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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 200 

Supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘National Correctional Officers and Employees Week’’ and honoring the service of correctional officers and 

employees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2005 

Mr. STRICKLAND (for himself, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, and 

Mr. SWEENEY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘National Correctional 

Officers and Employees Week’’ and honoring the service 

of correctional officers and employees. 

Whereas the operation of correctional facilities represents a 

crucial component of the criminal justice system of the 

United States; 

Whereas correctional personnel play a vital role in protecting 

the rights of the public to be safeguarded from criminal 

activity; 

Whereas correctional personnel are responsible for the care, 

custody, and dignity of the human beings charged to 

their care; 
2 

•HRES 200 IH 

Whereas correctional personnel work under demanding circumstances and face danger in their daily work lives; and 

Whereas annually the first week of May is recognized as National Correctional Officers and Employees Week: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of ‘‘National 

3 Correctional Officers and Employees Week’’; and 

4 (2) honors all correctional officers and employ5 ees for their service to their communities, States, 

6 and the Nation. 

Æ
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

PROGRESSIVE AM. INS. CO., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv717-ID

v. )

 )

DALE EUGENE KIRKINDOLL, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon CONSIDERATION of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint, filed

June 26, 2007 (Doc. No. 54), it is ORDERED that said motion be and the same is hereby

GRANTED on the condition that, on or before July 9, 2007, Plaintiff file an amended

complaint which complies with the Middle District of Alabama’s Local Rule 15.1. See

M.D. Ala. LR 15.1 (“Any amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of course

or upon a motion to amend, must, except by leave of court, reproduce the entire pleading

as amended, and may not incorporate any prior pleading by reference.”).

DONE this 27 day of June, 2007. th

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 55 Filed 06/27/2007 Page 1 of 1
y

MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-00543-CV

LETOSHA GALE, M.D. AND ZOE LIFE WELLNESS CENTER, P.A., Appellants

V.

HECTOR LUCIO, Appellee

Appeal from the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County. (Tr. Ct. No. 

12-DCV-198515).

TO THE 240TH DISTRICT COURT OF FORT BEND COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 25th day of September 2014, the case upon appeal to revise 

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the order signed by the trial 

court on June 11, 2013. After submitting the case on the 

appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the 

parties, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the 

trial court’s order. Accordingly, the Court reverses the trial 

court’s order. The Court further renders judgment that 

appellee, Hector Lucio, take nothing by his claims against 

appellants, Letosha Gale, M.D. and Zoe Life Wellness Center, 

P.A.
The Court orders that the appellee, Hector Lucio, pay 

all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered September 25, 2014.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown. Opinion 

delivered by Justice Keyes.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

December 4, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
166 MISCELLANEOUS SUPREME COURT DISPOSITIONS ( P3d ) TAX COURT APPEAL DISMISSED April 23, 2015 Dixon v. Department of Revenue (TC 5190)(S062504)(21 OTR 383)
§ 36.13 Specific licenses for irradiators. The Commission will approve an application for a specific license for the use of licensed material in an irradiator if the applicant meets the requirements contained in this section. ( a ) The applicant shall satisfy the general requirements specified in §§ 30.33(a)(1)-(4) and 30.33(b) of this chapter and the requirements contained in this part.
( b ) The application must describe the training provided to irradiator operators including— ( 1 ) Classroom training;
( 2 ) On-the-job or simulator training;
( 3 ) Safety reviews;
( 4 ) Means employed by the applicant to test each operator's understanding of the Commission's regulations and licensing requirements and the irradiator operating and emergency procedures; and
( 5 ) Minimum training and experience of personnel who may provide training.
( c ) The application must include an outline of the written operating and emergency procedures listed in § 36.53 that describes the radiation safety aspects of the procedures.
( d ) The application must describe the organizational structure for managing the irradiator, specifically the radiation safety responsibilities and authorities of the radiation safety officer and those management personnel who have important radiation safety responsibilities or authorities. In particular, the application must specify who, within the management structure, has the authority to stop unsafe operations. The application must also describe the training and experience required for the position of radiation safety officer.
( e ) The application must include a description of the access control systems required by § 36.23, the radiation monitors required by § 36.29, the method of detecting leaking sources required by § 36.59 including the sensitivity of the method, and a diagram of the facility that shows the locations of all required interlocks and radiation monitors.
( f ) If the applicant intends to perform leak testing of dry-source-storage sealed sources, the applicant shall establish procedures for leak testing and submit a description of these procedures to the Commission. The description must include the— ( 1 ) Instruments to be used;
( 2 ) Methods of performing the analysis; and
( 3 ) Pertinent experience of the individual who analyzes the samples.
( g ) If licensee personnel are to load or unload sources, the applicant shall describe the qualifications and training of the personnel and the procedures to be used. If the applicant intends to contract for source loading or unloading at its facility, the loading or unloading must be done by an organization specifically authorized by the Commission or an Agreement State to load or unload irradiator sources.
( h ) The applicant shall describe the inspection and maintenance checks, including the frequency of the checks required by § 36.61.
[58 FR 7728, Feb. 9, 1993, as amended at 76 FR 56963, Sept. 15, 2011]
§ 1017.22 Notification of protection requirements. ( a ) An Authorized Individual who grants routine access to specific UCNI under § 1017.20 to a person who is not an employee or contractor of the DOE must notify the person receiving the UCNI of protection requirements described in this subpart and any limitations on further dissemination.
( b ) A DOE Program Secretarial Officer or NNSA Deputy or Associate Administrator who grants limited access to specific UCNI under § 1017.21 must notify the person receiving the UCNI of protection requirements described in this subpart and any limitations on further dissemination.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6628

QUENTIN MCLEAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN OSBORNE; MR. DIXON, Correctional Officer; MR. MARTIN, C/O; MS. HELMS, Healthcare

Provider; MR. COLEY, C/O; MR. WOLFE,Counselor;

MR. KLEINOD, Psychologist; MARTIN, Healthcare

Provider; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Division

of Risk Management, Department of General Services; J. CARBONE, Doctor; R. BARLOW, Treatment Supervisor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-98-1132-2)

Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999

Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quentin McLean, Appellant Pro Se.
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

April 13, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on April 15, 1999. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Quentin Martin appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See McLean v. Osborne, No. CA-98-1132-2 (E.D. Va.

Apr. 15, 1999).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Fountain *v.*Hagan Gas Engine & Manufacturing Company.

May 16, 1913.

Action for damages. Before Judge Gilbert. Taylor superior court. February 2, 1912.

*C. W. Foy*and *Jere M.*Moore, for plaintiff.

*Carson & McCuichen,*for defendant.

Lumpkin, J.

1. The defendant sold to the plaintiff, under a written contract, an engine, pump, tank; “electric outfit,” certain piping, and a grinder and boiler. In the contract it was provided that “the material and workmanship of the above is guaranteed to be good, and the engine when installed and run according to your [the seller’s] instructions shall develop the horse-power named above; this guarantee is good for six months, but does not apply to batteries.” The purchaser afterward sued the seller, alleging that the latter had sold to him a storage-battery, claiming that it had a capacity of fifteen lights for three hours, that the plaintiff paid therefor, and that after the battery was put to work it was found that it only had a capacity of six lights for three hours. The plaintiff accordingly brought suit for damages, on the ground that the property was not of the character which he bought. *Held,*that the expression “electric outfit,” as used in the written contract, was ambiguous and was subject to explanation by parol. It was accordingly error to reject parol testimony offered for the purpose of showing what the parties to the contract included in that expression.

*(a)*The statement that the guaranty of the engine was good for six months, but did not apply to batteries, merely excluded the application of the six-months guaranty from applying to the batteries, and did not mean that the seller could install different batteries from those which he contracted to sell.

2. Having ruled out evidence, which was admissible and material, offered on behalf of the plaintiff, it was error to direct a verdict against him.

*la)*Inasmuch as the court rejected material evidence which was essential to the proof of the case by the plaintiff, it is not decided whether a prima facie case would have been made had the plaintiff been allowed to introduce all legitimate evidence, or whether it would have *been*subject to a motion for nonsuit.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 985.71 Effective time.

The provisions of this subpart, and of any amendment thereto, shall become effective at such time as the Secretary may declare and shall continue in force until terminated or suspended in one of the ways specified in § 985.72.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 250 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                           May 5, 2005.
Whereas hepatitis B is the most common serious liver infection in the world;
Whereas chronic hepatitis B infections cause 80 percent of all primary liver 
        cancer cases worldwide;
Whereas 10,000,000 to 30,000,000 people will be infected with the hepatitis B 
        virus worldwide in 2005;
Whereas approximately 100,000 people in the United States will become infected 
        with hepatitis B virus this year alone;
Whereas fewer than 10 percent of diagnosed chronic hepatitis B patients in the 
        United States are currently receiving treatment for their disease;
Whereas healthcare and work loss costs from liver disease and liver cancer-
        caused hepatitis B infections total more than $700,000,000 annually;
Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (``CDC'') estimates that 
        1,250,000 Americans are already infected with hepatitis B and nearly 
        6,000 will die of liver complications each year;
Whereas a person who has become infected with hepatitis B may not have symptoms 
        for up to 40 years after the initial infection has occurred, and there 
        is currently no routine screening in place for early detection;
Whereas the CDC has identified African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Pacific 
        Islanders, as well as Native Americans and Alaskan Natives, as having 
        higher rates of hepatitis B infection in the United States;
Whereas Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders account for more than half of the 
        chronic hepatitis B cases and half of the deaths resulting from chronic 
        hepatitis B infection in the United States;
Whereas there is a need for a comprehensive public education and awareness 
        campaign designed to help infected patients and their physicians 
        identify and manage the secondary prevention of the disease and to help 
        increase the length and quality of life for those diagnosed with chronic 
        hepatitis B; and
Whereas the week of May 9, 2005, would be an appropriate week to observe 
        National Hepatitis B Awareness Week: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of National Hepatitis B Awareness 
        Week;
            (2) calls upon the people of the United States to observe the week 
        with appropriate programs and activities; and
            (3) supports raising awareness of the consequences of untreated 
        chronic hepatitis B and the urgency to seek appropriate care as a 
        serious public health issue.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

§ 4.124 Employment criteria. ( a ) A recipient may not make use of any employment test or other selection criterion that screens out or tends to screen out disabled persons or any class of disabled persons unless: ( 1 ) The test score or other selection criterion as used by the recipient is shown to be job-related for the position in question; and
( 2 ) Alternative job-related tests or criteria that do not screen out or tend to screen out as many disabled persons are not available.
( b ) A recipient shall select and administer tests concerning employment so as best to ensure that, when administered to an applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the test results accurately reflect the applicant's or employee's job skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the applicant's or employee's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (except where those skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).
EX-35.6
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation
60 Wall Street
New York, New York 10005


RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells
Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows for the calendar year 2012:

(a) a review of Wells Fargo's activities as assigned and agreed to under the
servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the "Servicing
Agreement(s)") has been made under my supervision; and

(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review Wells Fargo has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material
respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted in Schedule B.


March 15, 2013

/s/ Julie Eichler
JULIE EICHLER
Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(logo) Together we'll go far


(page)


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


To: Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation

Schedule A

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

Pooling and Servicing Agreement for COMM 2012-2 Commercial Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Certificate Administrator and
Custodian, as applicable.

Pooling and Servicing Agreement for COMM 2012-CCRE4 Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2012-CCRE4, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
Certificate Administrator and Custodian, as applicable.

Pooling and Servicing Agreement for COMM 2012-CCRE5 Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2012-CCRE5, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
Certificate Administrator and Custodian, as applicable.


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


(page)


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


To: Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation

Schedule B

Material Instances of Non-Compliance

No instances to report


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., P.C., )

d/b/a THE PAIN CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv711-VPM

) [WO]

SKILSTAF, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

This case was transferred to this district from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on

9 August 2006 (Doc. #13). On 29 November 2005, well before the transfer, the defendant

filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Fed. R.

Civ. Pro. and on other grounds (Doc. # 3). The motion is a dispositive motion, the favorable

conclusion of which would end the litigation. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that on or before 18 September 2006, the parties shall notify the Clerk of

the court whether they wish to consent to the Magistrate Judge in writing by sending a

completed consent form to the Clerk of the court. A copy of the form is enclosed for a

party's use. The parties are ADVISED that they may freely decline to consent without

adverse consequences.

DONE this 7 day of September, 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 18 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

________________ DIVISION

____________________________, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

) 

_____________________________, )

 )

Defendant. )

CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In accordance with the provisions of Title 28, U.S.C. § 636(c), the undersigned party

or parties to the above-captioned civil matter who previously have indicated their consent to

the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge of this Court, hereby confirm in writing their consent

to a United States Magistrate Judge conducting any and all further proceedings in the case,

including trial, and ordering the entry of a final judgment.

____________________ __________________________________________

DATE SIGNATURE

_________________________________________

COUNSEL FOR (print name of all parties)

_________________________________________

ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE

_________________________________________

TELEPHONE NUMBER

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 18 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 2 of 2
[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:****The beacon.**** 
SuDocNumber: 1.14/25-5:
ItemNumber:0721-A-05(online)
CGPsystem Number:000594686
 
 
1998- NDPO_1998_11.pdfNDPO_1998_12.pdf
 
1999- NDPO_1999_01.pdfNDPO_1999_03.pdfNDPO_1999_04.pdfNDPO_1999_05.pdfNDPO_1999_06.pdfNDPO_1999_07.pdfNDPO_1999_08.pdfNDPO_1999_09.pdfNDPO_1999_10.pdfNDPO_1999_11.pdfNDPO_1999_12.pdf
 
2000- NDPO_2000_01.pdfNDPO_2000_02.pdfNDPO_2000_03.pdfNDPO_2000_04.pdfNDPO_2000_05.pdfNDPO_2000_06.pdfNDPO_2000_07.pdfNDPO_2000_08.pdfNDPO_2000_09.pdfNDPO_2000_10.pdfNDPO_2000_11.pdfNDPO_2000_12.pdf
 
2001- NDPO_2001_01.pdfNDPO_2001_02.pdfNDPO_2001_03.pdf
 
2002- NDPO_2002_01.pdf
 
 
 
 **