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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

          - [Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555]

# AGENCY:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

# ACTION:

Correction of Public Hearing Time. 

## Correction

In notice document Volume 72 Number 16 beginning on page 3473 on the issue date of January 25, 2007, make the following correction to the meeting time posted:

1. On page 3473, under Public Hearing, the beginning time is corrected to read as 8:30 a.m.

Authority:49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: February 27, 2007.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

 [FR Doc. E7-3814 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
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 on Form 10-K of Katy Industries, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Amir
Rosenthal, 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, as amended; 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/ Amir Rosenthal
------------------
Amir Rosenthal
Chief Financial Officer
May 5, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Katy Industries, Inc. and will be
retained by Katy Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       94
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DODSON

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1068 MCE CMK

vs.

DOLLAR TREE STORES, 

INC., et al., 

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel sanctions against defendant Jason Matecki for failure

to respond to discovery request and failure to appear for his noticed deposition came on for

regular hearing on April 12, 2005. Scott Hubbard appeared for plaintiff. Defendant, who is pro

se, did not appear. In his motion, plaintiff alleges that defendant Matecki has failed to respond to

any discovery requests or to appear for his noticed deposition. A review of the docket shows that

defendant Matecki filed an answer on July 14, 2004 and filed a joint status report on August 20,

2004. 

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01068-MCE -CMK Document 21 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that within fifteen days from the date

this order is filed, defendant Matacki will show good cause why this court should not impose

sanctions for his failure to respond to discovery requests and to appear at his deposition. Failure

to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions. 

DATED: April 21, 2005

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01068-MCE -CMK Document 21 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 3
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, No. CIV 

vs.

 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01068-MCE -CMK Document 21 Filed 04/26/05 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4558 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4558

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the right 
of members of a federally recognized Indian Tribe in the United States 
  and First Nations individuals in Canada to cross the borders of the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 17, 2024

 Mrs. Gillibrand (for herself and Mr. Daines) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the right 
of members of a federally recognized Indian Tribe in the United States 
  and First Nations individuals in Canada to cross the borders of the 
                             United States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tribal Border Crossing Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. MEMBERS OF A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBE IN THE UNITED 
              STATES OR A FIRST NATION IN CANADA.

    Section 289 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1359) 
is amended by striking ``who possess at least 50 per centum of blood of 
the American Indian race.'' and inserting the following: ``who--
            ``(1) are members, or are eligible to become members, of a 
        federally recognized Indian Tribe in the United States; or
            ``(2)(A) has Indian status in Canada through registration 
        under the Indian Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5); or
            ``(B) holds membership in a self-governing First Nation in 
        Canada.''.
                                 <all>
```
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK A. DuROSS,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-0638 DFL PAN P

vs.

SCOTT M. KERNAN, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 8, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-00638-DFL-PAN Document 31 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 8, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Respondent’s December 10, 2004, motion to dismiss is granted and this action

is dismissed as untimely.

DATED: 6/23/2005

 /s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/duro0638.805

Case 2:04-cv-00638-DFL-PAN Document 31 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL JOHN GADDY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

M. TOWNSEND, Appeals Coordinator; et 

al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15786 

D.C. No. 4:16-cv-01319-HSG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Michael John Gaddy appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 

391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 19-15786 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gaddy failed 

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants took any 

adverse action against him because of a grievance he filed to correct an erroneous 

disciplinary record, which was in fact corrected. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 

559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a First Amendment 

retaliation claim in the prison context).

AFFIRMED.
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 GolfGear International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commisson on the date hereof (the "Report"), we John
Pierandozzi, President of the Company, and Daniel Wright, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, respectively 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 results of
               operations of the Company.

John Pierandozzi,                                          Daniel C Wright,
PresidentChief                                             Financial Officer
Dated August 19, 2003                                      Dated August 19, 2003


<PAGE>
Case 2:04-cv-01516-JKS-GGH   Document 36    Filed 02/13/06   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T15:17:21-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
EX-23.a
Consent of Independent Auditors


                       Independent Accountants' Consent



The Board of Directors
Kansas City Life Insurance Company:


We  consent  to  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  registration   statement
(No.2-97351)  on Form S-8 of Kansas  City Life  Insurance  Company of our report
dated January 17, 2001 relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Kansas City
Life Insurance Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000, and the related
consolidated  statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the
year then ended and all  related  schedules,  which  report is  incorporated  by
reference  in the  December  31, 2000, annual report on Form 10-K of Kansas City
Life Insurance Company.

The audit referred to in our report dated January 17, 2001, included the related
financial  statement schedules listed in Item 14(a) as of December 31, 2000, and
for the year then included in this annual report on Form 10-K.  These  financial
statement  schedules are the  responsibility  of the Company's  management.  Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial  statement  schedules
based on our audits. In our opinion,  such financial statement  schedules,  when
considered  in  relation to the  consolidated  financial  statements  taken as a
whole,  present  fairly  in all  material  respects  the  information  set forth
therein.

                                    KPMG LLP

Omaha, Nebraska
March 23, 2001
No. 62551.

#### Hershey Company v. United States,

protest 58/3086 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is not in chief value of galalith and is in chief value of steel, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case No. 9,768.

#### MOORE v. DULANY.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 341.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1806.

Trial — Production of Depositions — Private Agreement between Counsel.

The court will not compel the opposite party to produce depositions taken by consent, nor enforce the private agreements of counsel, but will see that parties are not entrapped by such agreements.

Assault and battery.

Mr. Youngs, for defendant,

stated to the court that the plaintiff had, by consent of defendant’s counsel, taken the deposition of Mrs. Hodge and Mrs. May, and he now called upon the plaintiff to produce them, and prayed the court to compel the plaintiff to produce them.

But

THE COURT

refused; there being no consent entered on record, and the court cannot undertake to enforce the private agreements of counsel, they must depend upon the honor of each other. The court will not suffer a party to be entrapped by such agreements. Verdict for the plaintiff, one cent.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 40 (Thursday, March 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3607]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. RP96-312-163]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate 
Amendment

February 23, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 20, 2007, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 
Company, (Tennessee) tendered for filing an amendment to a negotiated 
rate Gas Transportation Agreement, dated December 15, 1997, between 
Tennessee and Distrigas of Massachusetts Corporation pursuant to 
Tennessee's Rate Schedule FT-A (Negotiated Rate Amendment). Tennessee 
requests the Negotiated Rate Amendment to be effective on January 1, 
2007.
    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 and 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. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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#f4b2b1a6b7bb9a989d9a91a78184849b8680b492918697da939b82"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ecaaa9beafa38280858289bf999c9c839e98ac8a899e8fc28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3607 Filed 2-28-07; 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>
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00242

- CR

LINDA KAY PHARIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Parker County, Texas

Trial Court No. CCL1

- 11

- 0781

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Linda Kay Pharis was convicted in a jury trial of nine offenses of cruelty to a livestock

animal. 1 She has appealed from each conviction. The cases were tried together, and a

consolidated brief was filed raising the same issues as to each appeal. There are no distinctions

among the appeals. We are, hereby, modifying the judgment to remove the “day for day”

language. For the reasons set out in our opinion of this date in cause number 06

- 13

- 00234

- CR,

we likewise affirm her conviction in this appeal, as modified.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, as modified.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: May 29, 2014

Date Decided: June 17 , 2014

Do Not Publish

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme

Court pursua nt to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (West 2013). We are

unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Second Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant

issue. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 41.3.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board of
the Corporation, certifies 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 results of operations of
      the Corporation.

/s/ Thomas E. Noonan
-------------------------------------------
Thomas E. Noonan
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer

November 1, 2004
RUDOLPH ANDREWS

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4088

Opinion filed June 1, 2016.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

-- Original

Jurisdiction

.

Rudolph Andrews, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorne y General,

Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the

merits.

ROWE, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
21.12 Upload a Batch
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GEORGE A. WALKER, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

20 USCMA 79, 42 CMR 271

No. 23,075

August 28, 1970

*Lieutenant George F. McGunnigle, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CuRiam:

The appellant was tried at Camp Courtney, Okinawa, by a special court-martial convened by the Commanding Officer, Transient Company, Transient Facility, Marine Corp Base, Camp Smedley D. Butler, Fleet Post Office, Seattle, Washington. According to the appointing order, the commanding officer’s authority to convene the court was based on section 0103b, Manual of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy. Appellant contends and the Government concedes that in light of this Court’s opinion in United States v Greenwell, 19 USCMA 460, 42 CMR 62 (1970), the proceedings were a nullity.

We agree. Here, as in *Greenwell,*a general officer, acting in accordance with the provisions of section 0103'b (5) of the JAG Manual, supra, purported to designate the Transient Company as a separate and detached command and to invest in the commander thereof special court-martial authority. This he cannot do as that power was given exclusively to the appropriate service Secretary by the Congress (Article 23 (a) (7), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 823), and is not delegable. As we said in United States v Greenwell, supra, at page 464:

> “. . . To the extent that section 0103b (5), JAG Manual, supra, purports to grant this authority to a flag or general officer, it is contrary to the law and of no legal effect. Courts-martial convened under that authority are a nullity. United States v Ortiz, . . . [15 USCMA 505, 36 CMR 3 (1965), rehearing denied, 16 USCMA 127, 36 CMR 283 (1966)].”

The decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A new trial may be ordered before a properly appointed court-martial.