alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Snodgrass, &c. *vs.*Adams.

Error to ihe Jtockoastle i ir-uit. Evr, J udge.

Case 4?.

*Amendment.*Pleas, *Filing of.*Def’t. tender'" pel -wo , Jens in bar of pin s ucti-.n, to which plaintiff demurred, the demurrers were joined, the pleas adjudicated on by che onrt; the demurrers sustained, but the cit-ik omitted to notice on the record the filing of the pleas, dem: rivrs, oi adjudication on hem, ¡u.d judgment was one rod as *by*default on ill: quiry oi dmu> ages,.:, i ,.-d, n.u *.atasubrsequenl termr*trie reee,rrl *166eould not be so amended the filing «f the pleas, &c Afinr the term isrenderedt" the court has no power lo amendtherccord, unless there be something on the record to amend by.

*165April 7.

Judge Nicholas

dt-Iiv-rcd the Opinion of ihe Court.

At the April term, *1829, of the*Rock-castle Circuit Court, the defendants tendered two pleas in bar to plaintiff's action, to which he demurred; the demurrers were joined; the pleas adjudicated on by the court and the demurrers sustained.- The clerk, however, totally Omitted to notice on the record the filing of the pleas, demurrers, or adjudication of them, and judgment was entered as by default on enquiring: of damages. At the next term of the court these facts were abundantly proved, and the clerk in addition, stated, that before entering judgment, the jileas, &c. hud been lodged with the papers in the cause, and there remained eter since. The defendants then moved that the record might he amended so as to shew the filing of the jileas, &c., which the court refused to jiermit. The case here dejiends on the propriety of this re tusa].

Amendments are usually allowed in *affirmance*of judgments, seldom or never to destroy , them III. Salk. 29 After tiie term at which a judgment is rendered, the court has no longer any power to alter or amend tlic record, unless there be something on *166the record to amend by. There is nothing of tiie sor*' ^®re 011 which to found an amendment This, many other of the g-neral rale^ of la.v, may no doubt operate injuriously in individual cases. But tbe rule is a wise one and inflexible. Thegeneral interests ot society in many important particulars depend most nearly upon the preservation of the plirjty and verity of our public records. A rule so necessa,T to their inviolability cannot be made to yield for instances of individual, hardship. See Conn *vs.*Doyle II Bibb, 248.

12, *Smith*for plaintiffs; *Owsley*for defendants,

Judgment affirmed with costs. .
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8243

STEVEN LEWIS BARNES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE DEDMONDT; BRAIN WILLIAMS; SHADELL STEVENS; MARCUS 

SMITH; POLLY HALL; A. DELL DOBEY; HEIDI PRESSLEY; RANDY 

DORAN; LT. KARREN JAGGERS, official and individual capacity,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

BRENDA B. CARPENTER,

Defendant.

No. 10-6113

STEVEN LEWIS BARNES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE DEDMONDT; BRAIN WILLIAMS; SHADELL STEVENS; MARCUS 

SMITH; POLLY HALL; A. DELL DOBEY; HEIDI PRESSLEY; RANDY 

DORAN; LT. KARREN JAGGERS, official and individual capacity,

Defendants – Appellees,

and
2

BRENDA B. CARPENTER; O-LEE STURKEY,

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District 

Judge. (4:08-cv-00002-MBS)

Submitted: September 8, 2010 Decided: September 22, 2010

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Lewis Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, 

II, Daniel C. Plyler, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Steven Lewis Barnes appeals the district court’s 

orders adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying 

reconsideration. Barnes also challenges several pretrial orders 

denying appointment of counsel, denying extensions of time for 

discovery and to object to the report and recommendation, and 

denying recusal of the magistrate judge. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Barnes v. Dedmondt, 

No. 4:08-cv-00002-MBS (D.S.C. Sept. 29 & Dec. 10, 2009). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:97cr49LAC

ENRIQUE CHAVEZ-GALVAN

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on August 15, 2006 

Motion/Pleadings AFFIDAVIT OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONDENTS’

THAT THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IS AN ARTICLE I AND IV COURT FOR

DC ONLY, ETC. 

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on 7/27/2006 Doc.# 160

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 15

th day of

August, 2006, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) See Doc. 159. 

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:97-cr-00049-LC Document 161 Filed 08/15/06 Page 1 of 1
2006-0298.

#### State v. Crager.

Marion App. No. 9-04-54, 2005-Ohio-6868. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed February 2, 2006:

“Are records of scientific tests, conducted by a government agency at the request of the State for the specific purpose of being used as evidence in the criminal prosecution of a specific individual, “testimonial” under *Crawford v. Washington*(2004), 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354?”

The conflict case is *State v. Cook,*Wood App. No. WD-04-029, 2005-Ohio-1550.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2006-0294, *State v. Crager,*Marion App. No. 9-04-54, 2005-Ohio-6868.
EXHIBIT 10.4

                    WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.
              NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION


      On  December  2,  2008,  the  Compensation  Committee  (the
"Committee")  of  the  Board of Directors of Werner  Enterprises,
Inc.  (the  "Company") approved the following base  salaries  and
performance-based compensation awards, in the form of annual cash
bonuses, for the Company's principal executive officer, principal
financial officer and other named executive officers.   The  base
salaries  were effective as of January 2, 2009.  The 2008  annual
cash  bonuses  were  awarded  under the  Company's  discretionary
annual  cash  bonus  program and were paid on December  8,  2008.
Such performance-based compensation awards are determined at  the
sole discretion of the Committee.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                              Name                                Base Salary   Cash Bonus
---------------------------------------------------------------   -----------   ----------
<S>                                                                 <C>          <C>
Clarence L. Werner
Chairman of the Board                                               $715,000     $350,000

Gary L. Werner
Vice Chairman                                                       $355,000     $230,000

Gregory L. Werner
President and Chief Executive Officer                               $720,000     $350,000

Derek J. Leathers
Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer         $369,000     $230,000

John J. Steele
Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer     $210,000     $100,000

</TABLE>

      In  addition  to  the  cash compensation  described  above,
certain  of  the  Company's  named executive  officers  may  also
receive   the   following  other  compensation  and  perquisites:
matching contributions to the Company's 401(k) retirement savings
plan and employee stock purchase plan, personal use of a Company-
provided   vehicle,  country  club  membership  and  income   tax
preparation  services.   The named executive  officers  are  also
eligible  to participate in voluntary health and welfare  benefit
programs sponsored by the Company.
§ 3.30 General requirements. ( a ) Agencies are required by law to transfer delinquent, nontax, legally enforceable debts to Treasury for collection through cross-servicing and through centralized administrative offset with the exception of foreign debt that is exempt from cross-servicing per the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. Additionally, USDA will transfer debts to Treasury for collection through administrative wage garnishment. Agencies need not make duplicate referrals to Treasury for all these purposes; a debt may be referred simultaneously for purposes of collection by cross-servicing, centralized administrative offset, and administrative wage garnishment where applicable. However, in some instances a debt exempt from collection via cross-servicing may be subject to collection by centralized administrative offset so simultaneous referrals are not always the norm. This subpart specifies the rules applicable to the transfer of debts to Treasury for collection by cross-servicing. Rules for transfer to Treasury for centralized administrative offset are specified in subpart D of this part, and for administrative wage garnishment in subpart E of this part.
( b ) When debts are referred or transferred to Treasury, or Treasury-designated debt collection centers under the authority of 31 U.S.C. 3711(g), Treasury will service, collect, or compromise the debts, or Treasury will suspend or terminate the collection action, in accordance with the statutory requirements and authorities applicable to the collection of such debts.
( c ) In cases where a debtor has more than one FSA FLP loan that has been referred to cross-servicing and Treasury accepts an agreement to compromise or adjust one loan, or several loans, but not all of the debt, cancellation of any loan balances remaining on the compromised or adjusted debt will not be processed for the debtor until: ( 1 ) All payments have been received as agreed; and
( 2 ) All loans referred to the cross-servicing program for that debtor have been returned to FSA, with or without payment agreements.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2251 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2251

  To designate the United States courthouse located at 118 South Mill 
 Street, in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, as the ``Edward J. Devitt United 
                          States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 2013

   Mr. Peterson (for himself, Mr. Walz, Mr. Kline, Mr. Paulsen, Ms. 
  McCollum, Mr. Ellison, Mrs. Bachmann, and Mr. Nolan) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 118 South Mill 
 Street, in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, as the ``Edward J. Devitt United 
                          States Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 118 South Mill Street, in 
Fergus Falls, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the ``Edward 
J. Devitt United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Edward J. 
Devitt United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
Amendment #3 to Investment Services Agreement


 Exhibit 10.07 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 TO 
 INVESTMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT 
  
 WHEREAS, MBIA Insurance Corporation and MBIA Capital Management Corp. (formerly known as MBIA Securities Corp.) have entered
into an Investment Services Agreement (the “Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS the parties adopted Amendment No. 1 to said Agreement on December 29, 1995; and 
  
 WHEREAS the parties adopted Amendment No. 2 to said Agreement on January 14, 1997; and 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows effective as of the date set forth below: 
  

	 	1.	 	Exhibit C of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety by the substitute Exhibit C attached hereto. 

  

	 	2.	 	All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the signatures of their duly authorized officers to be hereto affixed this 10th day of September, 2001. 
  

							
	MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION	    	MBIA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORP.
				
	By:	 	 /s/ Neil G. Budnick

	    	By:	 	 /s/ illegible


	 	 	Title: Chief Financial Officer	    	 	 	Title: President







 EXHIBIT C 
 Schedule of Fees 
  

			
	 Assets Under Management
 at Market Value ($ millions)

	  	 Management Fees Per Annum
 in Basis Points Times Assets
 under Management


	 All Assets
	  	10.0 bp

  
 Management fees shall be paid monthly,
in arrears, based upon the average market value of the assets under management during such quarter. 
  
 “Market Value” shall be determined in accordance with Section 9 of this Agreement. 






 AMENDMENT NO. 4 
  
 TO 
  
 INVESTMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT 
  
 WHEREAS, MBIA Insurance Corporation and MBIA Capital Management Corp. have entered into an Investment Services Agreement (the “Agreement”),
dated April 28, 1995, and 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to
amend said Agreement; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby
amended as follows, effective January 1, 2003: 
  

	 	1.	 	Exhibit C of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety by the substitute Exhibit C attached hereto. 

  

	 	2.	 	All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain the same. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the signatures of their duly authorized officers to be hereto affixed this 2nd day of January, 2003. 
  

							
	MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION	    	MBIA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORP.
				
	By:	 	 /s/ Gary C. Dunton

	    	By:	 	 /s/ Clifford D. Corso


	 	 	 Name: Gary C. Dunton
 Title:   President and
Chief Operating Officer
	    	 	 	 Name: Clifford D. Corso
 Title:  
President








 EXHIBIT C 
 Schedule of Fees 
  

			
	 Assets Under Management
 at Market Value ($ millions)

	  	 Management Fees Per Annum
 in Basis Points Times Assets
 under Management


	 All Assets
	  	11.0 bp

  
 Management fees shall be paid monthly,
in arrears, based upon the average market value of the assets under management during such quarter. 
  
 “Market Value” shall be determined in accordance with Section 9 of this Agreement.
EXHIBIT 32



In connection with the quarterly report of Holloman Energy Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Grant Petersen, the Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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 operation of the company.

| |     |                                                         
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ GRANT PETERSEN                                      
| |     | Grant Petersen
Principal Executive and Financial Officer



Date:  October 31, 2008
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Donald R. ChappelDonald R. ChappelChief Financial Officer of Williams Partners GP LLC,
general partner of Williams Partners L.P.
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### § 29.1052 Raw.

Tobacco as it appears between the time of harvesting and the beginning of the curing process.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983, 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
2006-0683.

#### Nesser v. Wolfe.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of David A. Nesser Jr. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 19, 2021

b0512 

# Order

Clerk May 19, 2021

161681

PETER J. SABAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 161681

COA: 347844

Macomb CC: 2018

- 002886

- NO

HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM and

HENRY FORD MACOMB HOSPITAL

CORPORATION,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 30, 2020

judgment of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RODNEY MANUEL ANDERSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-113-RV-MJF 

CENTURION HEALTH CARE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 / 

O R D E R

 This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation (R&R) dated October 8, 2020 (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff was 

furnished a copy of the R&R and was afforded an opportunity to file---and did file 

(ECF No. 20)---objections under Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). 

Having reviewed the objection to the R&R de novo, I have determined that the R&R 

should be adopted. 

 Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

 1. The Magistrate Judge’s R&R (ECF No. 19) is adopted and incorporated 

by reference in this order. 

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), for maliciousness and abuse of the judicial 

process. 

Case 5:20-cv-00113-RV-MJF Document 21 Filed 10/23/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2 

 3. The clerk of the court shall close this case file. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of October, 2020. 

 /s/ Roger Vinson / 

 ROGER VINSON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00113-RV-MJF Document 21 Filed 10/23/20 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BOBBI BOLTON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:03cv307-RH/WCS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND

CONTINUING TRIAL

Upon consideration of the parties’ stipulated motion for extension of the

discovery deadline and continuance of the trial (document 33) and updated joint

scheduling report (document 34), 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The parties’ joint motion (document 33) to extend the discovery deadline

is GRANTED. The discovery deadline is extended to October 1, 2004. 

2. The deadline for the attorney conference required by the Order for

Pretrial Conference docketed June 15, 2004 (document 23) is extended to October

29, 2004. 
Page 2 of 2

1

 The parties have requested that no trial date be set until after a ruling on

potentially dispositive motions. The deadline for such motions is 20 days after the

discovery deadline, or October 21, 2004. A ruling on any such motions will be

made prior to trial—ordinarily by not later than the date of the pretrial conference. 

Parties can avoid unnecessary trial preparation by filing such motions early; their

filing need not await the deadline.

Case No: 4:03cv307-RH/WCS

3. The deadline for filing the pretrial stipulation and other papers required

by paragraphs III and IV of the Order for Pretrial Conference docketed June 15,

2004 (document 23) is extended to November 12, 2004. 

4. The clerk shall reschedule the pretrial conference for the first available

date on or after November 14, 2004. The pretrial conference previously set for

August 13, 2004, is canceled. 

5. Trial is rescheduled for the two-week trial period commencing December

6, 2004.1

 Within 14 days of the date of this order, any party with a conflict with

that trial period may file a notice so indicating, and such notice will be given such

consideration as may appear appropriate. 

6. No further extensions of the discovery deadline or trial date will be

granted absent extraordinary circumstances that were neither foreseen nor

foreseeable.

SO ORDERED this 4th day of August, 2004.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge
## SIGNIN SHEET Government-to-GovernmentConsultation Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric GeneratingUnits (EGUs) Date: July 18, 2014 Time: 2:30pm-3:30pm (MDT) Location: EPA Region 8 Office- Rocky Mountain Room 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202 Attendees Or anization

12. 

### r r .**~** 1___. c.._f'f I 

## s. 

# - Jnb(_

rl OJ no ro Cl..