alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PULASKI COUNTY *v.*ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE, INC.

07-669

260 S.W.3d 298

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered June 28, 2007

*434
      *Karla M. Burnett, Amanda M. Mitchell*and *Chastity D. Scifres,*Pulaski County Attorney’s Office, for appellant.

*Williams & Anderson, PLC,*by: *Jess Askew III, Clayborne S. Stone*and *Alison Dennington,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

On June 26, 2007, Appellant Pulaski County filed motions to expedite and for stay pending appeal with

our court. On that same day, we granted Appellant’s motion to expedite, and we granted a temporary stay pending further orders from this court. We now grant Appellant’s motions.

On June 14, 2007, Appellee Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc., filed a complaint in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, alleging that certain e-mails of a former county employee, Ron Quillin, were public records pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). On June 25, 2007, the circuit court ruled that the e-mails were public records and ordered them to be released to Appellee within twenty-fours hours of the entry of its judgment. On June 25, 2007, Appellant filed a notice of appeal, a designation of the record, and a motion for stay pending appeal. The circuit court denied Appellant’s motion for stay on June 26, 2007. Appellant then filed the present motions with this court.

We grant Appellant’s motion to stay, and we order that the stay shall remain in place until the appeal can be decided. We order the parties to file briefs, which include, but are not limited to, the following issues:

> 1. Do Pulaski County and the intervenor, Jane Doe, have standing to raise an FOIA issue?

> 2. Are personal e-mails in a county computer exempt from the FOIA? If so, under what circumstances?

> *4353. Did the intervenor waive all privacy rights by sending e-mails to a county computer?

> 4. Is it necessary for this court to do an in camera review of the e-mails to distinguish personal from business e-mails?

Further, we order that the parties have seven days from the date of this order to submit simultaneous briefs and three days to respond simultaneously. Appellant shall also submit a record sufficient for this court to decide the aforementioned issues within seven days.

Motion to expedite granted; motion for stay pending appeal granted.

Hannah, C.J., Imber., and Danielson, JJ., would deny the stay.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

DONNA DORSEY DAVIS, as an )

individual and derivatively )

upon behalf of I-65 )

PROPERTIES, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv766-MHT

) 

RICHARD M. DORSEY, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

There being no objection, it is ORDERED as follows:

(1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. no. 48) is

granted.

(2) All counterclaims in this action are dismissed.

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

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 55 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### Philip Wedgwood Wallace et al., Respondents, v Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[816 NYS2d 412]

*383Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), entered December 15, 2005, which, in an action for breach of a currency swap contract, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis of documentary evidence, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The documentary evidence establishes that TXU Europe’s guarantee of the bonds issued by TXU Eastern is contingent upon TXU Eastern’s defaulting on the bond payments, and that defendant’s right under the subject currency swap contract with TXU Europe to set off any obligations, whether mature or unmature, does not include contingent obligations *(see Matter of Trojan Hardware Co. v Bonacquisti Constr. Corp.,*141 AD2d 278, 282 [1988]). Accordingly, until TXU Eastern has defaulted on the bonds, defendant has no right to set off the approximate $20.5 million face amount of the bonds against the approximate $20.1 million it admittedly owes TXU Europe under the currency swap contract, and the contract claim was properly sustained. The motion court also correctly held that issues of fact exist as to whether defendant’s purchase of the bonds at a steep discount, knowing that TXU Europe would likely file for insolvency, was undertaken for the purpose of avoiding its obligation under the currency swap agreement in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing *(cf. Richbell Info. Servs. v Jupiter Partners,*309 AD2d 288, 302 [2003]), and whether, as a matter of equity, any right of setoff should be limited to the market value of the bonds *(cf. Pond v Harwood,*139 NY 111, 119-120 [1893]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ. *[See*10 Misc 3d 1062(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 52076OJ) (2005).]
# 7.204 Responsibilities of contracting officers.

(a) The contracting officer shall submit a referral to the material planner citing the proposed the economic purchase quantity. Material planners will use this data to evaluate economic order quantities for supplies and shall advise the contracting officer of any change to the original requirement.

**Parent topic:**SUBPART 7.2 – PLANNING FOR THE PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES IN ECONOMIC QUANTITIES
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

			 		

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Sibanye Gold Limited (the “Company”) for the period ended 31 December 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charl Keyter, 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: 

|  | 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--|---|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: 30 March 2018 

| \                       |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
| /s/ Charl Keyter        |   |
| Charl Keyter            |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
§ 209.41 Availability of information relating to meetings and communications. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, records or transcripts prepared pursuant to this subpart shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with section 552 of title 5, United States Code and part 202 of this title.
( b ) Matter may be withheld from disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5 only on the grounds specified in: ( 1 ) Section 552(b)(1), applicable to matter specifically required by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy. This section shall be interpreted to include matter protected under Executive Order No. 11652 of March 8, 1972, establishing categories and criteria for classification, as well as any other such orders dealing specifically with disclosure of IEP related materials;
( 2 ) Section 552(b)(3), applicable to matter specifically exempted from disclosure by statute; and
( 3 ) So much of section 552(b)(4) as relates to trade secrets.
#### In the Matter of Herbert Saal, Appellant, v. Board of Elections for the County of Nassau et al., and George B. Costigan, Respondents.

In a proceeding to validate petitions designating petitioner as a candidate in the Democratic Party Primary Election to be held on June 17, 1969 for nomination for the public office of Supervisor of the City of Long Beach (a request for relief as to petitions designating George B. Costigan as such candidate was withdrawn), petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 4, 1969, which denied the application and dismissed the petition in the proceeding. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs; and the designating petitions for Herbert Saal are adjudged valid. In our opinion, there was substantial compliance with section 135 of the Election Law with respect to the address of the candidate. The omission of the City of Long Beach from the address did not impair the petition inasmuch as the petition clearly showed in other respects that the candidate was a resident of the City of Long Beach (cf. *Matter of Rosenbaun*v. *Power,*43 Misc 2d 377, affd. 21 A D 2d 700). In addition, there was an insufficient showing of any fraud with respect to the signatures upon the petition. The court should not have founded its determination that fraud permeated the petition merely by inspecting the signatures on the petition without taking any proof which would indicate that there were any irregularities or fraud in the obtaining of the signatures. Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuseello, JJ., concur; Beldock, P. J., and Rabin, J., dissent and vote to affirm the order.
Case 1:20-cv-00151-AW-GRJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-00151-AW-GRJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-00151-AW-GRJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-00151-AW-GRJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-00151-AW-GRJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:20-cv-00151-AW-GRJ Document 1-1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 6 of 6
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 8, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23

- 0310 Lower Tribunal No. 2 0

- 12242 CC

________________ 

### Christopher F. Zacarias , Appellant,

vs. 

### Alaym Aguilar, et al. , Appellee s

.

An a ppeal from the C ounty Court for Miami

- Dade County, Lawrence D. King , Judge. Neil Rose , for appellant. Xander Law Group, P.A., and Wayne R. Atkins , for appellee Alaym Aguilar

.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.2 Affirmed. See § 471.003(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“ Employees of a firm, corporation, or partnership who are the subordinates of a person in responsible charge, licensed under this chap ter [are not required to be licensed as a licensed engineer].”); § 471.031 (1) (b)(3), Fla. Stat. (“A ny person who is exempt from licensure under s[ection] 471.003(2) [(e)] may use the title or personnel classificat ion of ‘engineer’ in the scope of his or her work under that exemption if the title does not include or connote the term ‘professional engineer,’ ‘registered engineer,’ ‘licensed engineer,’ ‘registered professional engineer,’ or ‘licensed professional engi neer’ and if that person is a graduate from an approved engineering curriculum of [four] years or more in a school, college, or university which has been approved by the board.” ); see also Vision Palm Springs, LLLP v. Michael Anthony Co. , 272 So. 3d 441, 4 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Preliminary negotiations do not establish a sufficient manifestation of mutual assent to create an enforceable settlement agreement.”) (citing Jaffe v. Jaffe , 147 So. 3d 578, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)); Williams v. Ingram , 605 So. 2d 8 90, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) ( noting settlement agreement “ must be sufficiently specific and mutually agreeable as to every essential element” to be judicially enforceable ); Cheverie v. Geisser , 783 So. 2d 1115, 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“Where the language of a release is disputed and the parties fail to reach an3 agreement as to the character, nature, or type of release to be used, an essential element of the agreement is not established .”).
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Annual siteenvironmental report for calendar year**** 
SuDocNumber:E6.18:
ItemNumber:0430-K-14(online)
CGPsystem Number:000602287
 
Current
 
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2012
2014
 **
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

JAMES HICKMAN HOLLOMAN *

Petitioner, * 

 v. * 1:06-CV-786-MHT

 

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., *

Respondents. *

 _______________________________

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of Respondents’ Motion for Extension of Time, and for good

cause, it is ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ motion (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED; and

2. Respondents are GRANTED an extension from September 26, 2006 to October

26, 2006 to file their answer.

Done this 27 day of September, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00786-MHT-CSC Document 8 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60118 Conference Calendar

SHAWN BURTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CITY OF RIDGELAND MISSISSIPPI; DETECTIVE FRANK DILLARD; OFFICER MICHAEL JAMES MAGAYHEE; COMMAND SERGEANTS JOHN DOE; DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS JOHN DOE; CHIEF OF POLICE JOHN DOE; CITY MANAGER JOHN DOE; WITNESS ANITA WITTINGTON; CHIEF, CITY OF RIDGELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF RIDGELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT; CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, City of Ridgeland Police Department; COMMAND SERGEANTS, City of Ridgeland Police Department; DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION; MUNICIPLE CORPORATION, organized under and pursuant to the Laws of the State of Mississippi, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:05-CV-293

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Shawn Burton, federal prisoner # 05736-043, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). As the district court explained, Burton’s claims that the defendants conspired toNo. 06-60118 -2- violate his constitutional rights in obtaining his state court conviction are barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), which held that a prisoner’s lawsuit is barred whenever a judgment in the prisoner’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. Burton argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint with prejudice. In Boyd v. Biggers , 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994), however, we squarely held that it was not error to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Heck with prejudice. This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. We caution Burton that both the district court’s and this court’s dismissals count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Once Burton accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
C:\Documents and Settings\tmartin\Desktop\Williams-disclosure statement.DOC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHN DEREK WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF 

ALABAMA and NEW HORIZONS 

CHURCH,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

2:06CV716

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 7.1, F. R. Civ. P., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama discloses that 

it has no parent corporation, and that because it is a non-stock, not-for-profit corporation, no

publicly held corporation owns a 10% or greater ownership interest in Blue Cross and Blue 

Shield of Alabama.

/s/Cavender C. Kimble

Attorney for Defendant,

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama

OF COUNSEL:

Cavender C. Kimble

BALCH & BINGHAM LLP

Post Office Box 306 

Birmingham, AL 35201-0306

Telephone: (205) 251-8100

Facsimile: (205) 226-8798

Case 2:06-cv-00716-WKW-WC Document 6 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 1 of 2
C:\Documents and Settings\tmartin\Desktop\Williams-disclosure statement.DOC 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using 

the CM/ECF system and service will be perfected upon the following this the 7th day of 

September, 2006:

J. Bernard Brannan, Jr.

The Brannan Law Firm, P.C.

602 South Hull Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

E. Ham Wilson, Jr.

Ball, Ball, Mathews & Novak, P.A.

Post Office Box 2148

Montgomery, AL 36102-2148

/s/ Cavender C. Kimble________________

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00716-WKW-WC Document 6 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 2 of 2
Subpart 814.1 [Reserved]

Parent topic: PART 814 - SEALED BIDDING
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Information taken from the September 30, 1997 Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>                       
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997   
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-01-1997   
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1997   
<CASH>                                            1,775          
<SECURITIES>                                     24,506          
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0          
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0          
<INVENTORY>                                           0          
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 28,417          
<PP&E>                                           21,754          
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (10,812)         
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   40,668          
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3,001          
<BONDS>                                           4,313          
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0          
<PREFERRED>                                           0          
<COMMON>                                             24          
<OTHER-SE>                                       32,918          
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     40,668          
<SALES>                                               0          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    742          
<CGS>                                                 0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4,359          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0          
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0          
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  131          
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (3,334)         
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0          
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (3,334)         
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0          
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0          
<CHANGES>                                             0          
<NET-INCOME>                                     (3,334)         
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.14)      
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        


</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

TOMMY LEE WILSON, #225500, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06-CV-751-WKW

)

RALPH HOOKS, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of the motion for extension of time filed by the respondents on

September 15, 2006 (Court Doc. No. 7), and for good cause, it is

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

ORDERED that the respondents be GRANTED an extension from September 15,

2006 to and including October 6, 2006 to file their answer to the petition. 

Done this 15th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-00751-WKW-TFM Document 8 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 1 of 1
# Subpart 1341.2 - Acquiring Utility Services

**Parent topic:**PART 1341 - ACQUISITION OF UTILITY SERVICES

## 1341.201 Policy.

The designee authorized to enter into a contract pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 8287 (regarding shared energy savings, including cogeneration) is set forth in CAM 1301.70.   

## 1341.202 Procedures.

The designee authorized to approve a determination that a written contract cannot be obtained from a utility supplier refusing to execute a tendered contract, and that the issuance of a purchase order is not feasible, is set forth in CAM 1301.70.   

## 1341.204 GSA areawide Contracts.

The designee authorized to determine that the use of an areawide contract is not advantageous to the Government is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS TE-5 Leaf Carbon Isotope DataThe BOREAS TE-5 team collected measurements in the NSA and SSA on gas exchange, gas composition, and tree growth. This documentation describes leaf carbon isotope data that were collected in 1993 and 1994 at the NSA and SSA OJP sites, the SSA OBS site, and the NSA UBS site. In addition, leaf carbon isotope data were collected in 1994 only at the NSA and SSA OA sites. These data was collected to provide seasonal integrated physiological information for 10 to 15 common species at these 6 BOREAS sites. The data are stored in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010005744Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Curd, Shelaine*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Ehleriinger, Jim*(Utah Univ. Salt Lake City, UT United States)*Brooks, J. Renee*(University of South Florida Tampa, FL United States)*Flanagan, Larry*(Lethbridge Univ. Lethbridge, Alberta Canada)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:209891/VOL140Rept-2000-03136-0/VOL140NASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL140Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010005744.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024