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. See Rule 2(d), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Courts. 

 Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to:

1. Open two separate civil actions - one for each separate state court judgment(s)

Petitioner seeks to challenge;

2. Assign the newly opened case to the Magistrate Judge and District Judge to which

the instant cause of action is assigned; 

Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 2
3. Place a copy of the petition filed by Petitioner in the instant action in the newly

opened case file;

4. Refer these case files to the appropriate Magistrate Judge for further proceedings

upon completion of the foregoing directives.

Done, this 10 day of August 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:06-cr-00199-MEF-CSC Document 6 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 1 of 1
§ 1008.9 Action in response to a request for access: initial denial of access. ( a ) A request by an individual for information about or access to a record or information pertaining to that individual that is contained in a system of records may be denied only upon a determination by the appropriate System Manager, with the concurrence of the appropriate General Counsel, that: ( 1 ) The record is subject to an exemption under § 1008.12;
( 2 ) The record is information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding; or
( 3 ) The individual has unreasonably failed to comply with the procedural requirements of this part.
( b ) The Privacy Act Officer shall give written notice of the denial of a request of information about or access to records or information pertaining to the individual and contained in a system of records. Such written notice shall be sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested and shall include the following information: ( 1 ) The System Manager's name and title;
( 2 ) The reasons for the denial, including citation to the appropriate sections of the Privacy Act and this part; and
( 3 ) Notification of the individual's right to appeal the denial pursuant to § 1008.11 and to administrative and judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(1)(B), as limited by 552a(g)(5).
( c ) Nothing in this section shall: ( 1 ) Require the furnishing of information or records that are not retrieved by the name or by some other identifying number, symbol or identifying particular of the individual making the request;
( 2 ) Prevent a System Manager from waiving any exemption authorizing the denial of records, in accordance with § 1008.12.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v ) CR. NO. 2:06cr209-WKW

)

BRIDGET Y. TAYLOR )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion to file financial affidavit under seal (doc. # 13) filed

by the defendant, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and is hereby GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that the defendant’s financial affidavit (doc. # 13) be and are hereby

PLACED UNDER SEAL until further order of this Court.

Done this 25 day of September, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 14 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 14.55 Removal of State court proceedings.

Upon a certification by the United States Attorney that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his or her office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the suit arose, any civil action or proceeding commenced in a State court may be removed to the district court of the United States for the district and division encompassing the place where the action or proceeding is pending in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2679.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          16,883
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   219
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     36,435
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           7,726
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             7,711
<LOANS>                                        452,564
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 528,805
<DEPOSITS>                                     455,294
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,599
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,235
<LONG-TERM>                                     12,994
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,544
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 528,805
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 33,356
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,256
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    94
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                35,706
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,155
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,948
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           21,758
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,407
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,796
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,475
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      10,475
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,480
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.77
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.94
<LOANS-NON>                                        826
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,034
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 10,344
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 7,331
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,120
<RECOVERIES>                                       408
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,026
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,026
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Subpart 3036.1—General

Parent topic: PART 3036—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

3036.104 Policy.

3036.104-90 Authority for one-step turn-key design-build

contracting for the United States Coast Guard (USCG).

The Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) of the U.S. Coast Guard may use one-step turn-key

selection procedures to enter into fixed-price design-build contracts in accordance with 14 U.S.C.

677.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-mj72-DRB

 )

JOSHUA WAYNE HESTER )

 

GOVERNMENT’S OBJECTION TO CONTINUANCE AND

RENEWED MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING

Comes now the United States of America, by and through Leura G. Canary, United States

Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and makes its objection to the continuance filed by the

defendant, and respectfully renews its motion for an expedited hearing on its appeal of the Magistrate

Court’s release order of August 2, 2006. In support of its motion, the government offers the

following: 

1. The government has moved for an expedited hearing in its appeal of the release order

dated August 3, 2006, and the Court has scheduled a hearing for August 11, 2006. 

2. Defense counsel has moved for a continuance based on a previously scheduled hearing

in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama. In addition, defense counsel would like to make an

out-of-state trip with his wife after the hearing in State Court.

3. The United States opposes the continuance because the defendant’s release poses a

continued danger to any other person and the community. Specifically, despite a finding of probable

cause that the defendant has produced child pornography, and a pending state court indictment for

the rape and molestation of two different girls, the defendant was released to live in the home of two

children, ages 12 and 14. 

Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 14 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

4. Based on the nature of the charges and the immediate concerns for the safety of any person

and the community brought on by the defendant’s release, the government respectfully objects to the

defendant’s motion and renews its request for an expedited hearing in this matter. 

Respectfully submitted this the 8 day of August, 2006. th

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ K. David Cooke, Jr.

K. DAVID COOKE, JR.

Assistant United States Attorney

Suite 201, One Court Square

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334) 223-7280

FAX: (334) 223-7280

E-mail: david.cooke@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 14 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-mj72-DRB

 )

JOSHUA WAYNE HESTER )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 8, 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: 

Stephen Roger Glassroth, Esq.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/K. David Cooke, Jr.

K. DAVID COOKE, JR.

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334)223-7280

Fax: (334)223-7135

E-mail: david.cooke@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 14 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 3 of 3
Subpart 1808.8—Acquisition of Printing and

Related Supplies

Parent topic: PART 1808—REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

1808.870 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.208–81, Restrictions on Printing and

Duplicating, in solicitations and contracts where there is a requirement for any printing, and/or any

duplicating/copying in excess of that described in paragraph (c) of the clause.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Solely
      for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C. 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
      undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer of Beicang Iron & Steel, Inc., that, to his knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report of the company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
      2007,
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the company’s financial condition and
      results of operations.




August 20, 2007/s/ Beicang
              HouBeicang
              Hou
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              Chief
                Financial Officer
#### Broadway Savings Bank, Appellant, v. Rachla Rosenblat, Doing Business as Panorama Apartments Co., et al., Respondents.

Order entered March 19, 1969, modified on the law to grant summary judgment to plaintiff for the relief demanded in the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the appellant. The documentary evidence establishes without question that defendant was in default on the mortgage in suit. Plaintiff declared the principal due but consented to withhold foreclosure until further notice. Plaintiff advised that notice would be given unless payments were met, including a service charge not provided for in the mortgage. Thereafter plaintiff gave notice that foreclosure would be instituted unless interest payments at the highest rate allowable by law were made. Defendant refused and this action for foreclosure was instituted. The defenses pleaded are oral representations which are completely belied by the writings. It is quite true that defendant was not required to meet any terms that plaintiff might demand; but it is equally patent that plaintiff could upon given notice institute foreclosure for this reason, or any other, or no reason at all. No issue is presented. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Eager, Tilzer, Markewich and Steuer, JJ.
§ 986.65 Marketing policy. By the end of each fiscal year, the Council shall make a report and recommendation to the Secretary on the Council's proposed marketing policy for the next fiscal year. Each year such report and recommendation shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds (2 ⁄ 3) of the members of the Council and shall include the following and, where applicable, on an inshell basis: ( a ) Estimate of the grower-cleaned production and handler-cleaned production in the area of production for the fiscal year;
( b ) Estimate of disappearance;
( c ) Estimate of the improved, native, and substandard pecans;
( d ) Estimate of the handler inventory on August 31, of inshell and shelled pecans;
( e ) Estimate of unassessed inventory;
( f ) Estimate of the trade supply, taking into consideration imports, and other factors;
( g ) Preferable handler inventory of inshell and shelled pecans on August 31 of the following year;
( h ) Projected prices in the new fiscal year;
( i ) Competing nut supplies; and
( j ) Any other relevant factors.
§ 1015.402 Suspension of collection activity. ( a ) DOE may suspend collection activity on a debt when: ( 1 ) DOE cannot locate the debtor;
( 2 ) The debtor's financial condition is expected to improve; or
( 3 ) The debtor has requested a waiver or review of the debt.
( b ) Based on the current financial condition of the debtor, DOE may suspend collection activity on a debt when the debtor's future prospects justify retention of the debt for periodic review and collection activity and: ( 1 ) The applicable statute of limitations has not expired; or
( 2 ) Future collection can be effected by administrative offset, notwithstanding the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations for litigation of claims, with due regard to the 10-year limitation for administrative offset prescribed by 31 U.S.C. 3716(e)(1); or
( 3 ) The debtor agrees to pay interest on the amount of the debt on which collection will be suspended, and such suspension is likely to enhance the debtor's ability to pay the full amount of the principal of the debt with interest at a later date.
( c ) ( 1 ) DOE shall suspend collection activity during the time required for consideration of the debtor's request for waiver or administrative review of the debt if the statute under which the request is sought prohibits DOE from collecting the debt during that time. As indicated in § 1015.212(h), DOE will continue to accrue interest, penalties, and administrative costs during the period collection activity is suspended.
( 2 ) If the statute under which the request is sought does not prohibit collection activity pending consideration of the request, DOE may use discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to suspend collection. Further, DOE ordinarily will suspend collection action upon a request for waiver or review if DOE is prohibited by statute or regulation from issuing a refund of amounts collected prior to DOE's consideration of the debtor's request. However, DOE will not suspend collection when DOE determines that the request for waiver or review is frivolous or was made primarily to delay collection.
( d ) When DOE learns that a bankruptcy petition has been filed with respect to a debtor, in most cases the collection activity on a debt must be suspended, pursuant to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. 362, 1201, and 1301, unless DOE can clearly establish that the automatic stay has been lifted or is no longer in effect. DOE will seek legal advice immediately from counsel and, if legally permitted, take the necessary legal steps to ensure that no funds or money is paid by DOE to the debtor until relief from the automatic stay is obtained.
3027.409 Solicitation provisions and contract

clauses.

Alternate IV of the (FAR) 48 CFR clause 52.227–14 shall be included in solicitations and contracts

containing the basic clause unless the HCA approves an exclusion. Additional non-conflicting

alternates may be used.

Parent topic: Subpart 3027.4—Rights in Data and Copyrights
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Nathaniel Cherry, Appellant, v. John T. Deegan, as Warden of Sing Sing Prison, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme. Court, Westchester County, entered June 11, 1968, which dismissed the writ. Judgment affirmed, without costs. There being no claim in the petition that appellant’s guilty plea was involuntary, much less particularized allegations as to why it was entered, it is well settled that such plea constitutes an absolute waiver of all nonjurisdietional defects in any prior stage of the proceedings *(People ex rel. Newman*v. *McMann,*29 A D 2d 704; cf. *United States ex rel. Ross*v. *McMann,*409 F. 2d 1016). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

|CERTIFICATION OF CFO                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|NORTHPORT NETWOTK SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED                        
|FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008                 
|PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED                 
|PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002

I am the CFO of Northport Network Systems, Inc., a Washington
corporation (the Company). I am delivering this certificate in connection with
the Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 and filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (Form 10-K). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, I hereby certify that the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 13, 2009

| | BY: | /s/
      James Wang
| | --- | --------------------
| |     | James Wang          
| |     | CFO                 

---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

CAMELLIA THERAPEUTIC )

FOSTER AGENCY, LLC, etc., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv735-MHT

) 

BOB RILEY, etc., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

For good cause shown, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to

28 U.S.C.A. § 636, this case is referred to the United

States Magistrate Judge assigned to this case for

consideration and disposition or recommendation on all

pretrial matters as may be appropriate

DONE, this the 18th day of August, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/18/2006 Page 1 of 1
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00804-CR

Isidro Juan FLORES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR5527

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 1, 2017

DISMISSED 

Isidro Juan Flores entered into a plea bargain with the State, pursuant to which Flores 

pleaded nolo contendere to sexual assault of a child. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance 

with the agreement and signed a certificate stating this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant 

has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Flores timely filed a notice of appeal. The 

clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s rule 25.2(a)(2) certification and a written plea 

bargain agreement, has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 
04-16-00804-CV

- 2 -

The clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the 

punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(a)(2). We have reviewed the clerk’s record, and the trial court’s certification appears to 

accurately state that this is a plea bargain case and Flores does not have a right to appeal. See Dears 

v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review 

clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate). This court must dismiss 

an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made 

part of the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

On December 29, 2017, we gave Flores notice that the appeal would be dismissed unless 

an amended trial court certification showing he has the right to appeal has been made part of the 

appellate record by January 19, 2017. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 

S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 

WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). An amended certification 

showing Flores has the right to appeal has not been filed. We therefore dismiss this appeal. TEX.

R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
# Subpart 630.2—CAS Program Requirements

**Parent topic:**PART 630—COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION

## 630.201 Contract requirements.

## 630.201-5 Waiver.

(a) The Procurement Executive is the head of the agency for the purposes of FAR 30.201–5(a) and (b).