alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
712212008 Walker Patrick

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC. COMEDY FigueirdDecl.Tab

PARTNERS COUNTRY MUSIC 122

TELEVISION INC. PAR1OUNT

PICTURES CORPORATION and BLACK

ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC

Plaintiffs

vs. Case No. l07CV02103

YOUTUBE INC. YOUTUBE LLC

and GOOGLE INC.

Defendants.

THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION PREMIER

LEAGUE LIMITED BOURNE CO. et al

on behalf of themselves and all

others similarly situated

Plaintiffs

vs. Case No. 07CV3582

YOUTUBE INC. YOUTUBE LLC and

GOOGLE INC.

Defendants.

DEPOSITION OF PATRICK WALKER

SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA

TUESDAY JULY 22 2008

REPORTED BY

YVONNE FENNELLY CRP CSR NO. 5495

JOB NO. 15375
712212008 Walker Patrick

122-0002

answer.

BY MR. SHAFTEL

Q. thought you had.

A. dont know.

Q. And you didnt ask

A. dont recall

MR. INGBER Object asked and answered.

THE WITNESS dont recall.

10 BY MR. SHAFTEL

11 Q. And if you did ask you dont recall what the

12 answer was

13 MR. INGBER Objection. He testified already

14 to this question.

15 MR. SHAFTEL He has.

16 BY MR. SHAFTEL

17 Q. You said that YouTube makes tools available to

18 content owners to monitor their rights.

19 What tools are you referring to Do they have

20 names

21 A. There is the standard DMCA notification

22 process which is submitting either in bulk or on an

23 individual URL basis the content they would like to be

24 removed which we do remove. And there is the

25 development of tool that we call CVT or content

222
712212008 Walker Patrick

122-0003

verification program which would allow them to use

search tools to pull up clips that had that respoided

to the queries that they insert.

Then they would be able to look at those clips

that came up in response to their search queries. They

would then be able to within that tool review those

videos and determine whether or not it was in fact in

their opinion an unauthorized use. They could tick

10 box indicating removal click button and we would

11 have batch list sent to us that would be automatically

12 removed.

13 Q. You refer to that program as CVP correct

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Are you familiar with CMS

16 A. Im familiar with the term CMS.

17 Q. What does that refer to

18 A. Content management system think if

19 thats thats my understanding of it.

20 Q. Is there specific CMS technology that YouTube

21 made available to content owners

22 A. CMS is term that we began using as an

23 umbrella term for suite of tools for rights holders to

24 manage their content on the platform.

25 Q. Now what is CYC

223
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Kennie Lewis Cook, Jr. , Appellant

No. 06

- 20

- 00002

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2019F00101 ).
Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief
Justice Stevens

, Justice van Cleef and
Justice Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opi nion of this date , we find there was partial error in the
judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the clerk’s bill of costs and the trial cour t ’ s jud gment by deleting the duplicative court costs of $ 40 1

. 00 . As modified, the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

We further o rder that the appellant, Kennie Lewis Cook, J r. , pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MARC H 10 , 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUST ICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2052 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2052

  To authorize the honorary promotion of Colonel Charles E. McGee to 
           brigadier general in the United States Air Force.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 28 (legislative day, June 27), 2019

Mr. Van Hollen introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the honorary promotion of Colonel Charles E. McGee to 
           brigadier general in the United States Air Force.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR HONORARY PROMOTION OF COLONEL CHARLES E. MCGEE 
              TO BRIGADIER GENERAL IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE.

    The President is authorized to issue an appropriate honorary 
commission promoting to brigadier general in the Air Force Colonel 
Charles E. McGee, United States Air Force (retired), a distinguished 
Tuskegee Airman whose honorary promotion to that grade has the 
recommendation of the Secretary of the Air Force in accordance with the 
provisions of section 1563 of title 10, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 232 (Monday, December 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 72455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23593]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Mentored Training Grant 
Review.
    Date: December 21, 2005.
    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: John F. Connaughton, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of 
Health, Room 757, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 
(301) 594-7797, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#492a262727283c2e213d2627092c313d3b286727202d2d2267272021672e263f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b080405050a1e0c031f04052b0e131f190a4505020f0f0045050203450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 23, 2005.
Nancy Middendorf,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-23593 Filed 12-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANTHONY D. GARLAND,

D.O.C. # L42997,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv67-SPM/WCS

RE: OBSTRUCTION OF MAIL,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, submitted to the Clerk of this Court, an "initiative

complaint" in which he requests the United States Marshal provide assistance to him for

allegations of mail tampering in the mail room of the Florida State Prison. Doc. 1. The

Court is not an intermediary between a citizen wishing to make a complaint and the

United States Marshal's Service. Moreover, to the degree Plaintiff wishes to style this

as a complaint to address violations of his First Amendment rights, this case cannot

proceed. 

Plaintiff has had more than three cases dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)

and is, therefore, not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court pursuant to
Page 2 of 3

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See cases 4:08cv580-RS/WCS and 4:09cv358-SPM/WCS in this

Court; and cases 08cv1020 and 08cv61054 were dismissed as frivolous by the

Southern District of Florida, as well as case 08cv61052 which was dismissed for failure

to state a claim. 

Considering that Plaintiff did not submit a motion seeking leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, nor did he submit payment of the filing fee at the time he submitted his

"initiative complaint," doc. 1, this case should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

That statute provides that a prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis under

28 U.S.C. § 1915:

if the prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or detained

in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States

that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff's allegations of mail tampering do not bring him within the

"imminent danger" exception. 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be

DISMISSED as Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g), and did not pay the filing fee at the time of case initiation, and that the Clerk be

directed to note on the docket that this case was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 4, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 4:10cv67-SPM/WCS
Page 3 of 3

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv67-SPM/WCS
Order entered April 11, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 01587
- CR
EDWARD DERELL HARMON , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. F13
- 54013
- I



### O RDER
The Court GRANTS appellant’s April 9, 2014 pro se request for an extension of time to file his response to the Anders brief filed by counsel. We ORDER appellant to file his pro se response by JUNE 9, 2014 . If the respon se is not filed by that date, the appeal will be submitted
on the Anders brief alone.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first

- class mail, to Edward Derell
Har mon, TDCJ No. 1891908, Polunsky Unit, 3872 F.M. 350, Livingston, Texas 77351.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
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 Canglobe International, Inc. on
Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David
Alexander,  Secretary  and  Treasurer  of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1)      the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/S/ David Alexander
David Alexander
Secretary, Treasurer, Director
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


March 24, 2005


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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.
#### VERNON JOHNSON v. T. W. LEE.

(Filed 28 April, 1965.)

Appeal by defendant from *McKinnon, J.,*September, 1964 Session, WAKE Superior Court.

The plaintiff instituted this civil action to recover $555.00 for moving a frame building from one of defendant’s lots to another. The plaintiff alleged the parties had an agreement that plaintiff would furnish all heavy equipment and operators and that the defendant would provide at his own expense other labor necessary to complete the job. The parties agreed that the plaintiff should be paid $15.00 per hour for the moving operation. The evidence disclosed that the plaintiff furnished equipment and operators for 30 hours for which he was entitled to recover $450.00. He alleged, further, that the defendant failed to furnish the' other labor necessary to finish the work, and that plaintiff had to pay for such other labor the sum of $105.00,

The defendant admitted making a contract but contended he was due a credit of $350.00 because of the damage to the building caused by the plaintiff’s negligence in removing it. He also alleged that the defendant was due him a credit of $80.47 on an old account.

After hearing the evidence of both parties, the jury found the defendant was due the plaintiff $555.00 for moving the building; that the defendant was due a credit of $22.29 on the old account. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $532.71, the defendant appealed.

*Basil L. Sherrill, for plaintiff appellee.*

*Stanley L. Seligson for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The dispute between the parties involved issues of fact. After hearing both parties, the jury resolved the dispute and the judgment was entered in accordance with the findings, which are supported by the evidence.

No error.
#### SWENSON v. THIBAUT

No. 38.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 77.

Petitions by defendants Thibaut, Clark, Thompson, Taylor, Nichols, Leleux, Hawkins, Duhe, Comeaux, Bagnaud, Bares, Backus and Walton for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 March 1979. Motion of plaintiff to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 6 March 1979.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION OF 10-KREPORT**

 

**CARBON ENERGYCORPORATION**

 

**FOR THE YEAR ENDEDDECEMBER 31, 2002**

 

The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief FinancialOfficer of Carbon Energy Corporation (“Carbon”). This Certification is madepursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. ThisCertification accompanies the 10-K Report of Carbon for the year ended December31, 2002.

 

We certify that such 10-K Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-K Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Carbon.

 

This Certification is executed as of March31, 2003.

 
|   | */s/   Patrick R. McDonald*        |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Patrick R. McDonald                     |
|   | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |
|   |                                    |
|   |                                    |
|   | */s/   Kevin D. Struzeski*         |
|   | Kevin D. Struzeski                      |
|   | *Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer* |

 

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CarbonEnergy Corporation and will be retained by Carbon Energy Corporation andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### STONE v. McCLAM

No. 18 PC.

Case below: 42 N.C. App. 393.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review , under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 November 1979.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2




                   K-V PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerald
R. Mitchell, Vice President, Treasurer and 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:

        (3)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
             or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/  GERALD R. MITCHELL
-----------------------------------------------------
Gerald R. Mitchell
Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2002
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
- Text1: 
    - Text2: 
    - Text3: 
    - Text4: 
    - Text5: 
    - Text6: 
    - Text7: 
    - Text8: 
    - Text9: 
    - Text10: 
    - Text11: 
    - Text12: 
    - Text13: 
    - Text14:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000

<S>                                <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                     MAY-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       AUG-28-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<CASH>                             1349
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      13631
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        43810
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   58790
<PP&E>                             58509
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     158374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              15577
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                           90
<OTHER-SE>                         (31219)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       158374
<SALES>                            89984
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   89984
<CGS>                              66798
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      66798
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   32786
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 1177
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (10777)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (31841)
<INCOME-TAX>                       28
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    21064
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       (31869)
<EPS-BASIC>                      (3.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (3.51)


</TABLE>
Simulation based on real-

world data

e Large population studies | __
of noise-exposed & AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

DETERMINATION OF OCCUPATIONAL

noise-free males & NOISE EXPOSURE AND ESTIMATION

OF NOISE-INDUCED HEARING

females IMPAIRMENT

e ANSI standard for
predicting effects (S3
44-1996)

PCCESYTET}

e But - how many miners
read ANSI standards?

C

My

S|
OC
WE.



Other Customers

e Pittsburgh Air Refueling Wing
e NASA Ames Research Center
e Sandia National Laboratories

e Global: Australia, Canada,
Denmark, Israel, Mexico, New
Zealand

e Over 300 requests

CDC]


LAA Vas
CDC]

Trainees are
more knowledgeable

Hearing loss due to noise makes it harder to
hear high pitch sounds

Hearing loss due to noise makes it harder to
hear low pitch sounds

Speech is made up of both low and high
pitched sounds

Most hearing loss is caused by age

Hearing loss makes it harder to hear what
others say

Hearing loss is permanent

Hearing loss is related to the length of time
exposed to noise

Hearing loss is affected by noise levels

[ I

—

OPre
i: @ Post

Disagree/Agree scale

IMIOSH


CDC]

Hearing Loss Simulator
Demonstration



Who’s using it and how

e Mine trainers:
— Annual refresher training
e CAOHC course directors:
- Teaching hearing test techs
e Audiologists:

- Family of hearing-impaired
patients

e Audiology professors:
- Doctoral class on hearing ( MI
conservation
CENTRAL MICHIGAN
UNIVERSITY

CDC] OSH



Motivating Prevention
with the

NIOSH Hearing Loss Simulator

Bob Randolph

Mining Hearing Loss Prevention Workshop
June 21-22, 2005

pany A x]
CDC] Pittsburgh Research Laboratory MOSH


For more information

MOSH
Hearing Loss Simulator

Bob Randolph &@

Notional ttt for Occpstionl Softy and Heath
rnmategfiiah

Phone: 412-386-4660 Fax: 412-386-4864
rrandolph@cdc.gov
Simulator CD orders: minetraining@cdc.gov
www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining

Whe ox
CDC] Pittsburgh Research Laboratory MOSH


What you need

e Copy of the simulator
e Windows-based PC

e Big monitor or projector

e Loudspeaker system __

—
Pete

e Follow examples in
online help


Trainees plan to take action

lam more likely to wear hearing protection
when using power tools

lam more likely to wear hearing protection
when mowing the lawn

lam more likely to talk to my supervisor
about noise levels at work

noise levels at work

lam more aware of the noise levels at my
workplace

lam more likely to use hearing protection at
work

lam more likely to talk with coworkers about Po
T

Disagree/Agree scale

CDC] OSH


Objective:
Teaches Specific Knowledge

Hearing loss...

...1S affected by noise levels.

...1S related to the time of noise exposure.
..1S permanent.

..makes it harder to hear what others say.
...mostly NOT caused by aging.

..due to noise makes it harder to hear high
pitch sounds.

...due to noise has less of an effect on
hearing low pitch sounds.

CHC
CDC] OSH


Objective:
Motivates Prevention

CDC]


NIOSH Hearing Loss Simulator

e Windows-based software

e Trainees can hear the MOSH
effect of noise exposure Hearing Loss Simulator

e Best for instruction led ¢ hh
by an instructor or Se —
expert

e Can be used for self-
teaching after orientation

CDC} OSH