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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental & Integrative Activities (1193).                    

*Date & Time:*                         December 11, 2000, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 320, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lawrence Brandt, Digital Government Program, Division of Experimental and Integrative Activities, Room 1160, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 292-8980.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate CISE Digital Government Program proposals submitted in response to the program announcement (NSF 99-103).                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: October 31, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-28400  Filed 11-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

38 39 40



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/24 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 24 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
#### TABOR et al. v. HATCHER et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 13, 1952.

*725Hines & Hines, Thomas W. Hines, Bowling Green, for appellants.

Bell, Stagner & Orr, Charles R. Bell, Bowling Green, for appellees.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

D. W. Tabor and wife appeal from a judgment denying their claim to a passway to connect two tracts of land owned by them, over a tract of land owned by the appellees, M. Vernon Hatcher and wife.

At the time the Hatchers purchased their tract, there was in existence a deed by which their predecessor in title had conveyed the passway to the Tabors’ predecessor in title. However this deed was not recorded until long after the Hatchers purchased their tract. Therefore, the question was whether the Hatchers had actual knowledge of the existence of the deed, or of the existence of the passway, when they purchased the tract. Upon conflicting evidence, the chancellor found that they did not have such knowledge.

There was some claim of prescriptive use of the passway, by the Tabors and their predecessor in title, for 15 years after the Hatchers acquired title to the land, but the chancellor found that the evidence did not show such use as to establish a passway by prescription.

We have no doubt as to the correctness of the chancellor’s determination.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2009, pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer
of Omega Protein Corporation, certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Omega Protein Corporation.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 10, 2010



/s/ JOSEPH L. VON ROSENBERG, IIIJoseph L. von Rosenberg, III President and Chief Executive Officer


This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Omega Protein Corporation or the certifying
officer for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Omega Protein Corporation and will be retained by Omega Protein Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 215 (Monday, November 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28401]



[[Page 66567]]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following Meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems 
(1205).
    Date/Time: December 7-8, 2000; 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 850, 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Joy Pauschke, Program Director, network for 
Earthquake Engineering Simulation, Division of Civil and Mechanical 
Systems, National Science Foundation, Room 545, Arlington, VA 22230. 
Telephone: (703) 292-8360.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate nominations for the FY'01 
Mechanics and Structures of Materials and Surface Engineering and 
Material Design Review as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-28401 Filed 11-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Jared Walter Adair v. Ricky's Enterprise s , Inc.

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00359

- CV

Trial court case number: 1181899

Trial court: Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 4 of Har ris County

A ppellant Jared Walter Adair , acting pro se, filed a n otice of a ppeal of the trial court’s

A p ril 28, 2022 o rder in a forci ble entry and detainer action. On August 26, 2022, Appellant filed his appellate brief. The brief does not comp ly with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

. S pecifically, the brief does not :

• I dentify all parties to the trial court ’ s judgment and their counsel, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38. 1 (a);

• C ontain a table of contents, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1 (b);

• Contain an i ndex of a uthorities, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1 (c);

• Contain a s tatement of the c ase that “ state[s] conci sely the nature of the case, the course of p r o ceedings, and the trial cour t ’ s disposition of the case ” and that is supported b y record references, s e e T E X

. R

. A PP

. P. 38.1 (d);

• Con tain a st atement about whether oral argument should be permitted

, see T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 38.1 (e);

• Concisely ide ntify the issues presented

, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1 (f);

• Contain a s tatement of f acts that “ state[s] concisel y and without argu ment the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented ” and that is supported by record references, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1 (g);

• Contain a summary of the argument t hat is a “ succin c t , clear, and accurate

state ment of the arguments made in the body of t he brief ” without “ merely repeat[ing] the issues or points presented for review, ” see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1 (h);

• Contain a “ clear and concise argument fo r the contentions made

, w ith appropriate citations to authorities and the record, ” see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38 .1 (i); or• Contain a prayer that “ clearly states the nature o f the relief sought

, ” see T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 38.1 (j)

.

A ccordingly, Appellant ’ s brief is strick en . App ellant must file a corrected brief in compl iance wi t h Texa s Rule of Appellate Proce dure 38

. The deadline for fi ling t h e correcte d

brief is October 3 , 2022.

J udge’ s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas

- Molloy

Acting individually

Date: September 1, 2022
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION



### November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 3

- 00250

- CV

Style: A

- 1 Auto Body and Paint Shop, LLC

v. Margaret McQuiggan

Date motion filed * : May 24, 2013

Type of motion: Motion to for involuntary dismissal

Party filing motion: Appell ee

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

The Court orders that appellee’s motion for involuntary dismissal be carried with the case.

Judge's signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: September 12, 2013
EXHIBIT 32.2








STATEMENT OF MARK R. BIERLEY,


EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF BORDERS GROUP, INC.


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











I, Mark R. Bierley, certify that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 1, 2010, of Borders Group, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Borders Group, Inc.




















Date: ________May 27, 2010







__/s/ Mark R. Bierley______________________________________


Mark R. Bierley


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Borders Group, Inc.
#### KEILS v. WALDRON.

No. 2949.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

June 7, 1951.

A. B. Geppert, Jr., Houston, for appellant.

Williford & Emerson, Fairfield, for ap-pellee.

HALE, Justice.

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Freestone County finally disposing of an action in forcible detainer without the award of any damages. Art. 3992 of Vernon’s Tex. *789Civ. Stats, provides in substance that such judgment is conclusive of the litigation and that no further appeal shall be allowed. In construing and applying the provisions of the foregoing statute, the courts of this State have held repeatedly that an appeal does not lie from a judgment of the county court disposing of an action in forcible entry or detainer unless damages in excess of $100.00 are awarded. Lane v. Jack, 25 Tex.Civ.App. 496, 61 S.W. 422; Kerlin v. Bassett, Tex.Civ.App., 152 S.W. 526; Delgado v. Chapa, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W. 1169; Tibbitts v. Lacy, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W. 190; Rose v. Skiles, Tex.Civ.App., 245 S.W. 127; Beacon Lumber Co. v. Brown, Tex.Com.App., 14 S.W.2d 1022; Cox, Inc., v. Knight, Tex.Civ.App., 50 S.W. 2d 915; Madison v. Martinez, Tex.Civ. App., 56 S.W.2d 908; Brown v. Grant, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 185.

Because we are of the opinion that this court does not have jurisdiction to review any part of the judgment of which complaint is here made, the attempted appeal must be and it is hereby dismissed.
#### McCOLLUM v. STATE.

No. 26427.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 13, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for oiir review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
No. 72-6300.

#### Sprouse *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 PDI, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey E. Smith, as
Chief Financial and Accounting 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
      Company.









Date:
      March 7, 2008
            /s/
      Jeffrey E. SmithChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)




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.
#### CITY OF SAN ANTONIO v. EARNEST.

No. 11489.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 7, 1945.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1945.

T. D. Cobbs, Jr., and Hugh R. Robertson, both of San Antonio, for appellant.

T. H. Ridgeway and S. D. Hopkins, both of San Antonio, for appellee.

MURRAY, Justice.

This suit is one between the City of San Antonio and Betty Ridgeway, being sued herein through her next friend and father, T. H. Ridgeway, wherein the City is seeking to set aside a certain tax judgment rendered in the 37th District Court in 1913, being cause No. B-5492. The suit was originally filed November 12, 1932.

The court sustained a plea in abatement and dismissed the cause. The City of San Antonio has prosecuted this appeal.

Appellant’s first point is as follows:

“The trial court erred in sustaining the exceptions to appellant’s second amended original petition, because said petition sets up a cause of action to which the four year statute of limitation is not applicable. The suit is in substance and effect one to quiet title and to remove cloud therefrom, and there being no adverse possession by appellee, the cause of action is a continuing one and limitation cannot be invoked as a defense.”

We cannot agree with this contention. The nature of appellant’s suit is fully disclosed by the prayer contained in its petition reading as follows:

“Wherefore, defendant having entered her appearance herein, plaintiff prays that on a trial hereof this plaintiff recover judgment against said defendant and that this Court enter its order setting aside every step in said tax suit in Cause No. B-5492 and hold the same null and void and of no force and effqct, and for such other and *741further relief in law or in equity to which it may be justly entitled, and for all costs of court in this behalf expended.”

Furthermore, it is clear from a reading of appellant’s entire petition that it is seeking to set aside this judgment on the ground that a fraud was perpetrated upon the City when its officers were induced to accept a rendition of the lot here involved for taxes, and also when its officers were induced to file suit and prosecute it to final conclusion, resulting in a sheriff’s deed being executed to the lot. It is perfectly apparent that such fraud does not appear from the judgment or from the judgment roll. All of the proceedings were regular upon their face, therefore, the judgment was only voidable and not void. We conclude that this is a suit to set aside a judgment, and having been brought more than four years after the judgment was rendered is barred by the four-year statute of limitation. Art. 5529, Vernon’s Ann.Civ. Stats., 25 Tex.Jur. p. 643, § 227.

Appellant, City, contends that this is a suit to remove cloud from title, which is not required to be brought within four years. We do not agree. As above stated, the petition, as well as the prayer contained therein, shows this suit to be one to set aside a judgment and nothing more.

The judgment of the trial court dismissing the cause is accordingly affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA 

No. 07–0863 

Filed January 23, 2009 

STATE OF IOWA,

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JONES COUNTY,

 Defendant. 

 Certiorari to the Iowa District Court for Jones County, David M. 

Remley, Judge. 

 Original certiorari action brought by State to challenge legality of 

district court’s decision in postconviction relief proceeding, holding 

application of Iowa Code section 903A.2 (2001) to inmate violated Ex Post 

Facto Clause. WRIT ANNULLED. 

 Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Forrest Guddall, for plaintiff. 

 Philip B. Mears of Mears Law Office, Iowa City, for defendant. 

 
 2 

PER CURIAM. 

The State brought this original certiorari action challenging the legality 

of the district court’s decision granting postconviction relief to two inmates. 

The inmates, Terry Jones and Leonidas Psomas, were each serving a twentyfive-year sentence for 1996 convictions of second-degree sexual abuse.1 In 

2006, as a result of their refusal to participate in sex offender treatment, the 

department of corrections (DOC) determined Jones and Psomas were 

ineligible to receive further earned-time credits. See Iowa Code § 903A.2 

(2005) (providing for reduction in sentence for good conduct and satisfactory 

participation in specified programs). Jones and Psomas claimed the 

application of this statute, as amended in 2001 and 2005, violated the 

Ex Post Facto Clause because the offenses for which they were incarcerated 

were committed prior to the amendments. 

The inmates’ claims are identical to the claim raised in State v. Iowa 

District Court for Henry County, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2009). In that case, we 

held the district court correctly determined the DOC’s application of 

amended section 903A.2 to inmates whose crimes predated the amendments 

violates the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws. Our ruling in 

Henry County controls here. Therefore, we conclude the district court did 

not act illegally in ordering the State to restore the earned-time credits of 

Jones and Psomas retroactive to the date on which the earned-time-credit 

accrual was suspended in each case. We annul the writ of certiorari. 

WRIT ANNULLED. 

This opinion is not to be published. 

 1The record does not reveal the dates of the inmates’ offenses that resulted in these 

sentences.
Order entered December 20 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 21
- 01033
- CR
ADDISON DOUGLAS MAYS , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 36 6th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366
- 84413
- 2019
O RDER On October 26, 2022, this Court ordered Stephanie Duecker Hudson, counsel for appellant, to notify this Court by November 18, 2022, whether she intended to (1) fi le a new brief replacing the January 28, 2022 brief filed by former counsel; (2) file a supplemental brief; or (3) adopt the January 28, 2022 brief as filed. As of the date of this order, Ms. Hudson has not responded to the October 26, 2022 order. Accord ingly, we presume counsel intends to adopt the January 28, 2022 brief as filed, and the case will be submitted with that brief.We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send copies of this order to: the Honorable Tom Nowak, Presiding Judge, 366th Judicial Distr ict Court; Stephanie Duecker Hudson, counsel for appellant; Amy Sue Melo Murphy, assistant criminal district attorney; and appellant Addison Douglas Mays, TDCJ No. 02373093, Beto Unit, 1391 FM 3328, Tennessee Colony, Texas 75880.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTIC E
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL 

ACTION, INC., et al.,

§

§

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00209-O

§

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

On April 13, 2022, the Transportation Security Agency (“TSA”) extended the public 

transportation mask mandate through May 3, 2022.1 On April 18, 2022, a United States District 

Judge for the Middle District of Florida issued an opinion vacating the mask mandate at issue in 

this case. See Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Biden, ECF No. 53, No. 8:21-cv-1693 (M.D.

Fla. April 18, 2022). The Government appealed the decision. See Health Freedom Defense Fund, 

Inc. v. Biden, No. 22-11287 (11th Cir., Apr. 21, 2022). TSA has not renewed the mask mandate, 

which has since expired. The Court ordered the parties to brief mootness, standing, and irreparable 

harm. Having considered the motion, briefing, and applicable law, the Court STAYS proceedings 

in this case and HOLDS the pending preliminary injunction motions in abeyance pending 

resolution of the appeal in Health Freedom. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to terminate 

all pending motions and close the case. Finally, the Court ORDERS the parties to file a joint status 

report within five days of the Eleventh Circuit’s resolution of the Health Freedom appeal 

indicating their positions on the opinion and proposing a schedule for resolution of this case. At 

1 See TSA, TSA extends face mask requirement through May 3, 2022 (Apr. 13, 2022),

https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/statements/2022/04/13/tsa-extends-face-mask-requirementthrough-may-3-2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 46 Filed 05/24/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1268
2

that time, the parties may move to reopen the case if they so choose, and Plaintiffs may renew their 

request for a preliminary injunction.

SO ORDERED on this 24th day of May, 2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 46 Filed 05/24/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1269