alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

M.C., who sues by and through her )

mother and next friend, GAIL TATUM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv83-LES

) (LEAD CASE)

PACTIV CORPORATION, et al, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

On July 12, 2006, the court ordered the following cases consolidated for all pretrial

proceedings governed by FED. R. CIV. P. 26 through 27. 

2:06cv83-LES, M.C. v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv84-LES, Phillips v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv85-LES, Thompson v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv86-LES, Edwards v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv186-LES, Madden v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv187-LES, Davis v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv188-LES, Douglas v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv189-LES, Thompson v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv190-LES, Kelley v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv191-LES, Cravey v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

See Doc. # 59. 

Since that date, mediation has been unsuccessful and the following additional cases have

been filed. 

2:06cv660-LES, Adams, et al., v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv679-LES, Cassady, et al. v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv680-LES, Brooks, et al. v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv739-LES, Anderson et al., v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv757-LES, Harrison, et al., v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv758-LES, Lawrence, et al., v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

Case 2:06-cv-00757-LES-CSC Document 5 Filed 10/19/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

2:06cv759-LES, Hamilton v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

2:06cv904-LES, K.C. et al., v. Pactiv Corp., et al.

At this juncture, it appears that all of these cases should be consolidated for all pretrial

proceedings; provided, however, that at a later date, the court may unconsolidate these cases

should it become necessary. Accordingly, for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the afore-referenced cases be and are hereby CONSOLIDATED for all

pretrial proceedings. It is further

ORDERED that the above-styled case be and is hereby DESIGNATED as LEAD case,

and that all pleadings shall be filed only in the lead case.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to docket and place a copy of this order in each

case file referenced herein.

Counsel are reminded of M.D. ALA. LR 5.1 which governs the filing of discovery

materials in this district.

Done this 19 day of October, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00757-LES-CSC Document 5 Filed 10/19/2006 Page 2 of 2
la/

March 26, 2010 

u.s. Environmental Protection Agency 


Office ofAir Quality Planning & Standards 


Sector Policies and Programs Division 


U.S. EPA Mailroom (D205-01) 


Attention: Peter Tsirigotis, Director 


109 T.W. Alexander Drive 


Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 


RE: MACT ICR - IPL - Petersburg Generating 

Station 

Dear Mr. Tsirigotis: 

On January 4,2010, Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) - Petersburg, located at 

6925 N SR 57, Petersburg, IN 47567, received a CAA Section 11 4 Request for 

Information Collection related to the development of a National Emission Standard for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants under Section 112. 

Based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and 

information contained in this Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Emissions Information Collection Request for IPL - Petersburg Generating 

Station, Parts I & II are true, accurate and complete. 

If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact Angelique Oliger 

of IPL at (317) 261-5852. 

Sincerely, 

1IfrO~ Jeffrey A. Harter 


Plant Leader 


IN DI ANAP OLIS POWE R & L ,GHT C OMPANY
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT
      OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Simclar, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marshall W. Griffin,
      Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, hereby certify as
      of
      the date hereof, solely for purpose of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of
      the
      United States Code, 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.





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.





/s/
              Marshall W. Griffin, Jr.Marshall
                W. Griffin, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and SecretarySimclar,
                Inc.
              October
                27, 2006
Order entered July 2 4 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00845
- CR CARLOS NAVARRO, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. F11
- 59312
- X



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeal. On May 7, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s
brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the appeal; (2) appel lant is indigent and represented by court

- appointed counsel; (3) in working on the brief, counsel determined that the records of two pretrial hearings had not been filed; (4) the trial court determined that the missing pretrial hearings were conducted on F ebruary 25, 2013 and May 31, 2013; (5) counsel had filed a request on June 20, 2013 seeking preparation of the reporter’s record, including all pretrial hearings; (6) Kelly Simmons is the court reporter who recorded the February 25, 2013 and May 31, 2013 h earings; (7) Ms. Simmons indicated that once she “locates” the hearings in her files, it should take no more than two weeks to prepare andfile the records; (8) the court recommended that Ms. Simmons be granted twenty days from the

July 15, 2014 hearing to file the supplemental records; and (9) the court recommended that counsel be given an additional fifteen days after the supplemental records are filed to file appellant’s brief.
We ORDER court reporter Kelly Simmons to file the reporter’s records of the F ebruary 25, 2013 and May 31, 2013 within TWENTY
- ONE DAYS of the date of this order.
We DENY as moot appellant’s July 9, 2014 motion to supplement the record and hold the briefing schedule in abeyance.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief within FORTY
- FIVE DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to court reporter Kelly Simmons, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/15/2006 Page 2 of 2
SUBPART 18.2 – EMERGENCY ACQUISITION FLEXIBILITIES     **Parent topic:** PART 18 – EMERGENCY ACQUISITIONS18.270 Head of contracting activity determinations.    The DLA Acquisition Director has delegated authority to the contracting officer to make the determinations at—       (a) 18.201(b) and (c);       (b) 18.202(a)-(d); and       (c) 18.204(b).
2945.403 Rental-use and charges clause.       The HCA must make the determination to charge rent on the basis of use under the clause at FAR 52.245-9 when the contracting officer provides access to Government production and research property, as prescribed in FAR 45.403(a).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2945.4 - Contractor Use and Rental of Government Property
Subpart 2124.70 - Protection of Individual

Privacy

Parent topic: PART 2124 - PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

2124.102 General.

2124.102-70 Policy.

Records retained by FEGLI Program contractors on Federal insureds and members of their families

serve the contractors' own commercial function of paying FEGLI Program claims and are not

maintained to accomplish an agency function of OPM. Consequently, the records do not fall within

the provisions of the Privacy Act. Nevertheless, OPM recognizes the need for the contractors to keep

certain records confidential. The clause at 2152.224-70 addresses this concern.

2124.104 Contract clauses.

2124.104-70 Contract clause.

The clause at 2152.224-70 shall be inserted in all FEGLI Program contracts.
###### Editorial Note on Part 31

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 31 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 31.2 Terms and conditions.

The general licenses provided in this part are subject to the general provisions of Part 30 of this chapter (§§ 30.1 through 30.10), the provisions of §§ 30.14(d), 30.34(a) to (e), 30.41, 30.50 to 30.53, 30.61 to 30.63, and Parts 19, 20, and 21, of this chapter[1] unless indicated otherwise in the specific provision of the general license.

[65 FR 79187, Dec. 18, 2000]

###### Footnotes -
  31.2

[1] Attention is directed particularly to the provisions of Part 20 of this chapter concerning labeling of containers.
§ 25.9 Communications. Except where otherwise specified, communications and reports concerning the regulations in this part should be addressed to the Director, Division of Facilities and Security, Mail Stop T7-D57, and sent either by mail to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; by hand delivery to the NRC's offices at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; or, where practicable, by electronic submission, for example, Electronic Information Exchange, or CD-ROM. Electronic submissions must be made in a manner that enables the NRC to receive, read, authenticate, distribute, and archive the submission, and process and retrieve it a single page at a time. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions can be obtained by visiting the NRC's Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html ;* by e-mail to *MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov ;* or by writing the Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The guidance discusses, among other topics, the formats the NRC can accept, the use of electronic signatures, and the treatment of nonpublic information. [68 FR 58803, Oct. 10, 2003, as amended at 74 FR 62681, Dec. 1, 2009; 80 FR 74979, Dec. 1, 2015]
#### Town House St., LLC, Respondent, v New Fellowship Full Gospel Baptist Church, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[815 NYS2d 281]

In an action, inter alia, for the partition and sale of real property, the defendant New Fellowship Full Gospel Baptist Church appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated February 16, 2005, which denied its motion to vacate an interlocutory judgment of partition and sale of the same court, dated September 15, 2004, entered upon its default in answering or appearing, to vacate that default, and for leave to interpose an answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate the interlocutory judgment based on excusable default, the appellant was required to present a reasonable excuse for its failure to answer or appear in this action and a meritorious defense *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *DiBella v Pennino,*
      *89417 AD3d 625, 626 [2005]; *Cohen v Houseconneet Realty Corp.,*16 AD3d 539 [2005]; *New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co.,*13 AD3d 596 [2004]). The appellant’s unsubstantiated denial of receipt of service of process did not amount to a reasonable excuse for its default. An unsubstantiated excuse of nonreceipt is insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by an affidavit of service *(see General Motors Acceptance Corp. v Grade A Auto Body, Inc.,*21 AD3d 447 [2005]; *96 Pierrepont v Mauro,*304 AD2d 631 [2003]; *Truscello v Olympia Constr.,*294 AD2d 350, 351 [2002]). The appellant did not adequately rebut the presumption that it received notice of the suit pursuant to CPLR 3215 (g) in February of 2004 in the regular course of the mail *(see generally Crespo v Kynda Cab Corp.,*299 AD2d 295 [2002]). If the appellant failed to actually receive a copy of the summons and complaint from the Secretary of State due to a change of address, it was due to its own fault as it failed to keep the Secretary of State advised its current address for the forwarding of process *(see KPG Inc. v Salinas Group Ltd.,*11 AD3d 338, 339 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the interlocutory judgment. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Luciano, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
A

STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO. 

### 2024 KW 0159 JEFFERY WASHINGTON 

### MAY 13, 

### 2024 In Re: 

### Jeffery Washington, applying for supervisory writs,

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. DC -23-05774. BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., 

### CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. The records of the East Baton Rouge Parish 

# ClerkofCourt's Office reflectthatthedistrict court actedon relator's motion to act as co -counsel filed on or about November 22, 2023. The records further reflect that the district court is proceeding toward disposition of relator' s motion for a speedy trial, filed November 22, 2023, as a motion 

## hearing is 

### set for May 13, 2024. JMG WIL Chutz, J., concurs.



### URT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



### Y CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

267 

CAF 09-02488 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ALEXANDER M. 

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

ONEIDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 

CINDY M., RESPONDENT, 

AND MICHAEL M., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., UTICA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

DENISE J. MORGAN, UTICA, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

A.J. BOSMAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, ROME, FOR ALEXANDER M. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Joan E.

Shkane, J.), entered November 23, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things, adjudged

that respondent father had neglected the subject child and ordered

that the subject child remain in the care and custody of petitioner. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal insofar as it concerned

disposition is unanimously dismissed and the order is otherwise

affirmed without costs. 

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order adjudicating

the child at issue in this appeal to be a neglected child. We agree

with the father that Family Court erred in finding that the child was

neglected based on his purported threats to remove the child from the

hospital, which he made during a telephone call to hospital staff. 

The evidence of those purported threats did not establish that the

child’s “physical, mental or emotional condition . . . [was] in

imminent danger of becoming impaired” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i];

see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 369; see also Matter of Anna

F., 56 AD3d 1197, 1198; Matter of Casey N., 44 AD3d 861, 862). We

conclude, however, that the court properly found that the father

neglected the child based on his continued failure to address his

illegal drug use. The prior orders in this proceeding detail the

father’s long-standing inability or refusal to deal with his drug

usage (see Matter of Carlena B., 61 AD3d 752, lv denied 13 NY3d 703;

Matter of Douglas QQ., 273 AD2d 711, 713; see generally Matter of

Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Denise J., 87 NY2d 73, 78-80). 

The court stated that it would take judicial notice of those prior

orders, and the father did not object (see Matter of Kayla J., 74 AD3d

1665, 1667-1668; Matter of Andrew U., 22 AD3d 926, 926-927; Matter of
-2- 267 

CAF 09-02488 

Catherine KK., 280 AD2d 732, 734). Finally, the father’s appeal from

the order insofar as it concerned disposition is moot, inasmuch as

superseding permanency orders have since been entered (see Matter of

Dustin B., 71 AD3d 1426; see also Matter of Giovanni K., 62 AD3d 1242,

lv denied 12 NY3d 715). 

Entered: April 1, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
§ 1304.106 Processing of requests. Upon receipt of a request for information, the Privacy Act Officer will ascertain: Whether the records identified by the requester exist, and Whether they are subject to any exemption under § 1304.115. If the records exist and are not subject to exemption, the Privacy Officer will provide the information. ( a ) *Requests in writing, including those sent by e-mail, via the Web site, or by Fax.* Within five working days of receiving the requests the Privacy Act Officer will acknowledge its receipt and will advise the requester of any additional information that may be needed. Within 15 working days of receiving the request, the Privacy Act Officer will send the requested information or will explain to the requester why additional time is needed for a response.
( b ) *Requests in person or by telephone.* Within 15 days of the initial request, the Privacy Act Officer will contact the requestor and arrange an appointment at a mutually agreeable time when the records can be examined. The requester may be accompanied by one person. The requestor should inform the Privacy Act Officer that a second individual will be present and must sign a statement authorizing disclosure of the records to that person. The statement will be kept with the requester's records. At the appointment, the requester will be asked to present identification as stated in § 1304.105.
( c ) *Excluded information.* If a request is received for information compiled in reasonable anticipation of litigation, the Privacy Officer will inform the requester that the information is not subject to release under the Privacy Act (*see* 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5)).
Case 1:06-mj-00087-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 1 of 1
§ 1708.101 Scope and purpose of safety investigations. ( a ) The Board shall investigate any event or practice at a Department of Energy defense nuclear facility which the Board determines has adversely affected, or may adversely affect, public health and safety.
( b ) The purpose of any Board investigation shall be: ( 1 ) To determine whether the Secretary of Energy is adequately implementing standards (including all applicable Department of Energy orders, regulations, and requirements) at Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities;
( 2 ) To ascertain information concerning the circumstances of such event or practice and its implications for such standards;
( 3 ) To determine whether such event or practice is related to other events or practices at other Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities; and
( 4 ) To provide to the Secretary of Energy such recommendations for changes in such standards or the implementation of such standards (including Department of Energy orders, regulations, and requirements) and such recommendations relating to data or research needs as may be prudent or necessary.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# TIME AND DATE: 

10 a.m., Thursday, December 16, 2010.

# PLACE: 

Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Final Rule—Parts 701, 708a and 708b of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Mergers and Conversions of Insured Credit Unions, Fiduciary Duties and Indemnification of Directors.

2. Final Rule—Section 701.34 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Low-Income Definition.

3. Proposed Rule—Section 701.34 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Member Survey Sample Data to Meet Low-Income Designation.

4. Proposed Rule—Part 740 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Accuracy of Advertising and Notice of Insured Status.

5. Proposed Rule—Part 745 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Share Insurance, Non-interest-bearing Transaction Accounts.

6. Tri-State Federal Credit Union's Appeal of Region II's Denial of its Field of Membership Expansion Request.

7. Central Liquidity Facility Change in Overhead Reimbursement Methodology.

8. Insurance Fund Report.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board,                         *Telephone:*                         703-518-6304.                    

Mary Rupp,

Board Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-31391 Filed 12-9-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE P
1823.7101 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.223–71, Authorization for radio Frequency

Use, in solicitations and contracts calling for developing, producing, constructing, testing, or

operating a device for which a radio frequency equipment authorization is required.

Parent topic: Subpart 1823.71—Authorization for Radio Frequency Use
JOANN MARCHELLE BROOKS,

Appellant,

v.

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1431

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 9, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Karen K. Cole, Judge.

Donald Wheeler Jonz of the Law Offices of Donald Wheeler Jonz, Washington, 

D.C., for Appellant.

Andrew J. Knight, II of Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones, Jacksonville, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BENTON, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

#### § 4.62 Right to counsel.

In all proceedings under §§ 4.51-4.81, the applicant or recipient and the responsible NRC official shall have the right to be represented by counsel. A notice of appearance shall be filed by counsel prior to participation in any such proceedings.