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":"Lift Off to the International Space Station With Noggin!","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"mz2EI0dKvU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/lift-off-to-the-international-space-station-with-noggin\/\">Lift Off to the International Space Station With Noggin!<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/lift-off-to-the-international-space-station-with-noggin\/embed\/#?secret=mz2EI0dKvU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Lift Off to the International Space Station With Noggin!” — NASA\" data-secret=\"mz2EI0dKvU\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/0102172\/0102172~large.jpg?w=600&h=1370&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1370}
#### B. Leiber *v.*Geo. J. Beck.

Principal and Agent — Authority of Agent to Bind Principal — Special Agent.

An agent can bind his principal on a note by filling in blanks, after the note had been sent him, though the name filled in was not the person to whom the principal intended the note made payable.

Same — Special Agent — Plea of Non Est Factum.

A plea of non est factum to a note, the blanks of which had been filled in by the agent, of the payors, can only be sustained when the person so acting, was a special agent so far as the particular note was concerned, and that his authority was limited to fill in a particular name.

*409APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

October 20, 1870.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

The plea of *non est factum*can only be sustained upon the hypothesia that Griff was a special agent so far as the particular note in question is concerned, and that he had no authority from and Lieber to fill up the blanks in favor of any one else than Nelson. We have not the original paper before us, but the pleadings and evidence in the case warrant us in concluding that the name of the payee as well as the date and amount were left blank when the note was sent to Griff, and this circumstance certainly indicates that the possibility of its being filled up in favor of some other party than Nelson, was contemplated by the payors. This presumption is strengthened by the evidence of Griff who says that he had authority to use it in paying Nelson, ‘or in raising funds for the necessary expenses, in removing the mill.”

But Griff expressly contradicts the idea that he was a special agent, and states that he had the same power with any other agent. That he felt he had the right to fill up the note and deliver it to Beck because he was acting as the agent and attorney of the parties. He seemed to understand that he had the right to do all necessary acts connected with the business of removing the mill to Kentucky including the settlement of the claims against it. It is true that he does not state as explicitly as he might the scope and extent of his authority but it should be borne in mind that he was not only the witness of the appellant, but his trusted agent and kinsman.

We are of opinion from all the evidence in the case that he had authority to fill up and deliver the note to Beck. We also conclude that said note was executed upon a sufficient legal consideration.

It seems to us that Mrs. Lieber by the use of reasonable diligence could have discovered before the trial what could be proven by Mrs. Griff. She charges in her answer that the note was executed by Griff ‘for individual debt of his wife.” Yet she failed to examine Griff upon this point when she had his deposition taken, and failed altogether it seems to even inquire of *410Mrs. Griff relative thereto, although it appears: that they both resided in the city of Louisville during the entire time this suit was pending.

Pirtle, *Dombitz &*WeJile, *for appellant.*

*Bodley & Bimrall, for appellee.*

We are of opinion that the chancellor committed no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of appellant and we affirm his judgment.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00361

- CV

IN RE BRANDON COLEMA N RELATOR

------------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

TRIAL COURT NO. CR12 297

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

------------

The court has considered relator’s peti tion for writ of mandamus and is of

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: BILL MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DELIVERED: December 3 , 2015

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8 (d).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.2

Eastern Division

Anthony Mays, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02134

Honorable Robert W. Gettleman

Dart J Thomas

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, May 1, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman: Motion to intervene

of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 700 [76] is denied for failure to comply

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c). Mailed notice (cn).

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 81 Filed: 05/01/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2164
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, 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

October 26, 2010 

y1018 

Order 

 

October 26, 2010 

141528 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141528 

 COA: 298336 

Genesee CC: 06-019088-FC 

ANDRE BERNARD DAVIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 9, 2010 order 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.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ambient Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Lauren Farrell, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, 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 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 the Company.


AUGUST 12, 2005                         /s/ LAUREN FARRELL
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        LAUREN FARRELL
                                        CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO AMBIENT CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY AMBIENT CORPORATION AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
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 1 Charles L. Ryan, Acting Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections,

is substituted for his predecessor pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Apelt, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et. al.,1

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-00882-PHX-ROS

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

In an order dated September 26, 2002, the Court stayed Petitioner’s sentencing-related

habeas claims pending resolution in state court of Petitioner’s claim pursuant to Atkins v.

Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), that he is mentally retarded and therefore ineligible for the

death penalty. (Dkt. 117.) The Court subsequently denied Petitioner’s conviction-related

claims while retaining the stay of the sentencing claims. (Dkt. 210.) On May 19, 2009, the

state court denied Petitioner’s Atkins claim. (See Dkt. 218.) On March 2, 2010, the Arizona

Supreme Court denied a petition for review. (See Dkt. 222.) State proceedings having been

concluded, the Court will set this matter for a status conference. 

Accordingly,
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

- 2 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a status conference will be held on June 4, 2010

at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 604 of the Sandra Day O’Connor United States Courthouse in

Phoenix. 

DATED this 7th day of April, 2010.
Exhibit
32.1








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 report of China Architectural Engineering, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:




(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/
      Luo Ken YiLuo
      Ken YiChief
      Executive OfficerApril
      30, 2010/s/
      Gene Michael BennettGene
      Michael BennettChief
      Financial OfficerApril
      30, 2010




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to China Architectural Engineering, Inc. and will be retained by China
Architectural Engineering, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse

 Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street

 Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850

www.ca7.uscourts.gov

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MANDATE

May 7, 2021

To: Thomas G. Bruton

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 Northern District of Illinois

 Chicago , IL 60604-0000

No. 21-1525

JOANNE TROESCH and IFEOMA NKEMDI, on behalf of themselves

and the putative class, 

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL UNION NO. 1, AMERICAN

FEDERATION OF TEACHERS and THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF

THE CITY OF CHICAGO, 

Defendants - Appellees

 Originating Case Information:

 District Court No: 1:20-cv-02682

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

District Judge John Z. Lee

Herewith is the mandate of this court in this appeal, along with the Bill of Costs, if any. A

certified copy of the opinion/order of the court and judgment, if any, and any direction as to

costs shall constitute the mandate.

 RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS: No record to be returned

Case: 21-1525 Document: 00713809152 Filed: 05/07/2021 Pages: 2

Case: 1:20-cv-02682 Document #: 57 Filed: 05/07/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:344
NOTE TO COUNSEL:

If any physical and large documentary exhibits have been filed in the above-entitled cause, they are

to be withdrawn ten (10) days from the date of this notice. Exhibits not withdrawn during this period

will be disposed of.

Please acknowledge receipt of these documents on the enclosed copy of this notice.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Received above mandate and record, if any, from the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit.

Date: Received by:

_________________________ ____________________________________

form name: c7_Mandate(form ID: 135)

Case: 21-1525 Document: 00713809152 Filed: 05/07/2021 Pages: 2

Case: 1:20-cv-02682 Document #: 57 Filed: 05/07/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:345
#### Mettler and Another *v.*Moore.

Covenant on an obligation for 125 dollars with interest, payable 12 months after date in whiskey, to be delivered at a certain place: Held, that after a judgment by default, the Court might render final judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of the obligation with interest and costs, without the intervention of a jury.

ERROR to the *Dearborn*Circuit Court. — This was an action of covenant by *R. Moore*against *I. Mettler*and *J.*Smith, on a writing obligatory for 125 dollars with interest, payable 12 months after date in merchantable whiskey, to he delivered at *Lawrenceburgh*at the cash market price. *Smith*appeared and confessed judgment for the amount of the obligation with interest; and *Mettler*made default. The Circuit Court rendered final judgment against the defendants, without a jury, for the sum named in the obligation with interest and costs.

*Lane,*for the plaintiffs.

*Dunn,*for the defendant.

Blackford, J.

The only question presented by this case is, whether, upon a judgment by default, the plaintiff could take final judgment for the principal and interest of the obligation, without the intervention of a jury to assess the damages. We think he might. Whether the plaintiff could not, under certain circumstances, have had damages assessed by a jury to a greater amount, is not now the subject of inquiry. One thing is very certain, he was entitled from the face of the obligation to the amount, at least, of the principal and interest for which he took his judgment (1); and the defendants have no reason to complain (2).

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed, with *onQper cent,*damages and costs.

(1)

 Vide *Van Vleet*v. *Adair,*this term, post.

(2)

*John*v. Clayton, ante, p. 54.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65389-65390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26154]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-65-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.312: General Section 4 
Rate Case to be effective 12/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20141024-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/14.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but

[[Page 65390]]

intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-916-001.
    Applicants: Clear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Clear Creek Compliance 
Filing to be effective 10/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20141024-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-917-001.
    Applicants: Rendezvous Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Rendezvous Compliance 
Filing to be effective 10/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20141024-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-952-001.
    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Show Cause Compliance 
Refiling to be effective 10/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 10/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20141024-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/14.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must 
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 27, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26154 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             152
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,942
<ALLOWANCES>                                        73
<INVENTORY>                                      1,061
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,639
<PP&E>                                           4,382
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,172
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,215
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            79
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,172
<SALES>                                          2,899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,304
<CGS>                                            1,812
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,574
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    42
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 407
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,365
<INCOME-TAX>                                       895
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,470
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6497
GARY LONTELL DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LESLIE G. MATTHEWS, Attorney at Law, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-97-265-2) Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 30, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Lontell Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Virginia inmate, app eals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. Matthews , No. CA-97-265-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 1997). 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
#### BERNARD KOEPPEL, APPELLANT, v. IRVINGTON WINDOW CLEANING CO., INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Argued May 17, 1945

Decided September 27, 1945.

*304For the appellant, *David Roshein*and *John A. Laird.*

For the respondents, *Arthur T. Vanderbilt*and *G. Dixon BpeoJcman.*

Per Curiam.

The judment under review is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Bodine, *ubi supra.*

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Parker, Donges, Hei-ibr, Perskie, Colie, Wells, Raeeerty, Dill, Freund, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— None.