alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 5:97-cr-00017-LC Document 8 Filed 07/28/97 Page 1 of 7
Case 5:97-cr-00017-LC Document 8 Filed 07/28/97 Page 2 of 7
Case 5:97-cr-00017-LC Document 8 Filed 07/28/97 Page 3 of 7
Case 5:97-cr-00017-LC Document 8 Filed 07/28/97 Page 4 of 7
Case 5:97-cr-00017-LC Document 8 Filed 07/28/97 Page 5 of 7
Case 5:97-cr-00017-LC Document 8 Filed 07/28/97 Page 6 of 7
Case 5:97-cr-00017-LC Document 8 Filed 07/28/97 Page 7 of 7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF SYNTELLECT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF MARCH 31,
2000, AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF SYNTELLECT, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                            4656
<SECURITIES>                                      1101
<RECEIVABLES>                                    11974
<ALLOWANCES>                                       615
<INVENTORY>                                       1753
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 19497
<PP&E>                                           13084
<DEPRECIATION>                                    8620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   23974
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            10287
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           143
<OTHER-SE>                                       13300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     23974
<SALES>                                           7735
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 12718
<CGS>                                             3922
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5657
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   102
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1197
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1197
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1197
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09


</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:03cr150/RV

3:06cv226/RV/MD

BRADFORD S. POTTS

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

The defendant has filed a notice of appeal (doc. 172), a motion for certificate of

appealability (doc. 173) and a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (doc. 174), all

with respect to the order entered on June 5, 2007. Unless a certificate of appealability is

issued, the defendant may not take an appeal from the final order denying section 2255

relief. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B). Such a certificate may issue “only if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Because the defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right, and for the reasons set forth in this court’s order of June 5, 2007, to

which defendant did not object, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

For the same reasons, there is no good faith basis for an appeal and defendant has

not shown that he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a). Therefore,

defendant’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (doc. 174) is also DENIED.

Defendant shall pay the $455.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of October, 2007.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cr-00150-RV Document 177 Filed 10/05/07 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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 21, 2017

d0614t 

# Order

Clerk June 21, 2017

155381

MARY ANN LAMKIN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 155381

COA: 328836

Livingston CC: 15

- 028656

- CZ

HAMBURG TOWNSHIP BOARD OF

TRUSTEES and HAMBURG TOWNSHIP

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2017

judgment of the Court of App eals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Yolanda Ziegler, Appellant-Respondent, v Lillian T. Melluso, Respondent-Appellant.

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered January 7, 1980, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Appeal from an order of the same court, entered November 28, 1979, dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see *Matter of Aho,*39 *653NY2d 241, 248). The order was reviewed upon the appeals from the judgment. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5935-MCR-HTC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LAVAROS DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5935-MCR-HTC

SGT. DANIELS, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER

The magistrte judge issued a Report and Recommendation on February 8, 

2022. ECF No. 54. The Plaintiff was furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 77 Filed 04/22/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5935-MCR-HTC

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 54) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. Plaintiff’s Request for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 

Injunction (ECF Docs. 41, 42, 51) be DENIED.

3. The clerk of court is directed to remand this case to the magistrate 

judge for further pretrial proceedings. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of April 2022.

 M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05935-MCR-HTC Document 77 Filed 04/22/22 Page 2 of 2
47.506 Procedures.       (a) 						            The contracting officer shall obtain assistance from the transportation activity (see 47.105) in developing appropriate shipping instructions and delivery terms for inclusion in solicitations and contracts that may involve ocean transportation of supplies subject to the requirements of the Cargo Preference Act of1954 (see 47.502(a)(3)).                                          (b) 						            When the contractor notifies the contracting officer that a privately owned U.S.-flag commercial vessel is not available, the contracting officer shall seek assistance from the transportation activity.                                          (c) 						            For purposes of determining the availability of privately owned U.S.-flag commercial vessels at fair and reasonable rates, rates filed and published in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Maritime Commission may be accepted as fair and reasonable. When applicable rates for charter cargoes are not in published tariffs, a determination as to whether the rates are fair and reasonable shall be obtained from the Maritime Administration.                                          (d) 						            The Maritime Administration has issued regulations (46 CFR381) that require agencies to submit reports regarding ocean shipments. Contracting officers shall follow agency regulations when preparing, or furnishing information for, these reports.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 47.5 - Ocean Transportation by U.S.-Flag Vessels
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 7 2 DB 2020 (No. 46 RST 2020)

:

SANH BRIAN TRAN : Attorney Registration No. 311889

:

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

FROM INACTIVE STATUS : ( Northumberland County )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13 th day of July

, 2020 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated July 2

, 2020

, is approved and it is ORDERED that Sanh

Brian Tran

, who has been on Inactive Status

, has never been suspended or disbarred,

and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in

law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby

reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses

incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall be paid by

the Petitioner

.
52.247-35 F.o.b. Destination, Within Consignee’s Premises.       As prescribed in 47.303-7(c), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when the delivery term is f.o.b. destination, within consignee’s premises:          F.o.b. Destination, Within Consignee’s Premises (Apr 1984)                                       (a) 						            The term "f.o.b. destination, within consignee’s premises," as used in this clause, means free of expense to the Government delivered and laid down within the doors of the consignee’s premises, including delivery to specific rooms within a building if so specified.                                          (b) 						            The Contractor shall-                                                         (1)                                                                           (i) 										                    Pack and mark the shipment to comply with contract specifications; or                                                                              (ii) 										                    In the absence of specifications, prepare the shipment in conformance with carrier requirements;                                                                                                           (2) 								                Prepare and distribute commercial bills of lading;                                                            (3) 								                Deliver the shipment in good order and condition to the point of delivery specified in the contract;                                                            (4) 								                Be responsible for any loss of and/or damage to the goods occurring before receipt of the shipment by the consignee at the delivery point specified in the contract;                                                            (5) 								                Furnish a delivery schedule and designate the mode of delivering carrier; and                                                            (6) 								                Pay and bear all charges to the specified point of delivery.                                                                    (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.247 [Reserved]
52.236-5 Material and Workmanship.

As prescribed in 36.505 , insert the following clause:

Material and Workmanship (Apr 1984)

(a) All equipment, material, and articles incorporated into the work covered by this contract shall be

new and of the most suitable grade for the purpose intended, unless otherwise specifically provided

in this contract. References in the specifications to equipment, material, articles, or patented

processes by trade name, make, or catalog number, shall be regarded as establishing a standard of

quality and shall not be construed as limiting competition. The Contractor may, at its option, use any

equipment, material, article, or process that, in the judgment of the Contracting Officer, is equal to

that named in the specifications, unless otherwise specifically provided in this contract.

(b) The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s approval of the machinery and mechanical

and other equipment to be incorporated into the work. When requesting approval, the Contractor

shall furnish to the Contracting Officer the name of the manufacturer, the model number, and other

information concerning the performance, capacity, nature, and rating of the machinery and

mechanical and other equipment. When required by this contract or by the Contracting Officer, the

Contractor shall also obtain the Contracting Officer’s approval of the material or articles which the

Contractor contemplates incorporating into the work. When requesting approval, the Contractor

shall provide full information concerning the material or articles. When directed to do so, the

Contractor shall submit samples for approval at the Contractor’s expense, with all shipping charges

prepaid. Machinery, equipment, material, and articles that do not have the required approval shall

be installed or used at the risk of subsequent rejection.

(c) All work under this contract shall be performed in a skillful and workmanlike manner. The

Contracting Officer may require, in writing, that the Contractor remove from the work any employee

the Contracting Officer deems incompetent, careless, or otherwise objectionable.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.236 [Reserved]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0517 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SHANE CLARK JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 14, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 1 2022

11/01/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0517
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:98-cr-00019-MP-AK

RONALD ALLAN COHEN,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1442, Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Kornblum, recommending that Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Doc. 1421, be Denied as to Ground One of Defendant's

Motion only. In his report, Magistrate Judge Kornblum also recommended that the

Government's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 1432, be Granted in part and Denied in part. The

Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on Monday, July 18, 2005. The parties

have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an

opportunity to file objections. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), this

Court must make a de novo review of those portions to which an objection has been made. 

Neither party has filed an objection. Having considered the Report and Recommendation and

the lack of objections thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and

Recommendation should be ADOPTED.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. That the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 1:98-cr-00019-MP-AK Document 1444 Filed 08/17/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:98-cr-00019-MP-AK

2. Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255, Doc. 1421, is DENIED AS TO GROUND ONE ONLY.

3. Government's Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 1432, is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART.

4. That this cause be REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Kornblum for further

proceedings as to Ground Two of Defendant's Motion to Vacate.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of August, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:98-cr-00019-MP-AK Document 1444 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 205 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 1 of 1
156 So.2d 603

#### Louis JOHNSON v. W. C. FATJO, INC., and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company.

No. 46915.

Oct. 9, 1963.

In re: Louis Johnson applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 154 So.2d 781.

The application is denied. According to the facts of the case, as found to be by the Court of Appeal, there appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2800 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2800

 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in 
   Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the ``Ernest Childers Department of Veterans 
                      Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 15, 2006

Mr. Inhofe (for himself and Mr. Coburn) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in 
   Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the ``Ernest Childers Department of Veterans 
                      Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. ERNEST CHILDERS DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT 
              CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient 
Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, shall be known and designated as the 
``Ernest Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, regulation, map, document, 
record, or other paper of the United States to the outpatient clinic 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
Ernest Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6593

CHESTER WILSON JONES, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus SIDNEY HARKLEROAD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:05-hc-00762-BO) Submitted: November 16, 2007 Decided: November 30, 2007 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chester Wilson Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Chester Wilson Jones, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76455-76456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30754]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-6-000]


Alta Wind I, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

December 1, 2010.
    Take notice that on November 19, 2010, Alta Wind I, LLC filed a 
Petition for Declaratory Order requesting that the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (Commission) disclaim jurisdiction, under section 
201 of the Federal Power Act, over owner lessors and owner participants 
associated with a sale and leaseback transaction related to a 
generation project under development.

[[Page 76456]]

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is 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 docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cb8d8e998884a5a7a2a5ae98bebbbba4b9bf8badaeb9a8e5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8fefdeafbf7d6d4d1d6ddebcdc8c8d7caccf8deddcadb96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 8, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30754 Filed 12-7-10; 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>