alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petitioner originally filed his petition on June 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the 1

Northern District of Florida. By order entered July 27, 2006 the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Florida directed that Petitioner’s habeas petition be transferred to this court. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

HOWARD GLENN TOOLE, #C 917683 *

Petitioner, *

 v. * 2:06-CV-696-MHT

JAMES MCDONOUGH, et al., * 

Respondents. *

 _______________________________

O R D E R

The court received the above-captioned petition for filing on August 9, 2006. A 1

review of the petition reflects that Petitioner seeks to challenge the judgments of more than

one state court. Specifically, Petitioner asserts claims for relief against judgments entered

against him by both the Circuit Court for Coffee County, Alabama, and the Circuit Court for

Pike County, Alabama. Petitioner may not challenge the judgment(s) of separate state courts

in a single petition. 

Petitioner is advised that, pursuant to Rule 2(d), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

in the United States District Courts, “[a] petition shall be limited to the assertion of a claim

for relief against the judgment or judgments of a single state court (sitting in a county or

other appropriate political subdivision). If a petitioner desires to attack the validity of the

judgments of two or more state courts under which he is in custody or may be subject to

future custody, as the case may be, he shall do so by separate petitions. See also Rule 2(e),

Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 7 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court. 

 Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to return to Petitioner his application for

habeas corpus relief (Doc. No. 1) and retain a copy of the petition in the instant file. See

Rule 2(e), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 

It is further

ORDERED that on or before August 25, 2006, Petitioner shall file a corrected

petition in the above-captioned action which challenges only the judgment(s) entered

against him by the Circuit Court for Pike County, Alabama, on a form for use in filing a

habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Local Rule 9.1 (requiring pro se

litigants to utilize court's forms). Petitioner’s original petition shall be superseded by this

amended petition. That means Petitioner shall no longer rely on the original petition. 

The Clerk is DIRECTED to send to Petitioner a form for use in filing a habeas corpus

application under § 2254. Petitioner is advised that his failure to file an amended petition

within the prescribed time and in accordance with the directives contained in this order will

result in a Recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to obey the orders of the

court.

Done, this day 11 day of August 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 7 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 2
# Subpart 1523.3 - Hazardous Material and Material Safety Data

**Parent topic:**PART 1523 - ENVIRONMENTAL, CONSERVATION, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE

## 1523.303 Contract clause.

## 1523.303-70 Protection of human subjects.

Contracting Officers shall insert the contract clause at 1552.223-70 when the contract involves human test subjects.    

## 1523.303-71 Decontamination of Government-furnished property.

Contracting Officers shall insert the contract clause at 1552.245-70, Decontamination of Government-Furnished Property, when it is anticipated that a Contractor will use Government-furnished or Contractor-acquired property in the clean-up of hazardous or toxic substances in the environment.   

## 1523.303-72 Use and care of laboratory animals.

Contracting officers shall insert the clause at 1552.223-72, Use and Care of Laboratory Animals, in all contracts involving the use of animals in testing, research or training.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3304 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3304

         To suspend temporarily the duty on Dimethyl Malonate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on Dimethyl Malonate.

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

SECTION 1. DIMETHYL MALONATE.

    (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:

      

``      9902.29.18        Dimethyl Malonate (CAS  Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           No. 108-59-8)                                                     31/2009          ''
                           (provided for in                                                                    .
                           subheading
                           2917.19.7050)........

    (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>
```
Sample ID: 5-11-10 TF A398 Lab ID: 2010004761

Value

0.504

0.84

28.84

28.82248276

0.001615982

566

674

30.1

106

1.838

0.9947

30.1

300

2.95

289.589

9.3

30.09

0.337

0.00061942281

Value

272.2795606

31.90270414

-27.7

-1.303839

37

1.74455

0.001615982

97.31758751

Method 5 Parameter

A398 Reactor C Emissions

Pm = Pressure at orifice meter (in. Hg)

Vm = Total sample volume from dry gas meter (dcf)

Total sampling time required for test (min)

Tm = Absolute average dry gas meter temp (R).

Ts = Stack gas absolute average temperature (R)

TF-A398 Reactor C6

Bws = Stack gas moisture content

p = Stack gas velocity pressure (avg. sqrt p - in. water)

Cp = Pitot tube calibration coefficient

Ta = Sampling site ambient temperature, (°F)

H@ = Orifice meter calibration factor, (in. water)

Y = Dry gas meter calibration factor

Pbar = Barometric pressure, (in. Hg)

Havg = average orifice meter differential

Bws = fraction of gas that is moisture

I = % Isokinetic variation

Vm (std) = Volume of sample measured by DGM (dscf) 

Vs = Average stack gas velocity

Total impinger catch (ml)

Vwc (std) = converted water volume 

Total silica gel catch (ml)

Vwsg (std) = converted silica gel water volume 

Air Test Calculations

Md = Stack gas dry molecular weight, (lb/lb-mole)

Ms = Stack gas (wet) molecular weight (lb/lb-mole)

Ps = Absolute stack gas pressure (in Hg)

Nozzle diameter (in)

Area of Nozzle (ft^2)

Vlc Volume collected
Test ID: 5-11-10 TF A398 Lab ID: 2010004761

Value

197.1 Total ug of Fluoride in Gaseous Sample

0.0001971 Total g of Fluoride in Gaseous Sample

2078.75 Total ug of Fluoride in Particulate Sample

0.00207875 Total g of Fluoride in Particulate Sample

0.0685 Total g of Particulate

272.2795606 Vm(std) Volume of Air Sampled by DGM (dscf)

214 Tr Average Temperature of Stack During Test (o

F)

30.1 Pbar Barometric Pressure During Test (in Hg)

25.134 Area of Stack (ft2)

30.09 Ps Stack Pressure

31.90270414 Vs Velocity in Scrubber

0.001615982 Bws Moisture in Roof Emissions

48110.55396 Q Flow of A398 Reactor Emissions (acf/min)

37841.87113 Qstd Flow of A398 Reactor Emissions (dcf/min)

2270512.268 Qstd Flow of A398 Reactor Emissions (dscf/hr)

0.004 Emission Rate of Gaseous Fluoride lb F/hr

0.087 Emission Rate of Gaseous Fluoride lb F/d

0.038 Emission Rate of Particulate Fluoride lb F/hr

0.916 Emission Rate of Particulate Fluoride lb F/d

0.042 Emission Rate of Total Fluoride lb F/hr

1.258 Emission Rate of Total Particulate lb/hr

0.000723888 Emission Rate of gaseous Fluoride mg/dscf

0.007634616 Emission Rate of particulate Fluoride mg/dscf

0.251579663 Emission Rate of Particulate Matter mg/dscf

A398 Reactor C Emissions

TF-A398 Reactor C6

Combined Method 5 Parameter and Analytical
1509.000 Scope of part.       This part implements FAR part 9 and provides policy and procedures pertaining to contractor's responsibility; debarment, suspension, and ineligibility; and organizational conflicts of interest.    **Parent topic:** PART 1509 - CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS
```

[109th Congress Public Law 322]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ322.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 1756]]

Public Law 109-322
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
        To reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation 
              Act. <<NOTE: Oct. 11, 2006 -  [H.R. 5539]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: North American Wetlands 
Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2006. 16 USC 4401 note.>> assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``North American Wetlands Conservation 
Reauthorization Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 7(c) of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 
U.S.C. 4406(c)) is amended by striking ``fiscal year 2007'' and 
inserting ``each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012''.

    Approved October 11, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5539 (S. 3617):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 109-639 (Comm. on Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Sept. 12, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### ALEXANDER et al. v. TRENT TILE CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

Action by Elmer F. Alexander and others against the Trent Tile Company.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1103.
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 70-2 Filed 06/27/2007 Page 1 of 1
Double



# F ourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 27, 2015

N o. 04

- 13

- 00529

- CV

SCHUHARDT CONSULTING PROFIT SHARING PLAN

,

Appellant/Cross

- Appellee

v.

DOUBLE KNOBS MOUNTAIN RANCH, INC.

Appellee/C r oss

- Appellant

From the 3 8th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- 09

- 28311

- CV

- B

Honorable Mickey R. Pennington, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

S itting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice “voting to request a response”

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason K. Pulliam, Justice

The court has considered the Appellant's Motion for En Banc Consideration, the motion

is DENIED.

__ _______________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of March, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CR NO. 3:06CR191-MHT

)

SPRING M. DAWSON )

)

ORDER

Based upon this court’s order setting the trial in the above-styled case for

September 17, 2007, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that a final pretrial conference be and is hereby set for July 16, 2007

at 1:00 p.m. in courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street,

Montgomery, Alabama. 

That all applicable deadlines contained in the prior arraignment order are adjusted

accordingly, provided, however that the deadline for the filing of pretrial, dispositive

motions is not extended.

Done this 31st day of May, 2007.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-00191-MHT-CSC Document 23 Filed 05/31/2007 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7071

JOHN B. RUFFIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN MCGARRITTY, Greenville State Prison;

WARDEN MILLARD, Greenville State Prison

(Official/Individual Capacity); WARDEN DAVIS,

Greenville State Prison (Official/Individual

capacity); WARDEN TRENT, Greenville State

Prison (Official/Individual Capacity); UNIT

MANAGER EVERETTE, Greenville State Prison

(Official/Individual Capacity); RUFUS

FLEMINGS, Warden, Regional Director, State

Grievance (Official/Individual Capacity);

LIEUTENANT TINSLEY, Internal Affairs, Virginia

State Department of Corrections; OFFICER

AUTRY, Inmate Hearing Officer, Greenville

State Prison (Official/Individual Capacity);

OFFICER TILLERY, Grievance Coordinator

(Official/Individual Capacity); DOCTOR

LAYBOURNE, Greensville Correctional

(Official/Individual Capacity); DOCTOR

BRADLEY, Greensville Correctional (Official/

Individual Capacity),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-04-266-2)

Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: December 1, 2004
- 2 -

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John B. Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

John B. Ruffin appeals the district court order

dismissing all of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) claims, except that

he was held in segregation without due process, for failure to

exhaust. Ruffin further appeals the district court order

dismissing his § 1983 claim that he was held in segregation without

due process as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error. We note that even if Ruffin’s claim that he

was denied access to his legal materials was exhausted, it is also

frivolous under § 1915A(b)(1) because he failed to demonstrate

injury or prejudice caused by his inability to obtain those

materials. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). 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
2909.506 Procedures.

(a) If a prospective contractor disagrees with the decision of a contracting officer regarding an

organizational conflict of interest and requests higher level review as referred to in FAR 9.506, the

matter must be referred to the Office of the Solicitor, Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal

Counsel, and the Director, Division of Acquisition Management Services.

(b) Referrals must be made by the HCA concerned and include the contracting officer's decision and

the position of the prospective contractor.

Parent topic: Subpart 2909.5 - Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest
EXHIBIT 32.1 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gallery of History, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Todd Axelrod, Chief Executive Office of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

1.	 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.	The information contained in the Report fairly presented, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Todd Axelrod
----------------
Todd Axelrod
Chief Executive Officer

May 14, 2004




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
S. 335

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

An Act

To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL AWARD ACT.

(a) EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENTS REGARDING FINANCIAL OPERATIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL AWARD PROGRAM; NONCOMPLIANCE

WITH REQUIREMENTS.—Section 104(c)(2)(A) of the Congressional

Award Act (2 U.S.C. 804(c)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘and

2004’’ and inserting ‘‘2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009’’.

(b) TERMINATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 108 of the Congressional Award

Act (2 U.S.C. 808) is amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2004’’

and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2009’’.

(2) SAVINGS PROVISION.—During the period of October 1,

2004, through the date of the enactment of this section, all

actions and functions of the Congressional Award Board under

the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) shall have

the same effect as though no lapse or termination of the Board

ever occurred.

(c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—The Congressional Award Act

is amended—

(1) in section 103 (2 U.S.C. 803)—

(A) in subsection (a)(1)(B) and (C), by striking ‘‘a a

local’’ and inserting ‘‘a local’’; and

(B) in subsection (b)(3)(B), by striking ‘‘section’’ each

place it appears and inserting ‘‘subsection’’; and

(2) in section 104(c)(2)(A) (2 U.S.C. 804(c)(2)(A)), by

inserting a comma after ‘‘1993’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### § 987.47 Surplus.

All cull dates and all substandard dates, including such dates blended with varieties within the generic term *dates* not regulated by this part, except any utility dates released to human consumption outlets pursuant to § 987.56, are surplus dates of any crop year. No handler shall ship or deliver such surplus dates to other than the Committee or its designee(s) for disposition in eligible outlets for such dates, except that any producer or handler may dispose of any such surplus dates of his own production within his own livestock feeding operations. Surplus dates delivered to the Committee shall be disposed of by it, in those outlets specified in § 987.56, at the best prices attainable and the proceeds returned pro rata, after deduction of Committee costs, to equity holders. The Committee may assist handlers with the cleaning, storage, or delivery of surplus dates and may, with the approval of the Secretary, establish rules and regulations necessary and incidental to administration of this regulation.

[27 FR 6818, July 19, 1962, as amended at 43 FR 4251, Feb. 1, 1978]
§ 966.52 Issuance of regulations. The Secretary shall limit the handling of tomatoes whenever he finds from the recommendation and information submitted by the Committee, or from other available information, that such regulation would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act. Such regulation may: ( a ) Limit, in any or all portions of the production area, the handling of particular grades, sizes, qualities (including maturity as a factor of grade or quality), or packs of any or all varieties of tomatoes, during any period; or
( b ) Limit the handling of particular grades, sizes, qualities, or packs of tomatoes differently, from different varieties, for different stages of maturity, for different portions of the production area, for different containers, for different markets, for different purposes specified in § 966.54, or any combination of the foregoing, during any period; or
( c ) Limit the handling of tomatoes by establishing, in terms of grades, sizes, or both, minimum standards of quality and maturity; or
( d ) Fix the size, weight, capacity, dimensions, markings (including labels and stamps), or pack of the container or containers which may be used in the packaging, transportation, sale, shipment, or other handling of tomatoes.
[20 FR 7357, Oct. 4, 1955. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 33 FR 8586, June 12, 1968; 34 FR 19186, Dec. 4, 1969]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6464

STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SIDNEY HARKLEROAD, Superintendent; THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-41-1) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 5, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Williams that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Williams failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Williams has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Williams’ leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED