alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1.102-3           Evaluating agency acquisition processes.       (a)Agencies are encouraged to develop internal procedures seeking voluntary feedback from interested parties in an acquisition to assess process strengths and weaknesses and improve effectiveness and efficiency of the acquisition process. Agencies may—                                                         (1)Utilize a variety of feedback mechanisms available to the public ( *e.g.*, surveys, in-person, and/or group exchanges);                                                            (2)Utilize the core preaward and debriefing survey questions at https://www.acquisition.gov/​360; and                                                            (3)Seek additional feedback on targeted aspects of an acquisition throughout its lifecycle ( *e.g.*, performance standards at 1.102-2 or postaward contract administration responsibilities at 42.302).                                                                             (b)Contracting officers are encouraged to insert the provision 52.201-1, Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey, in accordance with agency procedures.                                          (c)Contracting officers shall not review information until after contract award and shall not consider it in the award decision.    **Parent topic:** 1.102 Statement of guiding principles for the Federal Acquisition System.
#### § 29.6096 Rule 10.

Interpretations, the use of specifications, and the meaning of terms shall be in accordance with determinations or clarifications made by the Chief of the Standardization Branch and approved by the Director of the Tobacco Division, Agricultural Marketing Service.
#### § 3565.100 OMB control number.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no party is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0575-0174.
#### The State ex rel. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al.; Martin, Appellant.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 526.]

(No. 98-192

Submitted September 15, 1998

Decided November 10, 1998.)

*Bugbee & Conkle*and *Robert P. King,*for appellee.

*Larrimer & hammer*and *David H. Swanson,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the order of the Industrial Commission is reinstated.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 quarterly report of Silver Pearl Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 operation of the Company.





Dated:  August 14, 2007



/s/ Denise Smith



Name: Denise Smith

Title:  Chief Executive Officer







Dated:  August 14, 2007



/s/ Denise Smith



Name: Denise Smith

Title:  Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theaccompanying Quarterly Report of Linn Energy, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Michael C. Linn, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: November 14, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Michael C. Linn                             |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                    |   | Michael C. Linn                                 |
|                    |   | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Simon Srybnik et al., Doing Business as S & S Machinery Co., Respondents, v P & F Industries, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 24, 1980, reversed, on the law and the facts, to the extent appealed from, and otherwise *629affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The plaintiffs sue for a 5% participating share in the amount received by the defendants in connection with the construction in Iran of a mill for the manufacture of pipe. The defendants moved for an open commission to examine in France a named but unserved defendant and a nonparty witness, both of whom are Iranian natives residing in France, and who, having been involved in the transaction, could have relevant information. The motion was granted, but the order directed the defendants to pay the costs and expenses, including the travel expenses, of opposing counsel in attending depositions in France, and made no provision for the recovery of the expenses incurred as a taxable disbursement in the event of ultimate success, and defendants appealed. We reverse only to the extent appealed from, and direct that each party pay its own expenses with respect to the depositions in France, with the ultimately prevailing party to recover the expenses incurred as a taxable disbursement. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Silverman and Carro, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2236 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2236

      To amend Public Law 106-348 to extend the authorization for 
establishing a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to 
honor veterans who became disabled while serving in the Armed Forces of 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2006

  Mr. Johnson introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend Public Law 106-348 to extend the authorization for 
establishing a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to 
honor veterans who became disabled while serving in the Armed Forces of 
                           the United States.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR ESTABLISHING MEMORIAL.

    Section 1 of Public Law 106-348 (40 U.S.C. 1003 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``Commemorative Works 
        Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).'' and inserting ``chapter 89 of 
        title 40, United States Code, except that section 8903(e) of 
        that title shall not apply, and this Act and the authority 
        provided by this Act shall expire on October 24, 2015.''; and
            (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``under section 8(b)'' 
        and all that follows and inserting ``under section 8906(b) of 
        title 40, United States Code, or upon expiration of the 
        authority for the memorial under subsection (b), there remains 
        a balance of funds received for the establishment of the 
        memorial, the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation shall 
        transmit the amount of the balance to the Secretary of the 
        Treasury for deposit in the account provided for in section 
        8906(b)(1) of that title.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GEORGE M. DAVIS, JR.,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cv250-SPM/AK

JAMES V. CROSBY, JR.,

Respondent.

_________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation dated May 25, 2005 (doc. 11). Petitioner has

been furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and filed objections (doc.

16). Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have considered

the objections and the report and recommendation, I have determined that the

report and recommendation should be adopted.

With regard to Petitioner’s two claims for ineffective assistance of counsel,

the magistrate judge correctly determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate an

entitlement to relief. Petitioner’s sanity at the time of the offense and competency

to proceed to trial were evaluated by defense experts. Based on the reports

submitted, Petitioner’s trial counsel acted reasonably by not pursuing the matter

further. Additionally, Petitioner has failed to show that the outcome of the trial would

Case 4:03-cv-00250-SPM-AK Document 17 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 2
probably be different had trial counsel pursued the matter.

On the issue of conceding guilt, while trial counsel stated during opening

statement that Petitioner shot his wife, trial counsel did not concede to Petitioner’s

legal responsibility for the act. The evidence at trial showed that Petitioner had shot

his wife, in the sense that Petitioner was holding a gun that fired and killed his wife.

Given the facts, trial counsel did not perform below reasonable professional

standards by stating that Petitioner shot his wife. Nor has Petitioner demonstrated

any prejudice from the statement.

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 11) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-00250-SPM-AK Document 17 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 2
#### § 30.2 Leaf tobacco.

Tobacco in the forms in which it appears between the time it is cured and stripped from the stalk, or primed and cured, and the time it enters into the different manufacturing processes. The acts of stemming, sweating or fermenting, and conditioning are not regarded as manufacturing processes. Leaf tobacco does not include any manufactured or semimanufactured tobacco, stems which have been removed from leaves, cuttings, clippings, trimmings, shorts, or dust.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6172

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. HON. W. EARL BRITT; JEFF SESSIONS, USAG; JAMES GARNETT, JR., PRJ; DONAL HUNTER, PRJ; USMS UNKNOWN DEPUTY , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Mark S. Davis , Chief District Judge. ( 2:18

- cv - 00166

- MSD

- LRL )

Submitted : June 27, 2019 Decided: July 17, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Willia m Scott Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order transferring his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina . The district court entered its transfer order on May 25, 2018. Davis did not file his notice of appeal until January 2019. However, prior to filing his notice of appeal, Davis filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. The district court received Davis’ motion on June 25, 2018. In order for the Rule 60 motion t o render Davis’ notice of appeal timely filed as to the underlying transfer order, the motion was due on June 22, 2018. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Because Davis is incarcerated, the motion is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 275

- 76 (1988). The record does not reveal when Davis gave the Rule 60 motion to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowi ng the district court to obtain this information from Davis and to determine whether the filing was timely under Houston v. Lack . The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
Brief Appendix -001-
Brief Appendix -002-
Brief Appendix -003-
Brief Appendix -004-
Brief Appendix -005-
Brief Appendix -006-
Brief Appendix -007-
Brief Appendix -008-
Brief Appendix -009-
Brief Appendix -010-
Brief Appendix -011-
Brief Appendix -012-
Brief Appendix -013-
Brief Appendix -014-
Brief Appendix -015-
Brief Appendix -016-
Brief Appendix -017-
Brief Appendix -018-
Brief Appendix -019-
Brief Appendix -020-
Brief Appendix -021-
Brief Appendix -022-
Brief Appendix -023-
Brief Appendix -024-
Brief Appendix -025-
Brief Appendix -026-
Brief Appendix -027-
Brief Appendix -028-
Brief Appendix -029-
Brief Appendix -030-
Brief Appendix -031-
Brief Appendix -032-
Brief Appendix -033-
Brief Appendix -034-
Brief Appendix -035-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Francisco Rodriguez and Aquiles Rodriguez, Appellants.

Appeals from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Bangs County, both rendered-May 4, 1967, each judgment convicting a respective defendant of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgments reversed, on the law and in the interests of justice, and new trial ordered. In our opinion, the trial court erred in refusing to permit defense counsel to adduce evidence bearing upon the credibility of witnesses, as follows: disallowance of a photograph of defendant Aquiles Rodriguez which prosecution witness Caraballo had been unable to identify before the Grand Jury as that of the man with the gun; limiting cross-examination of prosecution witness C. M. Garcia on the subject of his motive in testifying against defendants, Le., regarding his having been permitted to plead guilty to the misdemeanor of unlawful entry, to satisfy an indictment charging him with the felony of burglary, and the fact that execution of his sentence was suspended; refusing cross-examination of the same witness Garcia as .to the acts which were the basis for the ¡burglary prosecution against him and as to his erroneous identification of another person; refusing to permit elicitation of an opinion from police detective O’Keefe, during his cross-examination, with respect to the direction one of the shots had taken; with respect to witness Russo, who had been called by counsel for defendant Aquiles Rodriguez, refusal to permit that counsel to elicit from the witness that he had committed a criminal act and had been convicted of a crime, and refusal to permit the same counsel to examine the witness’s Grand Jury testimony; and refusal to permit counsel for defendant Francisco Rodriguez to cross-examine Russo as to his credibility. The trial court also erred in remonstrating with defense counsel, in .the presence of the jury, for availing himself of the right to make an objection during the prosecutor’s summation. The court also erred further in charging the jury in words which could have been understood as applying the preponderance of evidence rule rather than the requirement of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and in refusing .the requests to charge with respect to the crime of assault separately as to defendant Francisco Rodriguez and that, if no motive were found, that must be considered on the question of whether defendants committed the acts in question. A new trial is mandated because of the totality of these errors and in the interests of justice. Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Beldock, F. J., and Christ, J., dissent and vote to affirm the judgments.
D:\netsite-docs\lps58399\2003\p60-226.pdf
D:\netsite-docs\lps58399\2004\p60-229.pdf
D:\netsite-docs\lps58399\2005\p60-231.pdf
D:\netsite-docs\lps58399\2006\p60-233.pdf
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2210 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2210

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,6 Dichlorotoluene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2006

  Mr. DeMint introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,6 Dichlorotoluene.

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

SECTION 1. 2,6 DICHLOROTOLUENE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.32.82 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 2,6 Dichlorotoluene) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Laura M. Johnson, appellee, v. Central Republic Trust Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 37,404.

Opinion filed October 16, 1934.

Fisher, Boyden, Bell, Boyd & Marshall, for appellant; William G. Blood and Clark H. Countryman, of counsel. Payton J. Tuohy, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 3203.11 Liabilities and losses.

USDA assumes no liability with respect to accidents, bodily injury, illness, or any other damages or loss related to excess computers or other technical equipment transferred under this part. The recipient/designated organization is advised to insure or otherwise protect itself and others as appropriate.
#### The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. John S. Rusch, defendant in error, v. Abraham Benjamin et al., plaintiffs in error.

Gen. No. 37,273.

Opinion filed October 24, 1934.

Rehearing denied and opinion modified November 15, 1934.

Simon Herr, for plaintiffs in error. Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; John F. Cashen, Jr., of counsel.

Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fox
Petroleum Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended May 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Richard Moore, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted by 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.

July 21, 2008

| | */s/ Richard
      Moore*          
| | -----------------------------------
| | Richard Moore                      
| | President, Chief Executive Officer,
| | Chairman, and Director             
| | (Principal Executive Officer)      

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Fox Petroleum
Inc. and will be retained by Fox Petroleum Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### THADDEUS, Respondent, v. GOULD, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department

July 12, 1906.)

Action by Henry J. Thaddeus against Katherine Gould. A. H. Kaffenburgh, for appellant J. H. Corwin, for respondent

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:95cr03039/RV

WENDELL CRAWFORD

ORDER

This case is before the court upon remand from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal

for a determination of whether the defendant is entitled to a certificate of appealability of

this court’s order denying his motion pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) on the ground that it was, in

substance, a second or successive § 2255 motion. (Doc. 374 at 7). This court found that

to the extent defendant’s § 3582 motion was a second or successive § 2255 motion, the

court lacked jurisdiction over the motion. The Eleventh Circuit noted that a certificate of

appealability was necessary to appeal that portion of this court’s order, and remanded the

case. (Id., citing 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) for the proposition that unless a certificate of

appealability issues, a defendant may not appeal from a final order denying section 2255

relief). The court now finds that because the defendant has not made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right, defendant’s request for certificate of

appealability on the court’s finding that his § 3582 motion was actually a second or

successive § 2255 motion filed without leave of the appellate court is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of June, 2007.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:95-cr-03039-RV-MD Document 375 Filed 06/20/07 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:20-cr-00007-AW-GRJ Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:20-cr-00007-AW-GRJ Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:20-cr-00007-AW-GRJ Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:20-cr-00007-AW-GRJ Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:20-cr-00007-AW-GRJ Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:20-cr-00007-AW-GRJ Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:20-cr-00007-AW-GRJ Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:20-cr-00007-AW-GRJ Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:20-cr-00007-AW-GRJ Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:20-cr-00007-AW-GRJ Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:20-cr-00007-AW-GRJ Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 11 of 11