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":"Space Station Crew Lands, Wrapping Up 166 Days in Space","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"WPDgMWa0YF\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/space-station-crew-lands-wrapping-up-166-days-in-space\/\">Space Station Crew Lands, Wrapping Up 166 Days in Space<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/space-station-crew-lands-wrapping-up-166-days-in-space\/embed\/#?secret=WPDgMWa0YF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Space Station Crew Lands, Wrapping Up 166 Days in Space” — NASA\" data-secret=\"WPDgMWa0YF\" 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\/2015\/04\/international_space_station.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}
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

Michael Apelt, ) No. CV-98-00882-PHX-ROS

)

Petitioner, ) DEATH PENALTY CASE

)

v. )

)

) ORDER

Charles L. Ryan, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

)

IT IS ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for 7-Day Extension of Time to File

Response to Supplemental Brief (Doc. 333) is GRANTED. The response shall be filed no

later than November 28, 2012. Petitioner shall file a reply no later than December 28, 2012.

DATED this 20th day of November, 2012.

Case 2:98-cv-00882-ROS Document 334 Filed 11/20/12 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Katy Mersmann","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/katymersmann-2\/","title":"NASA Invites You to Create Landsat-Inspired Arts and Crafts","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Kl9VGn2KAM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/landsat\/nasa-invites-you-to-create-landsat-inspired-arts-and-crafts\/\">NASA Invites You to Create Landsat-Inspired Arts and Crafts<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/landsat\/nasa-invites-you-to-create-landsat-inspired-arts-and-crafts\/embed\/#?secret=Kl9VGn2KAM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Invites You to Create Landsat-Inspired Arts and Crafts” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Kl9VGn2KAM\" 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\/kate0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":216}
9442.

#### Johnson *v.*Estate of Sam Farkas.

Decided July 30, 1918.

Writ of error; from Worth superior court.

The bill of exceptions in this case recites that “in the case of E. M. Johnson *v.*Sam Earkas, Jonas McKelvin, and L. M. Potts, sheriff, returnable to the April term, 1914, of the superior court of Worth county, being a rule to distribute funds, on November 21st, 1917, the same was called for trial; and it being agreed by counsel that the judge of the superior court should sit as a court and a jury, he proceeded with the trial.” The evidence adduced upon the trial and the judgment of the court are then set out. It appears from the record that Sam Earkas died before the hearing took place in the lower court. The judgment to which exception' is taken is as follows: “By agreement of counsel and all parties, the court, sitting as a jury, after hearing the evidence, awards the entire funds to the defendant,-; and it is adjudged that the ex-sheriff, L. A. Potts, deliver said funds to the defendant, executor of the estate of Sam Earkas.” The defendant in error named in the bill of exceptions is “Estate of Sam Earkas.” Service of the bill of exceptions was acknowledged by attorneys signing as “Attorneys for estate of Sam Earkas, defendant in error.” *Passmore & Forehand,*for plaintiff.

*Perry & Williamson, Leonard Farkas,*for defendant.

Jenkins, J.

A party defendant in error is essential to the prosecution of a writ of error, and where no one is named or otherwise disclosed by the bill of exceptions as defendant in error, the writ must necessarily be dismissed; for without a defendant in error there is no case. *Ray*v. *Pease,*112 *Ga.*675 (37 S. E. 875); *Branch*v. *Mallory,*8 *Ga. App.*797 (70 S. E. 177); *Hendricks*v. *Rogers,*22 *Ga. App.*357 (95 S. E. 1009); *Knox*v. *Greenfield Estate,*7 *Ga. App. 305 (66 S. E.*805).

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Wade, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41412 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NOE DE JESUS GIRON-NAVAS, also known as Marceino Ramirez, also known as Valentin Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-01-CR-236-1

-------------------- October 30, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Noe De Jesus Giron-Navas appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Giron-Navas argues that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional on their face and as applied in his case. He contends that the unconstitutional portions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 should be severed from the statute. He asks us to vacate hisNo. 01-41412 -2- conviction and sentence, reform the judgment to reflect a conviction only under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and remand his case for resentencing under that provision.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Giron-Navas acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been called into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 489-90 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Id. at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. The Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.50(b)

                                                              [LETTERHEAD OF ON]

                                November 19, 2002

Keith Jackson
5005 East McDowell Road
Phoenix, AZ 85008

Dear Keith:

This letter agreement is intended to clarify the Effective Date of your
employment agreement with ON Semiconductor Corporation (the "Company"), dated
November 10, 2002 (the "Employment Agreement"). All capitalized terms not
defined in this Agreement shall have the definitions provided in the Employment
Agreement.

Section 3 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to reflect the Effective
Date of November 19,2002. All other terms and conditions of the Employment
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Please acknowledge your agreement with the foregoing by executing and returning
a copy of this letter to me at your earliest convenience.

Very Truly Yours,

/s/ George H. Cave
------------------
George H. Cave
General Counsel and Secretary

I hereby accept this Agreement and agree to all of its terms and conditions.

/s/ Keith Jackson
-----------------
Keith Jackson
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30667

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LARRY H. PRICE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 92-CR-314-D 

- - - - - - - - - -

October 22, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Larry H. Price, federal prisoner number # 23189-034, appeals

the district court’s resentencing on the remaining drugtrafficking counts of conviction after vacating his 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c) firearms conviction pursuant to Bailey v. United States,

116 S. Ct. 501 (1995). He contends that the district court was

without authority to order resentencing and that resentencing

violated double jeopardy and due process. Contrary to Price's
No. 96-30667

-2-

assertions, the district court had the authority to resentence. 

United States v. Hernandez, 116 F.3d 725, 727-28 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Further, resentencing did not implicate double jeopardy or due

process concerns. United States v. Rodriguez, 114 F.3d 46, 47-48

(5th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Benbrook, 119 F.3d

338, 339-41 (5th Cir. 1997). 

AFFIRMED.
9640.

#### Somers *et al. v.*The State.

Decided October 10, 1918.

Accusation of violation of prohibition law; from city court of Richmond county—Judge Black. March 18, 1918.

*0. A. Picquet,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. I. Gurry, solicitor,*contra.

Broodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial in this case contains the general grounds only. There is some* evidence to support the verdict, which has-the approval of the trial judge, and this court will not interfere. *Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.*
Exhibit
32.2




SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




I,
 Richard E. Kurtenbach, Chief Accounting Officer of Rancher Energy Corp.
(the Company), certify, that pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
of the United States Code:




(1)           The
Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended March 31, 2010,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.




/s/
      Richard E. KurtenbachRichard
      E. KurtenbachChief
      Accounting OfficerJuly
      13, 2010
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2014-25590) published on page 64194 of the issue for October 28, 2014.

Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas heading, the entry for Laura Lee Lehmberg Austin, Mason Texas, is revised to read as follows:

                    1.                     *Laura Lee Lehmberg Austin,*                     Mason, Texas; to acquire voting shares of Commercial Company, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of The Commercial Bank, both in Mason, Texas.                

Comments on this application must be received by November 12, 2014.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 29, 2014.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2014-26027 Filed 10-31-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Case: 1:20-cv-01917 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 03/21/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:22
#### Friedrich *v.*Southwestern Transportation Company.

Opinion delivered November 24, 1930.

*735
      *W. J. Houghney,*for appellant.

*A. L.*Rotenberry, for appellee.

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The shipment was an interstate one, and the law as declared by the Supreme Court of the United States must govern. *St. L. S. F. Ry. Co.*v. *Burford,*180 Ark. 562, 22 S. W. (2d) 378; and *Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Co.*v. *Thompson Mfg. Co.,*270 U. S. 416, 46 S. Ct. 318. The respective theories of the parties to the suit on the question of negligence were submitted to the jury upon the principles of law decided in the cases above cited.

No objection is urged as to the instructions on the question of negligence, but it is earnestly insisted by counsel for appellant that the court erred in instructing the jury on the measure of damages. The court gave to the jury four instructions. In two of them the respective theories of the parties on the question of negligence were submitted to the jury, and the remaining two instructions given by the court related to the measure of damages in the event of a recovery by the plaintiff. It is earnestly insisted that the judgment should be reversed because the court erred in giving instruction No. 4 on the measure of damages. *We*need not set out the instruction because it is apparent from the record that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the giving of the instruction whether or not it was erroneous. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant and thereby found that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant which would *736warrant a recovery by the plaintiff for any amount on account of the alleged negligence of the defendant. If the jury found that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant in the carriage of the goods, the plaintiff was not prejudiced by giving an erroneous instruction on the measure of damages. Therefore the judgment will be affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

January 25, 2013

d0122

Order 

January 25, 2013

145067

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145067

COA: 303256

Wayne CC: 10-009183-FH

KEVIN MCGOWAN GOUDLOCK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Gramercy Capital Corp. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Marc Holliday, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|           | /s/ Marc Holliday       |   |
|----------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Name:          | Marc Holliday           |   |
| Title:         | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|           |                    |
| March 13, 2006 |                    |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Xponential, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Dwayne A. Moyers, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 27, 2004 | /s/ Dwayne A. Moyers    |   |
|----------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                       | Dwayne A. Moyers        |
|                       | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 31.2 – Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxleyact of 2002
I, Todd H. Katz, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TarponCoast Bancorp, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s)and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in the Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (thesmall business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and theaudit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):
(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesigned or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
 

 

small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and
(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
        Date: July 26, 2004 /s/ Todd H. Katz   Todd H. Katz   President