alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In *Hoskins v. Mechanics’ Building and Loan Association,*from Guilford:

Smith, C. J.

We have carefully considered the well prepared argument of counsel in defence of the general plan of operations of the class of organizations lately introduced into the state to which this, seemingly least obnoxious to hostile animadversion, belongs; and whatever-might be our conclusions if the question were,still open, we feel bound by the repeated adjudications heretofore made, and, that the law should be settled, to uphold the ruling of the court below. Indeed the very questions now presented have been passed upon and decided in reference.to this association, and we must adhere to our former ruling. We will'only refer to some of the cases. *Smith*v. B. *&*L. *A.,*73 N. C., 372; *Mills’ case,*75 N. C., 292; *Overby’s case,*81 N. C., *56; Hanner’s case,*78 N. C., 188.

The decision in *James*v. *Martin,*from Alexander, and in *Rhyne*v. *Mason,*from Gaston, is the same as that in *England v. Garner, ante, 212.*
-TOP-SECRETler NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C. 111,1111111111

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 3 May 1972

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Meeting With Mel Laird, May 2, 1972 (E0I)

I mentioned to Mel that whereas the guidance received from

the White House (Kissinger's September 23 memo) stated that an

orderly program should be instituted leading to operational

capability in 1976, w have to choose between holding the

1976 IOC date and the imit set by Dave Packard at the ExCom

meeting of November 19 . ent indicati are that the

program office might ask for an additional hich

push the budget far above t t p r FY74. I

said that I was not willing any revision without ExCom

concurrence and I was not sure I wanted to ask ExCom for any

more money.

. Mel's reaction was that we had not seen the last of the

budget cuts and that the NRO budget would have to take•cuts along

with everyone else. I said I understood that, that we had been

in the habit of taking two or three rounds of cuts as the budget

was being put in final form, and the NRO didn't expect to be

exempt from tion this year. Mel reiterated that no money

should go t ithout looking at the whole b asked

for his view n successfully defers for

five years to put th ystem into operation. he

felt we would be succ

I then raised the question of

said that .we had stopped all work

White House guidance (September 23

o develop an electro-optical device suitable for use

in aid I felt this should be c at a level of

a ear (current funding is a ,cover us

in into trouble, either fi technical.

Mel co t this was a good thing to do.

as

kup

n acc11111111111F

t we had a continuing

1111111111r TIOLSONIEFmum. mu minima eamasew

IIIINCTIVIC 11•11 II 11114111WATIIIPPLII

coma OD

QM Sc WPM

"44...n16n41nn1n640/44
*February 9, 1932.*

#### Montgomery Ward & Company and another, Appellants, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.

For the appellants: *Linderman, Ramsdell & King*of Eau Claire.

For the respondents : *John W. Reynolds,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
|    |                                                                                                                       |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| A. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                      |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| B. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|             |
|-------------|
|             |  |
| Date:  | August 14, 2012 |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   | /s/ Hugh S. Potts, Jr. |
|   | Hugh S. Potts, Jr. |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
##### 



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 Each of the undersigned officers of Intelligent Systems Corporation (the
Company) hereby certifies that, to his or her knowledge, the Companys
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the
Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: November 15, 2004
    
    /s/ J. Leland StrangeJ. Leland Strange
Chief Executive Officer/s/ Bonnie L. HerronBonnie L. Herron
Chief Financial Officer
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 12, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-1206 Lower Tribunal No. 14-25364

________________ 

### John Ramos , Appellant, vs. 

### Natalie Quilliams , Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge. John Ramos, in proper person. Appellee precluded from filing an answer brief. Before EMAS, C.J., and MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
was som ne. : eae elie reer

vom, ‘ 23 October 1956
HEAORANDUM FOR GENERAL SCHRIEVER

SUBJECT: Heterial for 25 October Meeting of ARDC Rallistic ilissile .
and Space Vehicle Comittee

1. On 3, hk, and 5 October, I worked with Lt Col Koyeo, AESTC,
and Maj 'y Hoi ro, ARDC, on a draft of the final report
for the approval of tho Bollistic Missile and Space Yohicle Comittee.
4 considerable anount of the material that I hed proviously prepared
was fitted into the draft.

2. Upon Lt Col inyce's return to AEITC the following week, he
had published in draft fore the roport, "Rescarch and Dovoloprent
of Qhided “iissiles and Spacu Vahicles Over the Mne Period 1955-197:
He sent 12 copies to ne for the revic:: ond coments of HDT and ket
Personnel who had comented on the Hol<cs sad verver report or iad
contributed in other ways, These copics wore dintributed on 16 Cct
with the request thet coments be sub-itted by 1700, 22 October.
Due to tho fact that most of the comzonts Were not subnittod urit2
this iorning, I have not had the opportunity to correlate coments
bat a3 subsitting then as ruccived in the attached folder, I had
hoped to accomplish this correlation on the trip to AESTC,

xesearch progras to the systems development progran, and by con-
sidering lead tines, detertining nich research progam Ivers

SIGNED
#### Masse, Respondent, vs. Baker and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Hanitch, Hartley, Johnson & Fritsch-ler*of Superior.

For the respondent: *Cadigan & Cadigan*of Superior.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 05-2387

RANDY DUQUETTE,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

LES DOLECAL, ACTING COMMISSIONER, 

NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Torruella, Circuit Judge,

Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

Randy Duquette on brief pro se.

Kelley A. Ayotte, Attorney General, and Mary E. Maloney,

Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

July 14, 2006
-2-

Per Curiam. This pro se appellant appeals from the grant

of summary judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees. The

district judge essentially found that his constitutional claim was

not ripe for adjudication at this time. After careful review of

the appellate contentions and the district court record, we affirm,

substantially for the reasons given by the district judge in his

Order dated August 29, 2005.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 15

May 14, 1997


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Dear Sirs:

We are aware that MICROS Systems, Inc. has incorporated by reference our report
dated May 14, 1997 (issued pursuant to the provisions of Statement on Auditing
Standards No. 71) in the Prospectus constituting part of its Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-17725, No. 333-05125, No. 33-69782, No.
33-44481 and No. 33-33535).  We are also aware of our responsibilities under
the Securities Act of 1933.

Yours very truly,

PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP





                                       19
steam_record - Re: Request for Extension of Effluent Guideline Questionnaire 

 

Greetings, 

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam electric effluent 

guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. Please be aware that submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date

of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and establishes a new date. 

Sincerely, 

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Washburn, Anne" <Anne.Washburn@PacifiCorp.com>

Date: 7/13/2010 6:13 AM

Subject: Re: Request for Extension of Effluent Guideline Questionnaire

Attachments: 2010-07-09 Signed DJ Request for Extension.PDF

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C3C0419DO... 8/26/2011
.1

L' 1

• , ,

•

Can White:

I feel that the basic and supplemental guidance does provide a

sound basis for a revised development and IOC plan. I gather from

Tam Power's letters the feeling that be does not have an adequate

detailed. picture of the problem. The vhole goal is to achieve the best

intelligence-gathering capability at the earliest date and not to

compromise this by excessive concern over operational items which may be

desirable but unessential and acne of which mew not prove desirable et

all. It is simply a question of the best route to achieve the common

aim and. I believe the consensus is that our earlier program should be

modified. I shall try to discuss this in same detail with Taw Power and

his staff when I em in Clubs in a couple of weeks. I believe your letter

to him is sound end clear.

•
".• t.*:?

1 •

••n•!wit

. •

.

. ; •

4%—A_ /0c-

.7rso- C.4.114

.'7•1-4•3
411 sipm.A.L s • immt t.:ek

.

MID

April 24, 1942 •

MEMORANDUM FOR Mt. SCOVILLE

SUBJECT: SecDef-DCI Agreement on WO

Personally, I would have the following comments with

respect to the proposed Changes:

Page 2, paragraph 2.a.(2), third line. This change

is quite acceptable. As a matter of fact, I think you

raise a very good point.

Page 5. Ni own view is that the original wording is

perfectly adequate with the change from "representatives"

to "personnel". Obviously, there will be extensive coordination in the development of advanced plans and these will

ultimately be submitted to the Secretary of Defense and the

Director of CIA for final approval. Naturally, the Director,

in determining his final position would request the advice

and recommendations of you and your staff.

Page 5, paragraph 7. In my mind, there would be a

substantive difference between an arrangement involving a

representative of the DCI to the NR0 and the arrangement

spelled out in the paper under consideration. This is,

first of all, obviously a matter between yourself and the

Director. Recommendations of the DMRO, in any event, go

to the Director for final approval so you would certainly

be involved again before any final action was taken on any

recommendations.

If you have any other thoughts or comments let us be sure

to discuss then before the agreement is set in concrete.

Joseph V. Char,*

This docunent consists of _ L ---

e opy No. -1--

..-i-- o07.14.13

-C C 3 9

paag•-•... •

41' I- C."... 5Afils -1341

•
****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 Zones, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald P. McFadden, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and**

*** *

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

*** *

*** *

****Date: February 28, 2005**

*** *

*** *

| *** * | *** * | ****/S/   RONALD P MCFADDEN** |
|------------|------------|----------------------------------------------|
| *** * | *** * | ****Ronald P. McFadden**                     |
| *** * | *** * | ****Chief Financial Officer**                |
|            |            |                                              |

*** *

*** *

*** *
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02814]



[[Page 7636]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of Availability of Funds and Funding Opportunity 
Announcement for the Linking to Employment Activities Pre-release 
Specialized American Job Centers (AJCs)

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).

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

    Funding Opportunity Number: FOA-ETA-15-03.
SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration (ETA), U.S. 
Department of Labor, announces the availability of approximately $5 
million in grant funds authorized by Section 171, Pilot and 
Demonstration Projects, of the Workforce Investment Act and Section 212 
of the Second Chance Act of 2007 for Linking to Employment Activities 
Pre-release Specialized American Job Centers (AJCs) grants.
    The purpose of this program is to provide locally incarcerated 
offenders with employability skills by providing them workforce 
services prior to release from local incarceration and linking them to 
a continuum of employment, training, education, and support services 
offered through their community-based AJCs post-release, as well as 
building connections to local employers that will enable transitioning 
offenders to secure employment pre-release.
    The jail-based specialized AJCs will enable transitioning offenders 
to prepare for employment prior to release and continue with individual 
development and service plans in the community once released. The aim 
of these centers is to improve the workforce outcomes for transitioning 
offenders. These jail-based specialized AJCs will build upon the 
successful and effective strategies that currently exist in similar 
correctional facility-based one-stop centers across the country.
    The complete FOA and any subsequent FOA amendments in connection 
with this solicitation are described in further detail on ETA's Web 
site at http://www.doleta.gov/grants/ or on http://www.grants.gov. The 
Web sites provide application information, eligibility requirements, 
review and selection procedures, and other program requirements 
governing this solicitation.

DATES: The closing date for receipt of applications under this 
announcement is April 3, 2015. Applications must be received no later 
than 4:00:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Hill, 200 Constitution Avenue 
NW., Room N-4716, Washington, DC 20210; Telephone: 202-693-3542.
    The Grant Officer for this FOA is Melissa Abdullah.

    Signed: February 5, 2015 in Washington, DC.
Eric D. Luetkenhaus,
Grant Officer/Division Chief, Employment and Training Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-02814 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
# C_2004314EN.01001202.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/12

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 5 October 2004

in Case T-45/01: Stephen Sanders and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Staff employed at the JET Joint Undertaking - Equal treatment - Failure to confer status of temporary servant - Article 152 EA - Reasonable time - Material damage sustained)

(2004/C 314/31)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-45/01: Stephen Sanders, residing in Oxfordshire (United Kingdom), and the 94 applicants whose names appear in the annex, represented by P. Roth, QC, I. Hutton and A. Howard, Barristers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Escobar Guerrero, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Council of the European Union (Agent: initially by J.-P. Hix and A. Pilette, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen) — application for damages for the material loss sustained as a result of the failure to recruit the applicants as temporary servants of the Communities during the time they worked at the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Jaeger and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Orders the Commission to pay damages for the financial loss sustained by each of the applicants as a result of the fact that they were not recruited as temporary servants of the Communities during the time they worked at the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Commission to pay damages for the financial loss sustained by each of the applicants as a result of the fact that they were not recruited as temporary servants of the Communities during the time they worked at the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking;

| 2. | Orders the parties to produce to the Court of First Instance within six months of this judgment an agreement on the quantum of damages due in reparation of the said loss; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to produce to the Court of First Instance within six months of this judgment an agreement on the quantum of damages due in reparation of the said loss;

| 3. | In the absence of agreement orders the parties to put before the Court of First Instance within the same period their submissions on the quantum of damages; |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the absence of agreement orders the parties to put before the Court of First Instance within the same period their submissions on the quantum of damages;

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certificate of Principal Executive Officer

pursuant to section 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section
906

of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of CNET Networks, Inc. (CNET Networks) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the
Report), I, Shelby W. Bonnie, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of CNET Networks, 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 Section 15(d), as applicable, 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 CNET Networks.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 15, 2005



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Shelby W. Bonnie     
|Shelby W. Bonnie         
|Chairman of the Board and
|Chief Executive Officer  



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CNET Networks and will be retained by CNET Networks and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### MARGARET HENDERSON and others *v.*JOSEPH WALLACE and others.

One who was not a party to. a former petition in Equity for a sale for partition, is in no Way affected by any decree or proceeding in it: Therefore, such party cannot bring an action by Way of Bill or Review, to modify or vacate the decree made in such original action,

PbtitioN, to vacate and set aside a decree, heard before *Moore, J.,*at the Special (July) Term, 1873, of MecKdeNbukg Superior Court.

This action was brought by one who was rightfully entitled to a share of the land sought to be divided, under a petition for partition in 1860, in the former Court of Equity, but who was not, nor never has been a party to the pleadings, for the purpose of vacating or reforming the decree made in such original suit. For the reasons, sustained by Justice Rodman in his opiuion, the Court below dismissed the plaintiff’s case, whereupon they appealed.

*Wilson c& Son,*for appellants.

*Barringer, Brown*and *Dowd,*contra.

Rodman, J.

It seems clear that as Jane McCoombs was not a party to the bill in equity for the partition' of the lands-through a sale, she was in no ways affected by any decree or proceedings in it, and that therefore she is net at liberty to-bring an action in the nature of a bill of review, to vacate the decree. Her estate in the lands remains as it was before any decree for sale. She stills owns one-seventh of the lands, and may enter into possession along with her co-tenants, or have-any process which a co-tenant is entitled to, for partition..

Probably also the Court, on her motion, would allow the-original bill for partition to be amended by making her a' party. What the effect of such an amendment might be on her interests, we are not called on to say.

The present action cannot be maintained.

Per Curiam. Action dismissed.