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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2385 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 596
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2385

  To designate the United States courthouse at South Federal Place in 
    Santa Fe, New Mexico, as the ``Santiago E. Campos United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 5, 2004

 Mr. Bingaman (for himself and Mr. Domenici) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

                             June 24, 2004

               Reported by Mr. Inhofe, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse at South Federal Place in 
    Santa Fe, New Mexico, as the ``Santiago E. Campos United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SANTIAGO E. CAMPOS UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    The United States courthouse at South Federal Place in Santa Fe, 
New Mexico, shall be known and designated as the ``Santiago E. Campos 
United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Santiago E. 
Campos United States Courthouse''.

                                                       Calendar No. 596

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2385

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To designate the United States courthouse at South Federal Place in 
    Santa Fe, New Mexico, as the ``Santiago E. Campos United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 24, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RALPH E. DRIGGERS, JR.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jennifer Hans, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-04013-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney's signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6000 

Telephone number

(404 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8714 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 1
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00663-CR

JESSICA KATHLEEN ORELLANA

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

24th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-6-27368-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 16, 2015
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40916

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ELMER IVAN GARTH-DAVINSON CANALES,

also known as Arnoldo Canales,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:01-CR-398-1

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Elmer Ivan Garth-Davinson Canales

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Davinson was notified

of counsel’s motion, but he has not filed a response. Our review

of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue

for appeal. The motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel

is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61261-61262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24219]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0688]
RIN 1625-ZA33

Shipping and Transportation; Technical, Organizational, and 
Conforming Amendments

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Correcting Amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a final rule in the Federal Register 
on September 29, 2014, that made non-substantive corrections throughout 
Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In that final rule, the 
Coast Guard revised a paragraph by substituting an incorrect word with 
one that was presumed correct. The substitution is actually incorrect, 
and the original word was correct. This correction resolves that error 
by replacing the word that we incorrectly removed.

DATES: This correction is effective on October 10, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this 
correction,

[[Page 61262]]

call or email Paul Crissy, Office of Standards Evaluation and 
Development, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1093, email 
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing material on 
the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 
telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To view the original final rule document, 
visit http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-2014-09-29/2014-21994.

Background

    On September 29, 2014, the Coast Guard published its annual 
technical amendment to make non-substantive changes to Title 46 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations. 79 FR 58270.

Need for Correction

    The Coast Guard published a final rule in the Federal Register that 
created the need for this correction. The Coast Guard amended Sec.  
67.259(b) by removing the word ``effected,'' and adding in its place 
the word ``affected.'' This replacement was incorrect, however, as the 
word ``effected'' was used correctly. This correction amends paragraph 
(b) by replacing the word ``affected'' with the word ``effected.''

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 67

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.

    Accordingly, 46 CFR part 67 is amended by making the following 
correcting amendment:

PART 67--DOCUMENTATION OF VESSELS

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 14 U.S.C. 664; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 9118; 46 
U.S.C. 2103, 2107, 2110, 12106, 12120, 12122; 46 U.S.C. app. 841a, 
876; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  67.259  [Corrected]

0
2. In Sec.  67.259(b), remove the word ``affected'' and add, in its 
place, the word ``effected''.

    Dated: October 6, 2014.
Katia Cervoni,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-24219 Filed 10-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
```
#### P. Gerald Barbato et al., Respondents, v Hollow Hills Country Club, Appellant.

[789 NYS2d 199]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated June 17, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff E Gerard Barbato, an experienced golfer who had played on the defendant’s golf course on numerous prior occasions, was injured when he slipped and fell on wet grass while descending a green. When teeing off at that hole he admittedly observed that a manually-operated sprinkler adjacent to the green was watering the entire area. As his foursome approached the green, the sprinkler was turned off. He then ascended a slight slope in front of the green and he and the other players completed their putts. On his way down the side of the green, he slipped and fell approximately three feet from the edge of the green.

“[B]y engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” *(Morgan v State of New York,*90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]). “A participant consents to the risk of ‘those injury-causing events which are known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation’ ” *(Sedita v City of New York,*8 AD3d 256, 257 [2004], quoting *Turcotte v*Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 439 [1986]).

Here, the record demonstrates that the wet grass which caused the injured plaintiff to slip and fall was an open and obvious condition of which he was fully aware prior to playing the hole. He therefore voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by playing on the wet surface *(see Ozner v Towers Country Club,*276 AD2d 760 [2000]; *Carracino v Town of Oyster Bay,*247 AD2d 501 [1998]; *Sands v Bonnie View on Lake George,*230 *523AD2d 902 [1996]). Moreover, the affidavit of the plaintiffs expert did not sufficiently identify any specific industry standard upon which he relied in concluding that the defendant negligently watered the course. Therefore, it was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact in response to the defendant’s establishment of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Romano v Stanley,*90 NY2d 444 [1997]; *Baehre v Sagamore Resort Hotel,*4 AD3d 810, 811 [2004]; *Veccia v Clearmeadow Pistol Club,*300 AD2d 472 [2002]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSEPH DEVITO.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0557. FLOYD HARRELL et al. v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A.

In 2015, after Bank of America, N. A., filed a complaint for declaratory

judgment and petition to remove cloud from title, the trial court entered a final

judgment against Floyd and Diane Harrell and in favor of Bank of America. In 2021,

the Harrells filed the instant action against Bank of America, seeking to set aside the

prior judgment for fraud. On June 25, 2021, the trial court entered an order dismissing

the Harrells’ complaint, finding that it was without jurisdiction to consider the same

because a motion to set aside under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) cannotserve asthe basisfor

a new action. The Harrells then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial

court denied on July 9, 2021. On August 10, 2021, the Harrells filed this appeal. We,

however, lack jurisdiction. 

As a general rule, an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside

brought under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) must be initiated by filing an application for

discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8); Parker v. Robinson, 337 Ga. App.

362, 364 (2) (787 SE2d 317) (2016). But even if the Harrells were entitled to a direct

appeal from the trial court’s June 25 order dismissing their complaint, their appeal is

untimely. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment

sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a); First Merit Credit Services v. Fairway

Aviation, 359 Ga. App. 829, 830 (1) (860 SE2d 126) (2021). And “[t]he proper and

timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction

upon the appellate court.” Radio Sandy Springs, Inc. v. Allen Road Joint Venture, 311

Ga. App. 334, 336 (715 SE2d 752). Here, the notice of appeal was filed 46 days after

the June 25 order. And the denial of a motion for reconsideration is not subject to

November 23, 2021
direct appeal and does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. See Luster v.

Bank of America, N.A., 331 Ga. App. 510, 512 (769 SE2d 394) (2015).

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/23/2021
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Suzanne Cisneros","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/suzanneecisneros-2-2\/","title":"Ingenuity Mars Helicopter Team Honored With Achievement Award","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"IvXjFEnaCf\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/ingenuity-mars-helicopter-team-honored-with-achievement-award\/\">Ingenuity Mars Helicopter Team Honored With Achievement Award<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/ingenuity-mars-helicopter-team-honored-with-achievement-award\/embed\/#?secret=IvXjFEnaCf\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Ingenuity Mars Helicopter Team Honored With Achievement Award” — NASA\" data-secret=\"IvXjFEnaCf\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/helicopter_still_image.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**SPORT-HALEY, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906**

**of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002**

 

*In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Sport-Haley, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, the undersignedChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do eachcertify, to our respective knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:*

* *

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:  May 15, 2009

 

 
| /s/  DONALD W. JEWELL                           |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Donald  W. Jewell                               |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer                        |   |
| *(Principal  Executive Officer)*                |   |
|                                            |   |
|                                            |   |
| /s/  PATRICK W. HURLEY                          |   |
| Patrick  W. Hurley                              |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer                        |   |
| *(Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)* |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ventana Medical Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company),
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Christopher Gleeson, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of the Company, and Nicholas Malden, Senior Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to their knowledge:



|(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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|July 26, 2005                                   
|                                                
|/S/    CHRISTOPHER GLEESON                      
|Christopher Gleeson                             
|President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|July 26, 2005                                                
|                                                             
|/S/    NICHOLAS MALDEN                                       
|Nicholas Malden                                              
|Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Thomas C. Stacey, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03495-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney's signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6000 

Telephone number

(404 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8805 Filed 11/10/17 Page 1 of 1
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2304 

To amend the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 1972 to clarify 

the acreage for which the North Loup division is authorized to provide 

irrigation water under the Missouri River Basin project. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 8, 2004 

Mr. HAGEL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 

1972 to clarify the acreage for which the North Loup 

division is authorized to provide irrigation water under 

the Missouri River Basin project. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ACREAGE FOR IRRIGATION 

4 WATER. 

5 Section 501 of the Reclamation Project Authorization 

6 Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 969) is amended by striking ‘‘fifty- 
2 

•S 2304 IS 

1 three thousand acres’’ and inserting ‘‘approximately 

2 53,000 acres’’. 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2214 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2214

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
3150 Great Northern Avenue in Missoula, Montana, as the ``Mike Mansfield 
                             Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MIKE MANSFIELD POST OFFICE, MISSOULA, MONTANA.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3150 Great Northern Avenue in Missoula, Montana, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Mike Mansfield Post Office''.
    (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 ``Mike 
Mansfield Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131886 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131886 

 COA: 270589 

Genesee CC: 05-016975-FC 

JEREMY ALAN LIKENS,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 10, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted. 

l1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk