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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD MARSHALL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Case No. 2:06-cv-701-ID-CSC

)

CHRIS WEST, in his individual capacity, )

LASHUN HUTSON, in his individual capacity )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

COMES NOW Plaintiff by and through his attorneys of record and would show the

Court the following:

1. On February 12, 2008, Defendants West and Hutson filed separate Motions for Summary

Judgment with this Court.

2. On February 13, 2008, this Court set February 27, 2008 as the deadline for responding to

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.

3. In addition to other prior deadlines, Plaintiff’s counsel is working on two appellee briefs

due to the Eleventh Circuit on February 25, 2008. Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel needs

additional time to respond to motions the motions filed by Defendants West and Hutson.

4. Defendants do not oppose this motion.

WHEREFORE, THE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that this Court will

grant this motion and will grant Plaintiff until March 12, 2008, to respond to Defendants’

Motions for Summary Judgment.

Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 35 Filed 02/13/2008 Page 1 of 2
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this the 13th day of February, 2008.

/s/ Fred Clements

FRED CLEMENTS

Attorney for Plaintiff

Law Offices of Jay Lewis, LLC

P.O. Box 5059

Montgomery, Alabama, 36103

334-263-7733 (voice)

334-263-7733 (fax)

FredClements@JayLewisLaw.com

ASB-5682-R39C

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court

using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following parties or

counsel, or by hand delivery, or by facsimile, or by placing a copy of the same in the United

States mail, properly addressed and first-class postage prepaid on this13th day of February, 2008.

Daryl Masters

Gary Willford

Webb & Eley, P.C.

P.O. Box 240909

Montgomery, AL 36124

Alex Holtsford, Jr.

Rick Howard

April McKay

Nix Holtsford Gilliland Higgins & Hitson, P.C.

P.O. Box 4128

Montgomery, AL 36103

/s/ FRED CLEMENTS 

Fred Clements

Law Offices of Jay Lewis, LLC

P.O. Box 5059

Montgomery, AL 36103

(334) 263-7733 (Voice)

(334) 832-4390 (Fax)

fredclements@JayLewisLaw.com

ASB-5682-R39C

Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 35 Filed 02/13/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### § 986.76 Reports of merchantable pecans handled.

Each handler who handles merchantable pecans at any time during a fiscal year shall submit to the Council in such form and at such intervals as the Council may prescribe, reports showing the quantity so handled and such other information pertinent thereto as the Council may specify.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JEREMIAH W. GREEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-CV-667-WKW

)

AJA ROBERTS, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Before the court are the Defendant’s Special Report (Doc. # 16), which the court

construes as a Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 70).

There being no objections filed to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge, and upon an independent review of the file, it is ORDERED that the Report and

Recommendation is adopted and that:

1. Defendant Roberts’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 16) is GRANTED.

2. This case is due to be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1997e(c)(1).

3. The costs of this proceeding are TAXED against Plaintiff Green for which

execution may issue.

An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE this 29th day of October, 2008.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 71 Filed 10/29/08 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

#### § 982.466 Reports of inshell hazelnuts handled, shelled and withheld.

Each handler shall report to the Board monthly on F/H Form 1 and F/H Forms 1a through 1e, as applicable, the quantities of inshell hazelnuts handled or withheld for restricted use and all product shelled and certified since the last report. All reports shall be submitted to include transactions through the end of each month, or other reporting periods established by the Board, and are due in the Board office on the tenth day following the end of the reporting period. The quantities of inshell hazelnuts handled shall be reported by size. The respective quantities of merchantable or ungraded hazelnuts withheld as restricted product shall be reported separately, and with respect to hazelnuts certified for shelling, or certified kernels withheld, the kernel weight and inshell equivalent weight shall be reported separately by size.

[54 FR 46721, Nov. 7, 1989]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

EDWARD V. ZEN,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 166 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Annual
      Statement as to Compliance For
      the
      Year Ended December 31, 2006




***CD
      2006 CD3 Mortgage Trust***




**Pursuant
      to Section 10.11 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing the referenced** **transaction,
      I hereby attest that:**




**i.
      A review of the activities of Capmark Finance Inc. as Master Servicer during
      the
      period, and of its performance under this Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
      has
      been made under my supervision.**




**ii.
      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Capmark Finance Inc.** **as
      Master Servicer, has fulfilled in all material respects its obligations under
      this** **Pooling
      and Servicing Agreement throughout the period.**





**Capmark
      Finance Inc.**





/s/
      Mark
      E. McCool





By:
      Mark
      E. McCool


Title:
      Senior Vice President


Date:
      February 20, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert Louis Thibadoux, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Upon the trial of appellant for manslaughter, first degree, the principal defense was that the fatal knife wounds were inflicted as an act of self-defense. The trial court instructed the jury, among other things, that “if the situation justified the defendant as a reasonable man in believing that he was about to be murderously attacked, he has the right to stand his ground and defend himself.” This, of course, was an incorrect statement of the applicable legal principle. (See Penal Law, § 1055.) The prosecutor attempts to justify the portion of the charge upon the ground that it was apparently extracted from the opinion in *People*v. *Tomlins*(213 N. Y. 240, 244). Pertinent is the observation in *People*v. *Rutligliano*(261 N. Y. 103, 107): “ Judicial opinions are written to *guide the .judge*as to the law, not to standardize the language to be used in instructions to the jury.” Reversal is not mandated, however, *976as there was no exception to this portion of the charge and the trial court elsewhere in the instructions stated in some detail the correct rule relating to self-defense. When the instructions on this facet of the case are considered as a whole it cannot be found that the use of this unfortunate hyperbole by the trial court adversely affected the defense advanced by appellant. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court convicting defendant of manslaughter, first degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Del Vecehio and Marsh, JJ.
# T nGOADiycM T O F 

## ;T,K£ TOPERATlON o 

# Economi cDevelopmen t Counci l ^^ ^ ,3 0 u A^ 2 U Augus t 18 , 201 0 Th e Honorabl e Ra yLaHoo d Secretar yo f Transportatio n U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n 40 0 7t h Street , S.W. , Washingto n D.C . 2059 0 Dea rSecretar yLaHood : Thi s lette ri s sen t t o conve ym ysuppor t fo rth e Count yo f Sa n Dieg o Airport s applicatio n an d proposa l fo ra Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Progra m Gran t fo rmarketin g t o attrac t ne wai rservic e t o McClellan-Paloma rAirpor t i n th e Cit yo f Carlsbad . Despit e th e fac t tha t ou rcommunit yi s amon g th e fastes t growin g i n th e country , w e ar e limite d b yth e lac k o f loca l airlin e servic e i n Sa n Diego' s Nort h County . Th e increasingl ydifficul t automobil e traffi c situatio n i n Sa n Dieg o Count ymake s i t impractica l fo rNort h Count ybusinesse s t o acces s ai r servic e a t Sa n Dieg o Internationa l Airport . Man ybusinesse s fea rthi s lac k o f acces s t o ai r transportatio n syste m wil l limi t ou rregion' s futur e growth . McClellan-Paloma rAirpor t wa s recentl yrevitalize d wit h a $3 0 millio n investmen t i n a ne w commercia l ai rtermina l building , additiona l taxiways , large raircraf t parkin g ramps , a custom s facility , ne wautomobil e parkin g lots , an d othe rairpor t improvements . I n addition , a $1 0 millio n runwa yreconstructio n projec t wa s complete d las t month . Thes e improvement s provid e expande d capacit yfo rth e airpor t t o accommodat e th e deman d i n th e regio n fo rne w ai rcarriers . O n behal f o f th e Sa n Dieg o Nort h Count yEconomi cDevelopmen t Council , I woul d sincerel y appreciat e you rconsideratio n an d suppor t o f th e gran t applicatio n bein g submitte d b yCount yo f Sa n Dieg o Airports . Sincerely , 

# Qci4 y Knigh t Gar yKnight , Presiden t Sa n Dieg o Nort h Economi cDevelopmen t Counci l

10 0 N Ranch o Santa F

e Road , Suit e 12 4 Escondido , C A9206 9 760-598-931 1 Fa x760-598-932 5
Exhibit 10.80


 


Equity Transfer Agreement - Amendment 4


 


Transferor (Party A): Ambow Education
Management (Hong Kong) Limited


 


Transferee (Party B): Beijing Shengkehua
Technology Co., Ltd.


 


The First Transferred Entity (Party C):
Beijing Ambow Online Software Co., Ltd. (“Ambow Online”)


 


The Second Transferred Entity (Party D):
Suzhou Wenjian Venture Investment Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (“Suzhou Wenjian”)


 


(Collectively as the “Parties”)


 


Reference is made to that certain equity transfer
agreement, dated August 31, 2017 (the “Agreement”). The following supplementary terms are agreed and for all parties
to abide by:


 


		1.	Payment Terms:



 


According to the master agreement and amendment
3, as of date of transfer on August 31, 2017, Party A has payable to Party B in RMB 137,532 thousand. Party A would pay RMB 137,532
thousand by December 31, 2018. The payment schedule is as following:


 


	Payment Timeline	 	Amount (RMB in thousand)	 
	By January 31, 2018	 	 	35,000	 
	By April 30, 2018	 	 	35,000	 
	By August 31, 2018	 	 	35,000	 
	By December 31, 2018	 	 	32,532	 
	Total	 	 	137,532	 



 


The parties all agree on payment terms as above
and hereby acknowledge and agree that the January 31, 2018 installment has been paid in full.


 




     


     


    

 


	PARTY A: Ambow Education Management (Hong Kong) Limited
	 
	Authorized Representative:	 
	Signature:	/s/
	Date: March 2, 2018	 
	 
	Party B: Beijing Shengkehua Technology Co., Ltd.
	Authorized Representative:	 
	Signature:	/s/
	Date: March 2, 2018	 
	 
	Party C: Beijing Ambow Online Software Co., Ltd.
	Authorized Representative:	 
	Signature:	/s/
	Date: March 2, 2018	 
	 
	Party D: Suzhou Wenjian Venture Investment Management Consulting Co., Ltd.
	Authorized Representative:	 
	Signature:	/s/
	Date: March 2, 2018
(May 12, 1980)

#### George Abbott et al., Respondents, and Charles Fitz-Randolph et al., Respondents-Appellants, v County of Westchester et al., Appellants-Respondents.

an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, defendants appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 29, 1979, as denied their motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Abbott, Burton and De Marr, Jr., and dismissed their affirmative defense that a collective bargaining agreement was a bar to this action. Plaintiffs Fitz-Randolph, French, Haganauer and McCabe cross-appeal from so much of the judgment as granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment against them. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and summary judgment is granted in defendants’ favor on the ground of plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The collective bargaining agreement governing the parties to the instant *831dispute provided that the County of Westchester had the right to reclassify or reallocate any job title and further provided that the county could, at its own instance, institute a study to determine whether a job position was properly classified and/or allocated. In the event that the study resulted in a decision with which the employee did not agree, the agreement provided for a procedure to appeal the decision to the Classification and Compensation Appeals Board. This procedure was not followed by the plaintiffs. Since plaintiffs have clearly failed to exhaust their administrative remedies summary judgment should have been granted to the defendants on that ground. Moreover, if the plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies and we were to decide the case on the merits, we would hold that summary judgment should be granted against all the plaintiffs since no questions of fact exist which require a trial. It is clear that the "transferred plaintiffs” were serving in the position of Probation Assistant II in a provisional capacity and that they were required to take an examination in order to attain permanent status in such capacity. The law is well settled that a provisional appointment does not become a permanent appointment by the mere passage of time or merely because the provisional appointee performed the duties of the position to which he sought permanent appointment *(Matter of McNamara v McCoy,*36 AD2d 787). The "nontransferred plaintiffs”, who were classified as Support Investigators, but performed the same duties as the "transferred plaintiffs” also would not be entitled to permanent appointment as Probation Assistant II’s without first taking the requisite examination. Rabin, J. P., Cohalan, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frederick Wiley, Appellant, v City of Watertown Fire Department, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Submitted October 9, 2007;

decided October 18, 2007

Reported below, 39 AD3d 975.

Appeal, insofar as taken from the Appellate Division order denying reconsideration or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal otherwise dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
### Rockfalls and debris avalanches in the Smugglers Notch area, Vermont

By: Fitzhugh T. LeeJack K. OdumJohn D. Lee

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b2075

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE MCNAIR, )

)

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, )

)

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

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. )

____________________________________

)

JAMES CALLAHAN, )

)

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, )

)

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

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum of

Law in Support of Motion for Stay of Execution (Doc. # 151) is GRANTED.

DONE this 10th day of December, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 152 Filed 12/10/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 13 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INCOME
STATEMENT AND BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                           2,491
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,143
<INVENTORY>                                     38,280
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,557
<PP&E>                                         181,781
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 234,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,314
<BONDS>                                         55,872
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,362
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,785
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   234,932
<SALES>                                         76,517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,517
<CGS>                                           54,105
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,714
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   214
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 836
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,648
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,369
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,279
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,279
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3017 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3017

  To suspend temporarily the duty on Phosphor Lite White and Phosphor 
                               Blue Halo.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2006

Mr. Reid (for Mr. Rockefeller) introduced the following bill; which was 
          read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on Phosphor Lite White and Phosphor 
                               Blue Halo.

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

SECTION 1. PHOSPHOR LITE WHITE AND PHOSPHOR BLUE HALO.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.32.08      Phosphor lite       Free         No Change        No Change        On or Before 12/  ''.
                         white or phosphor                                                  31/2009
                         blue halo,
                         inorganic
                         products of a
                         kind used as
                         luminophores (CAS
                         No. 75535-31-8)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3206.50.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

                            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 eNucleus, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB/A for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I John C. Paulsen,
Chief Executive Officer and 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 result of operations of
          the Company.



                                            /s/  John C. Paulsen
                                            --------------------------------
                                                 John C. Paulsen
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 and Principal Financial Officer


                                            January 18, 2005
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RALPH WILSON LINGO, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-703-MHT

)

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of the motion to add party filed by the petitioner on January 18,

2008 (Court Doc. No. 51), in which the petitioner seeks to name warden Kenneth Jones as

a respondent in this cause of action, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that this motion be and is hereby GRANTED.

Done this 22nd day of January, 2008.

 /s/ Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY 

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 55 Filed 01/22/2008 Page 1 of 1