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. *

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW Fred Clements to enter his appearance as one of the attorneys for Plaintiff

herein and respectfully requests of the Court and all parties that he be served with process and all

needful papers.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on this the 13 day of November, 2007. th

/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 26 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 1 of 2
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 November,

2007.

Daryl Masters

Gary Willford

WEBB & ELEY, P.C.

P.O. Box 240909

Montgomery, AL 36124

/s/ FRED CLEMENTS 

Fred Clements

Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 26 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v C. James Lombardi, Jr., Appellant.

Judgment Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on April 1, 1974, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious promts *502which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns and Silverman, JJ.
Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 3 of 3
First Department,

May, 1980

(May 1, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clifford Griffith, Also Known as Clifford Griff, Also Known as Carlton Griffith, Appellant.

Upon the remittitur of the Court of Appeals, judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on September 10, 1976, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Sullivan, Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

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 March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard R. Leitzel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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: May 13, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard R. Leitzel                     
|                   |  |     |  | Richard R. Leitzel, Chief Financial Officer
|                   |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 12

- 00295

- CR John Manuel CASTILLO , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012

- CR

- 2756W Honorable Mary D. Roman , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca S immons , Justice Delivered and Filed: July 25, 2012
DIS MISSED The trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and “is one in which the defendant has waived his right of appeal.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2). Rul e 25.2(d) provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, on June 5, 2012 , this court issued an ord er stating this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule04

- 12

- 00295

- CR

- 2

- 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows defendant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record. See Daniels v. State ,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2 003, order); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d); 37.1. No amended certification has been filed; therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM
Do not publish
§ 945.65 Inspection and certification. ( a ) During any period in which regulations are in effect pursuant to § 945.42, § 945.52, or § 945.53, or any combination thereof, no handler shall handle potatoes unless such potatoes are inspected by an authorized representative of the Federal-State Inspection Service, and are covered by a valid inspection certificate, except when relieved from such requirements pursuant to recommendations by the committee and approved by the Secretary.
( b ) Regrading, resorting, or repacking any lot of potatoes shall invalidate any prior inspection certificates covering such potatoes insofar as the requirements of this section are concerned. During any period in which shipments of potatoes are regulated, as aforesaid, no handler shall handle potatoes after they have been regraded, resorted, repacked, or in any way further prepared for market, unless such potatoes are inspected and covered by a valid inspection certificate as required in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Insofar as the requirements of this section are concerned, the length of time for which an inspection certificate shall be valid may be established by the committee with the approval of the Secretary; and such length of time may be different for shipments for different purposes.
( d ) When potatoes are inspected in accordance with the requirements of this section, a copy of each inspection certificate issued shall be made available promptly to the committee by the inspection service.
#### § 989.105 Inspection point.

*Inspection point* means any plant or receiving station of a handler, or any other place where raisins are received by a handler, and which is so designated by the Committee. The inspection point(s) of the handler shall include any area(s) in which he receives grapes or raisins for dehydration unless he keeps his raisin dehydration business separate, physically and by records, from his business of handling raisins.

[31 FR 16305, Dec. 21, 1966]
#### Housing & Development Administration of the City of New York, Respondent, v Goodwine Realty Corp. et al., Appellants.

Appeal by defendants from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated January 17, 1979, which reversed an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered February 13, 1978, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, and denied said motion. Order affirmed on the memorandum decision of the Appellate Term, with $50 costs and disbursements. Damiani, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### § 51.1832 Fairly well formed.

*Fairly well formed* means that the fruit may not have the shape characteristic of the variety but that it is not badly deformed.
#### § 987.51 Interhandler transfers.

Transfers of dates may be made from one handler to another, and each handler who so transfers any such dates shall immediately upon the completion of the particular transfer notify the Committee of the transfer, specifying the date of the transfer, the quantity and variety of dates involved, and the name of the receiving handler. If such transfer is wholly within the area of production, the assessment and withholding obligations shall be placed on the handler agreeing to assume them: *Provided,* That in the absence of the Committee receiving notice of a specific agreement on such obligations, the buying handler shall be held accountable. If such transfer is from within the area of production to any point outside thereof, the assessment and withholding obligations shall be met by the handler within the area of production. Except for packed dates inspected and certified for handling prior to transfer and which are not repacked, any receiving handler (other than a repacker not otherwise a handler, who shall comply with § 987.53) shall comply with the requirements of § 987.41 on all dates, but this shall apply to repacked dates previously inspected and certified for handling only if the handler also packs dates received as field-run dates.

[32 FR 12596, Aug. 31, 1967]
716.506 Solicitation provision and contract clause.       (a) As prescribed in 48 CFR 704.7005(a), the contracting officer will insert the provision at 752.204–70 Partner Vetting Pre–Award Requirements, in solicitations for indefinite delivery contracts when USAID anticipates that any orders placed under the contract will be subject to vetting.          (b)          (1)  			The contracting officer will insert the clause at 752.216–71 Partner Vetting, in those solicitations and contracts for indefinite-delivery contracts that USAID identifies as subject to vetting.          (2) The contracting officer will use the clause with its Alternate I when USAID determines that subcontracts at any tier for certain classes of supplies or services are subject to vetting.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 716.5—Indefinite-Delivery Contracts
#### § 987.67 Confidential information.

All data or other information constituting a trade secret or disclosing a trade position or business condition shall be received by, and kept in the custody of, one or more designated employees of the Committee and information which would reveal the circumstances of a single handler shall be disclosed to no person other than the Secretary.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3150 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3150

 To suspend temporarily the duty on tarpaulins measuring 9-feet by 12-
             feet with a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) coating.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on tarpaulins measuring 9-feet by 12-
             feet with a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) coating.

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

SECTION 1. TARPAULINS MEASURING 9-FEET BY 12-FEET WITH A POLYVINYL 
              CHLORIDE (PVC) COATING.

    (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:

      

``      9902.63.06        tarpaulins measuring 9- Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           feet by 12-feet with                                              31/2009          ''
                           a polyvinyl chloride                                                                .
                           (PVC) coating
                           (provided for in
                           subheading
                           6306.19.00)..........

    (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>
```
#### FEINCON v. FRIEDLANDER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by Charles Feincon against Max Friedlander and Max Miller.

No opinion. Judgment and order of the County Court of Westchester County affirmed, with costs.
Case 2:06-cv-00649-WHA-WC Document 17 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00649-WHA-WC Document 17 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00649-WHA-WC Document 17 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 3 of 3
925.7102 Contract clause.       The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 952.225-71, Compliance with Export Control Laws and Regulations (Export Clause), in all solicitations and contracts.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 925.71 - Export Control
Case 2:06-cv-00712-MEF-CSC Document 2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
Subpart 250.0 - Reserved           **Parent topic:** Part 250 - EXTRAORDINARY CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS
Editorial Note on Part 91
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 91 appear at 61 FR 51350, Oct. 2 1996.

§ 91.38 Additional fees for appeal of analysis. ( a ) The applicant for appeal sample testing will be charged a fee based on the formulas in § 91.37.
( b ) The appeal fee will not be waived for any reason if analytical testing was completed in addition to the original analysis.
[75 FR 17288, Apr. 6, 2010, as amended at 79 FR 67326, Nov. 13, 2014]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3296 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3296

  To suspend temporarily the duty on open-top electric indoor grills.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on open-top electric indoor grills.

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

SECTION 1. OPEN-TOP ELECTRIC INDOOR GRILLS.

    (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:

      

``      9902.85.22        Open-top electric       Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           indoor grills                                                     31/2009          ''
                           (provided for in                                                                    .
                           subheading
                           8516.60.60)..........

    (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>
```
Case 1:06-cv-00682-TFM Document 14 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00682-TFM Document 14 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00682-TFM Document 14 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00682-TFM Document 14 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 4 of 4
# 252.239-7006 Reserved.

**Parent topic:**252.239 RESERVED
#### § 932.15 Handler.

*Handler* means any person who handles olives.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1999
<CASH>                                             148
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,724
<INVENTORY>                                    105,511
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               164,968
<PP&E>                                         304,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 190,064
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 288,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,186
<BONDS>                                         55,387
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,946
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,099
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   288,342
<SALES>                                        192,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               192,881
<CGS>                                          169,716
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  169,716
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,406
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    67
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (206)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (79)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (127)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     644
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       517
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Annual Report of Viking Minerals Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles Irizarry,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
6th day of August, 2010.


/s/ Charles Irizarry
------------------------------
Charles Irizarry
Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROGER WRIGHT, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:06-cv-0647-WKW

 )

PEMCO WORLD AIR SERVICES, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This case is before the court on the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiff

Roger Wright (“Wright”) on October 25, 2007. (Doc # 30.) The court entered a Uniform

Scheduling Order on October 10, 2006 (Doc. # 9 § 4) that set the deadline for filing motions to

amend the pleadings as December 27, 2006. Wright’s motion to amend was filed almost ten months

afterthe scheduling order deadline had passed and less than eleven weeks before the commencement

of trial. 

The Eleventh Circuit has held that Rule 15 governs a motion for leave to amend pleadings

filed within the time limits imposed by a court’s scheduling order. See Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc.,

133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998). However, the standard of Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure applies to a motion for leave to amend the pleadings filed outside of a court’s

scheduling order. See id. Rule16(b) explicitly states that a court’s scheduling order “shall not be

modified except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b) The main inquiry under the good cause standard is the diligence of the movant in meeting the

deadlines imposed by the scheduling order. See, e.g., Nobles v. Rural Cmty. Ins. Servs.,

303 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (M.D. Ala. 2004); Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1418 (holding that the good cause

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 36 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 1 of 2
standard “precludes modification unless the schedule cannot bemet despite the diligence ofthe party

seeking the extension”). 

Wright was not diligent in meeting the deadline for amending his complaint because he had

ample opportunity to uncover the information that provides the basis for his motion to amend during

discovery. Furthermore, the addition of a new claim this close to trial, and after a motion for

summary judgment has been fully briefed, would prejudice the defendant and disrupt the timely

disposition of this case. Wright has not met the good cause standard embodied in Rule 16 to justify

amending the Uniform Scheduling Order. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. # 30) is DENIED. 

DONE this 21st day of November, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 36 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 2 of 2
§ 966.84 Termination. ( a ) The Secretary may, at any time, terminate the provisions of this subpart by giving at least one day's notice by means of a press release or in any other manner which he may determine.
( b ) The Secretary may terminate or suspend the operations of any or all of the provisions of this subpart whenever he finds that such provisions do not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act.
( c ) The Secretary shall terminate the provisions of this subpart at the end of any fiscal period whenever he finds that such termination is favored by a majority of producers, who during a representative period, have been engaged in the production for market of tomatoes: *Provided,* That such majority has, during such representative period, produced for market more than fifty percent of the volume of such tomatoes produced for market.
( d ) The provisions of this subpart shall, in any event, terminate whenever the provisions of the act authorizing them cease to be in effect.