alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 900.9 Oral and written arguments. ( a ) *Oral argument before judge.* Oral argument before the judge shall be in the discretion of the judge. Such argument, when permitted, may be limited by the judge to any extent that he finds necessary for the expeditious disposition of the proceeding and shall be reduced to writing and made part of the transcript.
( b ) *Briefs, proposed findings and conclusions.* The judge shall announce at the hearing a reasonable period of time within which interested persons may file with the hearing clerk proposed findings and conclusions, and written arguments or briefs, based upon the evidence received at the hearing, citing, where practicable, the page or pages of the transcript of the testimony where such evidence appears. Factual material other than that adduced at the hearing or subject to official notice shall not be alluded to therein, and, in any case, shall not be considered in the formulation of the marketing agreement or marketing order. If the person filing a brief desires the Secretary to consider any objection made by such person to a ruling of the judge, as provided in § 900.8(d), he shall include in the brief a concise statement concerning each such objection, referring where practicable, to the pertinent pages of the transcript.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60024 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TOMMY C. MARSH, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:96-CV-33 W

- - - - - - - - - - May 27, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Tommy C. Marsh, federal prisoner #03426-043, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He argues that the district court erred by denying his claim that his conviction for using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), should be reversed in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey v. United States , 516 U.S. 137 (1995). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons statedNo. 97-60024 -2- by the district court. See United States v. Marsh , No. 4:96-CV33 W (S.D. Miss. Dec. 31, 1996). Marsh’s contention that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, raised for the first time on appeal, does not rise to the level of plain error.
See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n , 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Marsh’s motion to enlarge the record on appeal is
DENIED. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lloyd John Joslin, Appellant.

Greenblott, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County, rendered April 8, 1968, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty to illegal possession of a firearm. Appellant argues that his motion to suppress the .38 caliber revolver and the ammunition thereto should have been granted, contending that it was seized as a result of an unconstitutional search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Appellant was arrested on January 15, 1968 in a restaurant in Oneonta. The testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress indicated that a waitress telephoned the police requesting that an officer be sent to the restaurant immediately. When the officer arrived, she told him that a patron had informed her that appellant, a patron, had a gun hidden under his shirt. The police officer approached appellant and asked him to accompany him to the back of the room. The officer testified that he asked appellant if he had a gun; appellant replied, “Yes” and “made a motion towards the front of him”. The officer then patted his shirt, felt a hard object, reached beneath the shirt and removed the gun. “ A search is reasonable if conducted pursuant to a legal search warrant [and may be upheld if conducted] by consent, or incident to a lawful arrest” *(People*v. *Loria,*10 N Y 2d 368, 373). While none of these requirements were present, respondent contends, and we agree, that a “ frisk ” and not a “ search ” was here involved. Although section 180-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the “ stop and frisk ” statute, does not permit the officer to conduct a full search *(People*v. *Peters,*18 N Y 2d 238), it does permit him to contact or pat the outer clothing of a person to detect by the sense of touch if a concealed weapon is being carried *(People*v. *Rivera,*14 N Y 2d 441). As was stated in *Terry*v. *Ohio*(392 U. S. 1, 27): *“*There must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.” The evidence necessary “to make the inquiry is not of the same degree or conelusiveness as that required for an arrest. The stopping of the individual to inquire is not an arrest and the ground upon which the police may malee the inquiry may be less incriminating than the ground for an arrest for a crime known to have been committed.” *(People*v. *Rivera, supra,*p. 445). While appellant denies that the police officer asked him if he had a gun, this was a question of credibility left properly to the discretion of the court. We see no basis for disturbing its determination. Judgment affirmed. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Greenblott, J.; Aulisi, J., not voting.
Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 2 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 3 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 4 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 5 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 6 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 7 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 8 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 9 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 10 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 11 of 11
3024.203 Policy.       (a) The Department's implementation of the Freedom of Information Act is codified in regulations 6 CFR part 5, subpart B, FOIA. Information requests concerning awards beyond those routinely handled by contracting officers (e.g., identification of successful offerors, public announcements, debriefings, surety notices under HSAR 3028.106–6) shall be submitted to the FOIA Office of the Component making the award. The FOIA office for the DHS Office of Operations only, is Departmental Disclosure Officer (DDO), DHS, Washington, DC 20528 or *foia@dhs.gov.*          (b) See (FAR) 48 CFR 15.207(b) on safeguarding proposals.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 3024.2—Freedom of Information Act
Subpart 316.3 - Cost-Reimbursement

Contracts

Parent topic: PART 316 - TYPES OF CONTRACTS

316.307 Contract clauses.

(a)

(1) If a contract for research and development is with a hospital (profit or nonprofit), the contracting

officer shall modify the “Allowable Cost and Payment” clause at FAR 52.216-7 by deleting from

paragraph (a) the words “Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 31.2” and substituting “45

CFR part 75.”

(2) The contracting officer shall also insert the clause at 352.216-70, Additional Cost Principles for

Hospitals (Profit or Non-Profit), in solicitations and contracts with a hospital (profit or non-profit)

when a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CR. NO. 2:06mj79-SRW

)

SANTO COLEMAN )

ORDER

Upon consideration of defendant's motion to revoke (Doc. # 24), filed September 5,

2006, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is DENIED.

DONE, this 6th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-mj-00079-SRW Document 26 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 1
Subpart 437.1 - Service Contracts - General    **Parent topic:** PART 437 - SERVICE CONTRACTING437.104 Personal services contracts.       USDA has the following specific statutory authorities to contract for personal services:          (a) Section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225) authorizes contracting with persons or organizations on a temporary basis, without regard to civil service compensation classification standards in 5 U.S.C., Chapter 51 and Subchapter III of Chapter 53, *Provided:*          (1) That no expenditures shall be made unless specifically provided for in the applicable appropriation, and          (2) Expenditures do not exceed any limitations prescribed in the appropriation.          (b) 7 U.S.C. 1627 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to contract with technically qualified persons, firms or organizations to perform research, inspection, classification, technical, or other special services, without regard to the civil-service laws, *Provided:* it is for a temporary basis and for a term not to exceed six months in any fiscal year.437.110 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.       (a) The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 452.237-70, Loss Damage, Destruction or Repair, in contracts for equipment rental, whether the equipment is furnished with or without operator.          (b) The contracting officer shall insert a provision substantially the same as the clause at 452.237-71, Pre-Bid/Pre-Proposal Conference, in all solicitations if a conference with prospective offerors will be held prior to the submittal of bids or proposals.          (c) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 452.237-73, Equipment Inspection visit, in solicitations if work is to be done on Government equipment and an offeror's inspection is encouraged for an understanding of the work to be performed prior to submittal of bids or proposals.          (d) The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 452.237-74, Key Personnel, in contracts if contract performance requires identification of the contractor's key personnel.          (e) The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 452.237-75, Restrictions Against Disclosure, in service contracts (including architect-engineer contracts) requiring restrictions on release of information developed or obtained in connection with performance of the contract.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v ) CR. NO. 2:06CR198-WKW

)

RONALD MCQUEEN )

ORDER

On November 13, 2006, this court conducted a hearing on the defendant’s motion

to suppress. The search warrant and amended search warrant at issue were not submitted

during the proceeding. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED as follows:

1. The Government shall submit the search warrant, amended search warrant,

and attached affidavits on or before November 27, 2006.

2. The defendant may file any objections to the authenticity of the documents

within five days of the submission of the warrants to this court.

Done this 17 day of November, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 35 Filed 11/17/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

BARBARA M. JEFFERS and )

JOAN K. CRAIG, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv685-WKW

)

RUSSELL COUNTY BOARD )

OF EDUCATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the defendant Nacrelli’s motion for an extension of time to

file the stipulation of dismissal (doc. # 64), it is

ORDERED that the motion be and is hereby GRANTED and that the time for

filing the stipulation of dismissal be and is hereby extended from March 11, 2008 to

March 25, 2008.

Done this 18th day of March, 2008.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 65 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 1 of 1
----

| 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:    5/12/09    | /s/Robert J. Schoonover |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                                              | Robert J. Schoonover    |
|                                              | President and           |
|                                              | Chief Executive Officer |

----
# Subpart 2928.2 - Sureties and Other Security for Bonds

**Parent topic:**PART 2928 - BONDS AND INSURANCE

## 2928.204 Alternatives in lieu of corporate or individual sureties.

Upon receipt of any of the types of securities listed in FAR 28.20l or FAR 28.203, the contracting officer must verify the validity of the security and coordinate the retention of the security with the Chief Financial Officer. Contracting officers may obtain access to Department of Treasury Circular 570 through the Internet at *http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html.*
#### In re BEDLE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 24, 1914.)

In the matter of the application of Joseph D. Bedle for admission to the bar.

No opinion. Application granted.
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) of Harvest Capital Credit Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Craig R. Kitchin, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





/s/ Craig R. KitchinName:Craig R. KitchinDate:April 2, 2018
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00334

- CR

D USTIN W

ADE H ESTAND AKA D USTIN

W. H ESTAND

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 355th Distr i ct Court

of Hood County (CR13595)

February 27, 2020

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

( p)

JUDGMENT ON REMAND

On remand from the court of criminal appeals, this court has considered the

record on appeal in th is case and holds that there was no reversible e rror in the trial

court ’ s ju dgment. It is ordered th at the judg ment o f the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
# Subpart 631.1—Applicability

**Parent topic:**PART 631—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

## 631.101 Objectives.

The Procurement Executive is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 31.101.
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM     Document 72      Filed 02/05/2008     Page 1 of 2

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM     Document 72      Filed 02/05/2008     Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., P.C., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SKILSTAF, INC., 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

3:06-cv-00728-MHT

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Skilstaf, Inc. 

(“Skilstaf”) identifies SkilStaf International, Inc. as its parent company. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 s/Charles A. Stewart III 

Charles A. Stewart III (STE067) 

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

The Alabama Center for Commerce 

401 Adams Avenue, Suite 780 

Montgomery, AL 36104 

Telephone: (334) 956-7700 

Facsimile: (334) 956-7701 

cstewart@bradleyarant.com

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 26 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

 s/Amelia T. Driscoll 

Amelia T. Driscoll (DRI016) 

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

1819 Fifth Avenue North 

Birmingham, AL 35203-2104 

Telephone: (205) 521-8000 

Facsimile: (205) 521-8800 

adriscoll@bradleyarant.com

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 Skilstaf, Inc. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 10th, 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 following: 

Robert E. Cole 

437 Chestnut Street, Suite 218 

Philadelphia, PA 19109 

Beth A. Friel 

Jeanne L. Bakker 

Mongtomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads 

123 South Broad Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19109 

and I hereby certify that I have mailed by U. S. Postal Service the document 

to the following non-CM/ECF participants: None. 

/s/ Amelia T. Driscoll 

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 26 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
               RULE 13a-14(b)


In connection with the Quarter Report of Gallery of History, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Rod Lynam, Chief Financial 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 presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Rod Lynam
Rod Lynam
Chief Financial Officer

May 12, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-CR-202-WKW

)

EUGENE L. CLECKLER )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the government’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response

(Doc. # 126) is GRANTED, and the deadline for the government’s response is extended to

August 8, 2008.

DONE this 30th day of July, 2008.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 128 Filed 07/30/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 67 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,335
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,318
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,201
<INVENTORY>                                        521
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,434
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,481
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,684
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           112
<OTHER-SE>                                    (13,602)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,481
<SALES>                                          8,972
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,972
<CGS>                                          (4,795)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (4,795)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (5,029)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (49)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (361)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,155)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,155)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,155)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)


</TABLE>
#### § 987.18 Committee.

*Committee* means the California Date Administrative Committee established pursuant to § 987.21.

[36 FR 15037, Aug. 12, 1971]