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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

B. B., a minor,1by and )

Through his mother and next friend, )

OWENA KNOWLES, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO.:

) 3:06-CV-00715-MHT

v. )

)

PAWN CITY, INC.; INTERSTATE )

ARMS CORPORATION; NORINCO )

a/k/a CHINA NORTH INDUSTRIES )

COPORATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

COMES NOW one of the defendants, Interstate Arms Corporation, and discloses the 

following pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Order 

Civil Misc. No. 3047: Interstate Arms is a closely held private corporation; it has no

parent, subsidiary, or affiliate with any shares issued to the public.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Todd M. Higey

Todd M. Higey

Ala. Bar No. HIG019

Attorney for Interstate Arms Corporation

ADAMS AND REESE LLP

2100 3rd Avenue North, Suite 1100

Birmingham, Alabama 35203-3367

Telephone: (205) 250-5000

Fax: (205) 250-5034

E-mail: todd.higey@arlaw.com

1 The plaintiff is not a minor: His date of birth was January 4, 1987.

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 12 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

Curt M. Johnson, Esq.

JOHNSON, CALDWELL & MCCOY

117 N. Lanier Avenue, Ste. 201

Lanett, Alabama 36863-2013

Telephone: (334) 644-5101

Fax: (334) 644-5121

E-mail: cjohnson@jcmlaw.net 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 1, 2006, 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 persons listed below:

James C. Barton, Jr., Esq.

Alan D. Mathis, Esq.

JOHNSTON, BARTON, PROCTOR & POWELL, LLP

2900 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza

1901 Sixth Avenue North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

David J. Hodge, Esq.

PITTMAN, HOOKS, DUTTON, KIRBY & HELLUMS, P.C.

2001 Park Place North

1100 Park Place Tower

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Nick Wooten, Esq.

WOOTEN LAW FIRM, P.C.

P.O. Drawer 290

Lafayette, Alabama 36862

John D. Gleissner, Esq.

ROGERS & ASSOCIATES

3000 Riverchase Galleria

Suite 650

Birmingham, Alabama 35244

/s/Todd M. Higey

Of Counsel

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 12 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Shirley Fairley, Mother on Behalf of Troy Acard, an Infant, Respondent, v. “John Doe” et al., Appellants, and Commissioner of Welfare of The City of New York, Respondent.

Order and judgment sustaining a writ of habeas corpus obtained by petitioner-mother and decreeing that the custody of the infant be awarded to said petitioner and her husband, unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and matter remanded to Special Term, Mr. Justice Quinn presiding, for further hearing, in accordance with the suggestions herein. There should be further exploration of petitioner’s claim of duress, which, she alleges, compelled her execution of the contract of surrender. Persons having knowledge of the circumstances leading to, and surrounding, the execution of the surrender agreement should be called to testify at the further hearing, including the notary public before whom the petitioner executed the document in question and all representatives of the Department of Welfare and Spence Chapin Adoption Service having knowledge of any relevant facts relating to the surrender agreement. While, under the circumstances, there should be finally resolved whether the contract of surrender was executed as a result of duress, it appears from this record that, presently, the petitioner and her husband are totally unfit to have custody of the child. Concur — Botein, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Tilzer and McNally, JJ.
§ 97.300 Petition to the Secretary. ( a ) Petition may be made to the Secretary from any final action of the Commissioner denying an application or refusing to allow a certificate to be issued, or from any adverse decision of the Commissioner made under §§ 97.18(c), 97.107, 97.201(e), and 97.220.
( b ) Any such petition shall contain a statement of the facts involved and the point or points to be reviewed, and the actions requested.
( c ) A petition to the Secretary shall be filed in duplicate and accompanied by the prescribed fee (see § 97.175).
( d ) Upon request, an opportunity to present data, views, and arguments orally, in an informal manner or in a formal hearing, shall be given to interested persons. If a formal hearing is requested, the proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary Under Various Statutes set forth in §§ 1.130 through 1.151 of this title.
( e ) Except as otherwise provided in the rules in this part, any such petition not filed within 60 days from the action complained of shall be dismissed as untimely.
[58 FR 42435, Aug. 9, 1993, as amended at 60 FR 8464, Feb. 14, 1995]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

GEORGE PARKER, #140922, )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-649-WHA

 )

GWENDOLYN GIVENS, et al., )

 )

 Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon review of the document filed by Tara S. Knee on August 25, 2008 (Court Doc.

No. 30), which the court construes as a motion to withdraw as counsel for the defendants, and

for good cause, it is

ORDERED that this motion be and is hereby GRANTED. 

Done this 25th day of August, 2008.

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00649-WHA-WC Document 31 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 1 of 1
; IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., ) 

a Delaware; VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, )

INC., a California corporation; UMG )

RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; )

SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, a )

Delaware general partnership; ARISTA )

RECORDS LLC, a Delaware limited liability )

company; and ATLANTIC RECORDING )

CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-633-MEF-VPM

)

DAN BENN, )

)

Defendant. )

)

ENTRY OF DEFAULT

It appearing that defendant, Dan Benn, was duly served with a copy of the summons and

complaint on August 7, 2006, and said defendant has failed to answer or otherwise defend this

action as set out in the affidavit of plaintiff's attorney filed herein on September 12, 2006, as

required by law.

DEFAULT is hereby entered against defendant, Dan Benn.

DONE THIS 21st day of September , 2006.

/s/ Debra P. Hackett

 

DEBRA P. HACKETT

CLERK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 6 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 94

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 94 appear at 61 FR 51352, Oct. 2 1996.

#### § 94.103 Analytical methods.

The analytical methods used by the Science and Technology Division laboratories to perform voluntary analyses for egg products shall be the same as listed in § 94.4.
#### § 925.5 Production area.

*Production area* means Imperial County, California, and that part of Riverside County and San Diego County, California, situated east of a line drawn due north and south through the Post Office in White Water, California.
### NA **ICS: 325300**

**Pesticide Registrants** Labor Category : Formula Managerial Technical Clerical Unloaded Hourl y Rate 1 = W $57.42 $28.32 $17.02 Benefits Percentage 2 Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44% Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $25.31 $12.49 $7.50 Loaded Hourl y Rate Wb = W + B = W(1+Lb) $82.73 $40.81 $24.52 Overhead Percentage 3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50% Overhead per hour OH = Wb*L o $41.37 $20.40 $12.26 Fully L oaded Hourly Rate Wf = Wb + OH = W + B + OH $124.10 $61.21 $36.79 1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm **May 2011 data** NAI CS 325300 - Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing Standard Occupational Codes: Management: 11 - 0000, Management Occupations Technical: 19 - 0000, L ife, Physical, and Social Science

Occupations Clerical: 43 - 0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations 2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. The average for non farm, non federal civilian workers. 3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency , EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition , EPA - 452 - 02 - 001, January 2002, pg. 2 - 34. The loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20 - 70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.

### NA **ICS: 999100**

**EPA or Federal Government**  Labor Category : Formula Managerial Technical Clerical Unloaded Hourl y Rate 1 = W $55.67 $36.02 $20.38 Benefits Percentage 2 Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44% Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $24.54 $15.88 $8.98 Loaded Hourl y Rate Wb = W + B = W(1+Lb) $80.21 $51.90 $29.36 Overhead Percentage 3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50% Overhead per hour OH = Wb*L o $40.11 $25.95 $14.68 Fully L oaded Hourly Rate Wf = Wb + OH = W + B + OH $120.32 $77.85 $44.05 1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm **May 2011 data** NAI CS 999100 - Federal Executive Branch Standard Occupational Codes: Management: 11 - 0000, Management Occupations Technical: 19 - 0000, L ife, Physical, and Social Science

Occupations Clerical: 43 - 0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations 2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. The average for non farm, non federal civilian workers. 3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency , EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition , EPA - 452 - 02 - 001, January 2002, pg. 2 - 34. The loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20 - 70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefi ts) suggested in EPA guidance.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4549

PAMELA S. KNOWLTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.

Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge.

(CR-97-19)

Submitted: January 13, 1998

Decided: January 23, 1998

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

S. Mason Preston, PRESTON & WEESE, L.C., Lewisburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Susan

M. Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Pamela S. Knowlton appeals from the four-month sentence

imposed by the district court upon her guilty plea to one count of

bankruptcy fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 157 (1994). Knowlton's only claim on

appeal is that the sentence was unduly harsh in light of the nature of

her offense and history. We affirm.

In an effort to avoid an outstanding medical bill, Knowlton submitted a fraudulent bankruptcy court order to the collection agency handling the debt showing that she had been granted a discharge in

bankruptcy. When contacted by the FBI, Knowlton admitted that she

had changed the date, debtors' names and case number in order to

avoid her debt. Knowlton pled guilty to bankruptcy fraud in February

1997. At her sentencing hearing, Knowlton stated no objections to the

presentence report. The guideline range for Knowlton's offense, after

taking into account a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility,* was zero to six months imprisonment. The district court

imposed a term of four months. Knowlton appeals, claiming that the

district court acted arbitrarily in imposing a term of imprisonment

rather than home confinement or probation.

Because Knowlton's sentence fell within a properly calculated

guideline range, her challenge to the sentence is not cognizable on

appeal. See United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794-95 (4th Cir.

1990) (holding that criminal defendant is precluded from seeking "review of a sentencing court's discretion in setting a sentence anywhere

within a proplery calculated sentencing range"); see also United

States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir. 1994) (challenge to sentence at top of guideline range not authorized by statute).

Accordingly, we affirm Knowlton's sentence. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________

*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (1995).

 2
#### § 915.71 Separability.

If any provision of this part is declared invalid or the applicability thereof to any person, circumstance, or thing is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this part or the applicability thereof to any other person, circumstance, or thing shall not be affected thereby.
§ 766.358 Acceleration and foreclosure moratorium. ( a ) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this subpart, borrowers who file or have filed a program discrimination complaint that is accepted by USDA Office of Adjudication or successor office (USDA), and have been serviced to the point of acceleration or foreclosure on or after May 22, 2008, will not have their account accelerated or liquidated until such complaint has been resolved by USDA or closed by a court of competent jurisdiction. This moratorium applies only to program loans made under subtitle A, B, or C of the Act (for example, CL, FO, OL, EM, SW, or RL). Interest will not accrue and no offsets will be taken on these loans during the moratorium. Interest accrual and offsets will continue on all other loans, including, but not limited to, non-program loans. ( 1 ) If the Agency prevails on the program discrimination complaint, the interest that would have accrued during the moratorium will be reinstated on the account when the moratorium terminates, and all offsets and servicing actions will resume.
( 2 ) If the borrower prevails on the program discrimination complaint, the interest that would have accrued during the moratorium will not be reinstated on the account unless specifically required by the settlement agreement or court order.
( b ) The moratorium will begin on: ( 1 ) May 22, 2008, if the borrower had a pending program discrimination claim that was accepted by USDA as valid and the account was at the point of acceleration or foreclosure on or before that date; or
( 2 ) The date after May 22, 2008, when the borrower has a program discrimination claim accepted by USDA as valid and the borrower's account is at the point of acceleration or foreclosure.
( c ) The point of acceleration under this section is the earliest of the following: ( 1 ) The day after all rights offered on the Agency notice of intent to accelerate expire if the borrower does not appeal;
( 2 ) The day after all appeals resulting from an Agency notice of intent to accelerate are concluded if the borrower appeals and the Agency prevails on the appeal;
( 3 ) The day after all appeal rights have been concluded relating to a failure to graduate and the Agency prevails on any appeal;
( 4 ) Any other time when, because of litigation, third party action, or other unforeseen circumstance, acceleration is the next step for the Agency in servicing and liquidating the account.
( d ) A borrower is considered to be in foreclosure status under this section anytime after acceleration of the account.
( e ) The moratorium will end on the earlier of: ( 1 ) The date the program discrimination claim is resolved by USDA or
( 2 ) The date that a court of competent jurisdiction renders a final decision on the program discrimination claim if the borrower appeals the decision of USDA.
[76 FR 5058, Jan. 28, 2011]
Exhibit 32.1

CEOS 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 on Form 10-Q of BancFirst Corporation (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, David E. Rainbolt, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:



|(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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ David E. Rainbolt                
|David E. Rainbolt                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)        
|May 10, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3380 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3380

      To suspend temporarily the duty on DEMBB distilled-iso tank.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on DEMBB distilled-iso tank.

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

SECTION 1. DEMBB DISTILLED-ISO TANK.

    (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:

``      9902.11.06      2-Bromo-1,3-        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         diethyl-5-                                                         31/2009
                         methylbenzene
                         (CAS No. 314084-
                         61-2) (DEMBB)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2903.69.80)......

    (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>
```
§ 981.61 Redetermination of kernel weight. The Board, on the basis of reports by handlers, shall redetermine the kernel weight of almonds received by each handler for his own account during each crop year through each of the following dates: December 31, March 31, and June 30. Such redetermined kernel weight for each handler shall be the basis for computing his reserve obligation for the crop year through such dates, except that adjustment shall be made for almonds on which the obligation has been assumed by another handler. The redetermined kernel weight of each handler's receipts, as of any date during the crop year, shall be his carryover as of that date plus the weight of almonds delivered or used in products minus the carryover at the beginning of the crop year, the weight on which another handler has assumed the obligations, and the weight delivered to exempt outlets. Weights used in such computations for various classifications of almonds shall be: ( a ) For unshelled almonds, the kernel weight based on representative samples reduced to shelled weight;
( b ) For shelled almonds, the net weight; and
( c ) For shelled almonds used in production of almond products, the net weight of such almonds.
[41 FR 26853, June 30, 1976, as amended at 61 FR 32921, June 26, 1996; 88 FR 82235, Nov. 24, 2023]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3234 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3234

To suspend temporarily the duty on lug bottom boots for use in fishing 
                                waders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on lug bottom boots for use in fishing 
                                waders.

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

SECTION 1. LUG BOTTOM BOOTS FOR USE IN FISHING WADERS.

    (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:

      

``      9902.64.01        Lug bottom boots for    Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           use in fishing waders                                             31/2009          ''
                           (provided for in                                                                    .
                           subheading
                           6401.92.90)..........

    (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>
```