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

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

KEVIN MITCHELL ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 vs. ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 02-CV-4442 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION ) 

SOLUTIONS, INC. ) 

 and ) 

CBA INFORMATION SERVICES ) 

 and ) 

BP/CITIBANK SD ) 

 and ) 

CAPITAL ONE BANK ) 

 and ) 

CROSS COUNTRY BANK ) 

 and ) 

DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES ) 

 and ) 

ORCHARD BANK ) 

 and ) 

PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 )

PRAECIPE TO MARK CASE SETTLED, DISCONTINUED AND ENDED AS TO 

DEFENDANT PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL ONLY 

TO THE CLERK OF COURT: 

 Please mark the above matter settled, discontinued and ended with prejudice as to 

Defendant Providian Financial only. 

FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. 

 BY:____________________________ 

JAMES A. FRANCIS, ESQUIRE 

MARK D. MAILMAN, ESQUIRE 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Land Title Building, 19th Floor 

100 South Broad Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19110 

(215) 735-8600 

Dated: November 12, 2003 

Case 2:02-cv-04442-JF Document 40 Filed 11/12/2003 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04442-JF Document 40 Filed 11/12/2003 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2



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 Annual Report of Ingles Markets, Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending September 29, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald B. Freeman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/    RONALD B.
FREEMAN                 
|Ronald B. Freeman Chief Financial Officer
|November 28, 2007
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT&"Arial,Regular"		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2020 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2020-10	&"Arial,Bold"VII CER - &P	&"Arial,Bold"March 2020
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

November 19, 2003

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

PATRICIA HOLMES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

And

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee,

No. 02-1377 v.

MARION COUNTY OFFICE OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United

States District Court

for the Southern

District of Indiana,

Indianapolis Division.

No. IP 00-0677-C-M/S

Larry J. McKinney,

Chief Judge.

Order

The opinion of this court issued on November 19, 2003, is

amended as follows:

Page 1, line 5, change “an banc” to “en banc”.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

JODI K. HUPE, mother and *

next friend of B.A.H., a minor, *

* No. 14-448V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: January 8, 2016

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorney’s fees and costs; award in

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * the amount to which respondent does 

* not object.

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Theodore G. Pashos, Esq., Niedner, Bodeux, Carmichael, Huff, Lenox and Pashos, 

L.L.P., St. Charles, MO, for Petitioner;

Amy Kokot, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

On January 6, 2016, petitioner filed a stipulation of fact concerning final 

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above-captioned matter. Previously, petitioner 

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent 

for review. Upon review of petitioner’s application, respondent raised objections 

to certain items. Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended her

application to request $25,000.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by 

petitioner’s counsel, an amounts to which respondent does not object. The Court 

awards this amount.

On May 27, 2014, Jodi K. Hupe, mother and next friend of B.A.H., filed a 

petition for compensation, alleging that the Gardasil vaccination, which she 

received on June 1, 2011, caused B.A.H. to lose consciousness and fall, suffering 

 

1 The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), 

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

injuries to her jaw and face. Petitioner received compensation based upon the 

parties’ proffer. Decision, issued July 9, 2015. Because petitioner received 

compensation, she is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-15(e). 

Petitioner seeks a total of $25,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $25,000.00, in the form of a check made payable to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Theodore G. Pashos, for attorneys’ 

fees and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this 

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Dan Hoffman, at (202) 357-

6360.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
No. P68/266.

protests 297534-K, etc. (New York).

#### Margro Trading Corporation et al. *v.*United States,

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of bicycles, with or without tires having wheels in diameter (measured to the outer circumference of the tire) over 25 inches, weighing less than 36 pounds complete without accessories, and not designed for use with tires having a cross-sectional diameter exceeding 1% inches and that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co., Mangano Cycles Co.*(47 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Larry Joseph Thomas,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-0733 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

A.K. Scribner, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoMarch 24, 2005, the district court directed respondent to

respond further to petitioner’s pleading but did not set a

deadline. Good cause appearing, respondent shall respond to the

April 29, 2004, amended petition for habeas corpus within 30

days.

So ordered. 

Dated: May 10, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00733-MCE -DAD Document 34 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 35 (Thursday, February 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2921]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (07-013)]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below assigned to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.

DATES: February 22, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward K. Fein, Patent Counsel, 
Johnson Space Center, Mail Code AL, Houston, TX 77058-8452; telephone 
(281) 483-4871; fax (281) 483-6936.
    NASA Case No. MSC-23659-2: Microencapsulation System and Method;
    NASA Case No. MSC-24201-1: A Description of an Improved Method for 
Attaching an Inflatable Shell to a Rigid Interface.

    Dated: February 9, 2007.
Keith T. Sefton,
Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management.
 [FR Doc. E7-2921 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. 'SS' 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 'SS' 1350, each of the undersigned certifies that
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of DSET Corporation.


DATE: November 14, 2002                 By: /s/ Dr. Binay Sugla
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Dr. Binay Sugla,
                                           Chief Executive Officer


DATE: November 14, 2002                 By: /s/ Bruce M. Crowell
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Bruce M. Crowell
                                           Vice President and Chief Financial
                                           Officer
No. 65454.

#### J. Eisenberg, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/30347, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of thread waste; that the threads covered by the invoice descriptions in which the word “nylon” was used were of the same material as the threads in the knit cloth the subject of *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727); and that the threads covered by the invoice description in which the word “orlon” was used were made of noncellulosic materials, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT &"Arial,Regular"		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2021 ReportingSection VII  &"Arial,Regular"

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2021-07	&"Arial,Bold"VII CER - &P	&"Arial,Bold"December 2020
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR 

STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE FOR MICROWAVE OVENS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20585

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

9 a.m. – 4 p.m. ET, Room 8E-089

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) will receive comments on the Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR) and the proposed standards as stated in the notice. In 

addition, DOE will present the methodology used for the SNOPR analysis and example 

results. The Department will present its plans for the remaining analysis—the analysis to 

support the Final Rule—and will seek input from interested parties on the methodologies, 

assumptions, data sources, and analysis results. 

Agenda

9:00-9:05 am Welcome

9:05-9:15 am Opening Remarks, Introductions, and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman

9:15-9:30 am Rulemaking Overview 

Wes Anderson

Overview of the analyses in the rulemaking, the tools DOE 

uses to generate results for each analysis, and the issues on 

which DOE would like input during today’s meeting. 

9:30-9:45 am Comments from Participants 

Doug Brookman

Open forum for participants to make a brief summary 

statement and/or identify their key issues regarding the 

SNOPR analyses, methods, data, and results.

9:45-11:00 am Engineering Analysis

Judith Reich

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the 

approach used and factors considered for the market and 

technology assessment, screening analysis, and engineering 

analysis, and a characterization of the results.

11:00-11:15 am Break
11:15 am-11:45 pm Energy Use Analysis, Markups for Equipment Price

Determination, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, Shipments 

Analysis, National Impact Analysis, Trial Standard 

Levels, Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact 

Analysis, Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory 

Impact Analysis

Greg Rosenquist

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the 

approach used and factors considered for the energy and 

water use analysis, markups to determine equipment prices, 

life-cycle cost and payback period analyses, shipments 

analysis, national energy savings, net present value, trial 

standard levels, and utility, employment, environmental, 

and regulatory analyses, and a characterization of the 

results.

11:45-12:00 pm Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Ben Barrington

Summary presentation and discussion regarding, and the 

approach used and factors considered for the manufacturer 

impact analysis.

12:00-12:15 pm Proposed Standards

Ben Barrington

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the 

proposed standards.

12:15-12:30 pm Discussion of Other Issues

Doug Brookman

Open forum to discuss any remaining questions or issues 

identified by participants. 

12:30-12:45 pm Next Steps and Closing Remarks

Wes Anderson

Participants will discuss outstanding issues and concluding 

remarks.

12:45 pm Adjourn
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 187 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 187 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 187 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 187 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 187 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 187 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 187 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 7 of 7
#### In re Buster A. YANCEY, Jr., Petitioner.

No. 01-6282.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 19, 2001.

Buster A. Yancey, Jr., Petitioner pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Buster A. Yancey, Jr., has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus from this court ordering the district court to release him from custody. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re Catawba Indian Tribe,*973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir.1992). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his entitlement to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” *Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,*449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). Yancey has not made such a showing.

Accordingly, we deny Yancey’s petition for mandamus and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 51154 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RAUL CESAR RIOS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:06

- CR

- 450

- 1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Raul Cesar Rios appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his term of supervised release. He argues that the district court erred
because it did not give reasons for its decision to impose his revocation sentence to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for hi s new offense.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-51154 Document: 00512921073 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2015No. 13

- 51154

Because Rios did not object to his sentence on this basis, review is for plain error only. See United States v. Gonzalez , 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 2001). To establish plain error, a defendant must show a forfeited error that
is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but will do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id . A defendant who wishes to establish a plain error with respect to his sentence “must prove that the error affected the sentencing outcome.” United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256, 262

- 63 (5th Cir. 2009) ( internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Even if we assume arguendo that the district court committed plain error by not giving reasons for its decision to run the sentences consecutively, Rios still does not prevail, as he has not shown that the e rror affected his substantial rights. The district court imposed a sentence at the low end of the advisory guidelines range that complied with the relevant policy statement , which states that revocation sentences “shall” run consecutively to any other
ter m of imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. 7B1.3(f) & comment. (n.4). T here is no indication that an explanation would have resulted in a different sentence. See Whitelaw , 580 F.3d at 262

- 63; United States v. Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2009). T he judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

.

2 Case: 13-51154 Document: 00512921073 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2015
No. 48469.

#### Protests 88517-K, etc., of Mason Bros. & Tarlin et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities .cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# sec4_attribtable

Bulletin No. 2024-01	&"Arial,Bold"&9IV AT - &P	 IRC Handout Draft
ACCEPTED 12-16-00331-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 11/27/2017 12:23 PM

Pam Estes CLERK
Part 2 Fiscal Year 2024 Reporting

SUPPLEMENT Section IV

U.S. Standard General Ledger - Account Attribute Definition Report

Attribute Name Short

Name Attribute Definition Domain SystemChars Reference SuppliedBy

Bulletin No. 2023-02 Draft December IRC Handout

BEA Category Indicator BEA Cat At a USSGL account lever, iIndicates whether the Budget 

Enforcement Act (BEA) category is discretionary or

mandatory or discretionary. Additionally, the BEA Category 

is also used at a Treasury account level for governmentwide 

reporting. For Treasury expenditure accounts, this category 

may be classified as discretionary (D), mandatory (M), or 

split (S). For Treasury receipt accounts, this category may be 

classified as discretionary (D), governmental (G), mandatory 

(M), net income (N), or split (S). Note – Split means that 

agency is reporting both discretionary and mandatory 

categories.

D - Discretionary,

M - Mandatory

1/A OMB Circ. 

No. A-11

Bulk File

Credit Cohort Year Cohort Yr Fiscal year when direct loans are obligated or guarantees 

committed by a program, even if disbursements occur in 

subsequent fiscal years.

1001 - OPIC Working Capital,

1992-20242025

4/N OMB Circ. 

No. A-11

Bulk File
exh10-1_note.htm


     

    
      

      

    

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    EXHIBIT 10.1

     

    DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE IN FAVOR OF

    GORDON E. BECKSTEAD DATED JUNE 30, 2008

    
 

    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    DEMAND
PROMISSORY NOTE

     

    $25,000.00                                                                                                                                          Lakewood,
Colorado

                                                                                                                                                                             June 30,
2008

    


    For value
received, the undersigned, V2K INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Colorado corporation (the
“Borrower”),
hereby promises to pay on demand, to the order of Gordon E. Beckstead (the
“Lender”), at,
6635 East Sage Lane, Parker, CO 80138, or at any other place designated at any
time by the holder hereof, in lawful money of the United States of America and
in immediately available funds, the principal sum of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND
NO/100 DOLLARS ($25,000.00) together with interest on the principal amount
hereunder, computed on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed and a
365-day year, from the date hereof until this Note is fully paid at the rate of
TWELVE PERCENT (12%) per annum.

    


    The
Borrower hereby agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorneys’ fees
and legal expenses, in the event this Note is not paid when due, whether or not
legal proceedings are commenced.

    


    Presentment
or other demand for payment, notice of dishonor and protest are expressly
waived.

    


    
      	 
      	
              V2K
      INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Colorado corporation

            
	 
      	
               

              By    /s/ Jerry A.
      Kukuchka                                      

               

              Its     
      CFO
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00543-CV

ACandS, Inc., Appellant

v.

Dorothy A. Lehmann, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and

Estate of Clarence R. Lehmann, Deceased; Alan Sweeten; Eugene Kanak;

James Jones; James Scott; and Henry Taylor, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 26,342, HONORABLE ED MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING

The parties have filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Finality and we

grant their joint motion and dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

The parties allege that the judgment in the underlying matter was intended to be

entered in Cause No. 26,342-A, a cause severed from the original lawsuit for purposes of trial. The

original lawsuit was filed under Cause No. 26,342. Judgment in the severed cause (Cause No.

26,342-A) was mistakenly signed and entered under Cause No. 26,342. There remain in the original

lawsuit other issues and parties pending before the court so that the judgment rendered under Cause

No. 26,342 is interlocutory and unappealable.

The parties request that this appeal (from Cause No. 26,342) be dismissed for want

of finality. The parties represent to this Court that they will jointly move the district court to set aside
2

the current judgment in Cause No. 26,342 and to rendered judgment in Cause No. 26,342-A, after

which appellant AcandS, Inc. will perfect a new appeal from the final judgment entered in Cause No.

26,342-A.

It appears to this Court that the parties’ request is well-taken. Tex. R. App. P.

42.1(a)(1). Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

 

 

Lee Yeakel, Justice

Before: Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Patterson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: December 20, 2001

Do Not Publish