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

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

DELOISE PRICE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv721-MHT

) 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., and )

EXTREME PERFORMANCE, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (doc. no.

24) is set for submission, without oral argument, on

August 20, 2007, with all briefs due by said date.

DONE, this the 8th day of January, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 25 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 1
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, 2005 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 presentes, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



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

May 13, 2005




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.
Subpart 1536.2 - Special Aspects of Contracting for Construction    **Parent topic:** PART 1536 - CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS1536.209 Construction contracts with architect-engineer firms.       (a) The provisions of FAR 36.209 do not apply to subcontractors performing treatability studies.          (b) The provisions of FAR 36.209 also do not apply to subcontractors whose input during the design phase does not substantially affect the course of the design work.          (c) Approval under FAR 36.209 is not required for subcontractors under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. Approval for all other subcontractors and prime contractors may be granted by the Chief of the Contracting Office. In reviewing requests for approval, the Chief of the Contracting Office shall consider factors such as the availability of other firms to perform the necessary construction or Superfund remedial action work, the estimated cost to the Government, and the policy of the Agency to promote the use of innovative technology.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sabri Jakova, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 22, 1980, convicting him of assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. The trial court’s confusing charge on justification and its failure to adequately respond to jurors’ requests for further instructions warrant a reversal in the interest of justice. Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Rabin and Margett, JJ., concur.
252.249-7002 Notification of Anticipated

Contract Termination or Reduction.

As prescribed in 249.7004, use the following clause:

NOTIFICATION OF ANTICIPATED CONTRACT TERMINATION OR REDUCTION (DEC 2022)

(a) Definitions. As use in this clause—

“Major defense program” means a program that is carried out to produce or acquire a major system

(as defined in 10 U.S.C. 3041(a)).

(b) Scope. This clause implements section 1372 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1994 (Pub. L. 103-160) and section 824 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1997 (Pub. L. 104-201), which are intended to help establish benefit eligibility under the

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. chapter 32) for employees of DoD contractors

and subcontractors adversely affected by contract terminations or substantial reductions under

major defense programs.

(c) Notice to employees and state and local officials. (1) Within 2 weeks after the Contracting Officer

notifies the Contractor that contract funding will be terminated or substantially reduced, the

Contractor shall provide notice of such anticipated termination or reduction to—

(i) Each employee representative of the Contractor's employees whose work is directly related to the

defense contract; or

(ii) If there is no such representative, each such employee;

(iii) The State or entity designated by the State to carry out rapid response activities described in

the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3174(a)(2)(A)(i)); and

(iv) The chief elected official of the unit of general local government within which the adverse effect

may occur.

(2) The notice provided an employee under paragraph (c)(1) of this clause shall have the same effect

as a notice of termination to the employee for the purposes of determining whether such employee is

eligible for training, adjustment assistance, and employment services under the Workforce

Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. Chapter 32).

(d) Notice to subcontractors. Not later than 60 days after the Contractor receives the Contracting

Officer’s notice of the anticipated termination or reduction, the Contractor shall—

(1) Provide notice of the anticipated termination or reduction to each first-tier subcontractor with a

subcontract that equals or exceeds the threshold specified in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS) 249.7003(c)(1) at the time of the notice; and

(2) Require that each such subcontractor—

(i) Provide notice to each of its subcontractors with a subcontract that equals or exceeds the

threshold specified in DFARS 249.7003(c)(2)(i) at the time of the notice; and
(ii) Impose a similar notice and flowdown requirement to subcontractors with subcontracts that

equal or exceed the threshold specified in DFARS 249.7003(c)(2)(ii) at the time of the notice.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 252.249 RESERVED
#### § 927.40 Expenses.

The Fresh Pear Committee and the Processed Pear Committee are authorized, each independently, to incur such expenses as the Secretary finds may be necessary to carry out their functions under this subpart. The funds to cover such expenses shall be acquired by the levying of assessments as provided in § 927.41.
#### § 97.121 Corrected certificate—applicant's mistake.

When a certificate is incorrect because of a mistake by the applicant of a clerical or typographical nature, or of minor character, or in the description of the variety (including, but not limited to, the use of a misleading variety name or a name assigned to a different variety of the same species), and the mistake is found by the Commissioner to have occurred in good faith and does not require a further examination, the Commissioner may, upon payment of the required fee and return of the original certificate, correct the certificate by issuing a corrected certificate, in accordance with section 85 of the Act. If the mistake requires a reexamination, a correction of the certificate shall be dependent on the results of the reexamination.
315.606-1 Receipt and initial review.

(d) OPDIVs may consider an unsolicited proposal even though an organization initially submitted it

as a grant application. However, OPDIVs shall not award contracts based on unsolicited proposals

that have been rejected for grant awards due to lack of scientific merit.

Parent topic: Subpart 315.6 - Unsolicited Proposals
52.236-7 Permits and Responsibilities.       As prescribed in 36.507, insert the following clause:          Permits and Responsibilities (Nov 1991)          The Contractor shall, without additional expense to the Government, be responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses and permits, and for complying with any Federal, State, and municipal laws, codes, and regulations applicable to the performance of the work. The Contractor shall also be responsible for all damages to persons or property that occur as a result of the Contractor’s fault or negligence. The Contractor shall also be responsible for all materials delivered and work performed until completion and acceptance of the entire work, except for any completed unit of work which may have been accepted under the contract.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.236 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet dated December 31, 1999 and its
Consolidated Statement of Operations covering the period from October 1,
1999 to December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statement and notes thereof.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           10751
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    21816
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    6997867
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         2685918
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1423787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9098044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        2736310
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          5918
<OTHER-SE>                                     5923870
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9098044
<SALES>                                         421296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                421296
<CGS>                                           204269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   204269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                372520
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               55531
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (194308)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (194308)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (194308)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.04)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Shawn Green, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Submitted June 4, 2007;

decided September 4, 2007

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.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

LETICIA G. ANDREWS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv729-MHT

) (WO) 

MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS, )

INC., etc., )

)

Defendant. )

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the joint stipulation of dismissal with

prejudice (Doc. No. 71), it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and

DECREE of the court that this cause is dismissed in its

entirety with prejudice as to all claims.

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this

document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant

to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE, this the 20th day of June, 2008.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00729-MHT-TFM Document 72 Filed 06/20/08 Page 1 of 1
# CI2021222EN.01000101.xml

| 11.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 222/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 222/1

---

Statement by the Commission

(2021/C 222 I/01)

The Commission recognises the importance of a common licensing and enforcement capacity-building and training programme for an effective EU export control system. The Commission, in consultation with the Dual-Use Coordination Group, undertakes to explore the human and financial resource implications that such a programme may entail, with a view to identifying options for the design, modalities and deployment of a capacity-building and training programme.

---
#### Mary McKinney et al., Appellants, v Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health et al., Respondents.

Submitted August 13, 2007;

decided September 6, 2007

Reported below, 41 AD3d 252.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### § 987.61 Reports of handler carryover.

Each handler shall file each year with the Committee written reports of his carryover of dates as of March 1, October 1, and at such other times as the Committee may prescribe: *Provided,* That during those seasons when volume regulations are established by the Secretary, the handler shall file an additional report on his January 1 carryover. Such reports shall be filed within 10 days of the date of the carryover. These reporting dates specified may be changed, upon recommendation of the Committee, together with substantiation of the need therefore, with the approval of the Secretary.

[43 FR 4253, Feb. 1, 1978]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

THOMAS C. RICHARDSON,

Petitioner,

v. 4:20cv547–WS/HTC

MARK S. INCH,

Respondent.

 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S AMENDED

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 13) docketed March 8, 2021. The magistrate judge recommends that

Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as

untimely. Petitioner has filed objections (ECF No. 14) to the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation, and those objections have been carefully reviewed by

the undersigned. 

Upon review of the record in light of Petitioner’s objections, the court has

determined that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation should be

Case 4:20-cv-00547-WS-HTC Document 15 Filed 04/05/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

adopted. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 13) is

hereby ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. Petitioner's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 12) is

DISMISSED as untimely.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "Petitioner's petition for writ of

habeas corpus is DISMISSED."

4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of April , 2021.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. 

Case 4:20-cv-00547-WS-HTC Document 15 Filed 04/05/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 993.54 Establishment of salable and reserve percentages.

Whenever the Secretary finds, from the recommendations and supporting information supplied by the committee, or from any other available information, that to establish the percentages of prunes for any crop year which shall be salable prunes and reserve prunes, respectively, or to modify the previously established percentages, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act, he shall establish or modify such percentages. The salable and reserve percentages when applied to the natural condition weight of prunes, excluding the quantity of undersized prunes determined pursuant to § 993.49(c), received during the crop year by a handler from producers and dehydrators, plus that diverted tonnage (dried weight natural condition prune basis) on diversion certificates issued pursuant to § 993.62 and credited to or held by him, shall determine the weight of each handler's receipts which are salable prunes and reserve prunes. The total of the salable and reserve percentages shall equal 100 percent. A cooperative marketing association may concentrate the prunes of its producer members before applying the salable and reserve percentages.

[30 FR 9799, Aug. 6, 1965, as amended at 37 FR 862, Jan. 20, 1972]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6356

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ANTONIO LUCAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR91-308, CA-01-278-S)

Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Antonio Lucas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Antonio Lucas seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Lucas, Nos. CR-91-308;

CA-01-278-S (D. Md. filed Feb. 1, 2001; entered Feb. 2, 2001).

Lucas’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. 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
§ 780.3 Reservations of authority. ( a ) Representatives of FSA and CCC may correct all errors in data entered on program contracts, loan agreements, and other program documents and the results of the computations or calculations made pursuant to the contract or agreement. FSA and CCC will furnish appropriate notice of such corrections when corrections are deemed necessary.
( b ) Nothing contained in this part shall preclude the Secretary, or the Administrator of FSA, Executive Vice President of CCC, the Chief of NRCS, if applicable, or a designee, from determining at any time any question arising under the programs within their respective authority or from reversing or modifying any decision made by a subordinate employee of FSA or its county and State committees, or CCC.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Ormond, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 26, 1979, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The cross-examination of the defendant, during which the prosecutor compelled him to characterize prosecution witnesses as liars, was improper (see *People v Mariable,*58 AD2d 877; *People v Crossman,*69 AD2d 887), but in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, we hold that the error was harmless. None of defendant’s other arguments have merit. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, O’Connor and Lazer, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             148
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (4)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,588
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    14
<PP&E>                                             295
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (196)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,708
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,263
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,947
<SALES>                                          2,942
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,942
<CGS>                                            1,709
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   866
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 160
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    211
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                211
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       211
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32



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
of Universal Detection Technology (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jacques Tizabi, Principal Executive Officer
and Acting Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Registrant, certify to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Registrant.





|Dated: August 20, 2012 | /s/ Jacques Tizabi
        Jacques Tizabi

Principal Executive Officer and Acting
Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
|---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### AMERICAN SEEDING MACH. CO., Respondent, v. MacARTHUR et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 27, 1914.)

Action by the American Seeding Machine Company against John A. MacArthur and others.

No opinion. Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation filed.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 810.1405 Special grades and special grade requirements.

*Smutty sorghum.* Sorghum that has kernels covered with smut spores to give a smutty appearance in mass, or that contains 20 or more smut balls in 100 grams of sorghum.

[52 FR 24418, June 30, 1987, as amended at 52 FR 24441, June 30, 1987]