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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES OTIS CATER, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-697-WKW

 ) (WO)

DEBORAH GRIFFIN, AUSA, )

Southern District of Alabama, et al., )

 )

Respondents. )

O R D E R

After an independent and de novo review of the file, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and

DECREE of the Court that:

(1) The objection filed by the petitioner on August 30, 2006 (Doc. # 8) is overruled;

(2) The recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge entered on August 14,

2006 (Doc. # 4) is adopted;

(3) The 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Petitioner James

Cater is DENIED; and

(4) The above-styled case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

An appropriate judgment shall be entered.

DONE this 26th day of September, 2006.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00697-WKW-DRB Document 9 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
      32





**Certification
      Pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350,**


**As
      Adopted Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the quarterly report of B.H.I.T. Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gary O. Marino,
      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Bennett Marks,
      Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of § 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.





/s/
                Gary O. MarinoGary
                O. MarinoChairman
                and Chief Executive Officer/s/
                Bennett MarksBennett
                MarksVice
                President andChief
                Financial Officer





November
      14, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

FELICE VEACH,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:20cv6023-MCR/MAF

RICKY D. DIXON, Secretary,

Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

 /

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the 

U.S. Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 12. The parties have been furnished a copy of 

the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file 

objections pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court has made a de novo review 

of all timely filed objections and determined the Report and Recommendation 

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 12, is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. The § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is DENIED.

Case 3:20-cv-06023-MCR-MAF Document 16 Filed 04/26/22 Page 1 of 2
3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED and leave to appeal in forma 

pauperis is also DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of April 2022.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-06023-MCR-MAF Document 16 Filed 04/26/22 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 610 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 610

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     December 15, 2005.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen 
enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other 
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally divided among and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Homeland Security. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the 
bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the 
House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
the bill, as amended, are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 
further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those 
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each further 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such further amendments are 
waived. After disposition of the further amendments printed in part B of the 
report of the Committee on Rules, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without 
motion. No further consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant 
to a subsequent order of the House.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### In the Matter of Clarence W. Chase, as Director of Probation of the Family Court Probation Department of the County of Broome, Respondent, v. James Brooke, Appellant.

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Broome County, entered August 11, 1969, holding appellant guilty of contempt of court for failure to make support payments directed by the court and remanding him to jail ,for 90 days unless he should thenceforth make stated payments. Counsel for the appellant asserts that the constitutionality of section 454 >of the Family Court Act is in issue. However, the constitutionality of imprisonment for a *willful*failure to comply with the court’s mandate has been upheld. (See *Chase*v. *Griffin,*31 A D 2d 681.) The present record establishes that during a period when the appellant was employed for three months he made only one payment to *596his wife and for that failure he offered no excuse. The court made no findings, but upon the present record its implied finding of willfulness is sustained. The present ease does not present a situation where the imprisonment was imposed upon a husband for failure to pay during a period of time when he was unable to pay. Order affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Sweeney,- JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.
#### MILLER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by Mary A. Miller, as administratrix, etc., of John H. Miller, deceased, against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### McCABE v. MILLER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by Thomas J. McCabe against Rudolph P. Miller, as superintendent, etc.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1099.
#### MEYERHOEFER, Respondent, v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 27, 1914.)

Action by Frank Meyerhoefer against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.

No opinon. judgment and order unanimously afiirmed, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter B. (Anonymous), Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered May 31, 1968 after trial, adjudging him a youthful offender and imposing sentence. Action remitted to the trial court for a further hearing and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. The appeal will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the hearing. In our opinion, the apparent circumstances surrounding defendant’s apprehension and the subsequent confession he made to his interrogator require that *966a separate *Huntley*hearing be held to determine whether his confession was voluntary and, also, whether his apprehension was justified (cf. *People*v. *Morales,*22 N Y 2d 55). In its present state, the record is too meagre and a prompt, separate hearing on these issues is required (cf. *People*v. *Sykes,*22 N Y 2d 159, 163). Furthermore, in the event that defendant’s confession is found, after the hearing, to be admissible against him, the trial court should then “ specify the acts, otherwise criminal, supporting the determination that defendant is a youthful offender” *(People*v. *Sykes, supra,*p. 163). We have not considered defendant’s other contentions. Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
PUBLIC LAW 106–268—SEPT. 22, 2000 114 STAT. 789

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1959:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106–688 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

June 27, considered and passed House.

Sept. 13, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–268

106th Congress

An Act

To designate the Federal building located at 643 East Durango Boulevard in San

Antonio, Texas, as the ‘‘Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training Center’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The Federal building located at 643 East Durango Boulevard

in San Antonio, Texas, shall be known and designated as the

‘‘Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training Center’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal building referred

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Adrian

A. Spears Judicial Training Center’’.

Approved September 22, 2000.

Sept. 22, 2000

[H.R. 1959]
PGI 204.7303-4 DoD damage assessment activities.       (a) Prior to initiating damage assessment activities, the contracting officer shall verify that any contract identified in the cyber incident report includes the clause at DFARS 252.204-7012. If the contracting officer determines that a contract identified in the report does not contain the clause, the contracting officer shall notify the requiring activity that damage assessment activities, if required, may be determined to constitute a change to the contract.          (b) In cases of cyber incidents involving multiple contracts, a single contracting officer will be designated to coordinate with the contractor regarding media submission (see                 204.7303-3             (a)(2)).          (c) If the requiring activity requests the contracting officer to obtain media, as defined in DFARS 252.204-7012, from the contractor, the contracting officer shall—          (1) Provide a written request for the media;          (2) Provide the contractor with the “Instructions for Media Submission” document available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi/docs/Instructions_for_Submitting_M...; and          (3) Provide a copy of the request to DC3, electronically via email at dcise@dc3.mil, and the requiring activity.          (d) If the contracting officer is notified by the requiring activity that media are not required, the contracting officer shall notify the contractor and simultaneously provide a copy of the notice to DC3 and the requiring activity.          (e) The contracting officer shall document the action taken as required by paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, in the contract file.          (f) Upon receipt of the contractor media, DC3 will confirm receipt in writing to the contractor and the requesting contracting officer.          (g) Once the requiring activity determines that the damage assessment activities are complete, the requiring activity will provide the contracting officer with a report documenting the actions taken to close out the cyber incident.    **Parent topic:** PGI 204.7303 Procedures.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000764763
<NAME>                        @ebs,inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     37,818
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              320,961
<ALLOWANCES>                               35,231
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           337,725
<PP&E>                                     3,800,862
<DEPRECIATION>                             2,534,738
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             3,536,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      4,664,875
<BONDS>                                    811,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                1,690,346
<COMMON>                                   15,473
<OTHER-SE>                                 3,645,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               3,536,467
<SALES>                                    2,475,824
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           2,475,824
<CGS>                                      1,693,018
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1,693,018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           2,563,406
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         115,162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,420,762)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,420,762)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,420,762)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.10)



</TABLE>
PGI 219.201 General policy.

(c)(10)(1) Agencies are not precluded from requiring that actions over the micro-purchase threshold,

but under the simplified acquisition threshold, that are totally set aside for small business be

reviewed by the small business specialist. One example of when an agency may choose to require

this review is when the agency determines that such a review is necessary to assist contracting

officers in identifying opportunities for other small business set-aside programs (e.g., HUBZone,

service-disabled veteran-owned, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business) in

order to meet small business goals.

(2) Modifications that increase the scope of the contract, or the order under a Federal Supply

Schedule contract, should be reviewed by the small business specialist. At a minimum, these actions

might impact the small business subcontracting plan. However, funding modifications or

modifications that do not increase the scope of the contract generally should not be reviewed,

because the value that a small business specialist review would add in these instances would be

minimal compared to the resources that would be expended.

(d) Small business specialists are appointed and perform functions in accordance with DoD

Instruction (DoDI) 4205.01, DoD Small Business Programs. In the DoDI, small business specialists

are called “small business professionals.”

Parent topic: PGI 219.2 -POLICIES
#### JUDSON, Appellant, v. FURLONG, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 7, 1914.)

Action by Mary C. Judson (sometimes known as Mary Mack Judson) against Mary E. Furlong.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant *1124to abide event. Held that, an the pleadings and the statement of plaintiff's counsel at the trial that the terms of the contract were as admitted in defendant's answer; the trial court should have found that there was a valid and existing contract between the parties, which consisted of the written offer, signed by defendant, and acceptance, signed by plaintiff, without the added clause in reference to the mortgage tax.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

December 26, 2012

t1217

Order 

December 26, 2012

144660

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144660

COA: 296677

Saginaw CC: 07-029814-FC

ELRICK DELMAR COOPER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
H. Res. 523

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

October 28, 2005.

Whereas on October 26, 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 

President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, declared that 

‘‘Israel must be wiped off the map’’, described Israel as 

‘‘a disgraceful blot [on] the face of the Islamic world’’, 

and declared that ‘‘[a]nybody who recognizes Israel will 

burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury’’; 

Whereas Iran funds, trains, and openly supports terrorist 

groups that are determined to destroy Israel; 

Whereas on December 14, 2001, the President of Iran’s highly influential Expediency Council, Ali Akbar HashemiRafsanjani, threatened Israel with nuclear attack, saying, 

‘‘[i]f one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with 

weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the 

imperialists’ strategy will reach a standstill because the 

use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy 

everything [in Israel], while it will merely harm the Islamic world’’; 

Whereas Iran has aggressively pursued a clandestine effort to 

arm itself with nuclear weapons; and 

Whereas the longstanding policy of the Iranian regime aimed 

at destroying the democratic state of Israel, highlighted 

by statements such as those by Ahmadinejad and 
2

•HRES 523 EH 

Rafsanjani, underscores the danger of an Iran armed 

with nuclear weapons: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) condemns, in the strongest terms, 

3 Ahmadinejad’s outrageous and despicable threats 

4 and demands that he repudiate them; 

5 (2) calls on the United Nations Security Coun6 cil and all civilized nations to condemn and reject 

7 these statements and to censure Iran for its state8 ments and for its policies aimed at destroying Israel; 

9 (3) further calls on the United Nations Security 

10 Council and all civilized nations to consider meas11 ures to deny Iran the means to carry out its threats 

12 and to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; 

13 and 

14 (4) reaffirms the unwavering alliance between 

15 the United States and Israel and reasserts the com16 mitment of the United States to defend the right of 

17 Israel to exist as a free and democratic state. 

Attest:

Clerk.
# L_2023173EN.01004001.xml

| 6.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 173/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/40

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 138/2020

of 25 September 2020

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2023/1397]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/111 of 13 January 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 as regards the approval of civil aviation security equipment as well as third countries recognised as applying security standards equivalent to the common basic standards on civil aviation security (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/111 of 13 January 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 as regards the approval of civil aviation security equipment as well as third countries recognised as applying security standards equivalent to the common basic standards on civil aviation security (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 66he (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘- | 32020 R 0111: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/111 of 13 January 2020 (OJ L 21, 27.1.2020, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘-

32020 R 0111: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/111 of 13 January 2020 (OJ L 21, 27.1.2020, p. 1).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/111 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 26 September 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 25 September 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 21, 27.1.2020, p. 1.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 463 

Of inquiry directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide certain 

information to the House of Representatives relating to the reapportionment of airport screeners. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Mr. HOLDEN, Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. WATT, Mr. 

COOPER, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. WU, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. MENENDEZ, 

Mr. FORD, Mr. SNYDER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. PASTOR, and Mr. TERRY) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Homeland Security 

RESOLUTION 

Of inquiry directing the Secretary of Homeland Security 

to provide certain information to the House of Representatives relating to the reapportionment of airport screeners. 

1 Resolved, That the Secretary of Homeland Security 

2 is directed to furnish the House of Representatives, not 

3 later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this 

4 resolution, all documents and records in his possession re5 lating to the review of the screener allocation model of the 

6 Transportation Security Administration and the subse7 quent reapportionment of airport screeners employed by 
2 

•HRES 463 IH 

1 the Transportation Security Administration which was an2 nounced on or around July 26, 2005. 

Æ