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":"Make Your Own X-59","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"NM0t5oN0uR\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/make-your-own-x-59\/\">Make Your Own X-59<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/make-your-own-x-59\/embed\/#?secret=NM0t5oN0uR\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Make Your Own X-59” — NASA\" data-secret=\"NM0t5oN0uR\" 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\/06\/make-your-own-x59.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
H. Res. 125

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 24, 1997.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 1271) to authorize the Federal Aviation Administration’s research, engineering, and development programs for fiscal years 1998 through 2000, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to

comply with section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill

and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled

by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be

in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of

amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
2

•HRES 125 EH

Science now printed in the bill. Each section of the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered

as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in

the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with section

306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived.

During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in

recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an

amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the

Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6

of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as

read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted.

Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on

any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to

the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
Greg Abbot Attorney General

for the State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 11, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00791

- CV

Michael Thomas PAUL

, Appellant

v.

GREG ABBOT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001

- CI

- 16843 Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Si tting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On Jan uary 28 , 2015, we issued an opinion and judgment dismissing this appeal. On February 10, 2015, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing

en banc. On February 13, 2015, we issued an order granting appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing to March 16, 2015.

On February 26, 2015, appellant filed a motion for summary judgment in this court. Appellant’s motion for summar y judgment is DENIED.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 11th day of March, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 55 Filed: 06/10/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:481
NO. 07-99-0269-CR 

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	AUGUST 10, 2001

	______________________________

	CURTIS RAY HOLLAND, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 252ND DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

	NO. 70662; HONORABLE LEONARD GIBLIN, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	Appellant Curtis Ray Holland appealed his conviction of aggravated assault and the resulting sentence of five years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice.  The adjudication of appellant’s guilt was originally deferred, and he was placed on community supervision for four years.  However, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s unadjudicated probation and, after a hearing, the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him accordingly. 

	However, appellant has now filed a motion to dismiss his appeal, which is signed by both appellant and his attorney of record.  Because no opinion of this court has been delivered prior to our receipt of his request, his motion to dismiss is hereby granted.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

	Because we have dismissed this appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.  

							John T. Boyd

							 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02947

Honorable John Z. Lee

Arkray USA, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, December 16, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: The Court has reviewed the

status report. Pursuant to the request of the parties, the related case, Glen Ellyn Pharmacy,

Inv. v. Arkray USA, Inc., No 20−cv−2947, is hereby terminated.Civil case terminated.

Mailed notice(ca, )

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-02947 Document #: 21 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:73
Exhibit 31.1

                  CERTIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 302(a)
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Norman E. Wells Jr., certify that:

    1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Sovereign Specialty Chemicals
       Inc.;

    2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
       of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
       statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
       statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered
       by this report;

    3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
       information included in this report, fairly present in all material
       respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
       the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

    4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
       establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
       defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
       and have:

       a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
       disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
       to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
       its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
       entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
       prepared;

       b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
       and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
       effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
       the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

       c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
       control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
       most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
       likely to materially affect the registrant's internal control over
       financial reporting

     5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
       on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
       reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
       registrant's board of directors:

        a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
         operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
         reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

        b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
         employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting.

Date: November 10, 2004

/s/ NORMAN E. WELLS, JR.
---------------------------------
Norman E. Wells, Jr.
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re CEVA Ground US, LP.

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00760

- CV

Trial court case number: 2019

- 27415

Trial court: 164th District Court of Harris County

Relator, CEVA Ground US, LP, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the

trial court’s August 23, 2019 order denying relator’s motion to dismiss based on forum non

conveniens. The Court requests that real parties in interest file a response t o the petition by no later

than November 8, 2019.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Sarah B. Landau

__ Acting individually

Date: _ October 11, 2019

____
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 18 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 18

   Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require the 
    reduction of section 602(b)(1) suballocations to reflect floor 
   amendments to general appropriation bills, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 1997

Mr. Royce submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                           Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require the 
    reduction of section 602(b)(1) suballocations to reflect floor 
   amendments to general appropriation bills, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That (a) clause 4(a) of rule XI of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
    ``(4)(A) Upon the engrossment in the House of any general 
appropriation bill (or resolution making continuing appropriations (if 
applicable)), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations shall--
            ``(i) reduce the suballocation of new budget authority to 
        the appropriate subcommittee of that committee made under 
        section 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by 
        the net amount of reductions in new budget authority resulting 
        from amendments agreed to by the House to that bill, and
            ``(ii) reduce the suballocation of outlays made under 
        section 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
        the appropriate subcommittee of that committee by the net 
        amount of reductions in outlays resulting from amendments 
        agreed to by the House to that bill,
and promptly report those revisions to the House.
    ``(B) The reductions in suballocations made under subdivision (A) 
may not be reallocated by the Committee on Appropriations to any other 
subcommittee.
    ``(C) In the House of Representatives, the revised suballocations 
made under subdivision (A) shall be deemed to be suballocations made 
under section 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.''.
    (b) Clause 4(b) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
sentence: ``Upon the reporting of revised suballocations to the House 
by the Committee on Appropriations under paragraph (a), the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget shall make appropriate revisions in the 
allocations to the Committee on Appropriations to reflect the revised 
suballocations and report those revisions to the House. In the House of 
Representatives, those revised allocations shall be deemed to be 
allocations made under section 602(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 16.1





Office of the Chief Accountant


Securities and Exchange Commission


450 Fifth Avenue


Washington, DC    20549





May 14, 2002





Dear Sir/Madam:





We have read Part II, Item 5 included in the Form 10-Q
dated May 14, 2002 of Miller Exploration Company (Commission File Number 0-23431) to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are in agreement with the statements contained therein.





Very truly yours,





By:

/s/    Arthur Andersen LLPArthur Andersen LLP





cc:    Deanna L. Cannon, Chief Financial
Officer and Corporate Secretary




27
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Brian Dunbar","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/brian-dunbarnasa-gov\/","title":"Dwight Deneal","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GOk8N18dnR\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/dwight-deneal\/\">Dwight Deneal<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/dwight-deneal\/embed\/#?secret=GOk8N18dnR\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Dwight Deneal” — NASA\" data-secret=\"GOk8N18dnR\" 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"}
#### Ben Taylor *v.*J. W. Taylor.

Bond — Mutual Mistake in Giving — Second Surety not Liable.

Mistake? in the execution of a bond given, can be corrected like other instruments, where it is shown that a prior bond for the same purpose had been executed.

APPAEL EROAf AfLEAN CIRCUIT COURT.

June 11, 1870.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin :

Tbe only question in this case is one of fact, whether the bond dated 8th of February, 1860, .purporting to have been given by the appellant and John Brackett, that Hawkins would perform the judgment of the court in the action against him, is the act and deed of the appellant. lie admits he gave a claimant’s bond for the property levied under the attachment against Hawkins, but with Frank Wright instead of Brackett as his surety, under section 235 of the Civil Code, and Wright and Dexter prove the execution of such a bond, which was the only description of bond he can reasonably be supposed to have intended to give consistently with his claim to the property, and part in the controversy. The claim against Hawkins was not controverted by appellant, but only the appellee’s right to subject property or money in appellant’s hands to its satisfaction, which he resisted, claiming the property and denying' that he was indebted to Hawkins, and, as Wright and Dexter prove, gave his bond as claimant of the property. It is difficult to conceive why he would have also executed another bond having the effect to make him liable for the debt of Hawkins, although he succeeded in sustaining his claim to the property. The sheriff failed to explain why he could have taken two bonds from the appellant, one with Wright as surety and the other with Brackett as surety, and the fair inference from all the evidence is that he took but one bond, which was understood and intended by the appellant, who could not read or write, to be such a bond ás Wright and Dexter prove to have been *254given, and. not that returned by the sheriff, which may have resulted from some unexplained mistake and without intentional wrong on the part of the officer. Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that it was not the binding obligation of the appellant, and the court erred in rendering the judgment to enforce it as such.

*Turner, for appellant.*

*L. P.*Little, *for appellee.*

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a judgment in conformity to this opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lance Cain,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00446-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Holland Law Firm

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 2/18/2016, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: February 19, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc.

Printed name of party waiving service

of summons

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

Printed Name

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) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 855 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 1