alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Pavilion Lake Research Project (PLRP)","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ICRXTrv19E\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/pavilion-lake-research-project-plrp\/\">Pavilion Lake Research Project (PLRP)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/pavilion-lake-research-project-plrp\/embed\/#?secret=ICRXTrv19E\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Pavilion Lake Research Project (PLRP)” — NASA\" data-secret=\"ICRXTrv19E\" 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\/2016\/05\/forpavilionlake_small.png?w=300","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":167}
MOYES SELLERS &

HENDRICKS

PHOENIX, AZ

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

00148592

MOYES SELLERS & HENDRICKS

Stephen Brower (No. 024908)

Joshua T. Greer (No. 025508)

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Telephone: (602) 604-2141

Email: sbrower@law-msh.com

jgreer@law-msh.com

Attorneys for Appellee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

In re:

Donita Cole,

Debtor.

No. CV-15-02105-PHX-SRB

BK No. 2:15-bk-07045-EPB

Donita J. Cole,

Appellant,

v.

MR Capital, LLC,

Appellee

APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO

APPELLLANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE

OF COURT TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD

ON APPEAL [DKT 35]

Appellee, through undersigned counsel, hereby objects to Appellant’s Motion for

leave of Court to Supplement Record on Appeal (“Motion for Leave”) [Dkt. 35].

On March 17, 2016, this Court issued its order directing Appellant to file proof of

filing with the Bankruptcy Court “a designation of the items to be included in the record

on appeal, a statement of the issues to be presented, and a request for any transcripts

where the designation includes a transcript of any proceeding or part thereof within 7 days

of the date of this Order . . . .” [Dkt 20] The Court indicated that the failure to comply

with this Court’s order would result in dismissal. [Dkt 20]. Based on this order, the

transcripts should have been prepared and ordered no later than March 24, 2016.

Case 2:15-cv-02105-SRB Document 37 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 2
MOYES SELLERS &

HENDRICKS

PHOENIX, AZ

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

00148592

- 2 -

Appellant responded to the Court’s order with an affidavit indicating that she had

complied. [Dkt 21].

Appellant now concedes that here prior affidavit was incorrect and that she failed

to obtain the necessary transcripts from the Court reporter. MR Capital respectfully

requests that the Court deny Appellant’s motion for leave to supplement the record of

appeal.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2016

MOYES SELLERS & HENDRICKS

By /s/Joshua T. Greer

Stephen Brower

Joshua T. Greer

Attorneys for Appellee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 22, 2016, I electronically transmitted the attached

document to the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which will send

notification of such filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all CM/ECF

registrants. I further certify that a copy of the attached document was delivered via email

and First Class Mail to:

Donita J. Cole

PO Box 4907

Mesa, AZ 85211

Email: dcole@cox.net

Appellant Pro Se

/s/ Donna M. Navarro

Case 2:15-cv-02105-SRB Document 37 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 2
H. R. 643

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight

An Act

To designate the United States courthouse to be constructed at the corner of

Superior and Huron Roads, in Cleveland, Ohio, as the ‘‘Carl B. Stokes 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.

The United States courthouse to be constructed at the corner

of Superior and Huron Roads, in Cleveland, Ohio, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Carl B. Stokes 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

‘‘Carl B. Stokes United States Courthouse’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
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. 

Michael Esqueda, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-50169-PHX-JJT

DETENTION ORDER 

 On January 25, 2018, defendant, Michael Esqueda, appeared before this Court on 

a petition for revocation of supervised release. The Court considered the information 

provided to the Court, and the arguments of counsel in determining whether the 

defendant should be released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that the defendant, having previously been convicted and placed 

on supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition 

to revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence 

that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released 

pursuant to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 

U.S.C. § 3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 26th day of January, 2018.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6551

ALONZO R. BRINKLEY, II, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. JON OZMINT, Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (6:08-cv-00308-JFA)

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 25, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Mitchell Brown, Jr., BROWN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Alonzo R. Brinkley, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Brinkley’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brinkley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### N. Harris *v.*Elijah Vanarsdall.

Executions — Sale Under Different Executions — Motion to Quash — Necessary-Parties.

Where a sale is made under different executions, all the parties to be affected by a motion to quash the sale should be notified of the motion and the irregularity of restricting the notice to the parties to the separate executions is not cured by an order of consolidation, as the purchaser of the equity of redemption was a necessary party.

APPEAL FROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT.

June 5, 1869.

*631
      *Thompson &*Kellar, *for appellant.*

*Hardin, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

This court has decided recently, in several cases from the same court from which this appeal is prosecuted, that where a sale is made under different executions, all the parties to be affected by a motion to quash the sale should be notified of the motion, and we do not perceive that the irregularity of restricting the notice to the parties to. the separate executions, was cured in these cases, by the order of consolidation. But be this as it may, as it appears that Hutcheson the purchaser of the equity or redemption of the land, was an interested party and not brought before the court, it seems to us the motion was properly dismissed. But as the proper parties were not before .the court we do not regard the order of dismission as a bar to another proceeding for the same purpose.

"Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            2849
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2849
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3409
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              917
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         11350
<OTHER-SE>                                       18000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3409
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 26858
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (26858)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (26858)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Stephen Dewitt MASON, Appellant, v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, Vincent R. Sombrotto, President of the N.A.L.C. Postal Union, Appellee.

Nos. 04-5103, 04-5104, 04-5105.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

March 16, 2005.

Stephen Dewitt Mason, Richmond, VA, pro se.

Peter Herman, Cohen, Weiss *&*Simon, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s dismissal order filed February 26, 2004, be affirmed. A union has a statutory duty to represent its members fairly at all levels of representation, including in grievance proceedings. *See United Steelworkers of America v. Rawson,*495 U.S. 362, 372, 110 S.Ct. 1904, 109 L.Ed.2d 362 (1990). That duty is breached when the union’s “conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” *Vaca v. Sipes,*386 U.S. 171, 190, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967), cited in *Jacoby v. NLRB,*325 F.3d 301, 309 (D.C.Cir.2003). The actions about which appellant complains in this case fall short of the level of conduct necessary to sustain a breach of duty claim against the union. *Of Humphrey v. Moore,*375 U.S. 335, 348, 84 S.Ct. 363, 11 L.Ed.2d 370 (1964) (actions are in bad faith when there is substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action or dishonest conduct); *Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. O’Neill,*499 U.S. 65, 67, 111 S.Ct. 1127, 113 L.Ed.2d 51 (1991) (citation omitted) *3(actions are arbitrary only if the union’s behavior is so far outside a wide range of reasonableness as to be irrational).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 601

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit local educational

agencies to waive the reimbursement of the agency otherwise required

for an alien to be accorded nonimmigrant status to study at a public

secondary school administered by the agency.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 5, 1997

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit

local educational agencies to waive the reimbursement

of the agency otherwise required for an alien to be accorded nonimmigrant status to study at a public secondary school administered by the agency.

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR PUBLIC

4 SECONDARY SCHOOL COSTS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 214(l)(1)(B) of the Immi6 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(l)(1)(B)) (as

7 added by section 625(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform
2

•HR 601 IH

1 and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law

2 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–1820)) is amended to read as

3 follows:

4 ‘‘(B) at a public secondary school unless—

5 ‘‘(i) the aggregate period of such status at

6 such a school does not exceed 12 months with

7 respect to any alien; and

8 ‘‘(ii) the alien demonstrates that—

9 ‘‘(I) the alien has reimbursed the local

10 educational agency that administers the

11 school for the full, unsubsidized per capita

12 cost of providing education at such school

13 for the period of the alien’s attendance; or

14 ‘‘(II) such agency has waived such re15 imbursement.’’.

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

17 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact18 ment of section 625(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform

19 and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law

20 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–1820).

Æ
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Anthony Greicius","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/anthony-greicius-116962jpl-nasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Space Mission Takes Stock of Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Countries","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ZniJNAlMbi\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/oco-2\/nasa-space-mission-takes-stock-of-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-countries\/\">NASA Space Mission Takes Stock of Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Countries<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/oco-2\/nasa-space-mission-takes-stock-of-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-countries\/embed\/#?secret=ZniJNAlMbi\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Space Mission Takes Stock of Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Countries” — NASA\" data-secret=\"ZniJNAlMbi\" 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\/1-net-emissions-cropped.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":333}
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. I, James R. Lattanzi, Chief Financial Officer of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 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 this report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Date:  May 10, 2004                          /s/ James R. Lattanzi
                                             --------------------------
                                             James R. Lattanzi
                                             Chief Financial Officer
#### Nancy C. White et al, *v.*Thomas Grubbs’ Exr. et al.

Husband and Wife — Wills—Legacy to Wife Vests in Husband at Her Death.

Thomas Grubbs devised to Mrs. Dillingham a part of his estate, and she died before receiving the entire amount due her, leaving a surviving husband, who, after her death, claimed the balance of the legacy due his wife, against her surviving brothers and sisters. Held, that the legacy vested immediately upon the death of the testator, Thomas Grubbs, and Mrs. Dillingham’s right to it was not postponed until distribution, hence, upon her death it vested in the husband and became a part of his estate.

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

April 15, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

By his last will Thomas Grubbs deceased devised to the children of his deceased brother James Grubbs an equal share with his other brothers and sisters or their children, of the estate owned by him at his death and not devised to his wife or otherwise disposed of. There were two sisters and a brother of these children, all of whom survived the testator, one of them Mrs. Dillingham did not receive the entire amount due her when she died, leaving a surviving husband, who after his wife’s death, without administering on her estate, collected a portion of what still remained due her, and he died; neither he nor his wife left descendants, one of his collateral kindred administered both upon his and his wife’s estate, and that suit seeks to settle whether her surviving brother and sister or her husband’s heirs are entitled to the remainder of her unpaid legacy at her death.

The third clause of *section 11, chapter 30, 1 Stant. Revised Statutes page 423*provides that “a husband shall have the whole surplus of a deceased wife’s personal estate,’ except he shall have only a life interest in her slaves.”

This legacy vested immediately upon the death of the testator, Thomas Grubbs, and Mrs. Dillingham’s right to it was not postponed until distribution, hence, upon her death it vested in the husband and became a part of his estate, though to protect her *599creditors it would have been proper that he should have administered, but this does not affect his right to the money when collected, for had any one else administered thereon after payment of the wife’s debts the husband would have been the sole distributee, and his death before it’s collection could in no wish to disturb his right to it, therefore, whilst the administration upon the wife’s estate was right, after the husband’s death, yet his distributees are entitled to the legacy when collected, which the circuit court properly adjudged.

*Hazelrigg &*Winn, *for appellant.*

*Turner &*Cornelison, *for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
No. 87-1604.

#### Kane *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.