alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michael Asbury","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/michael-a-asburynasa-gov\/","title":"Competitive Robotics in WV reaches all-time high","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UKbMPMno4w\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/competitive-robotics-in-wv-reaches-all-time-high\/\">Competitive Robotics in WV reaches all-time high<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/competitive-robotics-in-wv-reaches-all-time-high\/embed\/#?secret=UKbMPMno4w\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Competitive Robotics in WV reaches all-time high” — NASA\" data-secret=\"UKbMPMno4w\" 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\/02\/ivv-erc-robotics-stats-2024.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":315}
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Getty Images, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Elizabeth J. Huebner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    ELIZABETH J. HUEBNER                                                       
|Elizabeth J. Huebner Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer May 9, 2003



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Getty Images, Inc. and will be retained by Getty Images, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to Section 906, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing).
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. NICHOLAS PETILLI.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"NASA-DLR Study Finds Sustainable Aviation Fuel Can Reduce Contrails","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TLRSkYirmg\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-dlr-study-finds-sustainable-aviation-fuel-can-reduce-contrails\/\">NASA-DLR Study Finds Sustainable Aviation Fuel Can Reduce Contrails<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-dlr-study-finds-sustainable-aviation-fuel-can-reduce-contrails\/embed\/#?secret=TLRSkYirmg\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA-DLR Study Finds Sustainable Aviation Fuel Can Reduce Contrails” — NASA\" data-secret=\"TLRSkYirmg\" 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\/06\/contrails-photo1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### Simpson *v.*Minor and Another.

*in*cases of domestic attachment, — that the bond had been executed in the clerk’s office and approved of by him; and that the same, with the affidavit, had been filed in his office before the attachment issued, — are facts which may appear by the clerk’s certificate on the papers, or may be proved by the clerk, or in any other mode, like other facts.

ERROR to the *Fayette*Circuit Court.

Holman, J.

After the return of a domestic attachment, the defendants moved the Circuit Court to dismiss the attachment, because the attachment bond was not indorsed by the clerk as having been taken by him in his office, and by him approved of *230and filed; and because the affidavit made before the attachment issued, was not indorsed as having been filed in the clerk’s office. The bond is not attested, but it has at the foot of it these words: “Done in the clerk’s office in the presence of-;” and the affidavit appears on the face of it to have been made before the clerk. The plaintiff offered to prove by the clerk, then in Court ready to be sworn, that the bond was taken and approved of *by*him, in his office; that, at the time the attachment issued, the bond and affidavit were both before him; and that he filed them among the other papers in his office, but neglected to indorse them. The Circuit Court refused to hear this testimony, and decided that those facts should appear on the bond and affidavit, and could not be shown in any other way; and thereupon dismissed the attachment, and gave judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff filed a bill of exceptions, and prays a reversed of the judgment.

*Caswell,*for the plaintiff.

*Test,*for the defendants.

The decision of the Circuit Court is incorrect. The place where the bond was taken, the approval of the bond and surety, and the filing of the bond and affidavit, are matters of fact, which, so far as they are required to be shown, may appear on the face of the papers, or be proved in any other way. See *Averil*v. Dickerson, *December*term, 1817 (1). The clerk was a competent witness to prove those facts, and his testimony should have been heard.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 Ante, p. *3.*— Woodburn v. *Fleming,*ante, p. 4.
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 

Brian Edward Malnes, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-16-08008-PCT-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (Doc. 9). 

The Court notes that Plaintiff is set up to receive notices of electronic filings pursuant to 

his request (Doc. 8). This Court does not typically allow pro se parties to file 

electronically and thus will deny the motion. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the Motion to Allow Electronic Filing 

(Doc. 9). 

 Dated this 28th day of January, 2016. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 10 Filed 01/28/16 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001047166
<NAME> UNITED RENTALS NORTH AMERICA INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          33,192
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  548,847
<ALLOWANCES>                                    57,758
<INVENTORY>                                    156,258
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,714,935
<DEPRECIATION>                                 585,822
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,013,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      2,613,621
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,720,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,013,180
<SALES>                                      1,308,908
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,308,908
<CGS>                                          275,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  831,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (312)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                20,286
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             106,210
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                123,760
<INCOME-TAX>                                    51,409
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             72,351
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    72,351
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
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 

Jerry Walker, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Emil Botezatu, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-08288-PCT-JZB

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Defendant Emil Botezatu’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 

17) and United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle’s Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 36) (“R&R”), which recommends granting the Motion and dismiss the Complaint 

for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 36 at 7.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they 

had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections 

could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 8 (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is wellCase 3:15-cv-08288-JZB Document 37 Filed 02/23/17 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 

taken. The Court will accept the R&R and grants the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint 

for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may 

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 

the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or 

modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 

magistrate judge with instructions.”). 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judge Boyle’s R&R (Doc. 36) is 

ACCEPTED. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 17) is 

granted and the remainder of the Motion is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is 

directed to terminate this action and enter judgement accordingly. 

 Dated this 23rd day of February, 2017. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-08288-JZB Document 37 Filed 02/23/17 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 572 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 572

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor 
Relations Board to assert jurisdiction in a labor dispute which occurs 
  on Johnston Atoll, an unincorporated territory of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1997

 Mrs. Mink of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred 
            to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor 
Relations Board to assert jurisdiction in a labor dispute which occurs 
  on Johnston Atoll, an unincorporated territory of the United States.

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

SECTION. 1. JURISDICTION OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

    Paragraph (1) of section 14(c) of the National Labor Relations Act 
(29 U.S.C. 164(c)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking the period after ``1959''; and
            (2) by inserting the following: ``: Provided further, That 
        the Board shall not decline to assert jurisdiction over a labor 
        dispute which occurs on Johnston Atoll, an unicorporated 
        territory of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### G. W. Grimes *v.*J. F. Grimes.

Pleading — Answer to Make Specific Denial.

A petition alleges that A. paid to B. on-, $500.00 i.o he credited on a note, which the holder agreed and promised to enter1 on said note, hut had failed to do so. The answer states that after the agreed settlement, on -, etc., no payments were made hy the payor to the payee. Held, not to he a denial of the specific charge in the petition.

APPEAL PROM EAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

December 21, 1871.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters:

The allegation is explicitly made in' the petition that before appellant assigned the note for $4,200 to Hanna that appellee paid to appellant on the -■ day of February, 1866, on Oheapside, in Lexington, $500 to be credited on said note of $4,200, and which credit appellant agreed, and promised to enter on said note; but had failed to do.

This specific allegation of the payment with time and place is not replied to in the answer. It is true that in general terms appellant says that after the settlement in Kincead’s office in January, 1866, no *payments were*made by appellee to appellant. And then presents an agreement to show that from the recent assignment of the note after the settlement in January, 1866, to Hanna, and the opportunities appellee had to present his claim for the credit before the judgment for the sale of the land was rendered, create a strong presumption against his claim. The force of that argument can not be denied. But it would have been much stronger if appellant had directly responded to, and denied the charge of the payment of any money at the time and place designated in the petition, or at any other time and place subsequent to the settlement in January, 1866, and for which appellee had not been credited.

But even waiving the consideration of the insufficiency of the answer, the payment of the $500 is established by the evidence of Adams and Goodloe. When told by appellee in presence of *479these witnesses that he had received the $500 as a payment for the land at the time and place named in the petition, appellant admitted he got the money, but said it was credited on the other note, in which it seems he was mistaken.

*Breckinridge & Buckner, for appellant.*

*Huston & Mulligan, for appellee.*

A different conclusion from the circuit judge is not authorized by the pleadings and proof in this. case.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 District of Arizona

Glacier Pool Coolers, LLC, an Arizona limited liablity 

company; RAM Innovations, LLC, an Arizona limited 

liabitlity company

215-cv-02338-DLR

Cooling Tower System, Inc., a Georgia corporation

Cooling Tower system, Inc. 

c/o Joe Coates 

3170 Mercer University Dr. 

Macon, GA 31204

Gregory B. Collins 

Callie N. Parkinson 

7150 East Camelback Road 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ISSUED ON 7:28 am, Nov 19, 2015 s/ Brian D. Karth, Clerk

Case 2:15-cv-02338-DLR Document 8 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

215-cv-02338-DLR 0.00 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:15-cv-02338-DLR Document 8 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.32

                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                           METROPOLITAN LIFE AUXILIARY
                           SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN

         The METROPOLITAN LIFE AUXILIARY SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN ("Plan") is
hereby amended as follows:

1.       The first paragraph of the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, with respect to its own
         employees, and MetLife Group, Inc. and Texas Life Insurance Company,
         for whom all obligations under this Plan for its employees are assumed
         by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, hereby continue in force and
         effect, as restated and amended by this instrument, effective January
         1, 2003, the Metropolitan Life Auxiliary Savings and Investment Plan
         (the Plan), which was first established effective January 1, 1983."

2.       Article 2 of the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         "Article 2 - Participation

                  Each employee of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, MetLife
         Group, Inc. and Texas Life Insurance Company participating in the
         Savings and Investment Plan whose Company contributions are reduced
         because of the application of (i) section 415 of the Internal Revenue
         Code and/or (ii) section 401(a)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code shall
         be a Participant in this Plan."

3.       This amendment is effective January 1, 2003.

                                       1

<PAGE>

                       METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Date

__________________         ______________________________________________
Witness

                                    METLIFE GROUP, INC.
Date

__________________         ______________________________________________
Witness

__________________________          TEXAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Date

__________________________          ____________________________________
Witness

                                       2