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

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., )

P.C. d/b/a THE PAIN CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv711-MHT

) 

SKILSTAF, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

 RULE 26(F) ORDER

The parties are reminded of the obligation, imposed

by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to

confer and to develop a proposed discovery plan.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Rule 26(f) report

containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as

practicable but not later than October 13, 2006.

The longstanding practice in this district is that

dispositive motions shall be filed no later than 90 days

prior to the pretrial date. If the parties seek to vary

from that schedule, they should present, in the plan,

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 21 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

specific case-related reasons for the requested variance.

In their Rule 26(f) report, however, the parties should

assume that the 90-day requirement will apply.

This case will be set for trial before the

undersigned judge during one of that judge's regularly

scheduled civil trial terms, within 7 to 10 months of

this order if a term is available and, if not available,

then as soon as possible thereafter. The pretrial date

is normally set within four to six weeks of a scheduled

trial term. The dates of each judge's civil trial terms

are available on the court's website located at

<http://almd.uscourts.gov> in the civil case information

section.

The court may or may not hold a scheduling conference

before issuing a scheduling order. If the court holds a

scheduling conference, counsel may participate in the

scheduling conference by conference call.

The scheduling order entered by the court will follow

the form of the Uniform Scheduling Order adopted by the

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 21 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 2 of 3
judges of this court. The Uniform Scheduling Order is

also available on the court's website.

The report of the parties should comply with Form 35

of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

DONE, this the 20th day of September, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 21 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          23,442
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             771
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,992
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    120,119
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        414,956
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 592,767
<DEPOSITS>                                     476,586
<SHORT-TERM>                                    26,466
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,555
<LONG-TERM>                                     27,287
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           519
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,355
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 592,767
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 26,331
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,137
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    74
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                32,542
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,001
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,573
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,959
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,870
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 204
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 16,001
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,658
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,658
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,784
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .73
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.82
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,931
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    70
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  9,350
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,291
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,300
<RECOVERIES>                                       652
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,513
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,513
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,489


</TABLE>
#### § 986.13 Disappearance.

*Disappearance* means the difference between the sum of grower-cleaned production and handler-cleaned production (whether from improved orchards or native and seedling groves) and the sum of inshell and shelled merchantable pecans reported on an inshell weight basis.
Case 1:06-mj-00070-DRB Document 9 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 966.140 Truck shipments.

In case of the transportation by truck outside of the production area of any tomatoes which are required to be inspected and certified as complying with any applicable requirements under this part, such tomatoes shall be accompanied by, and made available for examination at any time upon request, a copy of the appropriate inspection certificate or a copy of the appropriate transfer clearance receipt issued by the Federal-State Inspection Service, the official inspection agency for this program, showing that such tomatoes have been so inspected and certified.

[21 FR 3000, May 5, 1956. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 65 FR 8253, Feb. 18, 2000]
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Computer Assisted InstructionComputer NetworksEducational ResourcesElectronic MailElementary Secondary EducationGovernment PublicationsInformation NetworksInformation ServicesInternet

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
252.236-7007 Additive or Deductive Items.       As prescribed in                 236.570             (b)(5), use the following provision:          ADDITIVE OR DEDUCTIVE ITEMS (DEC 1991)          (a)  The low offeror and the items to be awarded shall be determined as follows—          (1)  Prior to the opening of bids, the Government will determine the amount of funds available for the project.          (2)  The low offeror shall be the Offeror that—          (i)  Is otherwise eligible for award; and          (ii)  Offers the lowest aggregate amount for the first or base bid item, plus or minus (in the order stated in the list of priorities in the bid schedule) those additive or deductive items that provide the most features within the funds determined available.          (3)  The Contracting Officer shall evaluate all bids on the basis of the same additive or deductive items.          (i)  If adding another item from the bid schedule list of priorities would make the award exceed the available funds for all offerors, the Contracting Officer will skip that item and go to the next item from the bid schedule of priorities; and          (ii)  Add that next item if an award may be made that includes that item and is within the available funds.          (b)  The Contracting Officer will use the list of priorities in the bid schedule only to determine the low offeror.  After determining the low offeror, an award may be made on any combination of items if—          (1)  It is in the best interest of the Government;          (2)  Funds are available at the time of award; and          (3)  The low offeror's price for the combination to be awarded is less than the price offered by any other responsive, responsible offeror.          (c)  *Example.*The amount available is $100,000.  Offeror A's base bid and four additives (in the order stated in the list of priorities in the bid Schedule) are $85,000, $10,000, $8,000, $6,000, and $4,000.  Offeror B's base bid and four additives are $80,000, $16,000, $9,000, $7,000, and $4,000.  Offeror A is the low offeror.  The aggregate amount of offeror A's bid for purposes of award would be $99,000, which includes a base bid plus the first and fourth additives.  The second and third additives were skipped because each of them would cause the aggregate bid to exceed $100,000.          (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 252.236 RESERVED
Opinion issued August 19, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00905-CV

———————————

ANTHONIA U. NWANKWO, Appellant

V.

SUNNY NWANKWO, Appellee

On Appeal from the 310th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2002-41161

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Anthonia U. Nwankwo, has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of 

appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to 
2

dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) 

(allowing involuntary dismissal of case).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a 

brief. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.
#### Richard H. Roberts, Respondent, v Ryan Homes, Inc., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: This action arises out of a building contract entered into between plaintiff and "defendant in 1966. Plaintiff commenced suit on the contract in 1971. A note of issue was filed in 1976 and later the case was put on the general docket for Monroe County in August, 1977. A motion to restore this case to the General Calendar was made and granted in June, 1978. However, since no order was entered restoring the case it was deemed abandoned in August, 1978, one year after it had been placed on the general docket and subject to automatic dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404. An entry of dismissal was made by the clerk of the court in September, 1978. In May, 1979, plaintiff moved to amend his claim by increasing the *ad damnum*clause.from $10,000 to $50,000 as damages for the br^ch of contract in the landscaping and construction of his frame dwelling. This motion was granted at Special Term. In August, 1979 plaintiff filed a note of issue and a statement of readiness which defendant moved to vacate. This motion was denied. It is from the granting of the first motion and the denial of the second motion that defendant appeals. Under the rules of this department a case on the general docket is "deemed abandoned and shall be dismissed * * * unless an order of restoration * * * is filed with the calendar clerk within one year of the placement of the case on the general docket” (22 NYCRR 1024.13 [b]). In view of the fact that plaintiff made no motion to vacate the automatic dismissal of the case, no action was pending upon which Special Term could exercise its discretion to increase the *ad damnum*clause. For the same reason the motion to strike the note of issue and statement of readiness should have been granted as such papers may not be filed unless and until the CPLR 3404 dismissal is vacated *(Campbell v Puntoro,*36 AD2d 568, 569). (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court— *ad damnum*clause.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.
§ 987.12 Marketable dates. *Marketable dates* means those dates which are certified as equal to or higher than the applicable minimum grade and size requirements in effect pursuant to § 987.39, and any additional applicable requirements in effect pursuant to § 987.40. Marketable dates shall include but not be limited to the following: ( a ) *DAC dates.* DAC dates are marketable whole or pitted dates that are inspected and certified as meeting the grade, size, container, and identification requirements established by the Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, for a specific variety for handling in the United States and Canada.
( b ) *Dates for further processing.* Dates for further processing (FP) are marketable whole dates acquired by one handler from another handler that are certified as meeting the same grade and size requirements for DAC dates, with the exception of moisture requirements, and such identification requirements applicable to FP dates that are established by the Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, for any specific variety.
( c ) *Export dates.* Export dates are marketable whole or pitted dates that are inspected and certified as meeting the grade, size, container, and identification requirements established by the Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, for a specific variety, to be handled in export to any country or group of countries with the exception of Canada. The Committee may establish different requirements for different countries.
( d ) *Product dates.* Product dates are marketable dates that are inspected and certified as meeting the applicable grade and size requirements for dates to be handled in such forms as rings, chunks, pieces, butter, macerate, paste, or any other forms which the Committee deems appropriate and which will result in dates moving into consumption in a form other than that of whole or pitted dates.
[43 FR 4250, Feb. 1, 1978, as amended at 88 FR 82235, Nov. 24, 2023]
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 June 30, 2008, 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. §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: August 12, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Jody D. Graybill
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Jody D. Graybill,            
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | President                    
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
647.000 Scope of part.

The FAR and DOSAR do not apply to the acquisition of transportation services via Government bill of

lading (GBL) or other similar forms.

Parent topic: PART 647—TRANSPORTATION
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Executive 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
9th day of August, 2010.


/s/ Charles Irizarry
---------------------------
Charles Irizarry
Chief Executive Officer
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3374 

To reduce temporarily the duty on formulations of Clodinafop-propargyl. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2006 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on formulations of 

Clodinafop-propargyl. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FORMULATIONS OF CLODINAFOP-PROPARGYL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.12.55 Mixtures of propionic acid, 

2-(4-((5-chloro-3-fluoro-2- 

pyridynyl)oxy)phenoxy-2- 

propynyl ester, (clodinafoppropargyl) (CAS No. 

105512–06–9) (provided for 

in subheading 3808.30.15) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3374 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Khalil Abdul-Aziz, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, Respondent.

Submitted August 27, 2007;

decided November 19, 2007

Reported below, 2007 NY Slip Op 73519(U).

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
1

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Kelly, Shaheerah

Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 9:42 AM

To: Ora V. Marek-Martinez

Cc: tbillie@navajo-nsn.gov; tbegay@navajo-nsn.gov; Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: RE: NHPA Consultation for McElmo Creek Unit Flare

Good Morning Ora,  

Thank you for your response. I just sent you a meeting invitation for this Friday, Sept 11 at 10

am MDT (9 am PDT). I also invited Tamara Billie and Timothy Begay since I was previously

discussed the project with them. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.

************************************ 

Shaheerah Kelly 

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

From: Ora V. Marek‐Martinez [mailto:oramm@navajo‐nsn.gov]  

Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 8:03 AM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: RE: NHPA Consultation for McElmo Creek Unit Flare

Hello,

Thank you for the notification. I apologize for not responding sooner, however, I was out of the office. Incidentally, I

have an all‐day meeting today, would you have time to discuss this project on Friday around 10am?  

Best,

Ora

Ora Marek-Martinez, PhD 

Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Historic Preservation Department 

PO Box 4950 

Window Rock, AZ 86515 

Ph: (928) 871-7198 

Fx: (928) 871-7886 

From: Kelly, Shaheerah [mailto:Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 1:33 PM 
2

To: Tamara Billie; Ora V. Marek-Martinez; Timothy Begay 

Cc: Kelly, Shaheerah 

Subject: NHPA Consultation for McElmo Creek Unit Flare 

Good Afternoon,

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 is processing a federal Clean Air Act air

quality permit for the McElmo Creek Unit (MCU) Flare. The undertaking triggering consultation under the

National Historic Preservation (NHPA) is the issuance of this Clean Air Act permit. The EPA is the lead federal

agency, and only agency, involved in this undertaking.

Other than the potential installation of a variable speed fan on the Flare, EPA’s undertaking does not authorize

any new construction or modification of existing equipment at the MCU Facility. The undertaking results in no

new surface disturbance or change in operations and therefore will have no effect on eligible historic

properties located within 2 km area of potential effects for the Flare.

I would appreciate talking to you this week or early next week about this action before sending you official

documentation to initiate the NHPA consultation. Please let me know if you are available at the following

times to discuss this action:

10:00 am MST, Thurs, 9/3

10:00 am MST, Fri, 9/4

10:00 am MST, Mon, 9/7

10:00 am MST, Tues, 9/8

I look forward to your response.

Thank you.

************************************ 

Shaheerah Kelly 

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov
**Exhibit 23.1**

[LETTERHEAD OF EHRHARDT KEEFE STEINER & HOTTMAN PC] 

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-144102 and No. 333-156249) ofAllied Nevada Gold Corp. (the “Company”) of our report dated March 16, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements of the Company included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year endedDecember 31, 2008. 

/s/ Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC

Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC 

Denver, Colorado 

March 16, 2009