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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on June 22, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Cooperative Research Group on HEDGE V (“HEDGE V”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Cummins, Inc., Columbus, IN; Convergent Science, Madison, WI; GM Global Technology Operations, LLC (GMGTO), Detroit, MI; Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Wolfsburg, GERMANY; and Robert Bosch LLC, Farmington Hills, MI. The general area of HEDGE V's planned activity is to identify ICE technologies to achieve 50% brake thermal efficiency while maintaining a stoichiometric air/fuel ratio suitable for three-way catalyst operation. Other topics of interest to the consortium include: large-bore s.i. combustion systems; assisted pre-chambers; Hybrid-ICE focus including ICE design for hybrid application; engine geometry changes; advanced combustion modes, SACI & D-EGR, sCO2 as a cooling medium or WHR system; high-power and voltage systems including microwave enhanced heating, CO2 Separation Membrane for Octane-on-Demand, and on-board hydrogen generation for combustion enhancement.

Suzanne Morris, 

                        Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics,                         *Antitrust Division.*

[FR Doc. 2021-17509 Filed 8-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,517
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,517
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,581
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            29
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,093)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,517
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,212
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,212)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,212)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 154

To improve Orchard Beach, New York.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1997

Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. D’AMATO) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To improve Orchard Beach, New York.

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

3 SECTION 1. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army shall

5 design and construct the project for shoreline protection

6 at Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York, authorized by sec7 tion 309(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of

8 1992 (106 Stat. 4843) and section 554 of the Water Re9 sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781), at a

10 Federal cost of $5,600,000.
2

S 154 IS

1 (b) FUNDING.—The Secretary shall carry out this

2 section using any funds available to the Secretary.

Æ
CERTIFICATE OF MERGER OF
      WORLD SHOPPING NETWORK.INC. INTO U.S.A. GROWTH INC.

The undersigned corporation does hereby certify that:

FIRST: The name and state of incorporation of each of the
constituent corporations of the merger to which this Certifies
relates is as follows:

NAME                                STATE OF INCORPORATION

World Shopping Network Inc.                 Wyoming

U.S.A. Growth Inc.                          Delaware

SECOND: The Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Agreement")
providing for the merger of World Shopping Network, Inc. with and
into U.S.A. Growth Inc. (the "Merger") has been approved,
adopted, certified, executed and acknowledged by each of the
constituent corporations in accordance with the requirements of
Section 252 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

THIRD: The name of the surviving corporation of the Merger is
U.S.A. Growth Inc., which shall be changed to World Shopping
Network. Inc., a Delaware corporation.

FOURTH: The Certificate of Incorporation of U.S.A. Growth Inc.
shall be the Certificate of Incorporation of the Surviving
corporation, which Shall be amended as follows:

1.  Article FIRST of the Certificate of Incorporation shall be
amended to read in full as follows:

"FIRST. The name of this corporation is World Shopping Network,
Inc."

2.  Article FOURTH of the Company's Certificate of
Incorporation is amended to read in full as follows:

"FOURTH. The amount of the total authorized capital stock of this
Corporation is 100,000,000 shares, par value $.001 per share.
Simultaneously with the effective date of this Amendment
("Effective Date"), all outstanding shares of common stock held
by each holder of record on the Effective Date shall be
automatically combined at the rate of one-for-twelve without any
further action on the part of the holders thereof or this
corporation. No fractional shares shall be issued. All fractional
shares for one-half share or more shall be increased to the next
higher whole number of shares and all fractional shares of less
than one-half share shall be decreased to the next lower whole
number of shares, respectively."

FIFTH. The executed Agreement of Merger is on file at the
principal place of business of the surviving corporation, the
address of which is 1530 Brookhollow Drive, Suite C, Santa Ana.
California 92705.

SIXTH. A copy of the Agreement of Merger will be furnished by the
surviving corporation, on request and without cost, to any
stockholder of any constituent corporation.

DATED: September 30. 1999

U.S.A. Growth Inc.


/s/  John J. Anton
John J. Anton, President
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bensalem Township, John M. :

Chaykowski, Administrator :

William Cmorey, Trustee :

:

v. : No. 1053 C.D. 2021

:

Samuel Karley, :

Appellant :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, February 21, 2023

, having considered A ppellant ’ s application

for reargument and A ppellee s ’ answer in response thereto , the application is

DENIED

.
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
 Imported Fire Ant and Household Insects Research: Gainesville, FL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Gainesville, Florida Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology Imported Fire Ant and Household Insects Research People & Locations







James D Hall

(Darrell)
                        Imported Fire Ant and Household Insects Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (352) 374-5928
                        
                        
                        Fax: (352) 374-5818(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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

Case 3:14-cv-00913-PK Document 1-2 Filed 06/06/14 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:

Case 3:14-cv-00913-PK Document 1-2 Filed 06/06/14 Page 2 of 2
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 29, 2010

0125 

# Order

January 29, 2010

139756

CATHLEEN VON OPEL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139756 COA: 292084 Oakland CC: 1997-600764-DM GEORG VON OPEL, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 24, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
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
 Cotton Production and Processing Research: Lubbock, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Lubbock, Texas Cropping Systems Research Laboratory Cotton Production and Processing Research People & Locations







David  Huie
                        Cotton Production and Processing Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Aid
                        Phone: (806) 746-5353
                        
                        
                        Fax: (806) 746-5028(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOTS
EASTERN DIVISTON
JARROD GRZESIAK,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. 03 C 7862

P.O. THOMAS LOEB, and P.O. JOHN
JOHNSON #9461, individually,

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Loeb moves for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new
trial. That motion is denied. Defendant’s contentions were rejected during trial, the jury was
properly instructed, and it returned a modest judgment for plaintiff. We see no reason te

revisit the matter now.

SA, JAMES B. MORAN
Senior Judge, U. 8, District Court

Nevo, 17,2006.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
 /s/ Richard P. LindsayRichard P. LindsayVice President, Chief FinancialOfficer, Treasurer and Secretary(Principal Financial Officer)March 15, 2007
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

ROBERT RICHARD SPURLING, III, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0436 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. CR2008-0672

The Honorable Cathleen Brown Nichols, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff

By William P. Ring

Counsel for Respondent

Robert Richard Spurling, III, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 5-31-2022
STATE v. SPURLING

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge D. 

Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Robert Richard Spurling seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This 

is petitioner’s second successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief.

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is 

petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by 

denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 

537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of 

establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RICHARD BERCUME,

Petitioner,

v.

GUY HALL, Superintendent, Santiam 

Correctional Institution,

Respondent.

Case No. 6:14-cv-01545-JE

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation in 

this case on October 7, 2015. Dkt. 32. Judge Jelderks recommended that Mr. Bercume’s

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas (Dkt. 9) be denied. No party has filed objections.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court 

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings 

or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Case 6:14-cv-01545-JE Document 34 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – ORDER

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended 

to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); 

United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the 

court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but 

not otherwise”). 

Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude 

further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” 

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings 

and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge Jelderk’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Jelderks’s 

Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 32. Mr. Bercume’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus (Dkt. 9) is DENIED and this case is dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to 

issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that Petitioner has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 19th day of November, 2015.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 6:14-cv-01545-JE Document 34 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 2