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

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

J.B., a minor child, by and through *

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on *

behalf of himself and all others *

similarly situated; *

*

Plaintiff, *

vs. * CASE NO:02:06cv755-MHT

*

*

WALTER WOOD, in his individual *

capacity, *

*

Defendant. *

J.B., a minor child, by and through *

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on *

behalf of himself and all others *

similarly situated; *

*

Plaintiff, *

vs. * CASE NO:02:06cv908-MEF

*

*

WALTER WOOD, in his individual *

capacity, *

*

Defendant. *

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

COMES NOW the plaintiff, by and through counsel, and requests the Court to extend the

time for filing Motions and Briefs regarding class certification for thirty days and as grounds

states as follows:

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 01/30/2007 Page 1 of 3
1. That plaintiff’s motion for class certification is due January 31, 2007. That in late

November 2006, the plaintiff submitted his Requests for Production to the defendant, the

requests relating to documentation relevant to a motion for class certification.

2. That the defendant has failed to respond to the requests for production, nor has the

defendant objected to the same. That the requested documents pertain directly to establishing the

propriety of maintaining this action as a class action and, in lieu of filing a motion to compel, the

plaintiff requests the Court extend the time for filing plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification

and supporting brief for thirty days. Plaintiff believes the defendant will produce the requested

documents in a timely fashion to allow submission of his motion and brief by March 2, 2007.

3. That extension from the current deadline of January 31, 2007 to March 2, 2007 does

not detrimentally impact any other deadline set forth in the scheduling order.

4. Counsel for the defendant previously indicated concurrence with this motion, however,

due to his unavailability to coordinate the filing of a joint motion, plaintiff submits this request

absent confirmation of defendant’s position regarding the request.

WHEREFORE THE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the plaintiff requests an additional

thirty days to file motions and briefs regarding class certification.

Submitted on this the 30th day of January, 2007.

s//Robert D. Drummond, Jr.

Attorney for the Plaintiff

ASB-4619-O78R

323 De La Mare Ave.

Fairhope, AL 36532

251-990-6249

fax:251-650-1264

robertdrummond@bellsouth.net

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 01/30/2007 Page 2 of 3
s//Michael J. Crow

Attorney for the Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 30th day of January, 2007, the foregoing was electronically

filed with the Clerk of this Court thereby providing notice to counsel for the defendant, T.

Dudley Perry, Esq.

s//Robert D. Drummond, Jr.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 01/30/2007 Page 3 of 3
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7258 

To recognize and honor the service of individuals who served in the United 

States Cadet Nurse Corps during World War II, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2018 

Mrs. BUSTOS (for herself, Mr. GIANFORTE, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. CLARK of 

Massachusetts, and Mr. KEATING) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and in addition to 

the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To recognize and honor the service of individuals who served 

in the United States Cadet Nurse Corps during World 

War II, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RECOGNITION AND HONORING OF SERVICE OF 

4 INDIVIDUALS WHO SERVED IN UNITED 

5 STATES CADET NURSE CORPS DURING 

6 WORLD WAR II. 

7 (a) DETERMINATION OF ACTIVE MILITARY SERV8 ICE.— 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7258 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense 

2 shall be deemed to have determined under subpara3 graph (A) of section 401(a)(1) of the GI Bill Im4 provement Act of 1977 (Public Law 95–202; 38 

5 U.S.C. 106 note) that the service of the organization 

6 known as the United States Cadet Nurse Corps dur7 ing the period beginning on July 1, 1943, and end8 ing on December 31, 1948, constitutes active mili9 tary service. 

10 (2) ISSUANCE OF DISCHARGE.—Not later than 

11 one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

12 the Secretary shall, pursuant to subparagraph (B) of 

13 such section, issue to each member of such organiza14 tion a discharge from service of such organization 

15 under honorable conditions where the nature and 

16 duration of the service of such member so warrants. 

17 (b) BENEFITS.— 

18 (1) STATUS AS A VETERAN.—Except as other19 wise provided in this subsection and notwithstanding 

20 any other provision of law, an individual who re21 ceives a discharge under subsection (a)(2) for service 

22 shall be honored as a veteran but shall not be enti23 tled by reason of such service to any benefit under 

24 a law administered by the Secretary of Veterans Af25 fairs. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7258 IH

1 (2) BURIAL BENEFITS.—Service for which an 

2 individual receives a discharge under subsection 

3 (a)(2) shall be considered service in the active mili4 tary, naval, or air service (as defined in section 101 

5 of title 38, United States Code) for purposes of eligi6 bility and entitlement to benefits under chapters 23 

7 and 24 of title 38, United States Code. 

8 (3) MEDALS OR OTHER COMMENDATIONS.—The 

9 Secretary of Defense may design and produce a 

10 service medal or other commendation to honor indi11 viduals who receive a discharge under subsection 

12 (a)(2). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 13, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-482

Lower Tribunal No. 98-35550

________________



### Jerry Neil Alfred

, Petitioner,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Respondent.

A case of original jurisdiction.

Jerry Neil Alfred, in proper person

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General

, for respondent

.

Before SHEPHERD, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

SHEPHERD, C.J.

Petitioner, Jerry Alfred, has filed over twenty appeals and petitions with this

court since 2001. Alfred’s most recent petitions serve as exemplars of his filinghistory with this court. The petition in case number 3D15-482 is a successive

petition for redress of manifest injustice that restates verbatim more than half of a

petition previously denied in case number 3D14-2191, and the petition in case

number 3D15-483 is an unauthorized petition to hold the trial court accountable for

a public records request filed around twelve years ago in 2003.

On March 06, 2015, this court issued an order to show cause why Alfred

should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions,

or petitions relating to his convictions, judgments, and sentences in case number

98-35550. Alfred responded by admitting that his prior filings were frivolous, but

contended his most recent filings were different, despite successively petitioning

on issues already addressed by this court.

“[A]ny citizen, including a citizen attacking his or her conviction, abuses the

right to pro se access by filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby

diminishing the ability of the courts to devote their finite resources to the

consideration of legitimate claims.” State v. Spencer

, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999).

After an order to show cause and the opportunity to answer, a court may sanction a

party for repetitious and frivolous pleadings by preventing further filings from that

party. Id.

Upon consideration of the over twenty filings from Alfred before this court,

along with his response to the order to show cause, we find that Alfred has failed to

2demonstrate good cause for his actions. Based on Alfred’s repeated attempts to

abuse the justice system with frivolous appeals, it is hereby ordered that the Clerk

of the Third District Court of Appeal will refuse to accept any further filings

relating to case number 98-35550, unless they have been reviewed and signed by

an attorney who is a licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing. Any

such further and unauthorized pro se filings by Alfred will subject him to

sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida

Department of Corrections for consideration by it of disciplinary action. See

944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2013).

3
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04249**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  04249\04249_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 04249\04249_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04249\04249_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04249\04249_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

04249\04249_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 04249\Supporting Documentation\04249_Arial Map 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 04249\Supporting Documentation\04249_Arial Map 3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 04249\Supporting Documentation\04249_Arial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04249\Supporting Documentation\04249_Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04249\04249_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04249\04249_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
PGI 252.103 Identification of provisions and

clauses.

(c) Local provisions and clauses developed by departments and agencies for a single-use intended to

meet the needs of an individual acquisition shall be identified by the title, date, and name of the

department or agency that developed the local clause. For example, if “X” Agency negotiated a

single-use clause for use of special government facilities during discussions, such clause would be

identified in the contract as follows:

“Special Use of Government Facilities (DATE) X Agency”

(d)(1)(A) Local provisions and clauses that will be used on a repetitive basis shall be identified by—

(1) The chapter assigned to the department or agency under Title 48 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR);

(2) FAR subpart “52.2”;

(3) The applicable FAR part;

(4) A four-digit sequential number in the 9000 series for the suffix (see DFARS 252.101(b)(2)(ii)(B));

(5) Title; and

(6) Date.

(B) For example, if “Y” Agency is assigned a CFR chapter number 99, and has developed a provision

regarding an evaluation factor for past performance to be used on a repetitive basis in negotiated

acquisitions, such provision would be identified as follows:

“9952.215-9XXX Past Performance Evaluation Factor (DATE)”

Parent topic: PGI 252.1 -INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES
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

September 4, 2012

s0827

Order 

September 4, 2012

145235

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145235

COA: 308604

Washtenaw CC: 11-001057-FH

BRANDON BERNARD FORTSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 16, 2012 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32362]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-11-000]


Critical Path Transmission, LLC; Clear Power, LLC; v. California 
Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Complaint

December 17, 2010.
    Take notice that on December 14, 2010, pursuant to Rule 206 of the 
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206 (2010) and sections 206 and 306 
of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e (2006), Critical Path 
Transmission, LLC and Clear Power LLC (Complainants) filed a complaint 
against California Independent System Operator, Inc. (CAISO or 
Respondent), alleging a violation of the CAISO tariff, as more fully 
explained in the complaint.
    Complainants state that copies of the complaint were served upon 
Respondent.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's 
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before 
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and 
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8dcbc8dfcec2e3e1e4e3e8def8fdfde2fff9cdebe8ffeea3eae2fb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3f5f6e1f0fcdddfdaddd6e0c6c3c3dcc1c7f3d5d6c1d09dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 3, 2011.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32362 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Microgravity opens a new universe of possibilities

μg

Major Areas of Study

Biotechnology: Like peering under the

hood of a car, basic research into the

structures of proteins and cells help us

understand how diseases work and

may help chart a path to recovery.

(Space-grown insulin crystals)

Combustion: Modern society depends

on fire in many forms, yet we still are

just grappling with the basic physics

and chemistry of how it works—and

how we might control it better. (Candle

flame on Earth and in space)

Fluid Physics: Freed of gravity‘s effects,

materials in freefall behave differently

and illuminate crucial details from soil

liquefaction in earthquakes to fluids in

cooling systems for planetary

spacecraft. (Boiling in space)

Fundamental Physics: In microgravity,

matter changes form and behavior,

revealing basic laws of nature that lie

behind the complex workings of our

world. (Condensation patterns in lasercooled atoms)

Materials Science: Research in orbit

on the growth of crystals, glasslike

metals, and other supermaterials will

power industry of the 21st century.

(Metal-like dendrites grown in space)

μg: The prefix micro (μ) is derived from

the original Greek mikros, meaning

small. By this definition, a microgravity

environment is one in which the

apparent weight of a system is small

compared to its actual weight due to

gravity

Microgravity Research Program Office—SD10

Marshall Space Flight Center

Huntsville, AL 35812

http://microgravity.nasa.gov

NP-2001-09-62-MSFC http://microgravity.nasa.gov

Cut along the black area; fold along black line >

< Cut along the yellow area; fold along black line
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval. ( a ) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.*). The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under control number 3150-0199.
( b ) The approved information collection requirements contained in this Part appear in §§ 63.6, 63.47, 63.62, 63.63, and 63.65.
( c ) In § 63.47, IAEA Design Information Questionnaire forms IAEA Design Information Questionnaire forms are approved under control number 3150-0056, and DOC/NRC Forms AP-1, AP-A, and associated forms are approved under control numbers 0694-0135.
[66 FR 55792, Nov. 2, 2001, as amended at 73 FR 78606, Dec. 23, 2008; 85 FR 65663, Oct. 16, 2020]
IAEA Design Information Questionnaire forms
#### Chad Saccomagno, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[814 NYS2d 879]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated May 4, 2005, which denied his motion, pursuant to CPLR 3126, to strike the answer of the defendant New York City Transit Authority or impose sanctions based upon spoliation of evidence.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to strike the answer of the defendant New York City Transit Authority or impose sanctions based on spoliation of evidence. However, the appeal has been rendered academic in light of our determination of the appeal from an amended order of the same court dated January 19, 2005 *(see Saccomagno v New York City Tr. Auth.,*29 AD3d 979 [2006] [decided herewith]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of 230 Green Restaurant Corp., Petitioner, v. State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR *899to annul a determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated April 2, 1969, which canceled petitioner’s special on-premises liquor license on the grounds that the petitioner had violated sections 106 (subd. 9, par. [a]), 110 and 111 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law and rules 36 (subds. 2, 15) and 43 of the State Liquor Authority (9 NYCRR 53.1 [b], [o]). Determination unanimously modified on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of striking out the provision canceling petitioner’s license, by annulling such cancellation and by substituting therefor a penalty of suspension of petitioner’s license of 10 days on each of the five charges, to run concurrently. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs or disbursements. On the record before us, considering both the nature and the gravity of the violations committed, the cancellation of petitioner’s license was so disproportionate to such offenses as to constitute an abuse of discretion on the part of respondent *(Matter of Stolz*v. *Board of Regents,*4 A D 2d 361; *Matter of McGinnis’ Broadway Rest.*v. *Rohan,*6 A D 2d 115). Concur—Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, Tilzer, McGivern and Steuer, JJ.
§ 71.41 Demonstration of compliance. ( a ) The effects on a package of the tests specified in § 71.71 (“Normal conditions of transport”), and the tests specified in § 71.73 (“Hypothetical accident conditions”), and § 71.61 (“Special requirements for Type B packages containing more than 105 A2”), must be evaluated by subjecting a specimen or scale model to a specific test, or by another method of demonstration acceptable to the Commission, as appropriate for the particular feature being considered.
( b ) Taking into account the type of vehicle, the method of securing or attaching the package, and the controls to be exercised by the shipper, the Commission may permit the shipment to be evaluated together with the transporting vehicle.
( c ) Environmental and test conditions different from those specified in §§ 71.71 and 71.73 may be approved by the Commission if the controls proposed to be exercised by the shipper are demonstrated to be adequate to provide equivalent safety of the shipment.
( d ) Packages for which compliance with the other provisions of these regulations is impracticable shall not be transported except under special package authorization. Provided the applicant demonstrates that compliance with the other provisions of the regulations is impracticable and that the requisite standards of safety established by these regulations have been demonstrated through means alternative to the other provisions, a special package authorization may be approved for one-time shipments. The applicant shall demonstrate that the overall level of safety in transport for these shipments is at least equivalent to that which would be provided if all the applicable requirements had been met.
[60 FR 50264, Sept. 28, 1995, as amended at 69 FR 3794, Jan. 26, 2004; 69 FR 58039, Sept. 29, 2004]
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

February 7, 2011 

s0131 

Order 

 

February 7, 2011 

141641 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141641 

 COA: 297072 

Oakland CC: 2005-205885-FC 

DARQUESE LAANTHONY LEWIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 30, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### Chicken Delight Eastern, Inc., Respondent, v. Ro-En Paper Corp., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 8, 1968, as, on two separate motions by plaintiff, (1) dismissed the two affirmative defenses in defendant’s answer to the complaint and (2) vacated in part defendant’s notice of examination before trial. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motions to dismiss the affirma*946tive defenses and for a protective order denied. In our opinion, the affirmative defenses are sufficient in law to warrant a trial. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.