alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 981.8 Inedible kernel.

*Inedible kernel* means a kernel, piece, or particle of almond kernel with any defect scored as serious damage, or damage due to mold, gum, shrivel, or brown spot, as defined in the United States Standards for Shelled Almonds, or which has embedded dirt not easily removed by washing. This definition may be modified by the Board with the approval of the Secretary: *Provided,* That the Board shall submit any recommendation for modification to the Secretary not later than August 1.

[41 FR 26852, June 30, 1976]
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 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 Intervoice, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Craig
E. Holmes, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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 and the requirement set forth in Rule
13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange
Act), that:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Exchange Act; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. This Certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Date: October 12, 2004 /s/ Craig E. HolmesCraig E. HolmesExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
|  | **Acknowledgements**
**PIP Training Initiative Background**
**Goals and Objectives**
**Agenda**
**Day One**Module 1: IntroductionModule 2: Prevention and Parenting Theory and ResearchModule 3: Parenting Programming Types and Strategies
**Day Two**Module 4: Starting and Maintaining Parent ProgramsModule 5: Parenting Resource Development and Evaluation IssuesModule 6: Next Steps in Developing Parenting Programs
**Day Three**TOT Only: Trainer/Facilitator Presentation & Delivery Training
**Resource Guide**
Please feel free to make all the copies you want of all the training text in this manual provided credit is given.  You have our permission.
ONDCP |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6109

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. NICOLE ESTELLA JONES , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:13

- cr - 00141

- FL

- 1 ; 5:16

- cv - 00297

- FL )

Submitted : October 1, 2021 Decided: October 20, 2021

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges , and KEENAN , Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Sean Paul Vitrano , VITRANO LAW OFFICES, PLLC , Wake Forest, North Carolina, for Appellant. Evan Rikhye, Assistant U nited States Attorney , OF FICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Nicole Estella Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Government’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and denying relief on Jones’ 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating tha t reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal content ions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Cullen *v.*Tyler.

May 16, 1913.

Hmii, J.

There was no abuse of discretion in the first grant of a new trial in this case. Civil Code, § 6204.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*80Eviction of intruder. Before Judge Hammond. Burke superior court. January *27, 1912.*

*W. H: Davis*and *C. B. Garlick,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. L. Brinson*and *H. J. FullbrigM,*contra.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Buckingham Exploration Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.


Dated: September 15, 2009


By:/s/ Christopher Robin Relph
Christopher Robin Relph
Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet dated December 31, 1997 and its
Consolidated Statement of Operations covering the period from October 1,
1997 to December 31, 1997 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-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           27021
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    42762
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    6916365
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         2811262
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1667186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8991953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        1310478
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          5918
<OTHER-SE>                                     7160554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8991953
<SALES>                                         687106
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                687106
<CGS>                                           253469
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   253469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                353328
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               34782
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  85813
<INCOME-TAX>                                     18800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              67013
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     67013
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

February 20, 2007

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: Camellia Therapeutic Foster Agency, LLC v. The AL Dept of Human Resources

Case Number: 2:06cv00735-MHT

This Notice of Correction was filed in the referenced case this date to correct the PDF

document previously attached. 

The correct PDF document is attached to this notice for your review. Reference is made to

document # 23 filed on February 20, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 24 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

CAMELLIA THERAPEUTIC FOSTER ) 

AGENCY, LLC REPRESENTED BY ) 

JOSEPH APPIAH, CHAIRMAN ) 

THERAPEUTIC FOSTER CHILDREN, ) 

FOSTER PARENTS AND STAFF ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

V. ) CASE NO. 2:06cv735-MHT 

) 

THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ) 

HUMAN RESOUSRES ) 

 ) 

Defendant. 

 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

 COMES NOW the undersigned counsel and files this motion to withdraw and as 

grounds therefore states the following: 

1. The undersigned counsel for the Alabama Department of Human Resources is 

also a member of the Air Force Reserves. He is being called to active duty in the Air 

Force for a period of approximately 7 months. 

2. DHR has appointed other counsel for this case who is filing a notice of 

appearance. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

TROY KING 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

SHARON E. FICQUETTE 

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

STATE OF ALABAMA 

\s\ Joel Marsh________________________ 

Joel C. Marsh MAR052 

Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 24-2 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 1 of 2
Assistant Attorney General 

State of Alabama 

Department of Human Resources 

Post Office Box 304000 

Montgomery, Alabama 36130-4000 

Telephone: (334) 242-9330 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing MOTION TO WITHDRAW on 

the following by placing a copy thereof, addressed to him as indicated below, in United 

States Mail, First Class postage prepaid, on this the 20th day of February 2007. 

Joseph Appiah 

Pro Se plaintiff 

P.O. Box 788 

Phenix City, Alabama 36868 

 

/s/ Joel Marsh

Joel C. Marsh – MAR052 

Assistant Attorney General 

State of Alabama 

Department of Human Resources 

Post Office Box 304000 

 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-4000 

 Telephone: (334) 242-9330

Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 24-2 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 4 of 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN

SUPREME COURT

September 30, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

ROBERT CHARLES COOK,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 154394

COA: 317010

Oakland CC: 1970-006123-FX

_________________________________________/

Statement of Justice Zahra Denying Defendant-Appellant’s Motion to Disqualify

ZAHRA, J. To establish a basis for disqualifying a judge, a party must show that the judge 

has an actual bias, which is both personal and extrajudicial, against the party or that the 

probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. Cain v Dep’t of 

Corrections, 451 Mich 470, 497-498 (1996); Crampton v Dep’t of State, 395 Mich 347, 351 

(1975). Adverse rulings do not establish actual bias unless they “display a deep-seated 

antagonism [by the judge] that would make fair judgment impossible.” Cain at 496, quoting 

Liteky v United States, 510 US 540, 555 (1994). 

Here, the defendant-appellant seeks to disqualify me and other members of the Court 

based on (1) our denial of his earlier application for leave to appeal and various motions by an 

order dated September 5, 2014, and (2) a vague and unsupported allegation of an insurance fraud 

cover-up. I am unaware of the alleged insurance fraud and do not harbor any personal bias 

against the defendant-appellant. I therefore decline to recuse myself from participating in the 

decision of this case.
§ 1040.85 Definitions of “Normal Operation” and “Statutory Objective”. For purpose of §§ 1040.86 and 1040.87, the terms *normal operation* and *statutory objective* shall have the following meanings: ( a ) *Normal operation* means the operation of a program or activity without significant changes that would impair its ability to meet its objectives.
( b ) *Statutory objective* means any purpose of a program or activity expressly stated in any Federal, State, or local statute or ordinance adopted by an elected, general purpose legislative body.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Rivera, Appellant.

Submitted September 10, 2007;

decided September 18, 2007

Reported below, 38 AD3d 292.

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CAMELLIA THERAPEUTIC FOSTER )

AGENCY, LLC, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. ) Case No.: 2:06cv735

STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT )

OF HUMAN RESOURCES, )

Defendants.

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW the undersigned counsel and gives notice of his appearance as

counsel for Plaintiff, Camellia Therapeutic Foster Agency, LLC, and requests that further

service and notice be transmitted to the undersigned via the CM/ECF system.

Respectfully submitted,

is/Dwayne L. Brown

Dwayne L. Brown (BRO149)

Of Counsel:

Law Office of Dwayne L. Brown, P.C.

Post Office Box 230205

Montgomery, AL 36123-0205

Telephone: (334) 277-3757

Facsimile: (334) 277-3613

E-Mail: dbrownadbrownatty.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify, that on September 5, 2006, a copy of the foregoing document

was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will

send notification of such filing to the following:

Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 1 of 2
Troy King

Attorney General

11 South Union Street

Montgomery, AL 36130

Joel C. Marsh

Assistant Attorney General

State of Alabama

Department of Human Resources

Legal Office

Post Office Box 304000

Montgomery, AL 36130-4000

/s/Dwayne L. Brown

Of Counsel

Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### Higdon *v.*Williamson *et al.*

June 17, 1913.

Evans, P. J.

1. The court’s refusal to strike a plea as being insufficient in law is reviewable by direct exception, and can not be made a ground of a motion for a new trial. *Brandon*v. *Akers,*134 *Ga.*78 (67 S. E. 540).

2. Where a payee of a note sues the maker, and the defendant in his plea admits the execution of the note and that the plaintiff is the legal holder, and sets up a defense to the same, the burden is upon the defendant to establish his.defense, and he is entitled to open and conclude. *Martin*v. *Hale,*136 *Ga.*228 (71 S. E. 133). This rule is not changed in a case where the defendant in his plea, admitting the execution of the note, avers that certain words relating to a mortgage have been interpolated therein, where such alteration is not material to the defense set up, and is not pleaded as a defense, but the averment is made merely as a part of the history attending the execution of the note.

3. The most of the questions objected to as leading were not open to that criticism. The court in his discretion may allow a leading question to be propounded to a witness; and unless that discretion is abused, the allowance of a leading question is not ground for new trial. *Roberts*v. *DeVane,*129 *Ga.*604 (59 S. E. 289).

4. A general exception that the court’s charge as a whole is inapt and incorrectly presents the law, with no specific error pointed out, is not ground for new trial where the charge contains any pertinent and correct principle of law.

5. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not abuse his discretion in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*188Complaint. 1, 1912. Before Judge Morris. Fannin superior court. June

4. *8. J. Hall, G. F. Gober,*and *G. H. Griffin,*for plaintiff.

J. *Z. Foster, William Butt,*and *T.*4. *Brown,*for defendants.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Herbert B. Grimes, certify that:

|   
|---
|(1)
|   
|(2)
|   
|(3)
|   
|(4)

|  
|--
|a.
|  
|b.
|  
|c.

|   
|---
|(5)

|  
|--
|a.
|  
|b.

|                     |  |                                                                                                                                 
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 20, 2008 |  | /s/ Herbert B. GrimesHerbert B. GrimesChairman of the Board of Directors andChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)



---
§ 1014.6 Limitation on authority. ( a ) An award, compromise, or settlement of a claim in excess of $25,000 shall be made only with the prior written approval of the Attorney General or his or her designee. For the purposes of this paragraph, a principal claim and any derivative or subrogated claim shall be treated as a single claim.
( b ) An administrative claim may be adjusted, determined, compromised, or settled only after the Department of Justice has been consulted if, in the opinion of the General Counsel or designee: ( 1 ) A new precedent may be involved;
( 2 ) A question of policy may be involved;
( 3 ) The United States may be entitled to indemnity or contribution from a third party and the DOE is unable to adjust the third party claim; or
( 4 ) The compromise of a particular claim, as a practical matter, may control the disposition of a related claim in which the amount to be paid may exceed $25,000.
( c ) An administrative claim may be adjusted, determined, compromised, or settled only after consultation with the Department of Justice when the DOE is aware that the United States or an employee, agent, or cost-type contractor of the United States is involved in litagation based on a claim arising out of the same incident or transaction.
( d ) The authority of DOE subordinate claims officials to make awards, compromises, and settlements of over $10,000 is subject to the approval of the General Counsel, the Deputy General Counsel, or the Deputy General Counsel for Legal Services.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of THT Heat Transfer
Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

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

2.       Information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement
this 28th day of March 2011.

/s/ Guohong
ZhaoGuohong Zhao Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to THT Heat Transfer Technology, Inc. and will be retained
by THT Heat Transfer Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to §18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3392 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3392

  To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain drawback 
                                claims.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   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 provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain drawback 
                                claims.

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

SECTION 1. LIQUIDATION OR RELIQUIDATION OF CERTAIN DRAWBACK CLAIMS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, the Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection shall, not later than 90 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, liquidate or reliquidate the 
drawback claims, as filed, that are described in subsection (c).
    (b) Payment of Amounts Due.--Any amounts due pursuant to the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the claims described in subsection (c) 
shall be paid not later than 90 days after the date of such liquidation 
or reliquidation.
    (c) Drawback Claims.--The drawback claims referred to in subsection 
(a) are the following:

 
                   Drawback claim number                     Filing date
 
BI6/0693003-9                                                  10/07/97
BI6/0693103-7                                                  10/07/97
BI6/0793003-8                                                  10/03/97
BI6/0793037-6                                                  10/03/97
BI6/0793038-4                                                  10/03/97
BI6/0793039-2                                                  10/03/97
BI6/0893040-9                                                  10/07/97
BI6/0893041-7                                                  10/10/97
BI6/0993042-4                                                  10/10/97
BQ7/0000202-6                                                  08/10/98
BQ7/0000203-4                                                  08/10/98
BQ7/0000204-2                                                  08/10/98
BQ7/0000208-3                                                  08/10/98
BQ7/0000209-1                                                  08/10/98
 

                                 <all>
```