alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5412 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5412

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 25 2nd Avenue in Brentwood, New York, as the ``Army Specialist Jose 
                    L. Ruiz Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ARMY SPECIALIST JOSE L. RUIZ POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 25 2nd Avenue in Brentwood, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Army Specialist Jose L. Ruiz Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Army 
Specialist Jose L. Ruiz Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 29, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5412

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 25 2nd Avenue in Brentwood, New York, as the ``Army Specialist Jose 
                    L. Ruiz Post Office Building''.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JEREMY KING, individually,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 1:10cv55-SPM/GRJ

THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case has been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the parties’

notice of voluntary dismissal (docs. 17 and 18) and Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the clerk shall close this case.

SO ORDERED this 16th day of September, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 99(v)



                                    TXU CORP.
                       Certificate Pursuant to Section 906
                         of Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002


     The undersigned, Erle Nye, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive of TXU
Corp. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

   1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
      31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

   2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be
executed this 11th day of March, 2003.





                              /s/ Erle Nye
                         --------------------------------------------------
                         Name:    Erle Nye
                         Title:   Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

SAM J. PEARSON, IV,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:11cv76/MCR/EMT

DARRELL McMANN, et al.,

 Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated April 22, 2011 (Doc. 7). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that the

Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2011.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00076-MCR-EMT Document 8 Filed 05/26/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

vs. 3:11cr19/MCR

ROGER RAY PRICE,

 Defendant.

_________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11,

Fed.R.Crim.P., and has entered a plea of guilty to the two count indictment against

him. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning the

subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable

and voluntary, and that the offense charged is supported by an independent basis in

fact containing each of the essential elements ofsuch offense. I therefore recommend

that the plea of guilty be accepted and that the defendant be adjudicated guilty and

have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated: March 31, 2011

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within 24 hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that

may appear on the electronic docket isfor the court’s internal use only, and does

not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure

to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28

U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988).

th
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Federal Maritime Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

November 28, 2007.

# PLACE:

800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach Proposed Clean Truck Program.

      ( print page 65964)    

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 07-5845 Filed 11-21-07; 1:45 pm]

BILLING CODE  6730-01-M
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DERREL THOMAS, JR,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11-cv-46-MP-GRJ

BUSS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion For Appointment Of Counsel. 

(Doc. 8.) A plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel. Although a

court may appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), the

Court has broad discretion in making this decision. Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312 (11th

Cir. 1999). Only exceptional circumstances warrant appointment, such as where “core

facts” are not in dispute and the legal issues are not so novel or complex as to require

the assistance of a trained practitioner, even if the assistance of a lawyer would

undoubtedly be helpful. Id., at 1320; Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088 (11th Cir. 1990)

(appointment of counsel is a privilege, not a right). The Court has reviewed the

complaint filed in this cause and finds that the claims raised are not novel or complex

and will not require discovery or extensive legal research to resolve and, therefore, do

not warrant appointment of counsel. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For Appointment Of
Page 2 of 2

Counsel (Doc. 8) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18 day of April, 2011. th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 4:11-cv-46-MP-GRJ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8017

TIMOTHY FEODOR KEARNEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Douglas E. Miller, Magistrate 

Judge. (2:12-cv-00240-DEM)

Submitted: April 30, 2013 Decided: May 2, 2013

Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Feodor Kearney, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty 

Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Feodor Kearney seeks to appeal the magistrate 

judge’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Kearney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate 

 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
3

of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          816294
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2998489
<ALLOWANCES>                                     43371
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4238037
<PP&E>                                          253221
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5165676
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3149269
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      10000
<COMMON>                                         12631
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5165676
<SALES>                                       14698133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              14698133
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 14690297
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              334823
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   7836
<INCOME-TAX>                                      7836
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7836
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PERRY GENE VANDERFORD,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:11cv117/RV/EMT

WALTER A. McNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated May 16, 2011 (Doc. 5). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the Report

and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28,

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all timely filed

objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2 This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2011.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00117-RV-EMT Document 6 Filed 06/16/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2010282EN.01000302.xml

| 19.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6000 — E.ON/PP (II))

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 282/04

On 12 October 2010, 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:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M6000. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M6000. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
| 1.     | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the peiod ending March 31,      2009, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for      the period ending March 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MD      Holdings Corp. |

|                    | MD      Holdings, Corp. |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
|                    |                    |
| Date:      May 20, 2009 | By:           | /s/      Marshall Davis |
|                    |                    | Marshall      Davis |
|                    |                    | Chief      Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Director and Principal      AccountingOfficer  |
JANUARY TERM, 1912

[No. 1988]

#### POTOSI ZINC COMPANY (a Corporation), P. C. GRAY, WILBUR O. DOW, and ELEANOR BROWN, Appellants, *v.*J. J. MAHONEY and P. H. MAHONEY, Respondents.

1. Appeal and Ereoe — Affirmance—Abandonment op Appeal.

That appellant having failed for more than six months to file briefs, or to appear and argue the case on a motion to dismiss or on the merits after notice of the hearing, and having made no request to submit the cause without argument or brief, warrants an inference of abandonment of the appeal, which was from the judgment roll aloné, so that the judgment is properly affirmed; no glaring defects appearing on the face of the judgment roll.

Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Nevada, Clark County; *George S. Brown,*Judge.

Action by the Potosí Zinc Mining Company and others against J. J. Mahoney and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

*296*Haas, Garret & Dunnigan,*and *W. R. Thomas,*for Appellants.

*Cheney, Downer, Price & Hawkins, Gray, Barker, Bowen, Allen, Van Dyke & Jutten, Flint, Gray & Barker,*and *Richard Busteed,*for Respondents.

*Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal from the judgment roll alone.

Since the filing of the record on appeal in this court about six months ago, the plaintiffs have not filed any briefs on appeal, and have failed to appear and argue the case on the motion to dismiss, or the merits, at the time set for the hearing after postponement, and after notice of the motion and hearing. No request has been made for the submission of the case without argument or brief. Under the circumstances, it may be inferred that the-appeal has been abandoned; and, as no glaring defects appear on the face of the judgment roll, the judgment is affirmed under the following cases: *Linville*v. *Clark,*30 Nev. 113; *State*v. *Myatt,*10 Nev. 166; *Gardner*v. *Gardner,*23 Nev. 214; *Finlayson*v. *Montgomery,*14 Nev. 397; *Fulton*v. *Day,*8 Nev. 82; *Goodhue*v. *Shedd,*17 Nev. 141; *Matthewson*v. *Boyle,*20 Nev. 88.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D20-3554

_____________________________

SUSAN CALDWELL,

Appellant,

v.

KINDRED AT HOME and

SEDGWICK CLAIMS 

MANAGEMENT,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Office of the Judges of 

Compensation Claims.

Mark A. Massey, Judge.

Date of Accident: September 5, 2016.

September 28, 2021

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, ROBERTS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Bradley G. Smith and Nicolette E. Tsambis of Smith, Feddeler, 

Smith P.A., Lakeland, for Appellant.

Warren K. Sponsler and Vanessa J. Johnson of Sponsler, Koren, 

Hammer & Lahey, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.
Exhibit 13.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel Johannes Pretorius, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:
  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Daniel Johannes PretoriusBy:
  Title: 
  Chief Executive Officer Date:  October 26, 2012


Exhibit 13.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Craig Clinton Barnes, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:
  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Craig Clinton BarnesBy:
  Title: 
  Chief Financial Officer Date:  October 26, 2012
NIOSH Conformity Assessment Letter to

Manufacturers

 NIOSH CA 2022-1050

November 2022

 

Issue Affecting Chemical Warfare Agent (CWA) Testing for NIOSH CBRN 

Respirator Approvals 
Document Number

NIOSH CA 2022-1050

Page 2 of 2

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) employs the U.S. Army Combat 

Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM), Chemical Biological Center (CBC) to conduct Chemical 

Warfare Agent (CWA) testing. These services support the NIOSH Respirator Approval Program by 

completing CWA testing for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) respiratory 

protection conformance.

On October 26, 2022, DEVCOM-CBC formally notified NIOSH that as of October 6, 2022, the Sarin (GB) 

testing hood within the Simulant Agent Resistant Test Manikin (SMARTMAN) Laboratory has been on

safety stand-down to correct safety concerns related to the fume hood and the test box. All GB 

SMARTMAN operations are postponed until a new test system is implemented. A new chamber has 

been designed and manufactured and is currently being installed in the new lab space. DEVCOM-CBC 

anticipates the system will be validated and verified by the second week of January 2023. 

NIOSH will inform stakeholders when the new GB test system and laboratory become operational. 

Subject: Issue Affecting Chemical Warfare Agent (CWA) Testing for NIOSH CBRN 

Respirator Approvals