alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1091051

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY SCOTT, 

 Plaintiff,

vs.

NORMENT SECURITY GROUP, 

INC.,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 2:06-CV-00654-MEF

JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

COME NOW the parties and request that the Court extend the discovery cutoff in this 

matter for approximately thirty days from the date initially set in the Parties’ Planning Meeting, 

to-wit: until July 1, 2007. As grounds for this motion the parties show as follows:

1. That no pretrial conference or trial date has been set in this matter and no scheduling 

order has been entered.

2. That the parties have cooperated on discovery, have conducted written discovery, but 

have had difficulty setting deposition dates due to scheduling conflicts and the fact that

Defendant’s primary witness has moved out-of-state.

3. That no party will be prejudiced or inconvenienced by allowing additional time for 

discovery.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Braxton Schell, Jr. 

BRAXTON SCHELL, JR.

Attorney for Plaintiff Gregory Scott

s/Bruce J. Downey, III. 

BRUCE J. DOWNEY, III

Attorney for Defendant

Norment Security Group, Inc. 

BRAXTON SCHELL, JR., P.C.

1330 - 21st Way S.

Ste. 210

Birmingham, AL 35205

CAPELL & HOWARD, P.C.

150 South Perry Street (36104)

Post Office Box 2069

Montgomery, Alabama 36102-2069

Telephone: (334) 241-8000

Facsimile: (334) 323-8888

Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 15 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs. CASE NO. 1:04-CR-001-

SPM/AK

RONALD RYAN SHEPARD, JR.,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR BOND

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant’s “Third Amended

Motion for Bond and/or Furlough” (doc. 152), in which Defendant requests to be

released on bond or on furlough pending the resolution of his 2255 motion.

“Ordinarily a section 2255 motion is filed after a defendant's completion of

unsuccessful direct appellate proceedings following the filing of an appeal from a

judgment of conviction and sentence.” United States v. Barnes, 324 F.3d 135,

138 (3d Cir. 2003). Defendant is not in custody pending an upcoming trial or

appeal, therefore he does not qualify for release under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142,

3143. The pending of Defendant’s 2255 motion is an insufficient basis upon

which to grant a motion for release on bond. Furthermore, because Defendant

is no longer in the custody of the United States Marshall Service, any furlough

requests should be made through the Bureau of Prisons, in consultation with the

Case 1:04-cr-00001-SPM-AK Document 160 Filed 06/23/08 Page 1 of 2
2

United States Probation Office. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Third Amended Motion

for Bond and/or furlough (doc. 152) is hereby denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-third day of June, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 1:04-cr-00001-SPM-AK Document 160 Filed 06/23/08 Page 2 of 2
52.228-9 Cargo Insurance.       As prescribed in 28.313(a), insert the following clause:          Cargo Insurance (May 1999)                                       (a) The Contractor, at the Contractor’s expense, shall provide and maintain, during the continuance of this contract, cargo insurance of $______ per vehicle to cover the value of property on each vehicle and of $_______ to cover the total value of the property in the shipment.                                          (b) All insurance shall be written on companies acceptable to ____________ [*insert name of contracting agency*], and policies shall include such terms and conditions as required by __________ [*insert name of contracting agency*]. The Contractor shall provide evidence of acceptable cargo insurance to ____________ [*insert name of contracting agency*] before commencing operations under this contract.                                          (c) 						            Each cargo insurance policy shall include the following statement:                "It is a condition of this policy that the Company shall furnish-                (1) Written notice to __________ [*insert name and address of contracting agency*], 30 days in advance of the effective date of any reduction in, or cancellation of, this policy; and                (2) Evidence of any renewal policy to the address specified in paragraph (1) of this statement, not less than 15 days prior to the expiration of any current policy on file with ____________ [*insert name of contracting agency*]."                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.228 [Reserved]
162 So.2d 572

#### Mrs. Anita LeDoux RIDER et al. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.

No. 47178.

April 17, 1964.

In re: Mrs. Anita LeDoux Rider et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Evangeline. 160 So.2d 26.

Writ refused. The result is correct.
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 5 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 6 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 7 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 8 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 9 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 10 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 11 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 12 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 13 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 14 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 15 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 16 of 17
Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 17 of 17
(Republished)

#### Adrenne A. Rothstein, as Guardian ad Litem for Joshua A. Rothstein, Respondent-Appellant, v Alan R. Davidson, Appellant-Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 15, 1980, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The order of this court entered on October 30, 1980 is vacated. No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Markewich, Bloom and Yesawich, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         940,052
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  448,057
<ALLOWANCES>                                    54,766
<INVENTORY>                                     39,302
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,388,460
<PP&E>                                       4,839,275
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,845,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,498,957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,643,804
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         61
<COMMON>                                       105,079
<OTHER-SE>                                   (444,932)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,498,957
<SALES>                                      1,750,777
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,750,777
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,737,591
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                373,582
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            372,782
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   384,452
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07


</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cr-00177-WHA-DRB Document 4 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00177-WHA-DRB Document 4 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 2 of 2
Subpart 5131.2 - Contracts with Commercial Organizations **Parent topic:** Part 5131 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures5131.205 Selected costs. 5131.205-6 Compensation for personal services.    (g)(6)  *Severance*          *pay.* The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) is permitted to waive certain cost allowability limitations as set forth in FAR 31.205-6(g)(6).   See Appendix GG for further delegation.       (p)(4)(iii)  *Limitation*          *on allowability of compensation.*  The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) may establish exceptions as described at FAR 31.205-6(p)(4)(iii).  See Appendix GG for further delegation.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2951 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women’s footwear valued over 

$20 a pair with coated or laminated textile fabrics. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2006 

Mr. CARPER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women’s footwear valued over $20 a pair with coated or laminated 

textile fabrics. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN’S FOOTWEAR VALUED OVER 

4 $20 A PAIR WITH COATED OR LAMINATED 

5 TEXTILE FABRICS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2951 IS 

‘‘ 9902.64.07 Women’s footwear valued 

over $20/pair designed to be 

worn over, or in lieu of, 

other footwear as a protection against water, oil, 

grease or chemicals or cold 

or inclement weather where 

such protection includes protection against water that is 

imparted by the use of a 

coated or laminated textile 

fabric (except footwear with 

waterproof injection molded 

bottoms, i.e. comprising a 

complete outer sole and all 

or part of the upper) (provided in subheading 

6402.99.20) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2891 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2891

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Azoxystrobin Technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 19, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Azoxystrobin Technical.

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

SECTION 1. AZOXYSTROBIN TECHNICAL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.06 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Azoxystrobin Technical) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (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>
```
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2015189EN.01004201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 17.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 189/42 |

---

Corrigendum to Commission Directive 2014/93/EU of 18 July 2014 amending Council Directive 96/98/EC on marine equipment

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 220 of 25 July 2014](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2014_220_R_TOC)
)

On page 44, point ‘4. Navigation equipment’, table, entry ‘A.1/4.34’:

for:

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ‘A.1/4.34 | Radar equipment CAT 1 | | | | | --- | --- | | — | Reg. V/18. | | | | | | --- | --- | | — | Reg. V/19. | | | | | --- | --- | | — | IMO Res. A.278(VIII), | | | | | --- | --- | | — | IMO Res. A.694(17), | | | | | | --- | --- | | — | EN 60945 (2002) including IEC 60945 Corrigendum 1 (2008), | | B + D B + E B + F G’ |

read:

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ‘A.1/4.34 | Radar equipment CAT 1 | | | | | --- | --- | | — | Reg. V/18. | | | | | | --- | --- | | — | Reg. V/19. | | | | | --- | --- | | — | IMO Res. A.278(VIII), | | | | | --- | --- | | — | IMO Res. A.694(17), | | | | | --- | --- | | — | IMO Res. A.823(19), | | | | | --- | --- | | — | IMO Res. MSC.191(79), | | | | | --- | --- | | — | IMO Res. MSC.192(79), | | | | | --- | --- | | — | ITU-R M. 1177-4(04/11). | | | | | | --- | --- | | — | EN 60945 (2002) including IEC 60945 Corrigendum 1 (2008), | | | | | --- | --- | | — | EN 61162 Series, | | | | | --- | --- | | — | EN 62288 (2008), | | | | | --- | --- | | — | EN 62388 (2008). | Or, | | | | --- | --- | | — | IEC 60945 (2002) including IEC 60945 Corrigendum 1 (2008), | | | | | --- | --- | | — | IEC 61162 Series, | | | | | --- | --- | | — | IEC 62288 Ed.1.0(2008). | | | | | --- | --- | | — | IEC 62388 Ed.1.0(2007). | | B + D B + E B + F G’ |

---
## 1997 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-28-1997 

# T o wnshi p of C e n t e r v

. F irs t M e r c ur y
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ocke t 96-3290

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1997

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1997 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" T o w n ship of C e n t e r v

. F ir s t M e r c ur y " (1997). 1997 D e cisio n s . P ape r 173. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1997/173

### iled July 28, 1997

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 96-3290
TOWNSHIP OF CENTER, BUTLER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; DEAN E. SCHWEINSBERG; and DEBRA J. OESTERLING, Appellants

v. FIRST MERCURY SYNDICATE, INC. (D.C. Civil Action No. 95-cv-00837)

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING Before: BECKER and ROTH, Circuit Judges and ORLOFSKY,1 District Judge
ORDER The petition for rehearing filed by appellee in the abovecaptioned case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court, and, th e judges having determined to amend the opinion, the petitio n for panel rehearing is granted for the purpose of that amendment.

___________________________________________________ ______________ 1. Honorable Stephen M. Orlofsky, United States Dis trict Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.

### By the Court,

/s/Jane R. Roth Circuit Judge Dated: July 28, 1997 A True Copy: Teste: Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
December 16, 2010 

Luis Alberto Valencia 

Quality Director 

Avianca 

Avenida El dorado #106-74 

Hangar 2 Piso 2 

Bogotá 

Colombia 

Dear Mr. Valencia: 

This letter is to inform you that we have received and begun processing your petition for 

exemption. It acknowledges receipt of the petition and describes how we will process it. 

We Have the Petition 

We’ve received your November 23, 2010, petition on behalf of Aerovias del Continente 

Americano, Avianca Airlines (Avianca) for an exemption from § 121.359(k) of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would allow Avianca to 

operate its Airbus A330-243 aircraft (MSNs 1208, 1224, and 1279) without Cockpit Voice 

Recorder (CVR) datalink communication recording capability as required by § 121.359(k). 

We’ve added your petition to the public docket (No. FAA-2010-1196) and we are processing 

it. We will contact you if we need additional information. 

How We’ll Process the Petition 

A petition for an exemption, according to 14 CFR 11.63(d), must be sent to the FAA at least 

120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. In addition, we publish a 

summary of the petition in the Federal Register for public comment unless, according to 

14 CFR 11.87, we determine that good cause exists for not publishing it. 
2 

We will advise you of the agency's final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions in the meantime, you may contact me at (202) 267-4059. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frances Shaver 

Program Analyst 

Aircraft and Airport Rules Division
252.225-7025 Restriction on Acquisition of Forgings.       As prescribed in                 225.7102-4             , use the following clause:          RESTRICTION ON ACQUISITION OF FORGINGS (DEC 2009)          (a)  *Definitions.*As used in this clause—          (1)  “Component” means any item supplied to the Government as part of an end product or of another component.          (2)  “Domestic manufacture” means manufactured in the United States, its outlying areas; or Canada.          (3)  “Forging items” means—                    ITEMS                         Ship propulsion shafts                         Periscope tubes                         Ring forgings for bull gears                      CATEGORIES                         Excludes service and landing craft shafts                         All                         All greater than 120 inches in diameter          (b)  End products and their components delivered under this contract shall contain forging items that are of domestic manufacture only.          (c)  The restriction in paragraph (b) of this clause may be waived upon request from the Contractor in accordance with subsection                 225.7102-3              of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement.          (d)  The Contractor shall retain records showing compliance with the restriction in paragraph (b) of this clause until 3 years after final payment and shall make the records available upon request of the Contracting Officer.          (e)  The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (e), in subcontracts for forging items or for other items that contain forging items.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 252.225 RESERVED
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Novell, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Dana C. Russell,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Dana C. Russell                              
|Dana C. Russell                                  
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 11, 2009
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 02/09/21 Page 1 of 14
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 02/09/21 Page 2 of 14
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 02/09/21 Page 3 of 14
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 02/09/21 Page 4 of 14
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 02/09/21 Page 5 of 14
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 02/09/21 Page 6 of 14
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 02/09/21 Page 7 of 14
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 02/09/21 Page 8 of 14
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 02/09/21 Page 9 of 14
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 02/09/21 Page 10 of 14
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 02/09/21 Page 11 of 14
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 02/09/21 Page 12 of 14
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 02/09/21 Page 13 of 14
Case 4:20-cv-00514-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 02/09/21 Page 14 of 14