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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting. 

*Time and Date:*                     1 p.m.-3 p.m., April 16, 2007 (Closed).                 

*Place:*                     Teleconference.                 

*Status:*                     The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                 

*Matters to be Discussed:*                     The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to RFA OH 07-002, “Childhood Agriculture Safety and Health Research.”                 

*Contact Person For More Information:*                     Stephen Olenchock, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Extramural Coordination and Special Projects, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, CDC, 1095 Willowdale Road, Mailstop P-04, Morgantown, WV 26506, Telephone 304-285-6271.                 

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                 

Elaine L. Baker, 

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. E7-4745 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
December 12, 1957

No. 61406.

protests 158256-K and 158257-K.

#### Moscahlades Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

C. D. 1917. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
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

DONALD MILLER, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2446 DFL KJM P

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 6, 2005, he filed a letter requesting the appointment of

counsel and the release of certain police reports. 

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas

proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice

so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does

not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present

time. 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02446-JKS Document 21 Filed 06/30/05 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

A habeas petitioner is not entitled to discovery as a matter of course, but only

when 

specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the

petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate

that he is . . . entitled to relief . . . .

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 908-09 (1997) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Rule

6(a), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. Petitioner speculates that the requested police reports

might help him, but has not provided the specific allegations necessary to support the request. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

1. Petitioner’s June 6, 2005 request for appointment of counsel is denied without

prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

2. Petitioner’s June 6, 2005 request for discovery is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: June 29, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

mill2446.dsc

Case 2:04-cv-02446-JKS Document 21 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 2
<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.



In connection with the Quarterly Report of HLI Operating Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Curtis J. Clawson, President and Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:

         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.



/s/ Curtis J. Clawson
-------------------------------
Curtis J. Clawson
President and Chief Executive Officer
December 10, 2003





                                       55
EXHIBIT 13.1

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 i-CABLE Communications Limited (the Company) on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:

(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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



By:

/s/ Stephen T. H. NgName:

Stephen T. H. NgTitle:

Chief Executive Officer




By:

/s/ William J. H. KwanName:

William J. H. KwanTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


Date: June 26, 2007

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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

LARRY A. CHATMAN, No. 2:04-cv-2655-MCE-GGH-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 30, 2006, 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. Neither party has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

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. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02655-MCE -GGH Document 53 Filed 08/30/06 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 30, 2006, are adopted in full; and 

2. This action is dismissed. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: August 30, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02655-MCE -GGH Document 53 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 2
## In the Cou rt of Appeals Second Appellate D istric t of Tex as at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00070

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from t he 372 nd Distr ict Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. D372 -S- 14054

- 18
Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum O pinion 

### I N RE 

### : T HE 

### C OMMITMENT OF 

### T ERRY 

### H ORNBUCKLE2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 6, 2023, we received a docume n t entitled “ Not ice of Appeal
Pur suant to Provis io ns of § [ ] 84 1.146, Texas Health [and Safety ] Code. ” That sa me day, we sent the parties a letter informing them that we had received a c opy of the notice of appeal in this case but that it appeared that the notice of appea l was premature because the tria l cour t judge ha d not signed an order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a ) , 27.1. We gave the parties re asonable time to correct the defect in the record ,

see Tex. R. App. P. 44.3, 44. 4 (a)(2) , but did not receive a s igned order.
W e sent the partie s a second let ter on May 12, 20 23, i nforming them that u pon review of the record, it appear ed that the trial court judge had sent the pa rties an emailed letter ruling on “Respondent’s Unauthorized Petition fo r Release” and h ad asked the State’s attorney to p repare an or der for the judge to sign. We further stated
that t his order is not contained in the clerk’s record, however, and that the trial court
clerk ha d informed this court that no order w as ever signed. We permitted the parties

a no ther opportu nity to correct the defect in the record , giving them until June 1, 2023, to furnish this court a signed copy of the order that Appellant seeks to appeal.
See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3, 44. 4 (a) (2)

. We stated that if no order was si gned a nd
fu r nished by t hat date, this appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). The deadline has passed , and we have not a received a signed copy of a final judgme nt or appealable order. We thus d ismiss the app ea l for want o f jurisdiction.3 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); see Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that an appellate court has jurisdiction over appeals from final j udgments and fro m certain interlocutory orde rs m ad e appealable by statute).
Per Curiam
Delivered: June 29, 2023
6841

#### HOWELL v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R. CO.

Setting Aside Seevioe op Summons. — One served with a summons as agent of several railroads, but who is not a party to the action, can not make a motion to set aside the service as to either.

Before Watts, J., Colleton,

April, 1907.

Affirmed.

Motion by A. S. Morrall in case of Mittie H. Howell as executrix and M. P. Howard as executor of the will of M. P. Howell, Sr., against Atlantic Coast Pine Railroad Co., Charleston & Savannah Railroad Co., Green Pond, Walterboro & Branchville Railroad Co., and Savannah, Florida & Western Railroad Co. From order refusing motion, Morrall appeals.

*Mr. Simeon*Hyde, for appellant,

cites: *The three last named companies do not nom exist:*205 U. S., 236; 151 U. S., 673; 124 F. R., 358; 104 F. R., 677; 30 Penn., 42; Field on Corp., 461; 60 P. R. A., 33; 29 Gratt., 773.

*Mr. W. B.*Gruber, contra,

cites: *One not a party has no right to make this motion:*17 S. C., 116; 42 S. C., 318. *Have three last named corporations ceased to exist:*31 P. R. A., 706; Code 1902, 1866; Acts 1902, 1054; 19 Ency. P & P., 659; 51 S. C., 129.

April 2, 1908.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gary.

This is an action for damages against the defendant for causing the death of M. P. Howell, Sr., on the 8th day of May, 1906.

Copies of the summons and complaint were served on A. S. Morrall as agent of the defendants, whereupon he made a motion before his Honor, Judge Watts, to set *494aside the service as to all the defendants, except the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, on the ground that he was not the agent of said defendants, and that they had ceased to exist.

The motion was refused on the ground that A. S. Morrall was not a party to the action.

The order of the Circuit Judge is sustained by the case of *Copeland*v. *Ins.*Co., 17 S. C., 116. See also *Beattie*v. Latimer, 42 S. C., 552; 20 S. E., 53.

It is the judgment of this Court that the order of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

*Remittitur in this case has been stayed for purpose of permitting appellant to apply for writ of error to United States Supreme Court.*
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1809

_____________________________
J ACKIE D OVE , as trustee of t he Jackie Dove Living Trust
, U/T/D August 21, 2015, H ERBERT C. M ANTOOTH and J ANET M. M ANTOOTH ,
Petitioners
,

v.

W ILLIAM T. L AND , R AMONA L AND

a nd C ITY C OUNCIL for the City of Live Oak, Florida
, Respondents

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

— Original Jurisdiction

. March 27, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition is denied on the merits

. W OLF , W INOKUR , and J AY , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

George T. Reeves of Davis, Schnitker, Reeves & Browning, P.A., Madison
, for Petitioners

. John Joseph Joyce of Robinson, Kennon & Kendron, P.A., Lake City
, for Respondents William T. Land and Ramona Land

.
Lexter Kossie#700661 

William McConnell Unit 

3001 South Emily Drive Beeville, Texas 78102 

July 6, 2015 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

P.o. BOX 12308, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

RECEIVED IN 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

JUL 13 2il15 

RE: CASE NO.lO, 978-38 (Requesting status of pen~iJ,HJ1 A:.~R~*Ld,~~fripn) Tr.Ct. No. 679887-T ~u~~~~~--·~ih 

Dear Clerk: 

On or about May 13, 2015, I filed. an application for 

writ of habeas corpus with the 185th district court in Harris 

County. This Court received and presented the application on 

May 28; 2015 as indicated on the white-card in which I received. 

Please inform me of the status of this application in 

the above-referenced case number as soon as possible. 

Thank you for your kind assistance. 

Sincerely, 

~~ Lexter Koss1e 

cc: Fi1e Pro se Applicant
EXHIBIT 10.4
                              Promissory Note

$10,000.00                                                   April 27, 2001
                                                              Santa Ana, CA

     On Demand FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned promises to pay in
lawful money of the United States of America to the order of Mezzanine
Capital Ltd., nominee or assignee, the sum of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS
($10,000.00), with interest from April 27, 2001 until paid at the rate of
ten percent (10%) per annum.

     Should interest not be paid, it shall thereafter bear interest as the
principal, but such unpaid interest so compounded shall not exceed an
amount equal to simple interest on the principal at the maximum rate
permitted by law.  The undersigned hereby waives presentment for payment,
protest, notice of protest, notice of nonpayment, and diligence in bringing
suit, and further agrees, in case suit is instituted, to collect this
Promissory Note or any portion thereof, to pay such additional sum for
attorneys' fees as the Court may adjudge reasonable in such suit.

                                 Mezzanine Investment Corporation

                                 By: /s/ Eric Chess Bronk
                                     Eric Chess Bronk, President
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

DAVID C. RIVERS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2524 GEB PAN P

vs.

E. ROSZKO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed April 28, 2005, plaintiff was directed to provide the

United States Marshal with complete, current service instructions, summonses, and sufficient

copies of the complaint to permit the United States Marshal to effect service within the time limits

set in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). There is no evidence in the record that plaintiff has complied with that

order. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides in relevant part for dismissal of an

action without prejudice if service of process is not accomplished within 120 days after the filing

of a complaint. More than 120 days have passed since the complaint was filed, and there is no

evidence that service of process has been accomplished as to any defendant.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02524-GEB-EFB Document 8 Filed 03/08/06 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, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty

days from the date of this order plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be

dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to respond to this

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: March 7, 2006. 

12

rive2524.osc

Case 2:04-cv-02524-GEB-EFB Document 8 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20633

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4-01-CR-121-8

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Ramirez (Ramirez) pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea

agreement, to aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine. 

He was sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment and five years of

supervised release. Ramirez appeals his sentence, asserting that

the appeal waiver provision in his guilty plea is void and that

his sentencing is illegal in light of Blakely v. Washington, 124

S. Ct. 2531 (2004).
No. 03-20633

-2-

Ramirez contends that the Government breached the plea

agreement by opposing an acceptance of responsibility credit. 

Absent any objection in the district court, we review for plain

error only. See United States v. Reeves, 255 F.3d 208, 210 (5th

Cir. 2001). Whether the Government’s conduct violates the terms

of the plea agreement is a question of law which this court

reviews de novo. United States v. Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882, 886

(5th Cir. 2002). “In determining whether the terms of the plea

bargain have been violated, this court must determine whether the

government’s conduct is consistent with the parties’ reasonable

understanding of the agreement.” Gonzales, 309 F.3d at 886

(internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). 

A review of the record reveals that the Government did

breach the plea agreement by opposing Ramirez’s acceptance of

responsibility credit. As a result, the plea agreement,

including the restriction on Ramirez’s right to appeal, is void. 

Ramirez can therefore, appeal his sentence, which he has done,

and we can consider his appeal.

For the first time on appeal, Ramirez argues that his

sentence is illegal in light of Blakely. This argument is

foreclosed by this court’s recent opinion in United States v.

Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-73 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert.

filed, (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263). 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2006303EN.01000501.xml

| 13.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/5

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 374th meeting on 24 May 2004 concerning a preliminary draft decision in Case COMP/C-3/37.980 — Souris bleue/Topps

(2006/C 303/04)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee, in view of the reasoning of the fines as submitted to it by the Commission at the meeting, agrees with the method of calculation of the fines used by the Commission in its draft decision as to the gravity of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee, in view of the reasoning of the fines as submitted to it by the Commission at the meeting, agrees with the method of calculation of the fines used by the Commission in its draft decision as to the gravity of the infringement.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the level of the fines as proposed by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the level of the fines as proposed by the Commission.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion of 11 and 24 May 2004 in the Official Journal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion of 11 and 24 May 2004 in the Official Journal.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HODGES,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent.

Civ. S-04-2087 MCE KJM-P

SCHEDULING ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that respondent may have until

November 11, 2005, to file an answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner may file

and serve a traverse within 30 days of his receipt of the answer.

DATED: October 3, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02087-MCE -KJM Document 7 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 64916.

#### Erwin Salzer *v.*United States,

protest 59/6519 (Boston).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

When this case was called for hearing, defendant’s counsel conceded that the rates claimed by the plaintiff were applicable. On the record presented, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.