alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A separate civil action has been opened and filed as an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for 1

purposes of allowing Petitioner to challenge the judgment(s) entered against him by the Circuit Court for

Pike County, Alabama. See Toole v. McDonough, Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-714-MHT.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

HOWARD GLENN TOOLE, #C 917683 *

Petitioner, *

 v. * 1:06-CV-696-MHT

JAMES MCDONOUGH, et al., * 

Respondents. *

 _______________________________

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of Petitioner’s motion to clarify filed August 21, 2006, and for

good cause, it is 

ORDERED that the motion (Doc. No. 10) be and is hereby GRANTED.

Petitioner is advised as follows:

1. The above-captioned action has been accepted and filed by the court as a habeas

corpus application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254;

2. Petitioner is under order to file a corrected petition in this civil action which

challenges only the judgment(s) entered against him by the Circuit Court for Coffee County,

Alabama;1

3. Petitioner may utilize and/or re-assert the issues and arguments contained in his

original habeas corpus application for purposes of complying with the court’s August 14,

2006 order insofar as the arguments are applicable to the conviction and sentence entered

Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 13 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 1 of 2
against him by the Circuit Court for Coffee County, Alabama. See Rule 2(d), Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“A petition shall be

limited to the assertion of a claim for relief against the judgment or judgments of a single

state court (sitting in a county or other appropriate political subdivision). If a petitioner

desires to attack the validity of the judgments of two or more state courts under which he is

in custody or may be subject to future custody, as the case may be, he shall do so by separate

petitions.”) (Emphasis added). See also Rule 2(e), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in

the United States District Court. 

To the extent Petitioner’s August 21, 2006 pleading may be construed as a motion to

strike the court’s August 14, 2006 order (Doc. No. 10), the motion is DENIED. 

Done, this day 22 day of August 2006. nd

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 13 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 2 of 2
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3210 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Ethene tetrafluoro-oxidized, polymerized 

reduced, methyl esters, reduced, ethoxylated. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Ethene tetrafluorooxidized, polymerized reduced, methyl esters, reduced, 

ethoxylated. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ETHENE TETRAFLUORO-OXIDIZED, POLYM4 ERIZED REDUCED, METHYL ESTERS, RE5 DUCED, ETHOXYLATED. 

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 3210 IS 

‘‘ 9902.39.18 Ethene tetrafluoro-oxidized, polymerized 

reduced, methyl esters, reduced, 

ethoxylated (CAS No. 162492–15–1) 

(provided for in subheading 3907.20.00) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

2 this section shall apply with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

OSCAR TREJO,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00117

- CR

Appeal from the

205 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20100D01573)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated March 16, 2010, and published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2010, (75 FR 14189), Norac Inc., 405 S. Motor Avenue, P.O. Box 577, Azusa, California 91702-3232, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances: Drug
ScheduleGamma Hydroxybutyric Acid (2010)
ITetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
IMethamphetamine (1105)
IINabilone (7379)
II
 With regard to Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid (2010), Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370), and Methamphetamine (1105) only, the company manufactures these controlled substances in bulk solely for domestic distribution within the United States to customers engaged in dosage-form manufacturing. With regard to Nabilone (7379) only, the company presently manufactures a small amount of this controlled substance in bulk solely to conduct manufacturing process development internally within the company. It is the company's intention that, when the manufacturing process is refined to the point that its Nabilone bulk product is available for commercial use, the company will export the controlled substance in bulk solely to customers engaged in dosage-form manufacturing outside the United States. The company is aware of the requirement to obtain a DEA registration as an exporter to conduct this activity. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Norac, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Norac, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: November 29, 2010. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2010-30903 Filed 12-8-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Editorial Note on Part 57
Editorial Note: 1. At 63 FR 69969, Dec. 17, 1998, part 57 was added by duplicating portions of part 59. At 63 FR 72353, Dec. 31, 1998, part 59 was redesignated as part 590 of 9 CFR. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 57 appear at 63 FR 69971, Dec. 17, 1998.

§ 57.950 Labeling of containers of eggs for importation. ( a ) Immediate containers of product offered for importation shall bear a label, printed in English, showing: ( 1 ) The name of product;
( 2 ) The name of the country of origin of the product, and for consumer packaged products, preceded by the words “Product of,” which statement shall appear immediately under the name of the product;
( 3 ) The quality or description of shell eggs, including date of pack;
( 4 ) For shell eggs, the words, “Keep Refrigerated,” or words of similar meaning;
( 5 ) [Reserved]
( 6 ) The name and place of business of manufacturer, packer, or distributor, qualified by a phrase which reveals the connection that such person has with the product;
( 7 ) An accurate statement of the quantity;
( b ) For properly sealed and certified shipments of shell eggs imported for breaking at an official egg products processing plant, the immediate containers need not be labeled, provided that the shipment is segregated and controlled upon arrival at the destination breaking plant.
( c ) The labels shall not be false or misleading in any respect.
[63 FR 69968, 69971, Dec. 17, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 57168, Sept. 24, 2004]
# 5213.000 Scope of part.

NAVSUP created the DON Simplified Acquisition Procedures Guide containing procedures that supplement existing policy for simplified acquisitions. The procedures apply to all HCAs that award and administer contracts (including task and delivery orders). The Guide is available on the ASN(RDA) website.

**Parent topic:**Part 5213 - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
#### § 915.31 Expenses.

The members of the committee and their respective alternates when performing duties at the direction of the committee, shall be reimbursed for expenses necessarily incurred by them in the performance of their duties under this part.

[43 FR 39323, Sept. 5, 1978]
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3247 

To reduce temporarily the duty on M-Alcohol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2006 

Mr. FRIST (for Mrs. DOLE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on M-Alcohol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. M-ALCOHOL. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.11.16 2-(2,4-Dichlorophenyl)-3-(1H-1,2,4- 

triazol-1-yl)propanol (CAS No. 112281– 

82–0) (provided for in subheading 

2933.99.82) ............................................. 1% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

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


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3247 IS 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
52.247-4 Inspection of Shipping and

Receiving Facilities.

As prescribed in 47.207-1(c), insert the following provision in solicitations for transportation or for

transportation-related services when it is desired for offerors to inspect the shipping, receiving, or

other sites to ensure realistic bids:

Inspection of Shipping and Receiving Facilities (Apr 1984)

(a) Offerors are urged to inspect the shipping and receiving facilities where services are to be

performed and to satisfy themselves regarding all general and local conditions that may affect the

cost of contract performance.

(b) Site visits have been scheduled as follows:

__________________________________________________ (Locations)

__________________________________________________ (Dates)

__________________________________________________ (Times)

(c) For further information offerors may contact:

__________________________________________________ (Name)

__________________________________________________ (Telephone)

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.247 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6328
CALVIN SCOTT WEDINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-740) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Scott Wedington, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his civil complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wedington v. Unknown Named Agents , No. CA-97-740 (E.D. Va. Jan. 29, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Graphic Offset Company, Inc., Respondent, v Andrew Torre et al., as Copartners Doing Business as Andrew Torre Associates, et al., Appellants.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 24, 1979 which granted plaintiff’s motions to confirm Referee’s report, for a protective order barring disclosure, and to dismiss defendants’ setoff and counterclaim, unanimousy reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and plaintiff’s motions denied in their entirety. The setoff and counterclaim of defendants alleging breach of contract by plaintiff and seeking damages because of plaintiff’s misrepresentations, padding of costs and over-billing sets forth a cause of action in contract, and not, as plaintiff claims, a cause of action for fraud or an accounting. As Special Term recognized, a substantial issue raised by the counterclaim was whether there was such an agreement. It was improvident of Special Term, on plaintiff’s motion, which merely sought a protective order against defendants’ demand for production of all records specified in Item No. 1 of defendants’ notice of deposition, to order a reference on the issue whether there was in fact such an agreement. That issue, the essence of defendants’ counterclaim, should not have been tried by a Referee (see Siegél, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 2218). The damages asserted in the counterclaim, admittedly, are unknown to defendants. Evidence and records pertaining to the amount of damages caused by the alleged breach are an integral part of the case and are discoverable *(Canocchioli v Ruppert,*9 AD2d 765). The establishment of such damages may be ascertained by an examination before trial *(Cohen v Cohen,*267 App Div 918). Accordingly, it was error to preclude defendants from obtaining on plaintiff’s deposition evidence relevant to defendants’ claim for damages. We note that plaintiff did not seek any specific relief with respect to Items Nos. 2,3 and 4 of defendants’ demand. Hence, it was improvident of Special Term to grant relief as to these items. The motion to dismiss the counterclaim was predicated upon the report of the Referee. In view of the impropriety of the reference, the report cannot serve as a basis for granting the relief sought by such motion, the dismissal of the setoff and counterclaim. We have considered the other contentions of plaintiff and find them without merit. Concur — Birns, J. P., Sandler, Silverman, Bloom and Lynch, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         932,028
<SECURITIES>                                 7,716,032
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,826,582
<PP&E>                                       2,111,663
<DEPRECIATION>                               (579,662)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,995,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          439,219
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,498
<COMMON>                                        37,384
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,505,165
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,995,556
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               242,808
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,229,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,987,145)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,987,145)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,987,145)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)


</TABLE>
§ 906.40 Issuance of regulations. The Secretary shall limit the handling of fruit whenever he finds from the recommendation and information submitted by the committee, or from other available information, that such regulation would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act. Such regulations may: ( a ) Limit the handling of particular grades, sizes, qualities, maturities, or packs of any or all varieties of fruit during a specified period or periods: *Provided,* That specific maturity requirements applicable to the handling of any variety may be prescribed under this section only in the event that appropriate maturity requirements for such variety are not in effect under State authority.
( b ) Limit the handling of particular grades, sizes, qualities, or packs of fruit differently for different varieties, for different containers, for different purposes specified in § 906.42, or any combination of the foregoing, during any period.
( c ) Limit the handling of fruit by establishing, in terms of grades, sizes, or both, minimum standards of quality and maturity.
( d ) Fix the size, weight, capacity, dimensions, or pack of the container or containers which may be used in the packaging, transportation, sale, shipment, or other handling of fruit.
( e ) Prohibit the handling ( 1 ) of any fruit which does not have marked on each container the grade or the registered grade label of the fruit contained therein;
( 2 ) of any grapefruit which does not have marked on each fruit the word *Texas* or other words implying Texas origin, except that the committee may recommend and the Secretary establish a tolerance for grapefruit in any container or lot not so marked; and
( 3 ) of any container fruit which is misbranded as to variety.
( f ) No regulations may be issued under the provisions of this subpart which allots to individual handlers the quantity of fruit which each handler may ship during any regulation period.
[25 FR 9093, Sept. 22, 1960. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 88 FR 82232, Nov. 24, 2023]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD MARSHALL, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIV. ACT. NO. 2:06cv701-ID

v. )

)

CHRIS WEST, et al., ) 

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon CONSIDERATION of Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend complaint, it

is ORDERED that said motion be and the same is hereby GRANTED.

DONE this 14 day of May, 2008. th

/s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 44 Filed 05/14/2008 Page 1 of 1
# 1301.707 Signatory authority.

Signatory authority for determinations and findings (D&Fs) is specified in the FAR for the associated subject matter unless otherwise noted in CAM 1301.70.   

**Parent topic:**Subpart 1301.7 - Determinations and Findings
Part 5134 - Major System Acquisition

Subpart 5134.0 - General

5134.003 Responsibilities.

Subpart 5134.2 - Earned Value Management System

Subpart 5134.70 - Acquisition of Major Weapon Systems as Commercial Items

5134.7002 Policy.

Subpart 5134.0 - General

5134.003 Responsibilities.

See Army Regulation 70-1, Army Acquisition Policy.

Subpart 5134.2 - Earned Value Management System

See Army Class Deviation, Approval of Class Deviation from the Earned Value Management System

Requirements of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement for Certain Fixed-Price

Incentive (Firm Target) (FPIF) Contracts, dated 6 December 2015 . This class deviation allows a

deviation from the Earned Value Management System (EVMS) requirements prescribed in DFARS

234.2 and associated DFARS clauses 252.234-7001 and 252.234-7002. The class deviation applies to

FPIF contracts for full rate production (FRP) subsequent to the first FRP lot, in support of Defense

acquisition programs, supporting services contracts where work is not measurable and discrete, and

contracts for non-developmental services not supporting a Defense acquisition program. This

deviation is effective until incorporated in the DFARS or rescinded.

See Army Class Deviation , Approval of Class Deviation from the Earned Value Management System

Requirements of the DFARS for Requirements with an Approved Department of Defense Instruction

(DoDI) 5000.02 Earned Value Management Applicability Determination or Waiver. This class

deviation applies when a DoDI 5000.02 EVM applicability determination finds that EVM is not

applicable or an EVM waiver has been executed by the designated officials.

Subpart 5134.70 - Acquisition of Major Weapon Systems as Commercial Items

5134.7002 Policy.

(d)(4) The head of the contracting activity shall make the determination under DFARS

234.7002(d)(4). See Appendix GG for further delegation.
1370.102 Pre-bid/pre-proposal conference

and site visit.

Insert provision 1352.270-71, Pre-Bid/Pre-Proposal Conference and Site Visit, in solicitations where

a pre-proposal conference will be held. The provision is optional for construction and may be

modified as necessary. The contracting officer shall include or delete the paragraph regarding site

visits.

Parent topic: Subpart 1370.1 - Provisions and Clauses