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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

*

Complainant, *

*

vs. * CASE NUMBER 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC

*

SEBASTION K. SMITH, JR, and *

COURTNEY FLOWERS, *

*

Defendant. *

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CHANGE PLEA

COMES NOW the Defendant, through his counsel of record, and gives notice of his

intent to change his plea to one of guilty and gives notice of his desire to enter such plea before a

U.S. Magistrate Judge, instead of a U.S. District Court Judge.

 

s/ Everett M. Urech

 

EVERETT M. URECH (ASB 6693-E44E)

URECH & LIVAUDAIS, P.C.

Attorney for Defendant

Post Office Drawer 70

Daleville, Alabama 36322

(334) 598-4455 / 598-2076 fax

daleatty@snowhill.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have this date delivered a copy of the foregoing to

the United States Attorney, Middle District of Alabama, Criminal Division, by electronic filing on

the 22nd day of September, 2006. 

 s/ Everett M. Urech 

 

Of Counsel

Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 20 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 1 of 1
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 8, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00272

- CV

Rebecca FLORES and Juan Flores,

Appellants

v.

SAN ANTONIO KITCHEN & BATH, LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CV03517 Honorable David J. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The court reporter’s record was due on July 5, 2022. On July 5, 2022, Ms. Kay Counseller, the court reporter responsible for preparing, certifying, and filing the reporter’s record in this appeal, filed a notifi cation of late record, stating appellant had failed to pay or make arrangement s to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing the record and appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee.

We therefore ORDER appellant to provide written proof t o this court no later than July 18, 202 2 tha t either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. If appellant fails to respond with in the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty days from the date of this order, and the court will only consider those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. Se e T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of July, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
NUMBER 13-10-00587-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

BISHOP CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant,

v.

CYNTHIA NAVA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

NEXT FRIEND OF DEMI NAVA, A MINOR, Appellee.

On Appeal from the 17th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This appeal was abated by this Court on November 18, 2010, to allow the parties

the opportunity to engage in mediation. This cause is now before the Court on 

appellant=s motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that all matters in controversy 
2

between the parties have been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all parties. 

Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, this case is hereby 

REINSTATED.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s motion to 

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellant=s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby 

DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent 

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having 

dismissed the appeal at appellant=s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, 

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

10th day of February, 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

December 27, 2006

 

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

To: ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

From: CLERK’S OFFICE

Case Style: Lillian Edwards vs. Pactive Corporation

Case Number: 2:06CV86-LES (Doc.# 71 & 72)

Case Style: Janice Madden vs. Pactiv Corporation

Case Number: 2:06cv186-LES (Doc.# 72&73)

Case Style: Sherri L. Davis vs. Pactiv Corporation, et al

Case Number: 2:06cv187-LES (Doc.# 72&73)

Case Style: Debra Harrison vs. Pactiv Corporation, et al

Case Number: 2:06cv757-LES (Doc.# 6, 7, 8)

The referenced pleadings were electronically filed on ***December 22, 2006*** in the cases

referenced above and hereby STRICKEN from the record as erroneous filings. The

consolidation order entered in each of these cases on 10/19/06 specifically directs that all

pleadings should be filed only in case number 2:06cv83-LES, which is the lead case.

Case 2:06-cv-00757-LES-CSC Document 9 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 30
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 30 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 30.9 Completeness and accuracy of information. ( a ) Information provided to the Commission by an applicant for a license or by a licensee or information required by statute or by the Commission's regulations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the applicant or the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.
( b ) Each applicant or licensee shall notify the Commission of information identified by the applicant or licensee as having for the regulated activity a significant implication for public health and safety or common defense and security. An applicant or licensee violates this paragraph only if the applicant or licensee fails to notify the Commission of information that the applicant or licensee has identified as having a significant implication for public health and safety or common defense and security. Notification shall be provided to the Administrator of the appropriate Regional Office within two working days of identifying the information. This requirement is not applicable to information which is already required to be provided to the Commission by other reporting or updating requirements.
[52 FR 49371, Dec. 31, 1987]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 78705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31618]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than January 3, 2011.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Jeffrey J. Heiman and Jerod J. Heiman, both of Wichita, Kansas; 
to retain control of Norcon Financial Corp., and thereby indirectly 
retain control of Conway Bank, National Association, both in Conway 
Springs, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 13, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-31618 Filed 12-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### Russell *v.*Russell.

*Lili in Equity by Claimant of Insurance Fund*

1. *Children; meaning of word.*— The word *children,*in its ordinary and legal signification, does not include grand-children, unless a clear intention tó include them can be fairly collected from the terms of the instrument in which the word is used.

2. *Policy of life-insurance; patrol evidence explaining word ‘cliildrertf as beneficiaries.*— A policy of life-insurance is not more open to variation by parol evidence, than any other written instrument; and where the beneficiaries are' therein described as the *children*of the assured, parol evidence can not be received to Show that a grand-child was intended to be included.

Appeal from the Chancery Court of Mobile.

Heard before the Hon. EL Austill.

The bill in this case was filed on the 2d January, 1878, by George A. Russell, a minor, who sued by his next friend, and who was a grandson of George W. Russell, deceased, against the widow and children of said decedent, and also against the Mobile Life Insurance Company; and sought a decree declaring the complainant was entitled to share in the benefits of a policy which the decedent had effected on his own life, in favor of his wife, “Mrs. Margaret Russell, and children.” The chancellor sustain'ed a demurrer to the bill, at the instance of the widow and children,- and dismissed it; and his decree is now assigned as error.

Herndon & Smith, for appellant.

Jno. T. Taylor, contra, (No briefs on file.)

BRICKELL, C. J.

The word *children,*in its ordinary and legal signification, comprehends only immediate offspring, unless a clear intention to use it in a larger sense can be fairly collected from the instrument in which it is enlployedIn *Continental Life Insurance Company v. Webb,*51 Ala. 688, we held, that when employed in a policy of life-insurance, taken by a parent on his own life', to designate the beneficiaries to whom the insurance money was payable, it embraced only immediate offspring, and not grand-children, or lineal descendants remoter in degree, there being no words in the policy which ought to deflect it from its ordinary signification. A policy of life-insurance is not more open to variation *501by parol evidence, than other written instruments. The intention of the parties must be collected from the writings to which their stipulations and agreements may be reduced. It was not permissible by parol evidence to show that' the insured intended that the appellant, a grand-child, should share with the children in the insurance money. The policy could not be thus varied from its legal meaning and operation.

The decree is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Burton D. Green, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Burton Green, Appellant.

Appeals by defendant, from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered December 18,1979, and (2) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered January 11, 1980. Judgments affirmed. No opinion. These cases are remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, and the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 13 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA DENISE NAILS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv737-WKW

) (WO)

DOTHAN RESCUE MISSION, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This action is presently before the court on plaintiff's motion for judgment (Doc. #

30), which the court construes as a motion to compel discovery. Plaintiff appears to

complain of defendant’s failure to answer her discovery requests fully; however, the court

is unable to determine the precise nature of the discovery dispute from plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff has failed to set forth the text of the particular requests as to which she seeks to

compel a response, and she has failed to include defendant’s responses. See Local Rule 37.2

(“Any discovery motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and 37 shall include, in the

motion itself or in an attached memorandum, a verbatim recitation of each interrogatory,

request, answer, response, and objection which is the subject of the motion or a copy of the

actual discovery document which is the subject of the motion.”).

Additionally, the motion is due to be denied pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 26(c) and 37(a)(2)(B) and ¶ 5 of the General Order of this court entered on

November 22, 1993.

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 32 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 1 of 2
The applicable provision of this court's General Order reads as follows:

The court will not consider any motion relating to discovery, such as a motion

to compel or a motion for protective order, unless the motion is accompanied

by a written certification that the moving party has made reasonable goodfaith effort to reach agreement with opposing counsel on the matters set forth

in the motion.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 37(a)(2)(B), as amended on December 1,

1993, require litigants to seek to resolve discovery disputes by a good faith conference

before seeking court intervention. Discovery motions filed pursuant to these Rules must be

accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to

confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action.

Plaintiff has included no certification that she has, in good faith, conferred with defendant’s

attorney in an attempt to resolve this matter without the intervention of this court.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (Doc. # 30) is DENIED without prejudice.

DONE, this 22nd day of December, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 32 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 2 of 2
SCPW-13-000095
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (S.P.P. No. 12-1-0011)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By : R eck ten wal d, C.J ., Nak ayama, Ac oba , M cKe nna , a nd Pol lac k, JJ. ) Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney’s motion for reconsideration of the February 21, 2013 order denying his “Motion for Appoin[t]ment of Counsel Demand by U.S. Supreme Court”, which was reviewed as a petition for a writ of mandamus,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, March 13, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0000095 13-MAR-2013 01:41 PM
1801.000 Scope of part.

This part sets forth general information about the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Supplement, also referred to as the NFS.

Parent topic: PART 1801—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM
Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 2 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
PGI 201.109 Statutory acquisition-related dollar thresholds - adjustment for inflation.       Statutory acquisition-related dollar thresholds are reviewed every 5             years to calculate adjustment for inflation, as required by Section 807 of the National             Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375). The matrix showing             the most recent escalation adjustments of statutory acquisition-related dollar             thresholds in the DFARS is available here.    **Parent topic:** PGI 201.1 -PURPOSE, AUTHORITY, ISSUANCE
```

[109th Congress Public Law 341]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ341.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 1865]]

Public Law 109-341
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate a portion of the Federal building located at 2100 Jamieson 
  Avenue, in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ``Justin W. Williams United 
  States Attorney's Building''. <<NOTE: Oct. 13, 2006 -  [H.R. 1463]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    (a) In General.--The building and structure described in subsection 
(b) shall be known and designated as the ``Justin W. Williams United 
States Attorney's Building''.
    (b) Description.--The building and structure to be designated under 
subsection (a) is that portion of the Federal building located at 2100 
Jamieson Avenue, in Alexandria, Virginia, that is attached to the 
Federal building's main tower structure, described as A-Wing in the 
architectural plans, and currently occupied by the Office of the United 
States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria 
Division.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building and structure described in 
section 1(b) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Justin W. 
Williams United States Attorney's Building''.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary for appropriate identifying designations to be affixed to the 
building and structure described in section 1(b) and for 

[[Page 120 STAT. 1866]]

an appropriate plaque reflecting the designation and honoring Justin W. 
Williams and his service to the Nation to be affixed to or displayed in 
such building and structure.

    Approved October 13, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1463:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 151 (2005):
                                    Apr. 13, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 152 (2006):
                                    Sept. 29, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-cr-200-WHA 

)

ROSA E. RINCON )

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DISMISS REMAINING COUNT OF INDICTMENT

Comes now the United States of America, by and through its Attorney for the Middle

District of Alabama, and moves the Court for leave to dismiss the remaining count of the

Indictment, Count One, against Rose Rincon on the following grounds: Interest of Justice.

Previously, the Court permitted the dismissal of Count Two against Ms. Rincon. 

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of December, 2006.

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Christopher A. Snyder

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0197

334.223.7280

334.223.7135 fax

christopher.a.snyder@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 92 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-cr-200-WHA 

)

ROSA E. RINCON )

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 19, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing

to the following: Jay Lewis.

Respectfully submitted,

 LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Christopher A. Snyder

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Telephone: (334) 223-7280

Fax: (334) 223-7135

E-mail: christopher.a.snyder@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 92 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 2 of 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-cr-200-WHA 

)

ROSA E. RINCON )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Motion for Leave to Dismiss Remaining Count of the Indictment

as to Rosa E. Rincon, heretofore filed in the above styled cause, and for good cause shown, the Court

is of the opinion that the motion should be and the same hereby is granted. It is, therefore,

CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that said motion be and

the same is hereby granted.

DONE this day of December, 2006.

 

 W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DISMISSAL OF COUNT ONE OF THE INDICTMENT

Comes now the United States of America with leave of the Court first had and obtained and

dismisses the remaining count one of the Indictment heretofore filed in the above styled cause as to

Rosa E. Rincon.

Respectfully submitted,

LEURA GARRETT CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Christopher A. Snyder

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0197

334.223.7280

334.223.7135 fax

christopher.a.snyder@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 92-2 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 1 of 1
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS TE-6 Biomass and Foliage Area DataThe BOREAS TE-6 team collected several data sets in support of its efforts to characterize and interpret information on the plant biomass, allometry, biometry, sapwood, leaf area index, net primary production, soil temperature, leaf water potential, soil CO, flux, and multivegetation imagery of boreal vegetation. This data set contains measurements of estimates of the standing biomass and leaf area index for the plant species at the TF, CEV, and AUX sites in the SSA and NSA during the growing seasons of 1994 and 1995. 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 Activity Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010005739Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Papagno, Andrea*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Gower, Stith T.*(Wisconsin Univ. Madison, WI United States)*Vogel, Jason G.*(Wisconsin Univ. Madison, WI United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL145Rept-2000-03136-0/VOL145NAS 1.15:209891/VOL145Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010005739.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