alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Iqbal Mohammad Muktadir,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Michael J. Donahue, 

Respondent.

No. CV-15-02009-PHX-ROS

ORDER 

 

 On March 30, 2015, Petitioner was ordered removed to Bangladesh. (Doc. 13 at 

2). The Department of Homeland Security continued to detain Petitioner while it made 

the arrangements for his removal. (Id. at 2-3). On October 7, 2015, Petitioner filed a 

Petition for habeas relief under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), arguing he had 

been detained more than six months beyond his removal date and his removal was not 

significantly likely to occur in the foreseeable future. (Doc, 1). 

 On February 1, 2016, Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (Doc. 

13). Petitioner did not file any objections but, on March 21, 2016, the Government 

informed the Court that Petitioner had been removed on February 22, 2016. (Doc. 14-1). 

Thus, the petition was now moot. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is REJECTED 

Case 2:15-cv-02009-ROS Document 15 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

because Petitioner has been removed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is 

DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk shall close this case. 

 Dated this 30th day of March, 2016. 

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02009-ROS Document 15 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Abel Juarez-Ramos, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-15-1105-PHX-DGC 

ORDER OF DETENTION 

 

A detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing on the Petition on 

Supervised Release were held on May 7, 2018. 

The Court Finds that the Defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 

waived his right to a detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing and has 

consented to the issue of detention being made based upon the allegations in the Petition. 

 The Court Further Finds that the Defendant has failed to sustain his burden of 

proof by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., 

that he is not a serious flight risk. United States v. Loya, 23 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994). 

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be detained pending further order of the 

court. 

 Dated this 7th day of May, 2018. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle 

United States Magistrate Judge
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"Add-on to Large-Scale Water Mining Operations on Mars to Screen for Introduced and Alien Life","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"tLUpsMyRJb\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/large-scale-water-mining-operations-on-mars\/\">Add-on to Large-Scale Water Mining Operations on Mars to Screen for Introduced and Alien Life<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/large-scale-water-mining-operations-on-mars\/embed\/#?secret=tLUpsMyRJb\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Add-on to Large-Scale Water Mining Operations on Mars to Screen for Introduced and Alien Life” — NASA\" data-secret=\"tLUpsMyRJb\" 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\/2024\/01\/2024-ph-i-benner-graphic.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":430}
#### Smith, Administrator, *v.*Smith and Others.

A complainant in chancery may, on payment of costs, dismiss his bill at any time before a final hearing, provided he be not in contempt.

The complainant’s mere failuie to comply with an interlocutory order of the Court, does not of itself so place him In contempt, as to prevent him from dismissing h\a bill on payment of costs. ' . • . ■

ERROR to the *Ripley*Circuit Court.

Monday, *May*11.

Holman, J.

The complainant, as administrator of *Samuel*Smith, deceased, filed his bill in chancery, in the *Ripley*Circuit Court, for relief against a settlement of his accounts as administrator, in the Probate Court. The hill admitted the sum of 476 dollars and 36 cents to be due to the heirs of the deceased. The answers claimed more than was adjudged to be due by the Probate Court; and called upon the complainant to answer interrogatories, &c. The Circuit Court made an order that the complainant should, on a certain day, pay into the hands of the clerk of that Court the amount admitted by the bill to be due. With this order the complainant failed to comply. He also failed to answer the interrogatories of the defendants, and they were taken as confessed. The complainant then moved for leave to dismiss his hill; which leave the Circuit Court refused, because the complainant w.as in contempt for not obeying the aforesaid order of the Court, and proceeded to enter up a final decree against him,

It is a general rule that a complainant may, upon payment of costs, dismiss his bill at any stage of the proceedings before a final hearing. 1 Newl. Ch. Pr. 177. Agreeably to Car*rington*v. *Holly,*Dick. 280, although a cause is brought to a bearing and an issue directed, until that issue is tried and there has been a determination, let the cause be in what stage it may, the complainant may, upon motion, dismiss his bill upon *233payment of costs. There is, however, another rule of chancery practice equally general, viz. that when a party is in contempt, he cannot be heard until he clears his contempt. But we do not consider, that the complainant’s non-compliance with the order of the Circuit Court, did of itself fix him in contempt, in the technical sense of that term. It was certainly a ground on which the Court might have adjudged him to be in contempt, if no explanation fas offered by him; but standing as it does in this case, without any adjudication upon it, it cannot be considered as such a contempt as precludes him from being heard in the casé.' And if he had a right to be heard at all, he had a right to dismiss his bill on payment of costs. The Court, however,' had a right to require the costs to be paid or secured before the leave was given.

*Stevens,*for the plaintiff.

*Dunn,*for the defendants.

*Per*Curiam.

The decree is reversed. Cause remanded, <&,c.
#### ALLEN NADLER, T/A NADLER ASSOCIATES v. JOSEPH WELSH.

September 26, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-46008, 333-66434, 333-113692, 333-117003, and 333-137458), Form S-3 (Nos. 333-110067,333-102436, 333-76144, 333-115245, 333-115247, and 333-118823), andForm SB-2/Amended on Form S-3 (No. 333-47240) andrelated prospectuses of our reports dated March 15, 2007, relating to the consolidated financialstatements and financial statement schedule and management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of MIVA, Inc.s internal controlover financial reporting which appear in this Form 10-K./s/ BDO Seidman, LLPMiami, Florida
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2565 

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to convert the dairy forward 

pricing program into a permanent program of the Department of Agriculture. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 23 (legislative day, JUNE 22), 2004 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. SMITH, Mr. 

WYDEN, Mr. CRAIG, and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to convert the 

dairy forward pricing program into a permanent program 

of the Department of Agriculture. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Milk Price Forward 

5 Contracting Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMANENT DAIRY FORWARD PRICING PROGRAM. 

7 Section 23 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 

8 U.S.C. 627), reenacted with amendments by the Agricul9 tural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended— 
2 

•S 2565 IS 

1 (1) in the section heading, by striking 

2 ‘‘PILOT’’; 

3 (2) in subsection (a)— 

4 (A) in the subsection heading, by striking 

5 ‘‘PILOT’’; and 

6 (B) by striking ‘‘Not later than’’ and all 

7 that follows through ‘‘temporary pilot program’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘The Secretary of Agriculture 

9 shall conduct, as a permanent program of the 

10 Department of Agriculture, a program’’; 

11 (3) in subsection (c)— 

12 (A) in the subsection heading, by striking 

13 ‘‘PILOT’’; and 

14 (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘pilot’’; 

15 and 

16 (4) by striking subsections (d) and (e). 

Æ
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MATTHEW HANNAH.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification granted and the judgment of the Appellate Division is summarily reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of *State v. Baylass,*114 *N.J.*169 (1989).
<PAGE>

                                            Exhibit 11
                                       HMN Financial, Inc.
                             Computation of Earnings Per Common Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                               Year Ended December 31,
                                                      -----------------------------------------
                                                       1997             1996            1995
                                                      -----------------------------------------
<S>                                                   <C>              <C>            <C>
Computation of Earnings Per Common Share:
Weighted average number of common shares out-
 standing used in basic earnings per common
 share calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          3,683,458      4,315,410      5,109,989

Net dilutive effect of:
 Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            209,388         54,838         19,062
 Restricted stock awards . . . . . . . . . . .             50,767         67,003         42,887
                                                       ----------      ---------      ----------

Weighted average number of shares outstanding
 adjusted for effect of dilutive securities. .          3,943,613      4,437,251      5,171,938
                                                       ----------      ---------      ----------
                                                       ----------      ---------      ----------
Income available to common shareholders. . . .         $5,578,866      4,274,349      5,620,377

Basic earnings per common share  . . . . . . .              $1.51           0.99           1.10

Diluted earnings per common share  . . . . . .              $1.41           0.96           1.09

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSE LUIS REYES.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
FILED

Aug 27, 2015

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:15-cv-01719-DGC Document 7 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cv-01719-DGC Document 7 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cv-01719-DGC Document 7 Filed 08/28/15 Page 3 of 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Robert E. Lewis","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/robert-e-lewisnasa-gov\/","title":"Medical and Clinical","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"MiCDTSL5DX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/hhp\/medical-and-clinical\/\">Medical and Clinical<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/hhp\/medical-and-clinical\/embed\/#?secret=MiCDTSL5DX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Medical and Clinical” — NASA\" data-secret=\"MiCDTSL5DX\" 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\/03\/hhp-sts135-eyeexam-01-600x399-1.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Jonathan D. Klein, Chief Executive Officer, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Getty Images, Inc.; 

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF DELCO REMY
INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND NOTES THERETO INCLUDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   2-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          15,253
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  177,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,211
<INVENTORY>                                    286,563
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               519,570
<PP&E>                                         302,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                  99,610
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 910,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          211,196
<BONDS>                                        520,797
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           245
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   910,167
<SALES>                                        183,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               183,210
<CGS>                                          149,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  149,660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,872
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   235
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,992
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,278
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,325
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,325
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ALEJANDRO ALVIZ.

May 2, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
Case 2:15-mj-60769-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-60769-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-60769-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/04/15 Page 3 of 3
Law Office of Gary E. Prust

1607 Nueces St.

Austin, TX 78701

(512)469-0092

Fax (512)469-9102

gary@prustlaw.com

December 16, 2015

Third District Court of Appeals

PO Box 12547

Austin, TX 78711-2547

Re: Edgar Sangillo v. The State of Texas

In the Third District Court of Appeals

Appeal Cause Numbers 03-15-00410-CR and 03-15-00411-CR

Trial Court Cause Numbers D-1-DC-12-200962 and D-1-DC-12-200963

To the Honorable Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk:

I submit this notice of appearance and designation of lead attorney in the above referenced 

cause numbers. I was appointed by order of the trial court on December 16, 2015. Please forward all 

notices and correspondence to my office or email listed above.

Very truly yours,

Gary E. Prust

Attorney at Law

cc: file, Mr. Sangillo, Travis County District Attorney

ACCEPTED

03-15-00410-CR

8274683

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

12/16/2015 8:31:08 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/16/2015 8:31:08 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350), the undersigned,  ReiJane Huai, Chief Executive Officer of FalconStor
Software, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the "Company"),  does hereby certify, to
his knowledge, that:

            The Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal  year ended  December
31, 2004 of the Company (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of
Sections  13(a)  and  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/  ReiJane Huai
                                                -------------------------
                                                ReiJane Huai
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                March 16, 2005
```