prays this Court deny Trustee’s Application to Employ 

Counsel and grant such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and 

proper. 

Respectfully Submitted,

Flooring Solutions, Inc.

By Counsel

/s/ Whitney Lawrimore Hughes

Whitney Lawrimore Hughes, VSB No.82331

Westlake Legal Group 

46175 Westlake Drive 

Potomac Falls, VA 20165 

Phone: 703-406-7616 

Facsimile : 703-444-9498 

Email: wlawrimore@westlakelegal.com

Counsel to Debtor

Case 16-12380-BFK Doc 70 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 11:21:46 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this 2nd day of August, 2016, a copy of the foregoing was served 

via first class mail, postage prepaid to the Trustee, and via the ECF system to the same. 

/s/ Whitney Lawrimore Hughes

Whitney Lawrimore Hughes

Case 16-12380-BFK Doc 70 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 11:21:46 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 A0 26 8 . The Sta te v . Da nni e Al bert Mo ndo r.

It i s h ereb y ORDERED t h at t h e ju d g m en t i n t hi s m at t er i s VACATED an d t h i s

cas e i s TRANSFERRED t o t he Su p rem e Co u rt o f Geo rg i a.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## September 18, 2018

09/18/2018
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6329
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DANNY BRUCE GARRETT, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth C ity. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-93-17-H, CA-96-49-H) Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 10, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Bruce Garrett, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Charles Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Garrett , Nos. CR-93-17-H; CA-96-49-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1131

_____________________________

A.G., A Child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Robert E. Long Jr., Judge.

November 14, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, RAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10
- 11
- 00338
- CR
IN RE ERIC DALE ANGE LO
Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Eric Dale Angelo, a prison inmate, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable F.B. (Bob) McGregor, Jr., Judge of the 66th J udicial District Court, to rule on Angelo’s third motion for a free copy of the clerk’s and reporters’ records. According to Angelo’s petition, the trial court has twice previously denied similar motions: once on February 19, 2010 and once on January 27, 2011. There are procedural problems with this petition including, but not limited to, that the petition was not served on the respondent or the real party in interest, T EX
. R.
A PP
. P . 9.5; 52.2. However, we use Rule 2 to look past this and other deficie ncies and dispose of Angelo’s petition. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2.In re Angelo Page 2

Angelo has twice asked the trial court for a free record and has twice been denied. A third motion is likely to be denied as well. 1 We hold that, based on the facts of this case, the trial c ourt is not required to repeatedly rule on the same motion. See In
re Birdwell , 224 S.W.3d 864, 869

- 870 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2007, orig. proceeding) (Gray, C.J., concurring); In re Bannister , 216 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2007, orig. proceeding) (Gray, C.J., concurring)

. Accordingly, Angelo’s petition for writ of
mandamus is denied.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Petition denied Opinion delivered and filed September 21, 2011 Do not publi sh [OT06]

1 A defendant is not entitled to a free copy of the record after exhausting the direct appeal in the absence of a specific, compelling reason. See In re Strickhausen , 994 S.W.2d 936, 937 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding); In re Coronado , 980 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding); Eubanks v. Mullin , 909 S.W.2d 574, 576

- 77 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, orig. proceeding).
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the Annual Report of John H. Harland Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Charles B. Carden, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
             15(d), as applicable, 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/ Charles B. Carden                              2/27/2007
------------------------------                    ---------------------
Charles B. Carden                                   Date
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer