alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN, DIVISION

HON. SUSAN RUSS WALKER, MAG JUDGE AT MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA

DATE COMMENCED: February 1, 2007 3:47 p.m.

DATE COMPLETED: February 1, 2007 3:57 p.m.

2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW McBroom v. Potter et al (MAG+) 

PRO SE Alma T. McBroom (Plaintiff)

Stephen Michael Doyle representing John E. Potter (Defendant)

William Post Roberts, II representing Vanessa Gordon and The Montgomery Alabama Area 

Local Alabama Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (Defendant)

Jennifer Ku (by phone) representing American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (Defendant)

COURT OFFICIALS PRESENT:

Joyce Taylor, Courtroom Deputy

PROCEEDINGS:

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

3:47 p.m. Court convenes.

Plaintiff states she is seeking counsel.

Court directs plaintiff if counsel retained he/she needs to file notice of appearance with

the court.

Court discussions regarding scheduling of this case and explanations to plaintiff each

deadlines to be set out in Scheduling Order and that written Order will follow:

Dispositive motions due April 30, 2007

Motions to amend due February 28, 2007

All discovery completed by June 6, 2007

Face to face settlement conference within 14 days after dispositive motions are

due

Any objections to deadlines to be filed within 14 days from the date of the

Scheduling Order

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 37 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 1 of 2
Mr. Doyle ask for clarification of status of motion to amend and January 4 amendment 

to objections to report & recommendation.

Court states that plaintiff's objections were construed in part as motion for leave to

amend complaint.

Plaintiff states she does want to file an amended complaint.

Court states plaintiff needs to file motion for leave to amend complaint and the

amended complaint.

Court directs plaintiff to file motion for leave to amend complaint & amended complaint

by February 7, 2007.

Court states defendants can file motion for additional time to respond as necessary.

3:57 p.m. Court recessed.

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 37 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 2 of 2
§ 20.1008 Implementation. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) The applicable section of §§ 20.1001-20.2402 must be used in lieu of requirements in the standards for protection against radiation in effect prior to January 1, 1994[1] that are cited in license conditions or technical specifications, except as specified in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section. If the requirements of this part are more restrictive than the existing license condition, then the licensee shall comply with this part unless exempted by paragraph (d) of this section.
( c ) Any existing license condition or technical specification that is more restrictive than a requirement in §§ 20.1001-20.2402 remains in force until there is a technical specification change, license amendment, or license renewal.
( d ) If a license condition or technical specification exempted a licensee from a requirement in the standards for protection against radiation in effect prior to January 1, 1994,1 it continues to exempt a licensee from the corresponding provision of §§ 20.1001-20.2402.
( e ) If a license condition cites provisions in requirements in the standards for protection against radiation in effect prior to January 1, 19941 and there are no corresponding provisions in §§ 20.1001-20.2402, then the license condition remains in force until there is a technical specification change, license amendment, or license renewal that modifies or removes this condition.
[59 FR 41643, Aug. 15, 1994] Footnotes -
20.1008
[1] See §§ 20.1-20.602 codified as of January 1, 1993.
#### § 1304.115 Systems of records covered by exemptions.

The Board currently has no exempt systems of records.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-3056

___________________________

Travis Ross

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Dr.MaryCarpenter,Director ofPrisonHealthCare,in herindividual and official capacity

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Pierre

____________

 Submitted: February 7, 2017

Filed: February 14, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate Travis Ross appeals after the District Court granted

1

summary judgment to the defendant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After de novo

The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Court Judge for the

1

District of South Dakota.
review, see Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014), we conclude that Dr.

Carpenter was entitled to sovereign immunity on Ross’s official-capacity claims for

damages. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985) (“[A]n

official-capacity suit is . . . to be treated as a suit against the [government] entity.”);

Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam) (noting that unless a state

consented to the filing of a suit by a private party, such a suit is barred by the

Eleventh Amendment). We further conclude that Ross failed to show that Dr.

Carpenter was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Barton v.

Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964–65 (8th Cir. 2016) (explaining the deliberate-indifference

standard); Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789, 799 (8th Cir.) (“[I]f a procedure is not

medically necessary, then there is no necessity for a doctor’s attention.”), cert. denied,

555 U.S. 821 (2008); Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995) (observing that

“in the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with

great caution” given the complexities inherent in prison administration). 

We affirm the judgment.

______________________________

-2-
#### North Central Mechanical, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and Others Similarly Situated, Respondent, v Hunt Construction Group, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Submitted December 3, 2007;

decided January 15, 2008

Reported below, 43 AD3d 1396.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
120 STAT. 2642 PUBLIC LAW 109–369—NOV. 17, 2006

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 100:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Nov. 15, considered and passed House and Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–369

109th Congress

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Public Law 109–289, division B) is amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3)

and inserting ‘‘December 8, 2006’’.

Approved November 17, 2006.

Ante, p. 1313.

Nov. 17, 2006

[H.J. Res. 100]
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.603 Acceptance and docketing of application for early review of site suitability issues in a construction permit proceeding. ( a ) Each part of an application for a construction permit submitted in accordance with § 2.101(a-1) of this part will be initially treated as a tendered application. If it is determined that any one of the parts as described in § 2.101(a-1) is incomplete and not acceptable for processing, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will inform the applicant of this determination and the respects in which the document is deficient. Such a determination of completeness will generally be made within a period of 30 days.
( b ) ( 1 ) The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will accept for docketing part one of an application for a construction permit for a utilization facility which is subject to § 51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the type specified in § 50.21(b)(2) or (3) or § 50.22 of this chapter, or is a testing facility where part one of the application as described in § 2.101(a-1) is complete. Part one of any application will not be considered complete unless it contains proposed findings as required by § 2.101(a-1)(1)(i) and unless it describes the applicant's site selection process, specifies the extent to which that process involves the consideration of alternative sites, explains the relationship between that process and the application for early review of site suitability issues, and briefly describes the applicant's long-range plans for ultimate development of the site. Upon assignment of a docket number, the procedures in § 2.101(a)(3) and (4) relating to formal docketing and the submission and distribution of additional copies of the application shall be followed.
( 2 ) Additional parts of the application will be docketed upon a determination by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation that they are complete.
( c ) If part one of the application is docketed, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will cause to be published in the Federal Register and send to the Governor or other appropriate official of the State in which the site is located, a notice of docketing of the application which states the purpose of the application, states the location of the proposed site, states that a notice of hearing will be published, requests comments within 120 days or such other time as may be specified on the initiation or outcome of an early site review from Federal, State, and local agencies and interested persons.
[72 FR 49478, Aug. 28, 2007, as amended at 84 FR 65643, Nov. 29, 2019]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTINE BENNETT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv723-MHT

) 

ARMY FLEET SUPPORT LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to substitute (Doc. No.

38) is granted. 

DONE, this the 19th day of June, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 40 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 1
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 Quarterly Report of Clean Systems Technology Group, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jacob Lustgarten Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


June 6, 2004
                                            By: /s/ JACOB LUSTGARTEN
                                                --------------------
                                            Name: Jacob Lustgarten
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer



<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND FROM THE  STATEMENT OF  OPERATIONS  FOR THE THREE
MONTHS  ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         874,683
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  149,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         49,114,573
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 50,666,316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        35,203,006
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,652,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   50,666,316
<SALES>                                        2,451,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,468,964
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,995,489
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             623,543
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (159,068)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (159,068)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (159,068)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>THE PARTNERSHIP HAS AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET, THEREFORE THE VALUE IS $0.
<F2>THIS INFORMATION IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE PARTNERSHIP'S FORM 10-Q.
</FN>


</TABLE>
PUBLIC LAW 109–302—OCT. 5, 2006 120 STAT. 1477

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2690:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

July 20, considered and passed Senate.

Sept. 25, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 109–302

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8801 Sudley

Road in Manassas, Virginia, as the ‘‘Harry J. Parrish Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. HARRY J. PARRISH POST OFFICE.

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

Service located at 8801 Sudley Road, Manassas, Virginia, shall

be known and designated as the ‘‘Harry J. Parrish 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 Harry J. Parrish Post Office.

Approved October 5, 2006.

Oct. 5, 2006

[S. 2690]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

Donna Dorsey Davis, ) 

as an individual and derivatively upon behalf ) 

of I-65 Properties, Inc. ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO: 2:06cv766 

 ) 

Richard M. Dorsey, as an individual, ) 

and CD& O, LLC, as a necessary party, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

and ) 

 ) 

Richard M. Dorsey, ) 

Dorsey Motor Sales, Inc., ) 

and TD & O, Inc., ) 

 ) 

 Counter Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) 

 ) 

Donna Dorsey Davis, ) 

 ) 

 Counter Defendant. ) 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

 Pursuant to Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Donna Dorsey Davis 

moves for entry of summary judgment in her favor and against the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. 

As grounds in support thereof, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant would show unto the Court that there 

is no disputed issue of material fact and that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 31 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
This motion is based on pleadings, depositions, and other matters of record, as well as the 

evidentiary submission previously filed by the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. 

 

Respectfully Submitted this 9th day of April, 2007. 

//s// Lindsay B. Erwin 

 Lindsay B. Erwin 

 ASB-5299-Y59E 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Meacham, Earley & Fowler, P.C. 

5704 Veterans Parkway 

Columbus, Georgia 31904 

(706) 576-4064 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on the _9__ day of April, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court using electronic filing system which will send information of such 

filing to the following: 

 Clifford W. Cleveland 

 Cleveland & Colley, P.C. 

 P.O. Box 680689 

 Prattville, AL 36068 

 James E. Roberts, Esquire 

 4908 Cahaba River Road, Suite 204 

 Birmingham, AL 35243 

 //s// Lindsay B. Erwin 

 OF COUNSEL 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 31 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
NO. 07-08-0226-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 15, 2008

______________________________

VICENTE OCHOA, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 222ND DISTRICT COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNTY;

NO. CR-06J-146; HONORABLE ROLAND SAUL, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Appellant, Vicente Ochoa, plead guilty to felony driving while intoxicated in January

2007 and was placed on community supervision. Appellant’s community supervision was

revoked in May 2008. He now appeals from the revocation of his community supervision

and the resulting sentence of five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court filed its certification representing that

appellant has the right of appeal. However, the appellate record reflects that appellant
 Effective September 1, 2007, Rule 25.2(d) was amended to require certifications

1

executed after the effective date to be signed by appellant and a copy served on him. See

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); Mason v. State, No. 07-07-0383-CR, 2008 WL 2221806

(Tex.App.–Amarillo May 29, 2008) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

2

failed to sign the certification, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d),

which requires the certification to be signed by appellant and a copy served on him. See 1

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

Consequently, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the 222 District Court nd

of Deaf Smith County for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall utilize

whatever means it finds necessary to secure and file with this Court a certificate of right to

appeal that complies with Rule 25.2(d). See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

If necessary, the trial court shall execute findings of fact, conclusions of law, and any

necessary orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues and cause its findings,

conclusions, and orders, if any, to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record. The trial

court shall file the supplemental clerk’s record and the supplemental reporter’s record, if

any, with the Clerk of this Court by November 17, 2008. 

It is so ordered. 

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
# 1852.301 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses (Matrix).

**Parent topic:**Subpart 1852.3—Provision and Clause Matrix
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the amended annual report of ADB International Group, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Sharar Ginsberg, CEO and CFO of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ ShaharGinsberg

Shahar GinsbergCEO and CFODated: April 23, 2013

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to ADB International Group, Inc. andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.
#### § 927.75 Liability.

No member or alternate for a member of the Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee, nor any employee or agent thereof, shall be held personally responsible, either individually or jointly with others, in any way whatsoever, to any party under this subpart or to any other person for errors in judgment, mistakes, or other acts, either of commission or omission, as such member, alternate for a member, agent or employee, except for acts of dishonesty, willful misconduct, or gross negligence.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 131 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 131

  Amending rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives with 
  regard to the procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official 
                                Conduct.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2005

Mr. Mollohan submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives with 
  regard to the procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official 
                                Conduct.

    Resolved, That clause 3 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended as follows:
            (1) In paragraph (k)(1)(B), strike ``(unless, at any time'' 
        and all that follows through ``members of the committee)''.
            (2) In paragraph (k)(1)(C), strike ``in order to make a 
        recommendation under subdivision (A)''.
            (3) In paragraph (k)(2), strike ``and an investigative 
        subcommittee has not been established, then such complaint 
        shall be dismissed'' and insert in lieu thereof ``then they 
        shall establish an investigative subcommittee and forward the 
        complaint, or any portion thereof, to that subcommittee for its 
        consideration. However, if, at any time during those periods, 
        either the chairman or ranking minority member places on the 
        agenda the issue of whether to establish an investigative 
        subcommittee, then an investigative subcommittee may be 
        established only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the 
        members of the committee''.
            (4) In paragraphs (k)(3), (k)(4), (p)(7), and 
        (q)(2)(B)(ii), strike ``adjudicatory'' each place it appears 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``investigative''.
            (5) In paragraphs (k)(3), (k)(4), (p)(7), and 
        (q)(2)(B)(ii), strike ``an adopted statement of alleged 
        violation'' each place it appears and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``a complaint meeting the requirements of the rules of the 
        committee for what constitutes a complaint''.
            (6) In paragraph (p)(11), strike ``of his or her choice 
        (even if such counsel represents another respondent or a 
        witness)''.
            (7) In paragraph (p)(12), strike ``of his or her choice 
        (even if such counsel represents a respondent or another 
        witness)''.
                                 <all>
```