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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIE MCNAIR, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No. 2:06-cv-695-WKW 

 ) 

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

________________________________ 

 ) 

JAMES CALLAHAN, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No. 2:06-cv-919-WKW 

 ) 

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL 

 Notice is hereby given that the defendants hereby 

appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Eleventh Circuit from the memorandum opinion and order 

entered on December 14, 2007, granting death row inmate 

James Callahan a stay of his execution scheduled for 

January 31, 2008. See Doc. 154. This appeal is permitted 

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 156 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 3
2 

by law as of right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). 

Respectfully submitted, 

 Troy King (KIN047) 

 Alabama Attorney General 

 s/ J. Clayton Crenshaw 

J. Clayton Crenshaw (CRE007) 

Assistant Attorney General 

s/ James W. Davis 

James W. Davis (DAV013)

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of the Attorney General 

Alabama State House 

11 South Union Street 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

Telephone: 334.242.7300 

Fax: 334.353.3637 

ccrenshaw@ago.state.al.us

jdavis@ago.state.al.us 

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 156 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 2 of 3
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on the 28th day of December, 

2007, a copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which 

will electronically send a copy of the same to the 

following: Randall S. Susskind, Cathleen I. Price, Vincent 

R. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Heather K. McDevitt, and Stephanie 

Cohen. 

s/ J. Clayton Crenshaw 

J. Clayton Crenshaw

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of the Attorney General 

11 South Union Street 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

Telephone: 334.242.7300 

Fax: 334.353.3637 

ccrenshaw@ago.state.al.us 

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 156 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### § 958.41 Budget.

Prior to each fiscal period, and as may be necessary thereafter the committee shall prepare a budget of estimated income and expenditures necessary for the administration of this part. The committee shall recommend to the Secretary a rate of assessment calculated to provide adequate funds to defray its proposed expenditures. The committee shall present such budget promptly to the Secretary with an accompanying report thereon showing the basis for its calculations and recommended rate.

[22 FR 26, Jan. 3, 1957. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 41 FR 36196, Aug. 27, 1976]
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3286 

To suspend temporarily the duty on wide-range high sensitivity color zoom 

digital security camera with optical lens zoom power 22x magnification. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2006 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on wide-range high sensitivity color zoom digital security camera with optical 

lens zoom power 22x magnification. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WIDE-RANGE HIGH SENSITIVITY COLOR ZOOM 

4 DIGITAL SECURITY CAMERA WITH OPTICAL 

5 LENS ZOOM POWER 22X MAGNIFICATION. 

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: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 3286 IS 

‘‘ 9902.85.25 Wide-range high sensitivity high resolution color zoom digital security camera 

module with 360 viewing radius and custom designed digital signal processor 

(DSP) chip for automatic focus functions; 380,000 to 470,000 pixels image 

sensor, optical lens zoom power 22x magnification (provided for in subheading 

8525.30.90) ............................................. 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-12-2007

Nara v. Frank

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 05-4779

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Nara v. Frank" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 846.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/846
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4779

___________

JOSEPH NARA

v.

FREDERICK FRANK,

 Appellant

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 99-cv-00005)

District Judge: The Honorable Terrence F. McVerry

Argued on October 26, 2006

BEFORE: SMITH, WEIS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

(Filed May 8, 2007)

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

(Filed June 12, 2007)

___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge:

It is now ordered that the published Opinion in the above case, filed on May 8,

2007, is hereby amended as follows: 

At page 13, line 26, insert the following: 

“First, the District Court found that the Magistrate Judge served the R&R

upon Mr. Nara and the Commonwealth’s attorneys by first-class mail. The

Commonwealth has presented no evidence to the contrary.” 
In the next sentence, delete “First” and insert “Second.” 

At page 14, line 4, delete “Second” and insert “Finally.”

By the Court, 

/s/ Richard L. Nygaard

Circuit Judge
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

RALPH WILSON LINGO, )

)

Petitioner, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv703-MHT

) (WO) 

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

OPINION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, petitioner, a state

inmate, filed this lawsuit seeking habeas relief. This

lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation of

the United States Magistrate Judge that petitioner’s writ

petition be denied. Also before the court are

petitioner’s objections to the recommendation. After an

independent and de novo review of the record, the court

concludes that petitioner’s objections should be

overruled and the magistrate judge’s recommendation

adopted.

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 71 Filed 09/23/08 Page 1 of 2
An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this the 23rd day of September, 2008.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 71 Filed 09/23/08 Page 2 of 2
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3112 

To suspend temporarily the duty on automated robotic drill systems. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on automated robotic drill 

systems. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTOMATED ROBOTIC DRILL SYSTEMS. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.84.65 Automated robotic drill systems (provided for in subheading 8465.95.00) ....... Free 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 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 3112 IS 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

GENE COGGINS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv687-WHA

 )

GLORIA SINCLAIR, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This cause is now before the court on Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal and the Motion to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dox. #26), filed on December 11, 2006.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that "[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the

trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." In making this determination as

to good faith, a court must use an objective standard, such as whether the appeal is "frivolous,"

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445, 82 S.Ct. 917, 921 (1962), or "has no substantive

merit." United States v. Bottoson, 644 F.2d 1174, 1176 (5th Cir. Unit B May 15, 1981) (per

curiam) cert. denied, 454 U.S. 903, 102 S.Ct. 411 (1981); see also Rudolph v. Allen, 666 F.2d

519, 520 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1122, 102 S.Ct. 2938 (1982);

Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032 (11th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1010, 102 S.Ct. 2303

(1982). Applying this standard, this court is of the opinion, for the reasons stated in the

recommendation of the magistrate judge, that the Plaintiff’s appeal is without a legal or factual

basis and, accordingly, is frivolous and not taken in good faith. See, e.g., Rudolph v. Allen,

Case 3:06-cv-00687-WHA-DRB Document 27 Filed 12/13/2006 Page 1 of 2
supra; Brown v. Pena, 441 F.Supp. 1382 (S.D. Fla. 1977), aff’d without opinion, 589 F.2d 1113

(5th Cir. 1979).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is

hereby DENIED, and that the appeal in this cause is hereby certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a), as not taken in good faith.

DONE this 13th day of December, 2006.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00687-WHA-DRB Document 27 Filed 12/13/2006 Page 2 of 2
425.1001 Waiver of right to examination of

records.

The SPE shall make the determination under FAR 25.1001(a)(2)(iii).

Parent topic: Subpart 425.10 - Additional Foreign Acquisition Regulations
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rufus Monk, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 130]

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), both rendered April 11, 2005, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 05-038 and attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree under Superior Court information No. 05-214, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered into the plea agreements *(see People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]). Furthermore, there was no basis in the record to conclude that at the time the defendant entered his pleas of guilty he lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against him or was unable to assist in his defense *(see*CPL 730.10 [1]; *People v Gensler,*72 NY2d 239, 243-246 [1988], *cert denied*488 US 932 [1988]; *People v Rivas,*206 AD2d 549, 550 [1994]; *People v Santiago,*205 AD2d 565 [1994]; *People v Johnston,*186 AD2d 680, 681 [1992]). Nor was there any indication that the court had a “reasonable ground for believing that [the] defendant [was] in such state of idiocy, imbecility or insanity that he [was] incapable of understanding the charge, indictment or proceedings or of making his defense” *(People v Smyth,*3 NY2d 184, 187 [1957]; *see People v Tortorici,*92 NY2d 757, 765 [1999], *cert denied*528 US 834 [1999]), or that the defendant’s behavior was erratic or bizarre, or his thinking delusional. Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to, sua sponte, order a competency hearing *(see*CPL 730.30; *People v Tortorici, supra-, People v Gelikkaya,*84 NY2d 456, 459 [1994]; *606
      *People v Armlin,*37 NY2d 167, 171 [1975]; *People v Graham,*272 AD2d 479, 479-480 [2000]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.
§ 97.106 Reply by applicant; request for reconsideration. ( a ) After an adverse action by the examiner, the applicant may respond to the denial and may request a reconsideration, with or without amendment of his or her application. Any amendment shall be responsive to the reason or reasons for denial specified by the examiner.
( b ) To obtain a reconsideration, the applicant shall submit a request for reconsideration in writing and shall specifically point out the alleged errors in the examiner's action. The applicant shall respond to each reason cited by the examiner as the basis for the adverse action. A request for reconsideration of a denial based on a faulty form or procedure may be held in abeyance by the Commissioner until the question of the variety being new, distinct, uniform, and stable is settled.
( c ) An applicant's request for a reconsideration must be a bona fide attempt to advance the case to final action. A general allegation by the applicant that certain language which he or she cites in the application or amendment thereto establishes the variety is new, distinct, uniform, and stable without specifically explaining how the language distinguishes the alleged new, distinct, uniform, and stable variety from the material cited by the examiner shall not be grounds for a reconsideration.
[58 FR 42435, Aug. 9, 1993, as amended at 60 FR 17190, Apr. 4, 1995]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>          MAR-31-1997

<CASH>                      20,413,493 
<SECURITIES>                      0    
<RECEIVABLES>               10,053,443 
<ALLOWANCES>                      0    
<INVENTORY>                       0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>            30,466,936 
<PP&E>                      82,079,578 
<DEPRECIATION>              32,300,248 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>             165,582,371 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>      124,804,146 
<BONDS>                    104,261,806 
<COMMON>                          0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0    
<PREFERRED>                       0    
<OTHER-SE>                 (81,010,509)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>165,582,371 
<SALES>                      5,630,244 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             5,989,403 
<CGS>                             0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                3,145,724 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               386,329 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           6,068,482 
<INCOME-PRETAX>             (3,611,132)
<INCOME-TAX>                      0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>         (3,938,829)
<DISCONTINUED>                  70,290 
<EXTRAORDINARY>              3,433,368 
<CHANGES>                         0    
<NET-INCOME>                  (435,171)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (.70)

        


</TABLE>
#### § 97.154 Government employees.

Officers and employees of the United States who are disqualified by statute (18 U.S.C. 203 and 205) from practicing as attorneys or agents in proceedings or other matters before government departments or agencies, shall not be eligible to represent applicants, except officers and employees whose official duties require the preparation and prosecution of applications for certificates of variety protection.
§ 958.9 Grade and size. *Grade* means any of the officially established grades of onions, and *size* means any of the officially established sizes of onions, as set forth in: ( a ) The United States Standards for grades of onions (other than Bermuda-Granex and Creole Types) (§§ 51.2830 to 51.2850 of this title), or amendments thereto, or modifications thereof, or variations based thereon; and
( b ) Any other United States Standards, or State of Idaho or Oregon Standards for onions, or amendments thereto, or modifications thereof, or variations based thereon.
The term *size* also includes any of the sizes recognized by the onion trade in the production area.
PART 37 –– SERVICE CONTRACTING       SUBPART 37.1 –– SERVICE CONTRACTS––GENERAL                                                         237.104 Personal services contracts.                                                            237.170 Approval of contracts and task orders for services.                                                            237.170-2 Approval requirements    SUBPART 37.1 –– SERVICE CONTRACTS––GENERAL     237.104 Personal services contracts.    (b)(i) The approval authority is the HCA. Legal counsel, CoCO, and HCO coordination is required.237.170 Approval of contracts and task orders for services.237.170-2 Approval requirements    *(a) Acquisition of services through a contract or task order that is not performance based.*       (1) For acquisitions at or below $50 million, obtain the review and approval of the CoCO.       (2) For acquisitions over $50 million up to $100 million, obtain the review and approval of the HCO.       (3) For acquisitions exceeding $100 million, obtain the review and approval of the Senior Procurement Executive (SPE).       (S-90) For each acquisition that is non-performance based, the contracting officer shall prepare a D&F for approval in accordance with paragraph 237.170-2(a). The D&F must be approved prior to release of the solicitation.       (S-91) The review and approval thresholds are based upon the total estimated cost of the acquisition.       (S-92) Technical and requirements personnel are responsible for providing accurate and complete data to the contracting officer to support their recommendation for other than a performance based acquisition.
# Subpart 1327.2 - Patents and Copyrights

**Parent topic:**PART 1327 - PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS

## 1327.201 Patent and copyright infringement liability.

## 1327.201-2 Contract clauses.

The designee authorized to approve the insertion of clause 52.227-5, *Waiver of Indemnity,* in solicitations and contracts is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
UNITED STATES
                  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


                        Washington, D.C.  20549

                              FORM 10-Q/A
                             (Amendment 1)

(Mark One)

[X]  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
     SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
     For the quarterly period ended December 26, 1998

          OR

[ ]  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
     SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
     For the transition period from ________ to _________

                    COMMISSION FILE NUMBER 0-17060

                            WLR FOODS, INC.
        (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

                 Virginia                       54-1295923
          (State or other jurisdiction       (I.R.S. Employer
          of incorporation)                  Identification No.)

                             P.O. Box 7000
                       Broadway, Virginia  22815
              (Address including Zip Code of Registrant's
                     Principal Executive offices)

                            (540) 896-7001
         (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by cross mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all
reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such
shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports),
and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90
days.  Yes (X) No ()

The number of shares outstanding of Registrant's Common Stock, no par
value, at January 25, 1999 was 16,476,782 shares.

<PAGE>

     The purpose of this amendment is to file the Financial Data
Schedule which was inadvertently omitted from the 10-Q filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on February 9, 1999 for the quarterly
period ended December 28, 1998.


                      PART II.  OTHER INFORMATION


Item 6.   Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K

          (a)  Exhibits 

               See attached Exhibit Index 

<PAGE>

                                     SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
this report is signed this 9th day of February, 1999, by the
Registrant's principal financial officer who is also authorized by the
Registrant to sign on its behalf.


                                   WLR FOODS, INC.


                                   __/s/ Dale S. Lam__
                                   Dale S. Lam, Chief Financial
                                   Officer and duly authorized
                                   signator for Registrant

<PAGE>

                             EXHIBIT INDEX


Exhibit No.         Description

   27               Financial Data Schedule

<PAGE>