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

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

NICHOLAS STRICKLAND, et al., * 

 * 

 Plaintiffs, * 

 * Case Number: 1:06-CV-682-TFM 

v. * 

 * 

CHAMPION ENTERPRISES, * 

INC., et al. * 

 * 

 Defendants. * 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

 COMES NOW C. Lance Gould, of the law firm of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, 

Portis & Miles, P.C., and enters appearance as counsel for the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned 

cause. 

 /s/ C. Lance Gould 

 C. Lance Gould 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL: 

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, 

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 

Post Office Box 4160 

Montgomery, Alabama 36103-4160 

Tel: (334) 269-2343 

Fax: (334) 954-7555 

Case 1:06-cv-00682-TFM Document 45 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on June 11, 2007, I 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. 

 Gregory S. Ritchey, Esquire 

 Richard S. Walker, Esquire 

 Ritchey & Ritchey, P.A. 

 P.O. Drawer 590069 

 Birmingham, Alabama 35259-0069 

greg@ritcheylaw.com

richard@ritcheylaw.com

 /s/ C. Lance Gould 

 Of Counsel 

Case 1:06-cv-00682-TFM Document 45 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>          SEP-30-1996

<CASH>                       20,415,871 
<SECURITIES>                       0    
<RECEIVABLES>                13,543,835 
<ALLOWANCES>                       0    
<INVENTORY>                        0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             33,959,706 
<PP&E>                      186,457,887 
<DEPRECIATION>               67,296,758 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>              177,882,094 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>       162,932,692 
<BONDS>                      60,097,515 
<COMMON>                           0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0    
<PREFERRED>                        0    
<OTHER-SE>                  (74,779,008)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>177,882,094 
<SALES>                      20,726,343 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             21,924,107 
<CGS>                              0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                14,288,576 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              1,194,340 
<LOSS-PROVISION>             26,000,000 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           17,170,259 
<INCOME-PRETAX>             (36,729,068)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>         (43,414,077)
<DISCONTINUED>               12,355,158 
<EXTRAORDINARY>              35,394,454 
<CHANGES>                   (30,000,000)
<NET-INCOME>                (25,664,465)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    (52.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                    (52.31)

        


</TABLE>
#### Robert F. Calhoun, Respondent, v Joan A. Pickett et al., Appellants.

Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, without costs. No issue of fact was considered by this court. Pursuant to CPLR 5713, this court certifies that the following question of law, decisive of the correctness of its determination, has arisen, which in its opinion ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals: "Was the order of this court, which denied plaintiffs motion for a protective order, correct as a matter of law?” Greenblott, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Mikoll and Casey, JJ., concur.
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 44 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
52.103 Identification of provisions and clauses.       (a) 						            Whenever any FAR provision or clause is used without deviation in a solicitation or contract, whether it is incorporated by reference or in full text, it shall be identified by number, title, and date. This identification shall also be used if the FAR provision or clause is used with an authorized deviation, except that the contracting officer shall then insert "(DEVIATION)" after the date. Solicited firms and contractors will be advised of the meaning of this insertion through the use of the (1) provision at 52.252-5, Authorized Deviations in Provisions, or (2) clause at 52.252-6, Authorized Deviations in Clauses. The above mentioned provision and clause are prescribed in 52.107(e) and (f).                                          (b) 						            Any provision or clause that supplements the FAR whether it is incorporated by reference or in full text shall be clearly identified by number, title, date, and name of the regulation. When a supplemental provision or clause is used with an authorized deviation, insert "(DEVIATION)" after the name of the regulation.                                          (c) 						            A provision or clause of the type described in 52.101(b)(2)(i)(C) shall be identified by the title, date, and the name of the agency or suborganization within the agency that developed it.                                          (d) 						            Except for provisions or	clauses covered by 52.103(c), the	following hypothetical examples illustrate how a provision or clause that	supplements the FAR shall be identified when it is incorporated in	solicitations and/or contracts by reference or in full text:                                                         (1) 								                If part  14 (Sealed Bidding) of the X Agency Acquisition Regulation, published in the *Federal Register* and codified as Chapter 99 in 48 CFR, prescribes the use of a provision entitled "Bid Envelopes," dated October 1983, and that provision is sequentially the first provision or clause appearing in Section 52.214 of the X Agency Acquisition Regulation, then the identification of that provision shall be "9952.214-70-Bid Envelopes (Oct 1983)."                                                            (2) 								                Assume that Y, a major organizational element of the X Agency, is authorized to issue the Y Acquisition Regulation, which is not published in the *Federal Register* and codified in 48 CFR. If part  36 (Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts) of the Y Acquisition Regulation prescribes the use of a clause entitled "Refrigerated Display Cases," dated March 1983, pertaining to a specialized type of construction work, and that clause is sequentially the second provision or clause appearing in Section 52.236 of the Y Acquisition Regulation, then the identification of that clause shall be "52.236-71-Refrigerated Display Cases (Mar 1983)-Y Acquisition Regulation."    **Parent topic:** Subpart 52.1 - Instructions for Using Provisions and Clauses
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-3236 SYLVIA M. REILLY,

Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

DE831 E070359-I-1. ON MOTION Before PROST, Circuit Judge. ORDER Sylvia M. Reilly moves without opposition for a 14-day extension of time, until February 11, 2009, to file her reply brief. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT 

## FEB 2 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date Jan Horbaly FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR Clerk THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

cc: Michael J. Dierberg, Esq. Brian Thomas Edmunds, Esq. s17 FEB 0 2 2009 JAN HORNY CLERK
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 810.203 Basis of determination.

*All other determinations.* Each determination of heat-damaged kernels, injured-by-heat kernels, and white or blue aleurone layers in Six-rowed barley is made on pearled, dockage-free barley. Other determinations not specifically provided for under the *General Provisions* are made on the basis of the grain when free from dockage, except the determination of odor is made on either the basis of the grain as a whole or the grain when free from dockage.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Video Display Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in
the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during
the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the
registrants internal controls over
financial reporting.
 Date: July 23, 2007
    /s/ Gregory L. OsbornGregory L. OsbornChief Financial Officer
#### § 986.12 Department or USDA.

*Department* or *USDA* means the United States Department of Agriculture.
Exhibit 33.3


                     REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH
                Section 1122(d)(2)(vi) and Section 1122(d)(4)(xi)
                       of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and
Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc. (affiliates of Assurant Inc.,
collectively the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance as
of December 31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006 through December
31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in
Section ll22(d)(2)(vi), Section 1122(d)(4)(xi) and Section 1122(d)(4)(xii) of
Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, which the
Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing
activities it performs with respect to all mortgage loan-tracking transactions
covered by this report. The transactions covered by this report include all
mortgage loan-tracking transactions for which the Asserting Party served as a
Vendor on behalf of Servicers for such asset-backed securities transactions that
were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Platform"). The scope of
the Asserting Party assertions excludes Section 1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17,
Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, which relates to
servicing activities that are performed by the Asserting Party with respect to
the Platform, but are not reported on herein.

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with Section 1122(d)(2)(vi) and
Section 1122(d)(4)(xi) ("the Applicable Servicing Criteria") for the Reporting
Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material
respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with
respect to the Platform taken as a whole. The Asserting Party used the criteria
set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm,
has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period ending December
31, 2006 as set forth in this assertion.

American Security Insurance Company
Standard Guaranty Insurance Company
Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.


/s/ John Frobose
-------------------------------------
By: John Frobose
    Senior Vice President

Date: February 23, 2007
§ 927.11 District. *District* means the applicable one of the following-described subdivisions of the production area covered by the provisions of this subpart: ( a ) For the purpose of committee representation, administration and application of provisions of this subpart as applicable to pears for the fresh market, districts shall be defined as follows: ( 1 ) *Medford District* shall include all the counties in the State of Oregon except for Hood River and Wasco counties.
( 2 ) *Mid-Columbia District* shall include Hood River and Wasco counties in the State of Oregon, and the counties of Skamania and Klickitat in the State of Washington.
( 3 ) *Wenatchee District* shall include the counties of King, Chelan, Okanogan, Douglas, Grant, Lincoln, and Spokane in the State of Washington, and all other counties in Washington lying north thereof.
( 4 ) *Yakima District* shall include all of the State of Washington, not included in the Wenatchee District or in the Mid-Columbia District.
( b ) For the purpose of committee representation, administration and application of provisions of this subpart as applicable to pears for processing, districts shall be defined as follows: ( 1 ) The State of Washington.
( 2 ) The State of Oregon.
( c ) The Secretary, upon recommendation of the Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee, may reestablish districts within the production area.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Community Financial Corporation, (the
Company) for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jody D. Graybill, President 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. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                        |  |     |  |                              
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jody D. Graybill         
|                        |  |     |  | Jody D. Graybill             
|                        |  |     |  | President                    
|                        |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Fabian Martinez et al., Respondents, v State of New York, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 172]

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Court of Claims (Lack, J.), dated October 29, 2004, which, after a nonjury trial on the issue of liability, and upon a decision of the same court dated September 28, 2004 finding it 30% liable for the happening of the accident, is in favor of the claimant and against it.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the claim is dismissed.

The facts in this matter are set forth in *Martinez v County of Suffolk*(17 AD3d 643 [2005]). The claimants herein brought an action in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County against the County of Suffolk, as well as a claim in the Court of Claims against the State of New York. In both matters, the claimants alleged that their injuries were caused by the negligence of the government entity in failing to trim the overgrown foliage at the intersection where the accident at issue occurred. In the Supreme Court action, on appeal from an order denying the County’s motion for summary judgment, this Court reversed the order and dismissed the complaint, finding that “the sole proximate cause of the accident was the other driver’s failure to stop at the red light, which, indisputably, was not obstructed by the overgrown brush” *(Martinez v County of Suffolk, supra*at 644).

*652The prior appeal was not decided until after a trial had been held in the Court of Claims and an interlocutory judgment rendered on the issue of liability in favor of the claimants, finding the State 30% liable for the happening of the accident. The judgment must be reversed, as this Court has already determined that the other driver’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the claimants’ injuries. “Thus, under the circumstances, the [State’s] purported negligence cannot be deemed a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries” *(Martinez v County of Suffolk, supra*at 644, citing *Green v Mower,*100 NY2d 529, 530 [2003]; *Sinski v State of New York,*2 AD3d 517 [2003]; *Tishler v Town of Brookhaven,*205 AD2d 611, 612 [1994]; *cf. Hoenig v Park Royal Owners,*260 AD2d 250, 251 [1999]; *Cruz v New York City Tr. Auth.,*190 AD2d 651, 652 [1993]).

In light of our determination, the parties’ remaining contentions have been rendered academic. Ritter, J.P., Mastro, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 13 - 21 - 00021 - CV GORDON DEAN HALEY, ANTON SCOTT HALEY, GORDON DEAN HALEY AS INDEPENDENT CO - EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET L. HALEY AND ANTON SCOTT HALEY AS INDEPENDENT CO - EXECUTOR OF

THE ESTATE OF MARGARET L. HALEY

v . BENEFICIAL FINANCIAL I INC., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BENEFICIAL TEXAS, INC.

On Appeal from the 94th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015 - DCV - 1306 - C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on a ppeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant s . We further order this decision certified below for observance. Au gust 26, 2021
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3394 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3394

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain men's water resistant pants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain men's water resistant pants.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MEN'S WATER RESISTANT PANTS.

    (a) In General.--
            (1) Chapter 61 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
        United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence, 
        the following statistical note:
    ``7. For the purposes of subheadings 6103.43.15, 6104.63.20, and 
6113.00.90, the term `performance outerwear pants' means ankle length 
pants of water resistant synthetic fabrics, containing at least two of 
the following characteristics: side openings, sealed seams at the front 
(up to the zipper or other means of closure) and the back rise, 
insulation for cold weather protection, at least one pocket with a 
means of closure (zippered or hook and loop enclosed pockets or other 
type of enclosed pockets), scuff guards, elasticized or drawstring 
weather closure around the waist or ankles, articulated knees, or 
reinforcement in the seat or knees. The term `water resistant' means a 
garment, notwithstanding classification, that would otherwise pass the 
test for water resistance described in U.S. note 2 to chapter 62. The 
term `sealed seams' means a seam that is sealed by means of taping, 
gluing, bonding, cementing, or similar processes for the purpose of 
waterproofing the seam.''.
            (2) 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:

      

``      9902.61.01        Men's performance       Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           outerwear pants                                                   31/2009          ''
                           described in                                                                        .
                           statistical note 7 to
                           chapter 61 (provided
                           for in subheading
                           6103.43.15)..........

    (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 the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### John W. Stebbins, as Assignee, etc., Appellant, v. The Howe Machine Company, Respondent.

(Argued April 22, 1884 ;

decided May 6, 1884.)

*John Van VoorMs*for appellant.

*Williann II. Shepard*for respondent.

*Agree*to affirm *;*no opinion.

All concur, except Danfobth, J., taking no part.

Judgment affirmed.