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

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

G.M. Sign Inc

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−03149

Honorable Edmond E. Chang

Plastic−Mach Corp, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, May 18, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Pursuant to the notice of

voluntary dismissal with prejudice, under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the case is dismissed with

prejudice. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice(slb, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-03149 Document #: 13 Filed: 05/18/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:55
#### 214.202 General rules for solicitation of bids.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leon Watford, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 17, 1977, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of from three years to life. Judgment affirmed. There is no need to resolve the question of when the prosecutor should have apprised defendant of the existence of "twenty something” additional tapes, since the fact is that (as shown in the *voir dire*transcripts) defense counsel, after having conducted his *voir dire*of the jury, was apprised of the additional tapes and was *given an opportunity*—which he utilized—to examine them. Prejudice might have resulted from this alleged eleventh hour disclosure of the additional tapes only if defense counsel had not been granted the right to inspect them or, if having inspected them, he had been denied a mistrial, or had been granted a mistrial solely on the condition which the defendant claims the prosecutor imposed, viz., that the defenses of entrapment and agency be waived. At bar, however, it is manifest from the voir *dire*minutes and the plea and sentence minutes that, on the basis of the examination of the additional tapes, defendant and his counsel concluded that there was no merit to their proposed defenses and that the best course for defendant would be to enter the proffered guilty plea and obtain the sentence which was ultimately imposed. Thus, at page 31 of the *voir dire*minutes of May 6, 1977 defense counsel stated: "I saw some tapes yesterday; of course, they weren’t originals. They were handwritten. The language is incomprehensible to me but in talking with the police officers, and in talking With Miss Brill, the jury might easily infer certain things which might be inhumanible *[sic]*to a defense of entrapment. Again, I say it’s a matter of interpretation. Now I could not ethically urge that defense in the light of what I have since found. I also, Your Honor, wish to absolve Miss Brill of any ill doing in this case. I’m sure that as just as soon as she found out about the tapes, she came rushing into Court just like they do on the T.V. I say that because Miss Brill kept talking about T.V., that nothing traumaticly *[sic]*is going to happen, and in fact, it did. I assure the Court that had I been aware of those tapes, I would not have urged the defense of entrapment. I can’t in good conscience do that, and I wouldn’t do it even at this late date.” We also find that the sentence imposed was not an abuse of discretion under the facts of this case. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Mangano, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

CHAD HACKER,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 400 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice Brobson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Burnie McCall, Appellant.

Appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order is not appealable. (See opinion by Halpern, J., filed in *People ex rel. McCall*v. *Major,*(16 A D 2d 313). (Appeal by defendant from order of Onondaga County Court denying an application for bail.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the 

Social Media Websites and Applications 

This PIA was approved on and reviewed on by the system owner 

04/13/2018 

5/1/2011 4/13/2018 

certifying the information contained here is current and up to date. 

Contact Point 

Contact Person/Title: 

Contact Email: 

Kristen Lefevre 

Kristen.Lefevre@ed.gov 

System Owner 

Program Office: 

Name/Title: 

Office of Management (OM) 

Kristen Lefevre/ Senior Privacy Specialist 

Reviewing Official 

Kathleen Styles 

Chief Privacy Officer 

U.S. Department of Education 

Please submit completed Privacy Impact Assessments to the Privacy Safeguards Division at 

privacysafeguards@ed.gov.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Sexualviolence reported by correctional authorities**** 
SuDocNumber:J29.13/6:
ItemNumber:0968-H-59(online)
CGPSystem Number:000685228
 
2004
2005
2006
 
 **
#### 215.101 Best value continuum.
EXHIBIT NO. 11

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



|                                          |  |                             |  |                   |     
|----------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | ----------------- | ----
|                                          |  | Year EndedDecember 31, 2005
|                                          |  | Shares                      |  | EarningsPer Share
|                                          |  | (In Thousands)             
|Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  | 7,168                       |  | $                 | 1.25
|                                          |  |                             |  |                   |     
|Diluted                                   |  |                             |  |                   |     
|Average Shares Outstanding                |  | 7,168                       |  |                   |     
|Common Stock Equivalents                  |  | 3                           |  |                   |     
|                                          |  |                             |  |                   |     
|                                          |  | 7,171                       |  | $                 | 1.25
|                                          |  |                             |  |                   |     
|                                          | 
|                                          |  | Year EndedDecember 31, 2004
|Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  | 7,131                       |  | $                 | 1.13
|                                          |  |                             |  |                   |     
|                                          |  |                            
|Diluted                                   |  |                             |  |                   |     
|Average Shares Outstanding                |  | 7,131                       |  |                   |     
|Common Stock Equivalents                  |  | 27                          |  |                   |     
|                                          |  |                             |  |                   |     
|                                          |  | 7,158                       |  | $                 | 1.13
|                                          |  |                             |  |                   |
#### City of Albany, Appellant, v. Coplin Yaras, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Motion granted to the extent that judgment may be entered in the County Court, Albany County, for the sum of $431.35 in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant-respondent, without costs.
Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 1 of 35 PageID #:8

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 2 of 35 PageID #:9

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 3 of 35 PageID #:10

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 4 of 35 PageID #:11

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 5 of 35 PageID #:12

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 6 of 35 PageID #:13

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 7 of 35 PageID #:14

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 8 of 35 PageID #:15

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 9 of 35 PageID #:16

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:17

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:18

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:19

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:20

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:21

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:22

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 16 of 35 PageID #:23

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 17 of 35 PageID #:24

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 18 of 35 PageID #:25

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 19 of 35 PageID #:26

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 20 of 35 PageID #:27

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 21 of 35 PageID #:28

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 22 of 35 PageID #:29

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 23 of 35 PageID #:30

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 24 of 35 PageID #:31

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 25 of 35 PageID #:32

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 26 of 35 PageID #:33

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 27 of 35 PageID #:34

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 28 of 35 PageID #:35

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 29 of 35 PageID #:36

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 30 of 35 PageID #:37

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 31 of 35 PageID #:38

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 32 of 35 PageID #:39

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 33 of 35 PageID #:40

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 34 of 35 PageID #:41

Case: 1:11-cv-07928 Document #: 1-1  Filed: 11/08/11 Page 35 of 35 PageID #:42
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 14 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 14

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2017

           Referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
      for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha I.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO CELEBRATE BIRTHDAY OF 
              KING KAMEHAMEHA I.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used on June 11, 2017 for an event to celebrate the 
birthday of King Kamehameha I.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
event described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.

            Passed the Senate April 27, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 43 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 43

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to 
transfer the catafalque which is situated in the Exhibition Hall of the 
Capitol Visitor Center to the rotunda of the Capitol so that such 
catafalque may be used in connection with services to be conducted 
there for the Honorable John Sidney McCain, III, late a Senator from 
the State of Arizona and formerly a Representative from that State.

            Passed the Senate August 27, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 43

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the use of the catafalque situated in the Exhibition Hall 
 of the Capitol Visitor Center in connection with memorial services to 
   be conducted in the rotunda of the Capitol for the Honorable John 
     Sidney McCain, III, late a Senator from the State of Arizona.
```
Exhibit 32.2  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 the Annual Report of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric T. Jones, Secretary/Treasurer, Director and Chief Financial Accounting 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/ Eric T. Jones By  ____________________________________ Eric T. Jones Secretary/Treasurer and Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer Date:  March 29, 2007
#### 203.171 Senior DoD officials seeking employment with defense contractors.
#### Numax Electronics Incorporated, Respondent, v Quasar Microsystems Inc., Appellant.

Two orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, each dated July 12, 1978, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Plaintiff’s time to pay defendant the $350 is extended until 30 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 149]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 1025]]

Public Law 111-149
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To amend the North American Wetlands Conservation Act to establish 
requirements regarding payment of the non-Federal share of the costs of 
wetlands conservation projects in Canada that are funded under that Act, 
     and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Mar. 25, 2010 -  [H.R. 3433]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF PROJECTS IN MEXICO AND 
                              CANADA UNDER NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS 
                              CONSERVATION ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 8(b)(3) of the North American Wetlands 
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4407(b)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(3) The non-Federal share of the United States contribution to the 
costs of such projects may not be derived from Federal grant programs. 
In the case of a project carried out in Canada or Mexico, the non-
Federal share of the costs of the project may include cash contributions 
from non-United States sources that are used to pay costs of the 
project. In the case of a project carried out in Canada, funds from 
Canadian sources may comprise up to 50 percent of the non-Federal share 
of the costs of the project.''.
    (b) <<NOTE: 16 USC 4407 note.>> Application.--The amendment made by 
subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any approved and active 
wetlands conservation project (as that term is used in section 8(b)(1) 
of such Act) carried out with assistance provided under such Act, 
including such a project approved before the date of the enactment of 
this Act.

    Approved March 25, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3433:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 111-296 (Comm. on Natural Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 111-158 (Comm. on Environment and Public Works).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 155 (2009):
                                    Oct. 13, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 156 (2010):
                                    Mar. 9, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

EUGENE JACOBS, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1134

[July 26, 2018]

Appeal from order denying rule 3.850 motion to the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Dan L. Vaughn, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 56-2010-CF-003192-A.

Eugene Jacobs, Wewahitchka, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
- Habitat use information
- Habitat suitability index model
- Sources of other models
- References
EXHIBIT 99



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, E. James Collard, President and  Director and Chief Executive Officer of Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc. (the Registrant) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Registrant.

Date:  April 15, 2003

/s/ E. James Collard

E. James Collard, President and Director

Chief Executive  Officer
#### 1404.7002 Policy.

The CO shall direct the contractor, in the technical instructions, to acknowledge Federal sponsorship in the final report or publication by placing the following statement on the title page:

“This publication was funded by U.S. Department of the Interior, (Name of Bureau/Office), Washington, DC, under contract number______________.”
#### 201.303 Publication and codification.

(a)

(i) The DFARS is codified under chapter 2 in title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.

(ii) To the extent possible, all DFARS text (whether implemental or supplemental) is numbered as if it were implemental. Supplemental numbering is used only when the text cannot be integrated intelligibly with its FAR counterpart.

(A) Implemental numbering is the same as its FAR counterpart, except when the text exceeds one paragraph, the subdivisions are numbered by skipping a unit in the FAR 1.105-2(b)(2) prescribed numbering sequence. For example, three paragraphs implementing FAR 19.501 would be numbered 219.501 (1), (2), and (3) rather than (a), (b), and (c). Three paragraphs implementing FAR 19.501(a) would be numbered 219.501(a) (i), (ii), and (iii) rather than (a) (1), (2), and (3). Further subdivision of the paragraphs follows the prescribed numbering sequence, e.g., 219.501(1)(i)(A)(*1*)(*i*).

(B) Supplemental numbering is the same as its FAR counterpart, with the addition of a number of 70 and up or (S-70) and up. Parts, subparts, sections, or subsections are supplemented by the addition of a number of 70 and up. Lower divisions are supplemented by the addition of a number of (S-70) and up. When text exceeds one paragraph, the subdivisions are numbered using the FAR 1.105-2(b)(2) prescribed sequence, without skipping a unit. For example, DFARS text supplementing FAR 19.501 would be numbered 219.501-70. Its subdivisions would be numbered 219.501-70 (a), (b), and (c).

(C) Subdivision numbering below the 4th level does not repeat the numbering sequence. It uses italicized Arabic numbers and then italicized lower case Roman numerals.

(D) An example of DFARS numbering is in Table 1-1, DFARS Numbering.

(iii) Department/agency and component supplements must parallel the FAR and DFARS numbering, except department/agency supplemental numbering uses subsection numbering of 90 and up, instead of 70 and up.

| FAR | Is implemented as | Is supplemented as |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 19 | 219 | 219.70 |
| 19.5 | 219.5 | 219.570 |
| 19.501 | 219.501 | 219.501-70 |
| 19.501-1 | 219.501-1 | 219.501-1-70 |
| 19.501-1(a) | 219.501-1(a) | 219.501-1(a)(S-70) |
| 19.501-1(a)(1) | 219.501-1(a)(1) | 219.501-1(a)(1)(S-70) |

Table 1-1—DFARS Numbering

[56 FR 36284, July 31, 1991, as amended at 64 FR 51074, Sept. 21, 1999]
1832.206 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses. (NASA supplements paragraph (g)) ( g ) ( 2 ) The installment payment rate shall be that which is common in the commercial marketplace for the purchased item. If there is no commonly used rate, the contracting officer shall determine the appropriate rate. In no case shall the rate exceed that established in the clause at FAR 52.232-30.