alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 			Making government services easier to find		

			USA.gov helps you locate and understand government benefits, programs, and information.		

## How do I ...

        -  					Find Hurricane Helene information and help from the government				 
        -  					Register to vote				 
        -  					Find out how to vote absentee or vote by mail				 
        -  					Get or renew a passport				 

Jump to all topics and services

## Government benefits and financial assistance

Discover government benefits that you may be eligible for and learn how to apply.

          Find benefits

## All topics and services

      -  Voting and elections
Find answers to common questions about voting in the United States.
 
      -  The U.S. and its government
Learn about U.S. laws, history, and more. Buy government property. Contact elected officials and federal agencies.
 
      -  Complaints
File complaints involving government agencies, telemarketers, products and services, travel, housing, and banking.
 
      -  Disability services
Find government benefits and programs for people with disabilities and their families.
 
      -  Disasters and emergencies
Learn about disaster relief and find government benefits for other emergencies.
 
      -  Education
Learn about Federal Student Aid and studying in the U.S. Find early intervention, special education, and Head Start programs.
 
      -  Government benefits
Find government programs that may help pay for food, housing, health care, and more.
 
      -  Health
Get information about health insurance, various health conditions, and help with medical bills.
 
      -  Housing help
Learn about rental and buyer assistance programs. Find emergency housing and avoid eviction.
 
      -  Immigration and U.S. citizenship
Learn about U.S. residency, Green Cards, citizenship requirements, and related issues.
 
      -  Jobs, labor laws, and unemployment
Get resources for finding a job. Learn about unemployment insurance and important labor laws.
 
      -  Laws and legal issues
Learn how to find legal help, replace vital records, get child support enforcement, and more.
 
      -  Military and veterans
Learn how to join the military and find benefits and services as a member or veteran.
 
      -  Money and credit
Find government grants, loans, and unclaimed money. Learn about taxes. Get credit reports and scores.
 
      -  Scams and fraud
Do you want to report a scam? Answer a few questions to learn which government agency can help.
 
      -  Small business
Learn how to start your own business, including imports and exports.
 
      -  Taxes
Learn about filing federal income tax. Find out how to pay, how to check your refund, and more.
 
      -  Travel
Learn about passports, travel documents for minors, and travel to, from, and within the U.S.
 
      -  Life events
Discover government benefits and services to help you and your family through every stage of life.
 

			Top
#### Kay Jolan et al., Respondents, v Walter Johnson et al., Appellants.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 15, 1979, reversed, on the law, to the extent appealed from, and defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the second cause of action granted, with costs and disbursements. Defendant-appellant was the executor of his father’s estate in Germany. Plaintiffs-respondents, claiming a four-fifths interest in that estate, have sued via the subject cause of action for an accounting, claiming that the success of defendant’s business, established and operated by him here, derived from the estate. The specific claim is that he appropriated the "good will” of the former business. There is not a scintilla of evidence that anything that had belonged to the father or his estate was misappropriated by the son and used to advance his own fortunes; indeed, the evidence *859points in the other direction. There are other involvements as between the parties, but they have either been settled or are the subjects of other causes. Special Term, denying defendants’ motion for dismissal, used the following language: “Although it seems anomalous to hold that a claim which accrued over three decades ago is not necessarily barred either by the statute of limitations or laches — and defendant has made a strong argument of prejudice to him in the form of several key witnesses — this court is constrained to follow the holding of our State’s highest court in *Matter of Barabash”*(31 NY2d 76). Reliance on *Barabash*was not well founded: here the assets involved are shown not to have been subject to a fiduciary relationship, while in *Barabash*they undoubtedly were; indeed, here there was no fiduciary relationship at all; in *Barabash,*there was concealment of assets, while here everything done by defendant was open and notorious. In these circumstances, the limitation of time having run, the motion to dismiss should have been granted. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Bloom, Markewich and Ross, JJ.
# 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 105 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 105

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Science in the 
                      One Hundred Ninth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2005

Mr. Boehlert submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Science in the 
                      One Hundred Ninth Congress.

    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Science (hereafter in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the expenses of 
all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts 
of the House of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 
not more than $13,146,852 for the One Hundred Ninth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $6,388,306 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2005, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2006; and
            (2) not more than $6,758,546 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2006, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2007.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RALPH WILSON LINGO, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-703-MHT

)

WILLIE R. COLLINS, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by the

petitioner (Court Doc. No. 2), and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that this motion be and is hereby GRANTED. 

Done this 14th day of August, 2006.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### Caudell *et al. v.*Athens Savings Bank.

October 14, 1913.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Brand. Clarke superior court. . March 31, 1913.

*John J. Strickland*and *Blanton E. Forston,*for plaintiffs.

*T. S. Mell,*for defendant.

Fish, C. J.

1. Ordinarily the minutes of a corporation show the formal actions of its directors and stockholders; and before parol evidence thereof can be introduced, they should be produced or accounted for. Parol evidence, however, is admissible to prove the unrecorded acts and transactions of corporations, or of their officers or directors. *Bank of Garfield*v. *Clark,*138 *Ga.*798 (7), 799 (76 S. E. 95) ; *Fouché*v. *Bank,*110 *Ga.*827 (6), 850 (36 S. E. 256); Ten Eyck *v.*Pontiac etc. R. Co., 74 Mich. 226 (41 N. W. 905, 3 L. R. *A.*378, 16 Am. St. R. 633); 2 Thomp. Corp. (2d ed.) §§ 1842, 1847. See also Handley *v.*Stutz, 139 U. S. 417 (11 Sup. Ct. 530, 35 L. ed. 227).

2. It was not error to refuse to grant an interlocutory injunction.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
2007-1899.

#### State v. Puckett.

Franklin App. No. 06AP-330, 2006-Ohio-5696. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES KUCZMASKI, ADAM

PIKE, RYAN PHILLIPS, JOSH

STONE, SUHANE LOWERY,

KEVIN BELL, and HAMP CRUM,

III, individually and on behalf of

other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. FOODSERVICE

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

CV-2:06-cv-731

MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES

Defendant U.S. Foodservice, Inc. moves this Court to extend all

pending deadlines by ninety (90) days beyond the scheduled mediation date

of July 3, 2007. In support of this motion, defendant states as follows:

1. Counsel for plaintiffs and defendant have spent the last several

months unsuccessfully discussing settlement. In the hopes that the case

could be resolved, the parties have delayed conducting discovery.

1

Currently, the discovery deadline is June 15, 2007.

1

In addition, counsel for defendant recently left their law firm and have opened the new office of a national

law firm. There has been some delay in having the physical and electronic files transferred from defense

counsel’s former firm.

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 36 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

2. The parties have recently agreed that mediation would be

beneficial in resolving the case, and mediation is now scheduled for July 3,

2007. In lieu of asking the Court to extend discovery, the parties agreed to

ask the Court to stay the case pending mediation in hope that such a request

would be unnecessary; however, that motion was denied.

Therefore, in the event that this matter does not get resolved in

mediation, defendant requests a 90-day extension from the mediation date

for the completion of all pending deadlines.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Tammy L. Baker

Tammy L. Baker, ASB-9522-B62T

BakerT@jacksonlewis.com

JACKSON LEWIS LLP

2001Park Place North

Suite 650

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Phone: (205) 332-3106

Fax: (205) 332-3131

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 36 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on June 14, 2007, the undersigned electronically

filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system

that will send notification of such filing to the following:

Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq.

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, P.C.

The Kress Building

301 19th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Tucker F. Burge, Esq.

Burge & Burge

850 Park Place Tower

2001 Park Place North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

s/ Tammy L. Baker

Tammy L. Baker

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 36 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 3 of 3
(May 11, 2006)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexis Lewis, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 686]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered June 4, 2002, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

In satisfaction of a five-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. She may have waived her right to appeal although no written waiver is contained in the record on appeal. She was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to a prison term of 6V2 years to life. On appeal, defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal.

Upon our review of the record, we discern at least one appellate issue of arguable merit concerning the validity and scope of defendant’s appeal waiver *(see People v Billingslea,*6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]; *People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 280, 283 [1992]; *People v Santalucia,*9 AD3d 740 [2004]). If the appeal *1077waiver is determined to be unenforceable (or to not encompass the sentence), defendant would retain the right to challenge, among other things, the agreed-upon, negotiated sentence as harsh and excessive *(see People v Billingslea, supra*at 253-254, 257; *People v Thompson,*60 NY2d 513, 520 [1983]). Thus, we cannot conclude that an appeal raising this issue would be “wholly frivolous,” although we make no finding as to its ultimate merits *(see People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633, 636 [2001]). Accordingly, the application of defendant’s current counsel—to be relieved of this assignment—is granted and new counsel will be assigned to address any issues which the record may disclose *(see People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.
# Commerce Business Daily

## Welcome to CBDNet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Important Notice: Please Read!

In
accordance with the recent changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
designating Federal Business Opportunities as the single point of universal
electronic public access on the Internet for government-wide Federal procurement
opportunities that exceed $25,000, CBDNet will cease to accept notices
effective midnight, January 1, 2002. Notices received on GPO's CBD system by
midnight, January 1, and manuscripts received by 3:00 p.m. on January 2, will be
included in the final GPO print version of the CBD to be issued on January 4,
2002.

Any notices validated for inclusion in the January 4 printed
issue of CBD will remain available in the CBDNet database of active
notices for the required 15 days. Once they have all successfully been
transferred into the archive database the active database will be shut down.
This archive database will continue to be available on CBDNetas part of
the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection. As the manager of
this collection, the Superintendent of Documents at the U.S. Government Printing
Office has a commitment to maintaining permanent public access for the materials
included in the collection.

To read the full text of the Special Notice from
the Department of Commerce, go to Federal
  Business Opportunities to replace the Commerce Business Daily.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- About the CBD
- Readers Guide
- Classification Codes
- Numbered Notes
- Subscriptions to the Printed CBD*
- Subscriptions to the CBD Daily Datafeed*
- Establishing HTML Links to Documents in CBDNet
- CBDNet - The CBD Database Online via GPO Access
- Simple Search of the CBD -->   Optional Frames Interface
- Fielded Search of the CBD
- Search FAQ's
- Search Help
- Browse the CBD --> Optional Frames Interface*
- Submission of Notices to the CBD
- Enter a Notice in the CBD*
- Submission FAQ's*
- Submission Instructions*
- FTP Submission Instructions*
- Manuscript Submission Instructions*

> * These following areas were
>   disabled as of January 2, 2002.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBDNet is provided through an alliance of the United States Department of Commerce and the United States Government Printing
Office.

Questions or comments regarding this service? Contact the GPO Access User Support Team by Internet e-mail at
[email protected];
by telephone at 1-202-512-1530 (locally in the D.C.-Metro area) or toll free at 1-888-293-6498  (outside the D.C. area);
by fax at 1-202-512-1262.



URL http://cbdnet.gpo.gov/index.html     January 10, 2002
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES KUCZMASKI, etc., )

et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv731-MHT

) 

US FOODSERVICE, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED as follows:

(1) The motion to continue (Doc. No. 45) is granted.

(2) The joint motion for approval of settlement

agreement (Doc. No. 43) is reset for hearing on

October 18, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. 

DONE, this the 27th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 46 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### Nicholas Marlow, Respondent, v Harold Kobliner, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the examiner in charge of physical and medical examinations of the Board of Examiners of the New York City Board of Education to turn over to petitioner’s named physician copies of all medical records “used to deny petitioner” a teacher’s license, the appeal, as limited by appellant’s brief, is from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 4,1979, as granted the petition and denied appellant’s cross motion to dismiss. Order and judgment modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision that the materials be served “upon petitioner” and substituting therefor a provision that the materials demanded shall be served upon the physician named in petitioner’s application. As so modified, order and judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. As appellant himself notes, he granted permission to petitioner’s physician to examine the subject records. That permission, however, also imposed the burden upon the physician of examining the records only at appellant’s offices. That was unreasonable. Since appellant, by his permission, implicitly concedes that petitioner’s *physician*is entitled to examine the records, which is the only relief demanded, there is no reason to deny the application. We have modified the order and judgment to accord with the demand in the petition. Furthermore, the concession makes clear, as do all the papers before the court, that no issue of fact exists and that an answer could add nothing. Indeed, at oral argument, appellant’s counsel indicated that, rather than raising any factual claim, he would assert in his answer the same ground for denying the petition as he had urged for dismissal, to wit, the inapplicability of the statute under which petitioner has proceeded (Public Health Law, § 17). In these circumstances, an answer pursuant to CPLR 7804 (subd [f]) is not required (see *Matter of Vermont Marble Co. v Office of Gen. Servs.,*42 AD2d 468; accord *Matter of De Vito o Nyquist,*56 AD2d 159, affd 43 NY2d 681; Siegel, New York Practice, § 567, p 796). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 211

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 14, 2005.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 256)

to amend title 11 of the United States Code, and for other

purposes. All points of order against the bill and against its

consideration are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1)

one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled

by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Attest:

Clerk.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION

GEORGE D. McCARLEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 3:06-CV-00663-MHT-DRB

)

CITY OF ROANOKE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Following a pre-service conference on August 31, 2006, convened to explain the

jurisdictional deficiencies of the complaint filed on July 25, 2006, the court ordered the pro

se plaintiff to file by October 2 either notice of his intent to withdraw his complaint or an

amended complaint which stated a valid federal cause of action against any defendants who

are not immune from suit. In a Motion for Continuance not received by the Clerk until

October 4 (Doc. 9), Plaintiff seeks an extension for an unspecified period based on various

conflicts and difficulties in securing counsel. In principal deference to the plaintiff's status

as a non-lawyer and his apparent good faith in seeking legal advice regarding the propriety

of continuing his action, it is 

ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff's deadline is

extended from October 2 to November 2, 2006. Plaintiff is advised that the court deems

the time allotted more than reasonably adequate in light of his representations concerning

the nature of the claims he wishes to assert as well as the court's specific advice on not only

Case 3:06-cv-00663-MHT-DRB Document 10 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

the limited scope of claims subject to federal jurisdiction but also the entitlement of certain

named defendants to assert various immunities. Consequently, any further claims for

continuances -- absent extraordinary justification -- will not be viewed favorably. 

Done this 5th day of October, 2006.

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00663-MHT-DRB Document 10 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1   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 Annual Report of Acheron, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven L. White, Chief Executive Officer 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, that to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.     Date: January 24, 2008 /s/ Steven L. White Steven L. White Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer