alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 59 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

ELIZABETH LYNN HUTCHINSON, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv700-WHA

 )

PHENIX CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, )

et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This case is before the court on the Joint Motion to Extend Trial Date (Doc. #58), filed

by the parties on December 4, 2007.

For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Trial of this case is CONTINUED from the term of court commencing March 3, 2008,

and RESET for the term of court commencing June 23, 2008, in Opelika, Alabama. Pretrial

hearing is rescheduled for May 30, 2008, at a time and place to be set by later order.

2. Deadlines for discovery, disclosure of witnesses and exhibits, and specification of

deposition excerpts will remain as January 7, 2008, in accordance with the order of the court

entered on November 26, 2007 (Doc. #57), granting the changes requested in the Parties’

Amended Report (Doc. #56), unless new deadlines are requested by the parties no later than

December 11, 2007.

DONE this 4th day of December, 2007.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 59 Filed 12/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
§ 140.2 Scope. ( a ) The regulations in this part apply: ( 1 ) To each person who is an applicant for or holder of a license issued under 10 CFR parts 50, 52, or 54 to operate a nuclear reactor, and
( 2 ) With respect to an extraordinary nuclear occurrence, to each person who is an applicant for or holder of a license to operate a production facility or a utilization facility (including an operating license issued under part 50 of this chapter and a combined license under part 52 of this chapter), and to other persons indemnified with respect to the involved facilities.
( 3 ) To each person licensed pursuant to part 70 of this chapter to possess and use plutonium in a plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plant.
( 4 ) To each person licensed pursuant to parts 40 and 70 of this chapter to construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility.
( b ) ( 1 ) Subpart B of this part does not apply to any person subject to subparts C or D of this part. Subpart C of this part applies only to persons found by the Commission to be Federal agencies. Subpart D of this part applies only to persons found by the Commission to be nonprofit educational institutions with respect to licenses and applications for licenses for the conduct of educational activities.
( 2 ) Any applicant or licensee subject to this part may apply for a finding that such applicant or licensee is subject to the provisions of subparts C or D of this part. The application should state the grounds for the requested finding. Any application for a finding pursuant to this paragraph may be included in an application for a license.
( c ) Subpart E of this part sets forth the procedures the Commission will follow and the criteria the Commission will apply in making a determination as to whether or not there has been an extraordinary nuclear occurrence. The form of nuclear energy liability policy for facilities (appendix A) and the forms of indemnity agreements with licensees (appendices B, C, D, and E) include provisions requiring the waiver of certain defenses with respect to an extraordinary nuclear occurrence. These provisions and subpart E are incorporated in this part pursuant to Pub. L. 89-645 (80 Stat. 891). They provide additional assurance of prompt compensation under available indemnity and underlying financial protection for injury or damage resulting from the hazardous properties of radioactive materials or radiation, and they in no way detract from the protection to the public otherwise provided under this part.
[25 FR 2944, Apr. 7, 1960, as amended at 33 FR 15998, Oct. 31, 1968; 42 FR 48, Jan. 3, 1977; 56 FR 64980, Dec. 13, 1991; 57 FR 18394, Apr. 30, 1992; 72 FR 49564, Aug. 28, 2007; 83 FR 30288, June 28, 2018]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 133 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         March 8, 2005.
    Resolved, That there shall be available from the applicable accounts of the 
House of Representatives such amounts as may be necessary for continuing 
expenses of standing and select committees of the House for the period beginning 
on April 1, 2005, and ending on April 30, 2005, on the same terms and conditions 
as amounts were available to such committees for the period beginning at noon on 
January 3, 2005, and ending at midnight on March 31, 2005, pursuant to clause 7 
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives (or, in the case of the 
Committee on Homeland Security, on the same terms and conditions as amounts were 
available to such Committee for such period pursuant to House Resolution 10, 
agreed to January 4, 2005).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Case 2:06-cv-00727-WKW-CSC Document 8 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CRIMINAL NO.: 2:06-CR-0202-WKW 

)

EUGENE L. CLECKLER, )

)

 Defendant )

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE

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

States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and respectfully requests a 10-day

extension of time in which to file a response in the above-styled action. In support of said

motion plaintiff provides the following:

1. The United States has communicated with the defendant in an effort to

resolve the subject matter of his Motion to Suspend Execution of Forfeiture. Given

defendant’s status, such communication was in writing and was most likely not received

by the defendant before sometime on or after Tuesday, July 22, 2008. The defendant has,

therefore, not had ample to time to respond to the United States’ offer to resolve the

pending motion. 

2. It is respectfully requested that the United States be given an extension of

time of 10 days in which to respond to the defendant’s motion.

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 126-2 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 1 of 2
Respectfully submitted this 25 day of July, 2008. th

LEURA G. CANARY

United States Attorney

 By: s/R. Randolph Neeley 

R. Randolph Neeley

Assistant United States Attorney

Bar Number: #9083-E56R

Attorney for Plaintiff/Garnishor

United States Attorney’s Office

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, AL 36101-0197

Telephone: (334) 223-7280

Facsimile: (334) 223-7418

E-mail: rand.neeley@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 25, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, and I hereby certify that I have mailed, by

United States Postal Service, a copy of same to the following non-CM/ECF participant(s):

Eugene Cleckler

Reg. No.: # 12009-002

LSCI Butner

P.O. Box 999

Butner, NC 27509

s/R. Randolph Neeley 

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 126-2 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 29, 2015

p0921 

# Order

Clerk September 29, 2015

150512(53)

PETER BORMUTH,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 150512

COA: 316298

Jackson CC: 12

- 001559

- CE

WEST BAY EXPLORATION COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 30, 2015

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-66 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
#### Watters *v.*Lanford *et al.*

July 16, 1913.

Injunction and' interpleader. Before Judge Ellis. Fulton superior court. January 31, 1913.

*Moore & Branch,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. L. May son, W. D. Ellis Jr.,*and *Frank L. Haralson,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

1. “Whenever a person is possessed of property or funds, or owes a debt or duty, to which more than one person lays claim, and the claims are of such a character as to render it doubtful or dangerous for the holder to act, he may apply to equity to compel the claimants to interplead.” Civil Code, § 5471.

2. Lanford brought a petition for interpleader against Andy Nolan and J. C. Watters. The petition alleged that Lanford was in possession of certain described jewelry which he held as a mere stakeholder, having no title or interest therein, and that his possession was acquired in the following way: Nolan reported to petitioner, who was chief of the detective force in the City of Atlanta, that Watters had cheated and defrauded Nolan out of the jewelry while the two were engaged in a game of chance commonly known as, a “crap game.” Petitioner thereupon had Watters arrested, and he turned the jewelry over to petitioner. Both Nolan and Watters claimed title to the jewelry, and both notified petitioner of their respective claims. Nolan sued out a possessory warrant for the jewelry against petitioner, and Watters had brought an action of trover and bail against petitioner for the jewelry. Petitioner was ready to deliver the jewelry to either Watters or Nolan, as the court might determine upon the trial under an interpleader. Upon the hearing, the evidence tended to prove the allegations of the petition. *Meld,*that the court did not err in ordering Nolan and Watters to interplead, and in granting an interlocutory injunction restraining them from further proceeding with their respective actions against the petitioner.

3. Even if Nolan, under the facts of the case, could not maintain his possessory warrant, this of itself did not furnish a good reason why the interpleader should not have been granted; as Nolan might bring an action of trover against Lanford for the recovery of the jewelry, after failing in the possessory-warrant proceeding.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 15 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 15

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       October 6, 2005.
Whereas college and university campuses are subject to criminal threats both 
        from within and outside their borders;
Whereas under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus 
        Crime Statistics Act a total of 86 homicides, 7,648 sex offenses, 9,649 
        aggravated assaults, and 3,590 arsons were reported on-campus from 2000 
        to 2002;
Whereas between one fifth and one quarter of female students become the victim 
        of a completed or attempted rape, usually by someone they know, during 
        their college careers;
Whereas each year more than 70,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are 
        victims of alcohol-related sexual assault;
Whereas each year more than 600,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are 
        assaulted by another student who has been drinking;
Whereas 1,400 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die each year from 
        alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor vehicle crashes;
Whereas each year there is approximately $2.8 million worth of property damage 
        from fires on-campus;
Whereas Security On Campus, Inc., a national group dedicated to promoting safety 
        and security on college and university campuses, has designated 
        September as National Campus Safety Awareness Month; and
Whereas the designation of National Campus Safety Awareness Month provides an 
        opportunity for colleges and universities to inform students about 
        existing campus crime trends, campus security policies, crime prevention 
        techniques, fire safety, and alcohol and other drug education, 
        prevention, and treatment programs: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the goals and ideals of 
National Campus Safety Awareness Month.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

November 28, 2006

 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

To: All Counsel of Record

Re: Penn v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.

Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-00738-VPM

The above-styled case has been reassigned to Judge Wallace Capel, Jr.

Please note that the case number is now 2:06-cv-00738-WC. 

This new case number should be used on all future correspondence and pleadings in this

action.

 

Case 2:06-cv-00738-MEF-WC Document 4 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 1 of 1
# G)VEOLIA

December 17 , 2014

VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL United States Environmental Protection Agency George 

### T. Czerniak Region 5 77 W. Jackson Boulevard (A-18J) Chicago, Illinois 60604-3509 

# -DEC 1 92014

Re : Comments ofVeolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. on Draft Air Pollution Control Title V Permit Dear Mr. Czerniak: Enclosed please find the Comments ofVeolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. (Veolia) on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Draft Air Pollution Control Title V Permit to Operate Issued to Veolia ("Draft Permit")
. Veolia appreciates USEPA' s willingness to consider Veolia's views and comments with regard to the DraftPermit. As we have stated to your colleagues on several occasions, Veolia continues to believe the most effective way to reduce air emissions is not through the changes contained in the Draft Permit, but rather through the installation of additional pollution control equipment. Veolia is committed to spending significant resources on enhanced pollution control equipment going well beyond that which is required under current regulations, provided the correct approvals are in place and we are able to resolve the various open issues concerning our Draft Permit. We would appreciate an opportunity to meet with you to further explain and discuss this proposal. Veolia believes that, by partnering with the Agency, solutions can be achieved that will allow Veolia to continue to provide its vital service to society through the efficient, effective and safe incineration ofhazardous waste (incineration which is mandated for many forms ofhazardous waste by USEPA regulations) while also providing assurances that human health and the environment are protected
. Implementing this proposal would be extremely expensive and would represent a heavy financial burden to Veolia. Veolia is willing to incur this fmancial burden in order to finalize its Title V permit.George T
. Czerniak December 17, 2014 Page 2 

# DEC 1

# 92014

Veolia believes that the above proposal is the single best way to reduce emissions still further and provide even better protection ofhuman health and the environment, while allowing Veolia to remain an active, vibrant and employment-providing participant inthe Southern Illinois economy . Please let me know if such a meeting would be ofinterest to you; ifso , I will call you to arrange a meeting with our respective staffs
. Thank you. Very truly yours,

# »,fl-~ Doug Harris General Manager Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C
.
H. Res. 124

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 1, 2005.

Whereas the 11th cycle of the daily learning of the 2,711

pages in the Babylonian Talmud, through the Daf

Hayomi study program will culminate on March 1, 2005,

the 20th day of Adar I 5765 in the Jewish calendar;

Whereas this will complete a formidable 71⁄2 year educational

and daily study cycle introduced in 1923 at Agudath

Israel’s first International Congress in Vienna by Polish

Rabbi Meir Shapiro, whose purpose was ‘‘to enhance the

sense of unity of Jews worldwide’’;

Whereas Jews throughout the world will be celebrating joyously in honor of the celebration, including 120,000 Jews

in North America, and more than 50,000 in 3 major locations in the New York area will be technologically and

spiritually linked to hundreds of similar celebrations

throughout the world;

Whereas the 10th Daf Yomi cycle was completed on September 28, 1997 with 26,000 people at Madison Square

Garden linked by satellite to dozens of communities

around the world;

Whereas the teachers and students of the Talmud have displayed the remarkable ability to take individual efforts
2

•HRES 124 EH

and combine them in striving toward a common vision

and goal; and

Whereas this monumental achievement in study, dedication,

perseverance, and persistence is a lesson for contemporary society and for people of good will everywhere:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the students and teachers of the Daf Yomi program on

the occasion of their celebration of the completion of the 11th

cycle of the Daf Hayomi, and wishes them well on beginning

the 12th cycle.

Attest:

Clerk.
COURTROOM DEPUTY MINUTES DATE : SEPTEMBER 25, 2006

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA DIGITAL RECORDED: 1:26 p. m. to 1:26 p.m.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

PRESIDING MAG. JUDGE: CHARLES S. COODY DEPUTY CLERK: WANDA STINSON 

CASE NUMBER: 2:06CR196-MHT-CSC DEFENDANT NAME: NESTOR

AMAIQUEMA-MACIAS

 

APPEARANCES

GOVERNMENT DEFENDANT

ATTY. KARL DAVID COOKE, JR. ATTY. DONNIE BETHEL

/ DISCOVERY STATUS: Complete.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 _________________________________________________________________________________________

/ PENDING MOTION STATUS: None.

/ PLEA STATUS: Possible Plea.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

/ TRIAL STATUS: Will take 2 days to try cases, if goes to trial.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 REMARKS:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Case 2:06-cr-00196-MHT-CSC Document 12 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
ex10_6.htm


     

     

    
      Employer: Dong guan CHDITN
printing co. ltd

      Employee: Mr liu,
ruisheng

      Job
duty:

      Executive
officier/ chairman: making development, operation, investment strategy and
financial management, budgets; making prodution and sale plan

      Working
periods: since april 1. 2007 to march 31 2010

      


      Salary: RMB35000 per
month.

      


      Sign date: April 1, 2007
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

JAMES J. WALKER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee.

No. 2D 20 22

- 3560

May 17, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Joseph A. Bulone,

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Susan M. Shanahan

, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Samuel R. Mandelbaum , Assistant

Attorney General, Tampa ; and Cerese Crawford Taylor

, Senior Assistant

Attor ney General, Tallahassee (substituted as counsel of record), for

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, KHOUZAM , and SMITH, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
# Subpart 1312.3 - Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses for the Acquisition of Commercial Items

**Parent topic:**PART 1312 - ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

## 1312.302 Tailoring of provisions and clauses for the acquisition of commercial items.

The authority for approving a request for waiver to tailor a clause, or otherwise include any additional terms or conditions in a solicitation or contract in a manner that is inconsistent with customary commercial practice, is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
120 STAT. 778 PUBLIC LAW 109–278—AUG. 17, 2006

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5169:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

June 12, considered and passed House.

Aug. 2, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–278

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1310 Highway

64 NW. in Ramsey, Indiana, as the ‘‘Wilfred Edward ‘Cousin Willie’ Sieg, Sr.

Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WILFRED EDWARD ‘‘COUSIN WILLIE’’ SIEG, SR. POST

OFFICE.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 1310 Highway 64 NW. in Ramsey, Indiana,

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Wilfred Edward ‘Cousin

Willie’ Sieg, Sr. Post Office’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘Wilfred Edward ‘Cousin Willie’ Sieg, Sr. Post Office’’.

Approved August 17, 2006.

Aug. 17, 2006

[H.R. 5169]
#### § 989.347 Assessment rate.

On and after August 1, 2023, an assessment rate of $24 per ton is established for assessable raisins produced from grapes in California.

[89 FR 24339, Apr. 8, 2024]
Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 5 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 1