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.                  

###### Millennium Challenge Corporation

          - [MCC FR 14-07]

# AGENCY:

Millennium Challenge Corporation.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 14, 2014, providing notice of entering into a compact with the Republic of Ghana. The document contained an incomplete Uniform Resource Locator for the text of the Compact posted on the MCC Web site.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John C. Mantini, 202-521-3863.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 14, 2014, in FR Doc. 2014-19196, on page 47684, in the second column, correct the                         **SUMMARY**                         caption to read:                    

**SUMMARY:**

                            In accordance with Section 610(b)(2) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701-7718), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is publishing a summary of the Millennium Challenge Compact between the United States of America, acting through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Republic of Ghana. Representatives of the United States Government and Ghana executed the Compact documents on August 5, 2014. The complete text of the Compact has been posted at                             *http://www.mcc.gov/​documents/​agreements/​compact-ghana-power.pdf.*

Dated: October 9, 2014.

John C. Mantini,

Assistant General Counsel, Millennium Challenge Corporation.

[FR Doc. 2014-24587 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9211-03-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLANIA,

Respondent

v.

LAUREL MICHELLE SCHLEMMER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 444 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of May, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 67 Image Gallery","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TGnG7katZe\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/expedition-67-image-gallery\/\">Expedition 67 Image Gallery<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/expedition-67-image-gallery\/embed\/#?secret=TGnG7katZe\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 67 Image Gallery” — NASA\" data-secret=\"TGnG7katZe\" 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\/12\/astronaut-bob-hines-activates-a-cubelab-satellite-52229878073-o.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Michael J. Alber, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03545-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL 

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/30/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent. 

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

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons 

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

Printed Name 

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) 322-6155 

Telephone number 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8773 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8773 Filed 11/09/17 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARTIN KAPLAN.

September 25, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 32**

**Certification pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe quarterly report of Santa Fe Energy Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not inits individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Trust.
|                   | /s/ MIKE  ULRICH                   |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                   | Mike Ulrich,                       |
| Date: May 9, 2005 | *Vice President and Trust Officer* |

 

----
#### INTERSTATE GLASS, INC. v. CREATIVE ARCHITECTURE, P.A.

No. 400P01

Case below: 144 N.C. App. 448

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 November 2001.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"What is Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management?","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"HIgDPGAOuX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/ames\/what-is-unmanned-aircraft-systems-traffic-management\/\">What is Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management?<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/ames\/what-is-unmanned-aircraft-systems-traffic-management\/embed\/#?secret=HIgDPGAOuX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“What is Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management?” — NASA\" data-secret=\"HIgDPGAOuX\" 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\/2021\/05\/104674_acd19-0054-070.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":337}
Dismissed; and Opinion Filed May 16, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00373

- CV

FIONA HALL , Appellant

V.

WINDHAVEN FARM HOMEO WNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219

- 01127

- 2019



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Myers, and Justice Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Myers

Before the Court is appell ant’s May 6, 2019 motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal.

190373F.P05 /Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

FIONA HALL, Appellant

No. 05

- 19

- 00373

- CV V.

WINDHAVEN FARM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219

- 01127

- 2019. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Chief

Justice Burns and Jus tice Carlyle participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that appellee WINDHAVEN FARM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. recover its costs of this appeal from appellant FIONA HALL.

Judgment entered this 16 th day of May, 2019.
#### ELGER MENEFEE v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY.

May 22, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2508 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2508

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2004

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To redesignate the Ridges Basin Reservoir, Colorado, as Lake 
                              Nighthorse.

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

SECTION 1. RENAMING OF RESERVOIR.

    The reservoir known as the ``Ridges Basin Reservoir'' located on 
Basin Creek, a tributary of the Animas River in Colorado, constructed 
under section 6(a) of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement 
Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 2975; 114 Stat. 2763A-260), shall be known and 
designated as ``Lake Nighthorse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the reservoir referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to Lake Nighthorse.

            Passed the Senate September 15, 2004.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Exhibit 8.1

List of Subsidiaries



|                                        |  |                          |  |          |     |  |          |  |     |          |  |  |     | 
|--------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | -------- | --- |  | -------- |  | --- | -------- |  |  | --- | 
|Particulars                             |  | Country of incorporation |  | 2012 (%) |     |  | 2011 (%) |  |     | 2010 (%) | 
|Sify Software Limited                   |  | India                    |  |          | 100 |  |          |  | 100 |          |  |  | 100 | 
|Hermit Projects Private Limited         |  | India                    |  |          | 100 |  |          |  |    |          |  |  |    | 
|Pace Info Com Park Private Limited      |  | India                    |  |          | 100 |  |          |  |    |          |  |  |    | 
|Sify International Inc.                 |  | USA                      |  |          | 100 |  |          |  | 100 |          |  |  | 100 | 
|Sify Technologies (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. |  | Singapore                |  |          | 100 |  |          |  | 100 |          |  |  |     |
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Exchange National Bancshares,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard G. Rose,
Treasurer of the Company, hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

      (b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  May 10, 2005

                                                       /s/ Richard G. Rose
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Richard G. Rose
                                                       Treasurer

                                       191
No. 14,474.

#### Ellison *v.*Rerick.

County *Commissioners.*— Appeal *from Order of Allowance.*— Motion *for Dismissal.*— Overruling *of.*— The appellant appealed from the order of allowance made by the board of commissioners to the appellee, in the name of the La Grange Standard, for publishing a list of allowances, and obtained an order requiring the appellee to file an amended complaint showing the claim to be in his favor. After the cause was sub*397initted for trial, the appellant moved for a dismissal on the ground that the claim was filed before the board in the name of the paper.

*Held,*that the motion was properly overruled, and that the appeal was without merit. After the various steps taken, it was immaterial whether the original order of the board was void or valid.

Prom the La Grange Circuit Court.

*T. E. Ellison,*for appellant.

J. *D. Ferrall,*for appellee.

Olds, J.

— The controversy involved in this case grows out of the allowance by the board of commissioners of La Grange county of a claim for $7.65 for publishing a list of allowances, made by said board, in the La Grange Standard, a newspaper owned and published in said county by John H. Rerick.* There is no controversy made as to the legality or amount of the claim, but the sole- controversy is made and long briefs presented quibbling over technicalities, and there is no merit in the case.

The appellant appealed from the order of allowance made by the board, and filed affidavits in the circuit court that •John H. Rerick was the real party in interest, and that the allowance was made for his benefit. He procured a summons to be issued and served, bringing appellee into court, .and appellant opposed the motion of the appellee to quash the summons, and obtained an order requiring appellee to file an amended complaint showing the claim to be in his favor, and after a good complaint was on file the cause was, by agreement of the parties, appellant and appellee, submitted to the court for trial. After these various steps appellant moved for a dismissal on the ground that the claim was filed before the board of commissioners in the name of the La Grange Standard.

Parties must maintain a consistency. After the appellant had appealed from the order made to the appellee in the name of the Standard, and compelled the appellee to come into court and prosecute the cause in his own name and put *398on a good complaint, and the cause had been submitted to the court for trial, it was immaterial whether the original order of the board was void or valid.

Filed Oct. 14, 1890.

There is no available error in the record.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Louisville and Portland Canal Company *v.*Holborn, in Error.

Wednesday, *May*27.

*A.,*to whom *B.*was indebted, levied an attachment on certain goods as B.’s property. *C.,*the owner of the goods, brought an action of replevin against *A.*and recovered (1).

(1)

 Replevin lies in such cases as that in the text; and it is no objection to the action that the goods are in the custody of the law. *Chinn*v. *Russell,*ante, p. 172, and note (3).
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

December 6, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-11-01012-CR

NO. 14-11-01013-CR

IN RE TERRY J. BECK, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

179th District Court

Harris County

Trial Court Cause Nos. 56,4661-E & 56,4662-E

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On November 28, 2011, relator Terry J. Beck filed petition for writ of mandamus 

in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the 

petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Randy Roll, presiding judge of 

the 179th District Court of Harris County to grant relief requested in his post-conviction 

writ of habeas corpus.

In 1990, relator was convicted of indecency with a child. See Beck v. State, Nos. 

10-03-00060-CR & 10-03-00061-CR; 2004 WL 1794478 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 11, 
2

2004, no pet.) (not released for publication).1 In 2003, relator’s motion for DNA testing 

was denied, and the denial affirmed by the court of appeals. Id. According to his petition 

for writ of mandamus, relator filed a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus in the trial 

court on September 22, 2010. He asks this court to direct the trial court to ―address and 

grant the relief sought in the petition for writ of habeas corpus and/or grant a live hearing 

on the petition for relief[.]‖

While the courts of appeals have mandamus jurisdiction in criminal matters, only 

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to final postconviction felony proceedings. Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 

(Tex. 1991). This court has no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a district 

court judge to rule on matters seeking post-conviction relief from final felony 

convictions. See In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex .App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2001, orig. proceeding). Instead, the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to 

compel a trial court judge to act on a post-conviction petition for habeas corpus relief. 

McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 578–79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

Because relator is seeking to compel the trial court to address and grant postconviction relief, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction over these proceedings.

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petitions for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Seymore, and Jamison.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

1

Pursuant to section 73.001 of the Texas Government Code appellant’s appeals were transferred 

to the Tenth Court of Appeals after having been filed in this court.
#### SOPHIA ZIGOURAS v. PEGGY PUDER, ET AL.

April 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Rench v. Doe, on the Demise of Webster, in Error.

Tuesday, *May*11.

A PERSON claiming, by virtue of a title-bond only, the premises for which an action of ejectment was brought, applied to be made a defendant in the cause. *Held,*that, as the claim was merely of an equitable nature, the application could not be granted. *Smith*v. *Allen,*1 Blackf. *22.—Lessee of Spencer*v. *Marckel,*2 Ham. 264.