alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"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":"John Gould","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"bzPXfDaEpW\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/john-gould\/\">John Gould<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/john-gould\/embed\/#?secret=bzPXfDaEpW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“John Gould” — NASA\" data-secret=\"bzPXfDaEpW\" 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\/07\/john-gould-sept-2023-3.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":630}
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

*CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Granite City Food &Brewery Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 24,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, James G. Gilbertson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.             the Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.             the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Dated: | August 4,  2008 | By:    | /s/ James G.  Gilbertson |
|--------|----------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |                 |   | James G.  Gilbertson     |
|   |                 |   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10


         COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE FINANCING TO EMISSION DIFFERENTIALS LTD.,
                       AS REQUIRED FOR ONGOING OPERATIONS

In the event that Emission Differentials Ltd., (the "Company"), is not able to
obtain funds required for maintaining its ongoing operations from other sources,
I, James Durward, hereby agree and commit to provide, and or/ arrange for, any
such funds for the Company, on either a loan, equity, or combination basis, on
such terms as may be mutually agreeable, and which comply with any regulatory
rules and regulations applicable to such transactions.

At this time, it appears that the ongoing capital requirements of the Company,
in order to properly maintain its status as a publicly traded company, are
approximately U5$15,000 per year.

I hereby state that I am capable of providing, and agree to provide and/or
arrange for such funds for such period of time as required, as long as I am an
officer and director of the Company, until the Company is able to obtain
adequate funding from other sources, and/or generate net earnings from revenues,
which will sustain its ongoing operations.

Agreed to this 4th day of May, 2004



/S/ JAMES DURWARD
-------------------------------
JAMES DURWARD
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 816 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 816

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for certain amenities and personal 
                 comforts in the Federal prison system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 1997

  Mr. Castle introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the use of Federal funds for certain amenities and personal 
                 comforts in the Federal prison system.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal No Frills Prisons Act of 
1997''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR CERTAIN AMENITIES AND 
              PERSONAL COMFORTS IN THE FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM.

    No Federal funds may be used to provide any of the following 
amenities or personal comforts in the Federal prison system:
            (1) In-cell television viewing, except for prisoners who 
        are segregated from the general prison population for their own 
        safety.
            (2) Viewing of any motion picture rated R, X, or NC-17, 
        without regard to the medium through which the motion picture 
        is presented.
            (3) Instruction (whether live or through broadcasts), or 
        training equipment, for boxing, wrestling, judo, karate, or any 
        other martial art, or any bodybuilding or weightlifting 
        equipment of any sort.
            (4) Possession of any in-cell coffee pot, hot plate, or 
        heating element.
            (5) Use or possession of any electric or electronic musical 
        instrument.
                                 <all>
```
November 17, 2016

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk

Third Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78711

- 2457

Re: Court of Appeals No. 03

- 16

- 00711

- CV

Trial Court Cause No. D

- 1

- GN

- 15

- 000379

Style: Saltworks Ventures, Inc., d/b/a Bruegger’s Bagels

vs.

Residences at the Spoke, LLC & Transwestern Development Company, LLC

Dear Mr. Kyle,

I respectfully request a thirty

- day extension on this appeal. The record is due on November 17,

2016. Due to court records, appellate records, and my time in court, I will be unable to file the

appeal on the dat e it is due.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Please contact me if you have any

questions. My e

- mail address is alicia.racanelli@traviscountytx.gov

.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Alicia Racanelli

Alicia Racanelli

Official Cou rt Reporter Alicia Racanelli, CSR

Official Court Reporter

201 st Judicial District Court

Room 327

1000 Guadalupe Street

Austin, Texas 78701

Phone: (512) 854

- 4028

Fax: (512) 854

- 2268
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. (together, the Company), does hereby certify that to the
undersigneds knowledge:

1) the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 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
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                                       
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: April 17, 2009 |  | /s/ Leigh Ginter                      
|                     |  | Leigh Ginter  Chief Financial Officer
|                     |  | (Chief Accounting Officer)            

A signed original of this written statement, required by Section 906, has been provided to Norcraft Holdings,
L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. and will be retained by Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### *Archer v.*Spencer.

In an action on a promissory note brought by an assignee, the declaration should state the assignment to be made on the, note 'under the hand of the assignor.

ERROR tó'the Alíen-Circuit Court.

Stevens, *J.*

Spencer declared against *Archer*in debt. The averments of the declaration nécessary.to be" -noticed are,— That on, &c. at, &c. *Archer*made his due bill in writing, &c. 'by which he promised to pay one *Edsall*198 dollars and 72 cents, &c.; that afterwards, on, &c. at, &c. and before said money was paid, *Edsall*“assigned said due bill to said Spencer, and then and there by said assignment, transferred and appointed said sum of money in said due bill specified, to be paid to the said Spencer, and then and there- delivered the said due bill, so- assigned as aforesaid,'to said 'Spencer,” &c. T.he defendant demurred. The demurrer was overruled, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. ■ .'■

The objection raised is, that *Spencer*is.not legally entitled to bring a suit on the above instrument in his own name, under the assignment which appears of record, heither at common law nor'under, our statute. At common law,'-the due bill in question is not negotiable, and n'o assignment of it could transfer the legal interest to the assignee. It would only Vest in him an equitable interest, and he would have to bring suit in the name of the original payee, for his use, &c. Under our *406statute such instruments of writing áre made negotiable, and. the assignee can maintain a-suit in his own name, if they are transferred in a particular way and'manner. The words-of the statute aré “shall be, and’ the same are hereby made assignable, by endorsement thereon, under the hand or hands of such person dr persons, to whom the' same shall or may be made due or payable, &c.; and such assignee or assignees may bring suit thereon in his, her, or their own name or names,” &c. The statute expressly requires the assignment to be on the instrument itself,' and under the hand of the payee, and not in any other way or manner.

*H.*Cooper, for the plaintiff.

G. *H. Dunn*and *D. H. Colerick,*for the defendant.

It is a principle which is perhaps well settled, that when a new right is introduced by statute,- the party claiming under it is confined to the provisions of the statute; unless the right existed at common law, and the new right given by the s'tatiite is cumulative only. The right claimed and .exerted.by the plaintiffin the Court below, in this case, does not exist at common law; it'is purely statutory, and the party claiming under it must bring himself within the statute. This he has not done. His declaration should have shown, that the assignment was upon the instrument itself, and that it was under the hand of the payee who was the assignor: these averments are material, and being omitted, the plaintiff must fail.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs'.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Suzanne Sekuler,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-01689-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

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

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8577 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 519 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 519

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
  special rule for charitable contributions to private foundations of 
        stock for which market quotations are readily available.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1997

 Mr. Camp (for himself and Mr. Cardin) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
  special rule for charitable contributions to private foundations of 
        stock for which market quotations are readily available.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULE MADE PERMANENT FOR CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS OF 
              STOCK FOR WHICH MARKET QUOTATIONS ARE READILY AVAILABLE.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 170(e)(5) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is hereby repealed.
    (b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to contributions made after May 31, 1997.
                                 <all>
```
Datatec Systems Announces FY2002 Q4 Results



Contact:

Richard K. Davis

Vice President & General Counsel 

Datatec Systems, Inc.

richarddavis@datatec.com


Datatec Systems Announces the Sale of Millennium Care

and the Partial Repayment of its $4.9 Million Subordinated Convertible Notes


FAIRFIELD, N.J. - June 1, 2004, Datatec Systems, Inc. (DATC.PK), an IT services firm focused exclusively on large scale, complex information technology deployment and post-implementation customer care solutions, today announced that in connection with the streamlining of its operations and renewed focus on its core business it has sold its Canadian call center subsidiary, Millennium Care, Inc. 



The Company also announced that the proceeds from the sale of Millennium were used to repay $800,000 principal amount of its outstanding $4.9 million Subordinated Secured Convertible Notes.  In connection with the repayment, the holders of the Notes have agreed to waive interest and default penalties associated with the amount that the Company repaid.


 

About Datatec Systems, Inc.


Fairfield, N.J.-based Datatec Systems specializes in the rapid, large-scale market absorption of networking technologies for enterprise customers.  Datatec's deployment services utilize a software-enabled implementation model to configure, integrate, roll out and support new technology solutions using a "best practices" structured process.  Its customers include Fortune 1000 companies and world-class technology providers. Datatec stock is listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market (DATC). For more information, visit www.datatec.com


This Press Release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause the actual results or objectives to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements as more fully discussed in Datatec's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

###
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1934 

THOMAS E. TILLEY, IRIS M. TILLEY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Dixon,

Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-629-1)

Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: January 15, 2004

Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas E. Tilley, Iris M. Tilley, Appellants Pro Se. Charles

Bricken, Karen Grace Gregory, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Thomas E. Tilley and Iris M. Tilley appeal from the

magistrate judge’s order*

 granting summary judgment in favor of the

government in the Tilleys’ action seeking a refund of income taxes

paid for 1991, 1992, 1994, and 1995. On appeal, the Tilleys assert

two issues—both concern only Thomas Tilley’s tax liability for 1994

and 1995. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

magistrate judge. See Tilley v. United States, No. CA-02-629-1

(M.D.N.C. July 11, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA RE: Docket Number 2022 - CA - 0736 Michael DesParois Versus - - 19th Judicial District Court Timmons International, ILC Case #: 655392 East Baton Rouge Parish



### On Application for Rehearing filed on 01/03/2024 by Michael DesParois Rehearing denied. 

## bj14 

# CU hUx hrc ` 

# j Judge Guy Holdridge, retired, is serving as protempore byspecial appointn

of the Louisiana Supreme Court* Date 

# AN 19 2024 Rodd Naqu , QU Page McClendon 

### Guy Holdridge 

# ie Wayne Ray Chutzj 

# Z'
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel, are you 

a 

 Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-03024 Document #: 29 Filed: 06/14/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:4124
02/25/2022

Ambassador v. Elanco

20cv2886

Mary M. Rowland

March 10th, 2022

David Jozwiak

Case: 1:20-cv-02886 Document #: 68 Filed: 02/25/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1021
Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 76 Filed: 09/10/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:967
Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 76 Filed: 09/10/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:968
Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 76 Filed: 09/10/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:969
Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 76 Filed: 09/10/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:970
Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 76 Filed: 09/10/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:971
Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 76 Filed: 09/10/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:972
Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 76 Filed: 09/10/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:973
Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 76 Filed: 09/10/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:974
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 8 2003

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SUSAN NEVITT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THOMAS FITCH, Judge,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-2037

(District of New Mexico)

(D.C. No. CIV-02-1580 WPJ/LFG)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Susan Nevitt, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of

her civil rights complaint against New Mexico state court Judge Thomas Fitch and
-2-

its decision to strike her “Notice by Plaintiff of Filing a Peremptory Challenge to

District Judge” (the “Notice”). This court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms.

In striking the Notice, the district court noted that it was based on a New

Mexico Supreme Court decision which allows any party the right to exercise a

peremptory challenge to a state district court judge for any reason. The district

court noted, however, that no such right exists under federal law and that the

decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court was not binding on a federal district

court. As to Nevitt’s underlying civil rights complaint, the district court noted

that Judge Fitch is absolutely immune from suit for civil liability for acts taken in

his judicial capacity unless he acted in the acted in the clear absence of all

jurisdiction. See generally Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). Because

Nevitt had not alleged any facts indicating Judge Fitch acted in the absence of

jurisdiction, and because the record affirmatively indicated the underlying state

court water dispute was within Judge Fitch’s jurisdiction, the district court

concluded Judge Fitch was entitled to absolute immunity.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint on

judicial immunity grounds, using the same standards it employs when reviewing a

dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318

F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 1999). Upon de novo review of the district court order
-3-

of dismissal and consideration of the parties’ briefs and the entire appellate

record, this court AFFIRMS for substantially those reasons set out by the district

court in its order of dismissal dated December 31, 2002.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge