alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Geospatial and Environmental Epidemiology Research Unit: Mississippi State, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Mississippi State, Mississippi Geospatial and Environmental Epidemiology Research Unit





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

Newsheadline bar   ARS News Articles


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00449-PPS-JEM document 1-2 filed 10/18/16 page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00449-PPS-JEM document 1-2 filed 10/18/16 page 2 of 2
# C_2008309EN.01000901.xml

| 4.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5338 — Barclays/Investcorp/N & V Global Vending)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 309/04)

On 31 October 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5338. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5338. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Exhibit
      32.1




Certification
        of the Chief Executive Officer
 Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As
        Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  In
          connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Aces Wired, Inc. (the
          Company) for the fiscal year ended October 29, 2006, as filed with the
          Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth
          R. Griffith , President
          and Chief Executive Officer of the
          Company, hereby 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 l5(d)
            of the
            Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
              The
              information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
              respects,
              the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
                    */s/*KENNETH
                      R. GRIFFITHKenneth R. Griffith
                      President and Chief Executive Officer
                      Date:
                          February 6, 2007
Exhibit
23.1                                Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:





(1)
            Registration
      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-124628, as amended) of Pinnacle Airlines
      Corp., and





(2)
            Registration
      Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-124625 and 333-113453) pertaining to the
      2003 Savings Plan of Pinnacle Airlines
Corp.;





of our
reports dated March 13, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Pinnacle Airlines Corp., and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of Pinnacle Airlines Corp., included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2007.








/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP





Memphis,
Tennessee


March 13,
2008
EXHIBIT 32.2

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

I, Zong Yun Zhou,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Quarterly
Report of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June
30, 2004 fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB  fairly  presents in all material  respects the  financial
condition and results of operations of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC.



                                              By: /s/ Zong Yun Zhou
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name:   Zong Yun Zhou
                                                Title:  Chief Financial Officer
#### James Lewis HAMILTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Sherwood R. MCCABE, Superintendent Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-7951.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2006.

Decided: May 5, 2006.

James Lewis Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

James Lewis Hamilton seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner sat*327isfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hamilton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hamilton’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT B

USDC IN/ND case 3:13-cv-00819-RLM-MGG document 32-2 filed 10/13/14 page 1 of 3
Bulb Portion

Tongue & Groove

Mounting Portion

Adhesive

Bulb Portion

Tongue & Groove

Mounting Portion

Adhesive

Bulb Portion

Tongue & Groove

Mounting Portion

Adhesive

Wiper Portion

Wiper Portion

Wiper Portion

Page 1

USDC IN/ND case 3:13-cv-00819-RLM-MGG document 32-2 filed 10/13/14 page 2 of 3
Bulb Portion

Tongue & Groove

Mounting Portion

Adhesive

Bulb Portion

Tongue & Groove

Mounting Portion

Adhesive

Bulb Portion

Tongue & Groove

Mounting Portion

Adhesive

Wiper Portion

Wiper Portion

Wiper Portion

Page 2

USDC IN/ND case 3:13-cv-00819-RLM-MGG document 32-2 filed 10/13/14 page 3 of 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JARED LEE DOWNWARD,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 179 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
# C_2008266EN.01000701.xml

| 21.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5300 — Gores Group LLC/Siemens Enterprise Communications)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 266/02)

On 19 September 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5300. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5300. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Lotze, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Barlow, J.), rendered April 23, 1979, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant did not raise his objections to the adequacy of the plea allocutions in the court of first instance and thus failed as a matter of law, to preserve his claim for appellate review *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Willie,*101 AD2d 819). In any event, defendant’s contention, *inter alia,*that his belated assertion of a justification defense undermined the integrity of his conviction, is without merit. Upon hearing the defendant utter the words “self defense” the court asked defendant’s attorney if there was any viability to the defense and promptly offered the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty. After consulting with the defendant’s parents, both the defendant and his attorney told the court that the defendant did not wish to withdraw the guilty plea, and sentence was imposed. These facts do not warrant a reversal of the conviction in the interest of justice. Rather, the record before us demonstrates that the defendant’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered *(People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
[Nos. 37484-2-I; 38880-1-I.

Division One.

September 22, 1997.]

#### Ted White, *Appellant,*v. Northwest Defenders Association, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 91-4-04288-5, Richard Eadie, J., entered September 19, 1995. *Affirmed as modified*by unpublished opinion per Becker, J., concurred in by Baker, C.J., and Cox. J.
**Exhibit 13.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of NTT DOCOMO, INC. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: June 23, 2011
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ted Marvin Daniel, Appellant.

— Judgment of resentence of the *676Supreme Court, New York County (Hortense Gabel, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered March 27, 1981, nunc pro tunc as of March 9, 1981, convicting the defendant of robbery in the second degree and imposing a sentence of 7% to 15 years, is unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed.

While we find no merit to the other arguments raised by the defendant on appeal, in response to defendant’s plea, *inter alia,*for leniency, the court responded: “I have no choice in this matter at all”, and proceeded to impose a sentence with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 15 years.

The error was twofold. On one hand, obviously, the imposition of said minimum would contravene Penal Law § 70.06 (4) (b), to wit: the minimum for a second felony must be fixed by the court at one half of the maximum. On the other hand, the court’s statement that it had “no choice” but to impose the aforementioned sentence with a maximum of 15 years would appear to suggest that the court may have misunderstood its discretionary power to fix the maximum for a second felony offender at any amount *between*at least 6 years but not to exceed 15 years. *(See,*Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [c].) The fact that the court thereafter rectified the former problem by resentencing the defendant, nunc pro tunc, to a term of *7 ¥2*to 15 years does not clarify the latter problem.

Since the court did have a choice of imposing a sentence other than the maximum permissible by statute, we vacate the sentence and remand the matter for resentencing in accordance with the foregoing. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.
NO. 07-05-0340-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A FEBRUARY 10, 2006

______________________________ KERWIN GIBBS, APPELLANT

V. ALLSUP’S CONVENIENCE STORES, INC. AND FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FEDERAT ED INSUR

ANCE AN ASSUMED NAME OF FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANC E COMPANY AND/OR FEDERATED SERVICES INS URANCE COMPANY

AND DAWN WILLEFORD, APPELLEES

_________________________________ FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2005- 597,010; HONORAB LE PAUL A LANEH ART, JUD GE

_______________________________ Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and H ANCOCK, JJ. ON MOTION FOR REHEARING By opinion dated December 16, 2005, this court dismissed appellant, Kerwi n Gibbs’ appeal fo r want of pr osecution pursuant to Rule 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b), (c) of the Texas Rules of Appell ate procedure. By motion for rehearing, appellant contends all matters in controversy were set

tled between the p arties pr ior to this court’s order. The pleadings and2

the motion for dismissal filed with the petition for rehearin g c onfirm this contention. Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is granted and the ca se is reinstated. Appellant

has file d before this cour t a motion to dismiss the appeal, citing settlement of all matte rs in con troversy. Ap pellee has confirmed the settlement by a responsive pleading. From the record it is clear that appellant does not desire to pursue the appeal. Withoutpassing on the merits of the appeal, we grant the motion a nd dismiss the appeal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a). Pursuan t to the motion, costs are to be assessed against the party incurring them. Having dismissed the appeal by agreement of the parties, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice
Hakeem L. SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6877.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
_____________

No. 96-2852MN

_____________

Darlow T. Madge; Brian A. *

Madge; Lynne Leger, *

*

Appellants, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

David Lee Lillehaug; Janet Reno;* District Court for the District

Paul A. Magnuson; James M. * of Minnesota.

Rosenbaum; David S. Doty; *

Richard H. Kyle; Michael J. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Davis; Donald D. Alsop; Harry *

H. MacLaughlin; Robert G. *

Renner; Earl R. Larson; West *

Publishing Company, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

Submitted: December 26, 1996

 Filed: January 6, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, District Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Darlow T. Madge, Brian A. Madge, and Lynne Leger appeal the district

court's order dismissing their action. We conclude the district court's

decision is clearly correct. Assuming but not deciding that appellants'

claim against the legal publishing company presents an actual controversy,

the appellants lack standing to raise the claim. We affirm. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40617 Conference Calendar

__________________ REYES FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JIMMY E ALFORD, Warden; ROBERT J PARKER; IEASHA M HAYNES; DERRICK BLAKEMORE, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:94-CV-913

- - - - - - - - - - December 19, 1995 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Flores appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an excessive use of force. Flores argues that his factual allegations show that Haynes and Blakemore subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Flores challenges the factual findings made by the magistrate judge after a bench trial. Flores also argues that Officers Haynes and Blakemore filed their answers beyond the 20-day time limit set by the magistrate judge in her order. He also arguesNo. 95-40617 -2- that Attorney Kosanovich was present at trial after Edward Sanchez was substituted as attorney for the defendants. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error in relation to the filing of the defendants' answers and the substitution of counsel issues. Further, review of the magistrate judge's findings depends on a trial transcript. Flores has failed to provide a transcript. These issues are therefore meritless. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); Powell v. Estelle , 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 113 S. Ct. 668 (1992); Richardson v. Henry , 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 901 (1990) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Flores' appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Flores that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Flores is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this
court. APPEAL DISMISSED.