alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Inland Credit Corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph Puro, Appellant-Respondent, and Louis Puro, Respondent. Louis Puro, Respondent, v. Inland Credit Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Order entered on July 20, 1966, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and without prejudice to a further application for a severance of the counterclaim for defamation asserted by defendant, Louis Puro, after the completion of pretrial proceedings. A counterclaim will be severed where the issues presented are unrelated to the main suit and substantial rights will be prejudiced and confusion arise if all the issues are tried together (CPLR 603; see *Knapp Engraving Co.*v. *Keystone Photo Engraving Corp.,*1 A D 2d 170; *Ippisch*v. *Moricz-Smith,*1 A D 2d 968). At the present stage in the action, in view of the allegations of the pleadings, there can be no proper appraisal as to possible prejudice or confusion in permitting the defamation counterclaim to remain in the action. After completion of pretrial proceedings, the relation of the counterclaim to the other issues in the action will be able to be viewed in proper perspective, and a determination can more validly be made npon the questions of possible prejudice and confusion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Tilzer, Rabin and Witmer, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:04cr5/MCR

 3:07cv264/MCR/MD

LARRY DION HAMMOND

ORDER

One of the defendant’s claims in his pending motion to vacate, set aside or

correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is that counsel was constitutionally

ineffective for his failure to object to a particular juror’s inclusion in the panel that tried

his case. Counsel did not file an affidavit in response to the motion, and the voir dire

proceedings were not previously transcribed, although the government relies in part on

what happened during these proceedings to support its position.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

Within twenty (20) days from the date of this order, the government shall file a

copy of the transcript of the voir dire proceedings that took place on June 27, 2005 in

the above-styled case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4 day of November, 2009.

th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
52.217-5 Evaluation of Options.

As prescribed in 17.208(c), insert a provision substantially the same as the following:

Evaluation of Options (July 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best

interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all

options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the

Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.217 [Reserved]
La agencia Economic Research Service 

(ERS, por sus sigals en inglés) conduce 

investigaciones para estimar los efectos 

de los cambios climáticos en el mercado 

y la adaptación de climas alternativos y 

políticas de energía y los régimen. Este 

trabajo incluye proyectos de investigación 

importantes que abordan:

•	 Implicaciones económicas y del 

medioambiente sobre un aumento en 

la competencia por la tierra asociada 

con las políticas de clima y energía

•	 Implicaciones económicas y del 

medioambiente sobre las opciones 

diseñadas para los mercados de gases 

de efecto invernadero (GHG) 

•	 Impactos económicos sobre aumentos en 

el precio de la energía que surgen como 

consecuencia de políticas sobre el clima

•	 Implicaciones económicas de las 

opciones políticas para abordar 

aumentos en el riesgo como 

consecuencia del clima

•	 Los efectos de los cambios climáticos 

en el mercado y la adaptación en el 

sector agrícola

El año pasado, la agencia Economic 

Research Service también condujo un 

programa, titulado “Economics of Markets 

for Agricultural Greenhouse Gases 

(EMAGG),” el cual autorizó fondos para 

investigaciones extramurales mediante 

un proceso competitivo, revisado por 

compañeros de trabajo en ERS. La agencia 

ERS recientemente anunció la asignación de 

fondos Federales bajo el programa EMAGG 

para siete instituciones las cuales conducirán 

investigaciones sobre el papel que juega la 

economía agrícola al reducir los gases de 

efecto invernadero. 

La agencia ERS mantiene un “salón para 

sesiones informativas” sobre cambios 

climáticos que contiene información sobre 

el papel de las investigaciones agrícolas 

al mitigar las emisiones de gases de 

efecto invernadero. El “salón de sesiones 

informativas” contiene información de 

transfondo sobre los posibles impactos de 

los cambios climáticos en la agricultura en 

el mundo y sobre tópicos relacionados que 

incluyen bioenergía, prácticas de producción 

agrícola y el papel de la política. http://www.

ers.usda.gov./Briefing/globalclimate/ 

Los informes más recientes de la agencia 

Economic Research Service sobre los 

cambios climáticos incluyen:

•	 The Role of Agriculture in Reducing 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions http://www.

ers.usda.gov/Publications/eb15/

•	 “No Till” Farming Is a Growing 

Practice http://www.ers.usda.

gov/Publications/EIB70/EIB70_

ReportSummary.html

•	 Agricultural Land Tenure and Carbon 

Offsets http://www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/eb14/

•	 The Use of Markets To Increase 

Private Investment in Environmental 

Stewardship http://www.ers.usda.

gov/Publications/ERR64/ERR64_

ReportSummary.pdf

Economic Research Service

Programa de Trabajo para Abordar los Cambios Climáticos del Mundo

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Economic 

Research 

Service

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

ERS recientemente anunció 

la asignación de fondos 

Federales bajo el programa 

EMAGG para siete 

instituciones las cuales 

conducirán investigaciones 

sobre el papel que juega la 

economía agrícola al reducir los 

gases de efecto invernadero.
162 So.2d 10

#### ETHYL EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. Mrs. Ellen Rushing COOPER, Julia Cooper Davis, Barbara Cooper Fore and Joe H. Cooper.

No. 47129.

March 30, 1964.

In re: Cuna Mutual Insurance Society applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Livingston. 159 So.2d 610.

The application is denied. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
98-1336.

#### State ex rel. Kleve v. Green Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 1:98cr40-SPM

1:99cr38-SPM

WILLIE JONES,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER ON REQUEST FOR PROOF OF CLAIM

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon a document (doc. 95) filed

by Defendant Willie Jones. In the document, Jones requests a “Proof of Claim.” 

The request makes no sense in the context of Jones’ criminal cases, pursuant to

which Jones has been convicted and sentenced. If Jones is seeking relief from

his conviction or sentence, he may file an appropriate motion or petition subject

to any limitations provided by law. No court action will be taken, however, on

Jones’ request for proof of claim.

SO ORDERED this 21st day of November, 2005. 

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 1:98-cr-00040-SPM Document 96 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 1
(163 App. Div. 208)

#### JARVIE v. ARBUCKLE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Appeal from Trial Term, Kings County.

Action by James J. Jar vie against Christina Arbuckle and another as administrators of John Arbuckle, deceased, and William A. Jamison. From a judgment in favor of defendants, and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on the further order granting defendants’ motion for an extra allowance of costs, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before JENKS, P. J., and BURR, THOMAS, STAPLETON, and PUTNAM, JJ.

Lewis H. Freedman, of New York City (Adrian H. Larkin and Albert Stickney, both of New York City, on the brief), for appellant.

William N. Dykman, of Brooklyn, for respondents.

BURR, J.

The questions of fact in this case as to whether the sums due to the employés of the Pittsburg house were obligations of the firm or a personal indebtedness of John Arbuckle have been resolved by the verdict of the jury in favor of defendants, and the evidence fully sustains such finding. Within the authority of Jar vie v. Arbuckle, Action No. 1, 148 N. X. Supp. 189, decided herewith, it follows that the judgment entered in this action in favor of defendants, and the orders denying the motion for a new trial and granting defendants’ motion for an extra allowance, should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000756899
<NAME> FIRST-KNOX BANC CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          15,454
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             584
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    177,543
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        352,071
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,438
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 560,663
<DEPOSITS>                                     426,158
<SHORT-TERM>                                    19,848
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,975
<LONG-TERM>                                     62,643
<COMMON>                                        11,712     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,327
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 560,663
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 22,856
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,914
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                29,770
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,172
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,337
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           15,433
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      543
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (11)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,131
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,716
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,716
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.59
<LOANS-NON>                                        377
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,636
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,290
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  7,105
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,166
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      408
<RECOVERIES>                                       137
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,438
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,480
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,958
        

</TABLE>
#### ROWSAM, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF CAMDEN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 23, 1906.)

Action by Adelia Bowsam against the village of Camden.

PEB CUBIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

WILLIAMS, J., not voting.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06cr169-WKW

)

DEMETRIA MILLS )

FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE

On December 19, 2007, this Court entered a Preliminary Order

of Forfeiture (Doc. # 474) ordering defendant Demetria Mills to

forfeit her interest in the following property: One 2002 Chevrolet

Tahoe VIN: 1GNEC13Z52R236758.

Notice of this forfeiture, notifying all third parties of the

intent of the United States to dispose of the property in

accordance with the law as specified in the Preliminary Order of

Forfeiture, and further notifying all third parties of their right

to petition the Court within thirty (30) days for a hearing to

adjudicate the validity of their alleged legal interest in the

property was published in the Montgomery Advertiser newspaper on

January 31 and February 7 and 14, 2008; additionally, notice of

this forfeiture was posted on an official government internet site

(www.forfeiture.gov) for a period of 30 consecutive days, beginning

on January 7, 2008, and ending on February 5, 2008, as required by

Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or

Maritime and Asset Forfeiture Claims (Doc. # 566).

TitleMax of Alabama, Inc. timely petitioned the Court for a

hearing to adjudicate the validity of its alleged interest in said

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 591-2 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 1 of 3
property and for an amendment of the order of forfeiture pursuant

to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n)(6) (Doc. #559).

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1. The following property is hereby forfeited to the

United States pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section

853: One 2002 Chevrolet Tahoe VIN: 1GNEC13Z52R236758.

2. All right, title and interest to the property described

above is hereby condemned, forfeited and vested in the United

States, and shall be disposed of according to law;

3. The property shall be sold by the United States Marshals

Service and all costs of sale, the United States Marshals Service’s

expenses, and the secured debt owed to Petitioner TitleMax of

Alabama, Inc., shall be paid from the proceeds of sale.

The total secured debt owed to Petitioner TitleMax of

Alabama, Inc. is $3,500.00 and shall be paid through their counsel

of record, Jeffery Ingram.

4. The proceeds remaining after sale of the property and

disbursement of funds as specified above, are hereby forfeited to

the United States to be disposed of according to law;

5. The United States District Court shall retain

jurisdiction in the case for the purpose of enforcing this Order;

6. Except as herein stated, all parties shall bear their own

costs; and,

7. The Clerk of the Court shall forward two certified copies

of this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office.

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 591-2 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 2 of 3
SO ORDERED this the ____ day of ________, 2008.

_______________________________

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 591-2 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 3 of 3
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2425 

To apply amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act related to 

providing medical services in underserved areas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 15, 2006 

Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. BROWNBACK) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To apply amendments to the Immigration and Nationality 

Act related to providing medical services in underserved 

areas, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO 

4 ALL ALIENS. 

5 Section 220(c) of the Immigration and Nationality 

6 Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note; 

7 Public Law 103–416) (as amended by section 1(a)(1) of 

8 Public Law 108–441) is amended by striking ‘‘Act and 

9 before June 1, 2006.’’ and inserting ‘‘Act.’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
---

|CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER     
|---------------------------------------------
|PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,          
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, H. Patrick Seale, the Chief Financial Officer of Doral
  Energy Corp. (the Company), 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
  the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company, for the
      fiscal year ended July 31, 2008, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                   

| | By:    | /s/
      H. Patrick Seale
| | ------ | --------------------------
| |        |                           
| | Name:  | H. PATRICK SEALE          
| |        |                           
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer   
| |        |                           
| | Date:  | March
      10, 2010      

A signed original of this written statement required by
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
  and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
  Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K/A to which it
  relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
  not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
  Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
  before or after the date of the Form 10-K/A), irrespective of any general
  incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2722 Reported in Senate (RS)]







                                                       Calendar No. 482
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2722

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, as the ``Lieutenant 
               Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building''.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 4, 2006

  Mrs. Clinton (for herself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

                             June 22, 2006

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, as the ``Lieutenant 
               Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT MICHAEL P. MURPHY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lieutenant 
Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 482

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2722

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, as the ``Lieutenant 
               Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 22, 2006

                       Reported without amendment`
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

VINODH RAGHUBIR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-227-AW-GRJ

WARDEN, CROSS CITY C.I., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I have considered the magistrate judge’s March 8, 2021 Report and 

Recommendation. ECF No. 15. I have also considered de novo the issues raised in 

Plaintiff’s objections. ECF Nos. 16, 18. I have determined the Report and 

Recommendation should be adopted. It is now ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) is adopted and 

incorporated into this order.

2. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “This case is dismissed for 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.”

3. The clerk will close the file.

4. The clerk will docket the habeas petition (ECF No. 20) in a new case.

SO ORDERED on April 2, 2021. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00227-AW-GRJ Document 21 Filed 04/02/21 Page 1 of 1
52.232-35 Designation of Office for

Government Receipt of Electronic Funds

Transfer Information.

As prescribed in 32.1110(c), insert the following clause:

Designation of Office for Government Receipt of Electronic Funds Transfer Information (Jul 2013)

(a) As provided in paragraph (b) of the clause at 52.232-34, Payment by Electronic Funds TransferOther than System for Award Management, the Government has designated the office cited in

paragraph (c) of this clause as the office to receive the Contractor’s electronic funds transfer (EFT)

information, in lieu of the payment office of this contract.

(b) The Contractor shall send all EFT information, and any changes to EFT information to the office

designated in paragraph (c) of this clause. The Contractor shall not send EFT information to the

payment office, or any other office than that designated in paragraph (c). The Government need not

use any EFT information sent to any office other than that designated in paragraph (c).

(c) Designated Office:

Name:

____________________________________

____________________________________

Mailing Address:

____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

Telephone Number:

____________________________________

Person to Contact:

____________________________________
Electronic Address:

____________________________________

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.232 [Reserved]