alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:90-cr-01002-MP

GLENN COX,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 212, Motion for Documents from Case, and Doc.

213, motion for release of Grand Jury transcripts. In the motion at Doc. 212, Mr. Cox indicated

that he was willing to pay for the copies. The Court informs Mr. Cox that retrieving the

documents from archives will cost $45.00 plus $.50 for each page copied. He must provide this

payment in advance to the Clerk's office. With regard to Doc. 213, Mr. Cox must first provide

legal authority for the Court to release any grand jury transcript to him. If release of the Grand

Jury transcripts are approved, Mr. Fox will also have to pay the costs per page as specified above

for providing copies of those documents.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of March, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:90-cr-01002-MW-GRJ Document 214 Filed 03/24/09 Page 1 of 1
# L_2021077DE.01004001.xml

| 5.3.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 77/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 77/40

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2020/2151 der Kommission vom 17. Dezember 2020 zur Festlegung harmonisierter Kennzeichnungsvorschriften für in Teil D des Anhangs der Richtlinie (EU) 2019/904 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über die Verringerung der Auswirkungen bestimmter Kunststoffprodukte auf die Umwelt aufgeführte Einwegkunststoffartikel

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 428 vom 18. Dezember 2020
  )

Seite 59, Anhang I Nummer 1 Schriftzug in der Abbildung:

Anstatt:

„

  Image 1

  “,

muss es heißen:

„

  Image 2

  “.

Seite 59, Anhang I Nummer 2 Schriftzug in der Abbildung:

Anstatt:

„

  Image 3

  “,

muss es heißen:

„

  Image 4

  “.

Seite 61, Anhang II Nummer 1 Schriftzug in der Abbildung:

Anstatt:

„

  Image 5

  “,

muss es heißen:

„

  Image 6

  “.

Seite 63, Anhang III Nummer 1 Schriftzug in der Abbildung:

Anstatt:

„

  Image 7

  “,

muss es heißen:

„

  Image 8

  “.

Seite 65, Anhang IV Nummer 1 Schriftzug in der Abbildung:

Anstatt:

„

  Image 9

  “,

muss es heißen:

„

  Image 10

  “.

Seite 65, Anhang IV Nummer 2, Überschrift „Druck“, Schriftzug in der Abbildung:

Anstatt:

„

  Image 11

  “,

muss es heißen:

„

  Image 12

  “.

Seite 65, Anhang IV Nummer 2, Überschrift „Gravur/Prägung“, Schriftzug in der Abbildung:

Anstatt:

„

  Image 13

  “,

muss es heißen:

„

  Image 14

  “.

Seite 65, Anhang IV Nummer 3 Buchstabe a Ziffer i letzter Satz:

Anstatt:

„Die Kennzeichnung darf nicht auf der Unterseite des Fußes angebracht werden.“

muss es heißen:

„Die Kennzeichnung darf nicht auf der Unterseite des Bechers angebracht werden.“

---
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 9 Filed 12/10/20 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 9 Filed 12/10/20 Page 2 of 2
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMonitoring techniques for the X-29A aircraft's high-speed rotating power takeoff shaftThe experimental X-29A forward swept-wing aircraft has many unique and critical systems that require constant monitoring during ground or flight operation. One such system is the power takeoff shaft, which is the mechanical link between the engine and the aircraft-mounted accessory drive. The X-29A power takeoff shaft opertes in a range between 0 and 16,810 rpm, is longer than most jet engine power takeoff shafts, and is made of graphite epoxy material. Since the X-29A aircraft operates on a single engine, failure of the shaft during flight could lead to loss of the aircraft. The monitoring techniques and test methods used during power takeoff shaft ground and flight operations are discussed. Test data are presented in two case studies where monitoring and testing of the shaft dynamics proved instrumental in discovering and isolating X-29A power takeoff shaft problems. The first study concerns the installation of an unbalanced shaft. The effect of the unbalance on the shaft vibration data and the procedure used to correct the problem are discussed. The second study deals with the shaft exceeding the established vibration limits during flight. This case study found that the vibration of connected rotating machinery unbalances contributed to the excessive vibration level of the shaft. The procedures used to identify the contributions of other rotating machinery unbalances to the power takeoff shaft unbalance are discussed.Document ID19910009768Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsVoracek, David F.*(NASA Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Facility Edwards, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1990Subject CategoryAircraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-101731H-1680NAS 1.15:101731Meeting InformationMeeting: International Machinery Monitoring and Diagnostic ConferenceLocation: Los Angeles, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: October 22, 1990End Date: October 25, 1990Accession Number91N19081Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 533-02-51Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910009768.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit 23


                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants


        As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
   incorporation by reference of our reports dated February 12, 1996 (except
   with respect with the matter discussed in Note 15 as to which the date is
   March 1, 1996), included in or incorporated by reference into Thermo
   Instrument Systems Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
   December 30, 1995, into the Company's previously filed Registration
   Statements as follows: Registration Statement No. 33-14980 on Form S-8,
   Registration Statement No. 33-16461 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No.
   33-14974 on Form S-8, Post Effective Amendment to Registration Statement on
   Form S-4 No. 33-32579-02 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-33577
   on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-36221 on Form S-8, Registration
   Statement No. 33-37866 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-42270 on
   Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 33-69526 on Form S-3.



                                                Arthur Andersen LLP



   Boston, Massachusetts
   March 11, 1996
#### DORFUSS, Respondent, v. MANHATTAN RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Charles E. Dorfuss against the Manhattan Railway Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 June 5, 2013

s0529

Order 

Clerk

June 5, 2013

146537

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146537

COA: 309926

Genesee CC: 11-028308-FC

RENEE LEA GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BlackRock Capital Investment Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended
September 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Steven F. Sterling, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donna M. Milia, as Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 consolidated financial condition and consolidated
results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                                                  
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Steven F. Sterling
|Name:                  |  | Steven F. Sterling                               
|Title:                 |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                  |  | November 2, 2016                                 
|                      
|/s/ Donna M. Milia    
|Name:                  |  | Donna M. Milia                                   
|Title:                 |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer            
|Date:                  |  | November 2, 2016
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:90cr4051-WS

NATHANIEL JAMES,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 619)

docketed September 9, 2007. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4) be summarily denied. The defendant has filed no

objections to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 619) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

Case 4:90-cr-04051-WS-GRJ Document 620 Filed 09/11/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:90cr4051-WS

2. The defendant’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4) (doc. 618) is hereby

DENIED.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of September , 2007.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:90-cr-04051-WS-GRJ Document 620 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

        Inconnection with the Annual Report of Theragenics Corporation®, (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, M. Christine Jacobs, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify pursuant to 18U.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 operationsof the Company.
#### Dan Donagher, plaintiff in error, v. Mary Esther Curley, defendant in error.

Gen. No. 37,186.

*614Opinion filed October 24, 1934.

Rehearing denied November 15, 1934.

Edward J. Green, for plaintiff in error; Harry P. Brewer, of counsel. Crowe, Gorman & Savage, for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.
May 20, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CHRISTOPHER ARTHUR TATUM, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00221-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
2006-0586.

#### State v. Franks.

Franklin App. No. 04AP-1370, 2005-Ohio-5923. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06848**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 06848\06848_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06848\06848_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 06848\06848_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 06848\06848_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 06848\06848_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 06848\06848_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 06848\06848_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 06848\06848_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

06848\Certification Statement Plant ID 06848.pdf Plant certification statement x 06848\Supplemental Documents\06848_2009_Neal_North 09.08.10.jpg Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 06848\Supplemental Documents\06848_501MISCAD-294S1 Model (1).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 06848\Supplemental Documents\06848_501MISCAWB-294S1 Model (1).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 06848\Supplemental Documents\06848_502MISCAD-294S2 Model (1).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 06848\Supplemental Documents\06848_502MISCAWB-294S2 Model (1).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 06848\Supplemental Documents\06848_503MISCAD-294S3 Model (1).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 06848\Supplemental Documents\06848_503MISCAWB-294S3 Model (1).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 06848\Supplemental Documents\06848_D5-10A.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 06848\Supplemental Documents\06848_D5-10B.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 06848\Supplemental Documents\06848_NN Modification design.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

06848\Supplemental Documents\06848_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

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

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APP EAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

R.M.B., A CHILD,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5D16-796

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed March 24, 2016

Petition for Belated Appeal A Case of Original Jurisdiction.

Robert Wesley, Public Defender, and Laura Klossner, Assistant Public Defender, Orlando, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this op inion shall be filed

with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal fro m the December 11, 2015,

judgment and sentence in Case No. 15-CJ-000808-A-OS, in the Cir cuit Court in and for

Osceola County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

ORFINGER, EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29438]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2107-000]


North Community Turbines, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

November 16, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of North Community Turbines, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability is December 6, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#63252631202c0d0f0a0d06301613130c111723050611004d040c15"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="72343720313d1c1e1b1c17210702021d000632141700115c151d04">[email protected]</span></a>. 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29438 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 29.34 Sample seal.

A seal approved by the Director for sealing official samples.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:98cr126LAC

MICHAEL BLANKENSHIP

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on December 15, 2006

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S DENIAL OF

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION UNDER 28 USC 2255, VIA RULE 60(b)(5) and (6), FED.R.CIV.P., PURSUANT TO

RULE 59(e) THEREOF

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 11/292006 Doc.# 244

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 19th day of

December, 2006, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 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 3:98-cr-00126-LC-MD Document 245 Filed 12/19/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

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

In connection with the quarterly report of Aleritas Capital Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael S. Hess, President and Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 13, 2008



/s/ Michael S. HessMichael S. HessPresident and Chief Executive Officer




65