alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 vs. ) CASE NO. 2:06cr178-SRW 

 ) 

CARRIE J. FLOWERS ) 

MOTION TO CONTINUE

 COMES NOW the Defendant, by and through her attorney of record and 

hereby respectfully asks this Honorable Court to continue the Arraignment 

currently scheduled for September 27, 2006 at 10:00a.m. to a later date on the 

following grounds: 

 1. That the below signed attorney has spoken with the Honorable 

Captain Aaron M. Drake, Special Assistant United States Attorney and he has no 

objection to said continuance. 

 2. The below signed attorney is scheduled to be in trial beginning 

September 18, 2006 in the Northern District of Alabama in the case of United 

States v. Swann, et al, case numbers 2-06cr-0084-LSC-HGD and 2-05-cr-544-

LSC-TMP. Said trial is expected to last at least two (2) weeks. Said case involves 

several defendants as well as several attorneys. 

 WHEREFORE THE PREMISES considered, the below signed attorney 

respectfully asks this Honorable Court to continue the Arraignment of this matter 

to a later date convenient to this Honorable Court. 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this the ______ day of September, 2006. 

Case 2:06-cr-00178-SRW Document 6 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 1 of 2
 /s/ RONALD W. WISE, WIS0904 

 2000 Interstate Park Drive 

 Suite 105 

 Montgomery, Alabama 36109 

 (334) 260-0003 

 ronwwise@aol.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on September 15, 2006, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to counsel of record. 

 /s/Ronald W. Wise 

Case 2:06-cr-00178-SRW Document 6 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 2 of 2
# 5107.9101  Policy.

Implementation of AT and OPSEC considerations in the requirements package is the responsibility of the requiring activity and a signed AT/OPSEC cover sheet is required to be included in all requirements packages except for supply contracts under the simplified acquisition level threshold, field ordering officer actions and Government purchase card purchases.  The cover sheet, at a minimum, must include all the information and reviews listed in the Army standard cover sheet at Appendix A of the AT/OPSEC Desk Reference, available via the Internet at  https://army.deps.mil/army/sites/PMG/prog/ATEP/AT%20in%20Contracting/AT%20OPSEC%20Guidance%20v6_webQ.pdf  (Army Knowledge Online login required).  This requirement also applies to orders under indefinite delivery contracts, unless each task or delivery order under the contract is for substantially the same product or service, in which case the cover sheet at the contract level is sufficient.

**Parent topic:**5107.9100 Scope.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-CR-169-WKW

)

CLIFF JOHNSON )

DEMETRIA MILLS )

JAMES CALVIN TALLEY )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the government’s Motion for Forfeiture Hearing as to

Demetria Mills (Doc. #458), Cliff Johnson (Doc. #459), and James Calvin Talley (Doc.

#460), it is ORDERED that the following forfeiture hearings are SET in Courtroom 2E,

Frank M. Johnson Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, Montgomery, Alabama:

Demetria Mills, December 19, 2007, at 1:30 p.m.; Cliff Johnson, December 19, 2007, at

2:30 p.m.; and James Calvin Talley, December 19, 2007, at 3:30 p.m.

DONE, this 19th day of November, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 463 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 16 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 16 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 16 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7679

BERNIE J.E. DINGLE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLIE CONDON,

Attorney General,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 05-6337

BERNIE J.E. DINGLE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLIE CONDON,

Attorney General,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(CA-02-3422-3-26BC)

Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005
- 2 -

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernie J.E. Dingle, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Bernie J.E. Dingle seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000) (Appeal No. 04-7679), and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion

(Appeal No. 05-6337). An appeal may not be taken to this court

from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state

court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district

court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to

claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds,

a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner

can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.

2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Dingle has not satisfied either standard. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we deny

certificates of appealability, deny Dingle’s motion to compel, and

dismiss the appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense
- 4 -

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
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**








The
      undersigned, James B. Wiegand, Chief Executive Officer of Ambermax Corporation
      (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the
      purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on
      Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended October 31, 2007 fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.











/s/
        James B. Wiegand


James
      B.
      Wiegand


Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


December 13,
      2007
§ 6.3 Requests by interested persons for action by Department of Agriculture. ( a ) *Section 22.* A request for action under section 22 should be submitted in duplicate to the Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington 25, D.C. Such request shall include a statement of the reasons why action would be warranted under section 22 and shall be supported by appropriate information and data.
( b ) *Section 8(a).* A request for action under section 8(a) should be submitted in duplicate to the Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington 25, D.C. Such request shall include a statement of the reasons why the commodity is perishable, and why, due to such perishability, a condition exists requiring emergency treatment, and shall be supported by appropriate information and data. A request under section 8(a) submitted in connection with a proposed section 7 (Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951) investigation shall not be acted upon until a section 7 application has been properly filed by the person making the request with the Tariff Commission, and a copy of such application and supporting information and data are furnished the Administrator.
**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 Annual Report of Osage Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”)            on Form 10-KSB for the year ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and            Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Mark S. White, Chief Executive Officer, and            Sue Allen Smith, Chief Financial Officer, certify, 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                            operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| /s/ Mark S. White       |   | /s/ Sue Allen Smith     |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| Mark S. White           |   | Sue Allen Smith         |
| Chief Executive Officer |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|                    |   |                    |

 

| Date: | September 28, 2007 |
|-------|--------------------|
§ 7.29 Delegation of authority to Deputy Administrator. ( a ) Notwithstanding the authority vested by this part to a State committee, a county committee, and the county executive director, the Deputy Administrator has the authority to take adverse personnel actions involving any county committee member or alternate member, county executive director, or other county office employee for failing to perform the duties of their office or for misconduct.
( b ) Any person whom FSA proposes to suspend or remove from office or employment must be given advance written notice of the reason for such action and must be advised of the right to reply to such a proposal and any right of further review and appeal if the person is removed or suspended.
(115 App. Div. 172)

#### PALAZZO v. DEGNON MacLEAN CONTRACTING CO.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 19, 1906.

Pleading—Amendment—Conditions.

Where at the close of the case the court allows a juror to be withdrawn, and thereafter plaintiff moves for leave to amend the complaint to set up with more particularity the defects complained of as negligence, he should be required, as a condition to amending, to pay, not only costs of the motion, but all taxable costs to the date of the motion.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 39,' Cent. Dig. Pleading, §§ 626-635.]

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by Antonio Palazzo against the Degnon MacLean Contracting Company. From an order allowing amendment of the complaint, defendant appeals. Modified.

Argued before O’BRIEN, P. J., and INGRAHAM, CIARKE, HOUGHTON, and SCOTT, JJ.

James F. Donnelly, for appellant.

Henry J. Goldsmith (Jonathan Deyo, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This was an action to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the defendant. Upon the trial, at the close of the case, by permission of the court a juror was allowed to be withdrawn. Thereafter plaintiff moved for leave to amend his complaint in order to enable him to set up with more particularity the defects complained of. The order appealed from granted the motion upon the payment of $20 costs.

The order should be modified by providing for the payment by the plaintiff of all taxable costs to the date of the motion for leave to amend, with $10 costs of that motion, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs in this court.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of EntreMetrix Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George LeFevre, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

 (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

 (2)        Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Dated:   May 18, 2007 | /s/ George LeFevre            |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------|
|                  | By:  George LeFevre           |
|                  | Its:  Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EntreMetrix Corporation and will be retained by EntreMetrix Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
204.1601 Policy.       (a)  *Establishment of a Procurement Instrument Identifier (PIID).*  Do not reuse a PIID once it has been assigned.  Do not assign the same PIID to more than one task or delivery order, even if they are issued under different base contracts or agreements.          (b)  *Transition of PIID numbering.*  Effective October 1, 2016, all DoD components shall comply with the PIID numbering requirements of FAR subpart 4.16 and this subpart for all new solicitations, contracts, orders, and agreements issued, and any amendments and modifications to those new actions.  See also PGI                 204.1601             (b).          (c)  *Change in the PIID after its assignment.*  When a PIID is changed after contract award, the new PIID is known as a continued contract.          (i)  A continued contract—          (A)  Does not constitute a new procurement;          (B)  Incorporates all prices, terms, and conditions of the predecessor contract effective at the time of issuance of the continued contract;          (C)  Operates as a separate contract independent of the predecessor contract once issued; and          (D)  Shall not be used to evade competition requirements, expand the scope of work, or extend the period of performance beyond that of the predecessor contract.          (ii)  When issuing a continued contract, the contracting officer shall—          (A)  Issue an administrative modification to the predecessor contract to clearly state that—          (*1*)  Any future awards provided for under the terms of the predecessor contract (*e.g.*, issuance of orders or exercise of options) will be accomplished under the continued contract; and          (*2*)  Supplies and services already acquired under the predecessor contract shall remain solely under that contract for purposes of Government inspection, acceptance, payment, and closeout; and          (B)  Follow the procedures at PGI                 204.1601             (c).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 204.16 - UNIFORM PROCUREMENTINSTRUMENT IDENTIFIERS
**Exhibit
32.2**
  **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 IMCOR Pharmaceutical Co. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Taffy J. Williams,
Ph.D., acting principal financial 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:
  (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
   /s/
      Taffy J. WilliamsTaffy J. Williams, Ph.D.Acting Principal Financial
    OfficerDate:
      May 16, 2005
STRUCTURE REMOVED CBI
52.247-60 Guaranteed Shipping

Characteristics.

As prescribed in 47.305-16(b)(1), insert the following clause:

Guaranteed Shipping Characteristics (Jan 2017)

(a) The offeror is requested to complete paragraph (a)(1) of this clause, for each part or component

which is packed or packaged separately. This information will be used to determine transportation

costs for evaluation purposes. If the offeror does not furnish sufficient data in paragraph (a)(1) of

this clause, to permit determination by the Government of the item shipping costs, evaluation will be

based on the shipping characteristics submitted by the offeror whose offer produces the highest

transportation costs or in the absence thereof, by the Contracting Officer’s best estimate of the

actual transportation costs. If the item shipping costs, based on the actual shipping characteristics,

exceed the item shipping costs used for evaluation purposes, the Contractor agrees that the contract

price shall be reduced by an amount equal to the difference between the transportation costs

actually incurred, and the costs which would have been incurred if the evaluated shipping

characteristics had been accurate.

(1) To be completed by the offeror:

(i) Type of container: Wood Box □, Fiber Box □, Barrel □, Reel □, Drum □, Other (Specify) _____;

(ii) Shipping configuration: Knocked-down □, Set-up □, Nested □, Other (specify) _____;

(iii) Size of container: _____" (Length), x_____" (Width), x_____" (Height) = _____ Cubic Ft;

(iv) Number of items per container _____ each;

(v) Gross weight of container and contents _____ Lbs;

(vi) Palletized/skidded □ Yes, □ No;

(vii) Number of containers per pallet/skid _____;

(viii) Weight of empty pallet bottom/skid and sides _____ Lbs;

(ix) Size of pallet/skid and contents _____ Lbs Cube _____;

(x) Number of containers or pallets/skids per railcar _____ *

(A) Size of railcar _____

(B) Type of railcar _____

(xi) Number of containers or pallets/skids per trailer _____*

(A) Size of trailer _____ Ft

(B) Type of trailer _____
* Number of complete units (line item) to be shipped in carrier’s equipment.

(2) To be completed by the Government after evaluation but before contract award:

(i) Rate used in evaluation _____;

(ii) Tender/Tariff _____;

(iii) Item _____.

(b) The guaranteed shipping characteristics requested in paragraph (a)(1) of this clause do not

establish actual transportation requirements, which are specified elsewhere in this solicitation. The

guaranteed shipping characteristics will be used only for the purpose of evaluating offers and

establishing any liability of the successful offeror for increased transportation costs resulting from

actual shipping characteristics which differ from those used for evaluation in accordance with

paragraph (a) of this clause.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.247 [Reserved]
#### § 58.251 Dry buttermilk and dry buttermilk product.

The quality requirements for dry buttermilk or dry buttermilk product bearing an official identification shall be in accordance with the U.S. Standards for Grades of Dry Buttermilk and Dry Buttermilk Product.

[56 FR 33855, July 24, 1991]
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2009

d1019 

# Order

October 26, 2009

138905(33)

J. LAMONT LINDSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138905 COA: 288834 WCAC: 07-000095 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court’s August 6, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does notappear that the order was entered erroneously.
## Re:GA GHG SIP James Capp to: Lynorae Benjamin 0511012011 08:55AM Cc. "ChuckMueller", "Jimmy Johnston",Carol Kemker, Dick Schutt

Lynorae, Georgia 

### EPD would like you to move forward with final approval. for the GHG rule 

### and not wait on the resolution for the rescission clause. However, we would like to continue working with you on obtaining approval of the recession clause.
§ 760.1908 Miscellaneous provisions. ( a ) If an ERP Phase 2 payment resulted from erroneous information provided by a producer, or any person acting on their behalf, the payment will be recalculated and the producer must refund any excess payment with interest calculated from the date of the disbursement of the payment.
( b ) If FSA determines that the producer intentionally misrepresented information provided on their application, the application will be disapproved and the producer must refund the full payment to FSA with interest from the date of disbursement.
( c ) Any required refunds must be resolved in accordance with part 3 of this title.
( d ) A producer, whether a person or legal entity, that either fails to timely provide all required documentation or fails to satisfy any eligibility requirement for ERP Phase 2, is not eligible to receive ERP Phase 2 payments, directly or indirectly. An ERP Phase 2 payment to an eligible legal entity applicant whose member(s) either fails to timely provide all required documentation or fails to satisfy any eligibility requirement for ERP Phase 2 will be reduced proportionate to that member's ownership interest in the legal entity.
( e ) Any payment under this subpart will be made without regard to questions of title under State law and without regard to any claim or lien against the commodity or proceeds from the sale of the commodity. The regulations governing offsets in part 3 of this title apply to payments made under this subpart.
( f ) For the purposes of the effect of a lien on eligibility for Federal programs (28 U.S.C. 3201(e)), USDA waives the restriction on receipt of funds under ERP Phase 2 but only as to beneficiaries who, as a condition of the waiver, agree to apply the ERP Phase 2 payments to reduce the amount of the judgment lien.
( g ) In addition to any other Federal laws that apply to ERP Phase 2, the following laws apply: 15 U.S.C. 714; 18 U.S.C. 286, 287, 371, and 1001.