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

DOUGLAS L. CERCLE,

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-01342-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed an 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 24, 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. 

Case 2:04-cv-01342-GEB-GGH Document 26 Filed 11/01/05 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

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that petitioner’s

copy of the findings and recommendations were returned,

petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner’s

responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address

at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f), service of

documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 24,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas

corpus is denied.

Dated: November 1, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01342-GEB-GGH Document 26 Filed 11/01/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 58541.

protests 184310-K and 206253-K (New York and Cleveland).

#### Episcopal Chapel of Transfiguration *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the official papers disclosing nothing to disturb the collector’s action, which was presumptively correct, the protests were overruled.
Approved under assigned authority

on March 4 , 2010 *



## __ Linda L. Lundell (for)

_____

Director, Office of International Aviation

* Based on the circumstances presente d regarding Mesa ’ s temporary cessation of its Phoenix

- Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo

service on April 12, 2010, w e have granted Mesa ’ s request for a temporary dormancy waiver to allow the 90

- day

d ormancy notice period to begin on September 11, 2010 , the date Mesa proposes recommencement of the

subject service.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

In accordance with the Women's Business Ownership Act, Public Law 106-554 as amended, the National Women's Business Council (NWBC) will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, February 7, 2007, starting at 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The meeting will take place at the U.S. Small Business Administration, Eisenhower Conference Rooms A & B, 409 Third Street, SW., Second floor, Washington, DC 20024. 

                    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the NWBC's fiscal year 2007 strategy, agenda and action items, legislative updates, and status of fiscal year 2006 projects, along with an exchange of ideas about goals for the women's business community for the next three, five and ten years. Anyone wishing to attend the Council meeting must contact Katherine Stanley no later than Friday, February 2, 2007 by e-mail at                     *katherine.stanley@sba.gov*                     or fax to 202-205-6825. Anyone wishing to make a presentation to the Council during the meeting must contact Margaret M. Barton in writing at the National Women's Business Council, 409 Third Street, SW., Suite 210, Washington, DC 20024, by e-mail at                     *Margaret.barton@sba.gov*                     or fax to 202-205-6825 by Friday, January 26, 2007, in order to be put on the agenda.                 

Matthew Teague, 

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E7-402 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP96-312-162] 

Take notice that on February 12, 2007, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee) tendered for filing a notice of termination of a negotiated rate agreement between Tennessee and Inergy Gas Marketing, LLC (Inergy), effective February 1, 2007. 

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary. 

 [FR Doc. E7-3353 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 32








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





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Old Line Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) each certifies to the best of his or her knowledge that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ James W. Cornelsen





James W. Cornelsen


President and Chief Executive Officer


May 9, 2011





/s/ Christine M. Rush





Christine M. Rush


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


May 9, 2011





This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person for any reason other than as specifically required by law.
February 7, 1963

Reap. Dec. 10441.

#### William Pearson Corp., Inc. *v.*United States,

REHEARING MOTION GRANTED

Entered at New York, N. Y. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiff.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Cap Rock Energy Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, David W. Pruitt, Co-Chairman of the Board, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  March 29, 2004 |                                                              |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             |                                                              |
|                             |                                                              |
|                             | By:                                                               | /s/  David W. Pruitt |   |
|                             | David  W. Pruitt                                                  |
|                             | Co-Chairman  of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Cap Rock Energy Corporation and will be retained by Cap Rock EnergyCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
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

DENNIS EVERETT WILLIAMS, No. CIV S-04-2428 MCE DAD P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

MARK SHEPERD, ET AL., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition 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 August 1, 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 fifteen

days. 

Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD Document 25 Filed 09/28/05 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

On August 22, 2005, petitioner was granted until September 12,

2005 to file objections. 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 1, 2005,

are adopted in full;

2. Respondents’ January 14, 2005 motion to dismiss is

granted; and

3. This action is dismissed as untimely.

DATED: September 28, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD Document 25 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2
November 29, 1954

No. 58559.

Suit 4826.

#### United States *v.*Trans Delta Corporation.

Abstract 58162. (Appeal dismissed September 15, 1954.)
No. 58997.

protests 170373-K, etc. (Detroit).

#### John V. Carr & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance' with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4617 

To exempt National Guard Bilateral Affairs Officers from active-duty end 

strength limits and to clarify the congressional committees to which 

the Secretary of Defense shall submit an annual report on security 

cooperation activities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 20, 2024 

Mr. PETERS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To exempt National Guard Bilateral Affairs Officers from 

active-duty end strength limits and to clarify the congressional committees to which the Secretary of Defense 

shall submit an annual report on security cooperation 

activities. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4617 IS

1 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF NATIONAL GUARD BILATERAL 

2 AFFAIRS OFFICERS FROM ACTIVE-DUTY END 

3 STRENGTH LIMITS AND MODIFICATION OF 

4 ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT RE5 GARDING SECURITY COOPERATION ACTIVI6 TIES. 

7 (a) EXEMPTION OF NATIONAL GUARD BILATERAL

8 AFFAIRS OFFICERS FROM ACTIVE-DUTY END STRENGTH

9 LIMITS.—Section 115(i) of title 10, United States Code, 

10 is amended by adding at the end the following new para11 graph: 

12 ‘‘(14) Members of the National Guard on active 

13 duty or full-time National Guard duty serving as Bi14 lateral Affairs Officers as part of the National 

15 Guard State Partnership Program.’’. 

16 (b) MODIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORTING RE17 QUIREMENT REGARDING SECURITY COOPERATION AC18 TIVITIES.—Section 386(a) of title 10, United States Code, 

19 is amended by striking ‘‘appropriate congressional com20 mittees’’ and inserting ‘‘congressional defense commit21 tees’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
CERTIFICATION OF
                         PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                           PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Scapple,
Inc. for the quarter ending March 31, 2004, I, David Feurborn, Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Scapple, Inc. hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,
          2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended March 31, 2004, fairly represents in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Scapple, Inc.

Dated:    August 19, 2004

Scapple, Inc.

By:  /s/ David Feurborn
-----------------------------------------
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
October 27, 2015

Eli Hartnett

346 Windsor Drive North

Oxford, MS 38655

Dear Mr

. Hartnett

. :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your August 4, 2015, exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA

- 20 15

- 3337

, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petit ion does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you s eek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would pro vide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for e xemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
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

DOUGLAS ENGRAHM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1290 GEB GGH

vs.

COUNTY OF COLUSA et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff’s motion to compel presently is calendared for hearing on November 10,

2005. Having reviewed the record, the court has determined that the motion is untimely based on

Judge Burrell’s amended scheduling order, filed December 14, 2004, which set a discovery

cutoff of October 19, 2005. The original scheduling order required that all discovery shall have

been completed by the cutoff, and that “any disputes relative to discovery shall have been

resolved by appropriate orders, if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has

been complied with ....” Plaintiff’s motion is therefore untimely.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed October 20, 2005, is vacated from the

November 10, 2005 calendar.

DATED: 11/7/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076:Engrahm1290.vac.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 70 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50045

Summary Calendar

SAHRA GRUBE,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

MARKUS GRUBE,

Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CV-814

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

A German court’s divorce decree awarded primary custody of Petitioner

Sahra Grube’s and Respondent Markus Grube’s daughter to Petitioner. After

the child did not return to Germany following a scheduled visit with Respondent

in San Antonio, Petitioner filed a petition in the district court seeking return of

the child under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child

Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 11601–11611. The court granted the petition and ordered Respondent to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 17, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50045

2

return the child to Germany. The court also granted Petitioner’s unopposed

motion for an award of attorney’s fees and costs totaling $28,162.70. 

Despite failing to object to Petitioner’s motion in the district court,

Respondent appeals the order granting the motion, arguing that: (1) the district

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petition; (2) Petitioner failed to

follow the district court’s local rules in filing the motion; and (3) the attorney’s

fees and costs awarded were “clearly excessive.” The first argument is patently

frivolous. As the district court noted in its October 30, 2007 order, 42 U.S.C. §

11603(a) grants “[t]he courts of the States and the United States district courts

. . . concurrent original jurisdiction of actions arising under the Convention [on

the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction].” Respondent’s failure to

object to Petitioner’s motion in the district court precludes our consideration of

the second and third arguments. See, e.g., LeMaire v. La. Dep’t of Transp. &

Dev., 480 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2007) (“[A]rguments not raised before the

district court are waived and cannot be raised for the firsttime on appeal.”). The

district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
Case 2:04-cv-01183-TLN-DB   Document 10   Filed 02/02/06   Page 1 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01183-TLN-DB   Document 10   Filed 02/02/06   Page 2 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01183-TLN-DB   Document 10   Filed 02/02/06   Page 3 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01183-TLN-DB   Document 10   Filed 02/02/06   Page 4 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01183-TLN-DB   Document 10   Filed 02/02/06   Page 5 of 5

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2021-04-08T07:22:40-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 64891.

#### Ovington’s Gift Shop, Inc., and Louis Stempel *v.*United States,

protests 146387-K and 177775-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks and candelabras similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.