alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Nicole Leigh Davis,

Defendant.

No. CR-16-08010-001-PCT-SRB

ORDER 

The Court has considered Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Admit/Deny 

Hearing (Doc. 72). There being no objection by the Government, and good cause 

appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Continue 

Admit/Deny Hearing (Doc. 72).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED continuing Admit/Deny Hearing from June 3, 2022 

to June 17, 2022 at 4:00 p.m., before Judge Willett, courtroom 305.

The Court finds excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) from _____ to _____.

Dated this 2nd day of June, 2022.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cr-08010-SRB Document 73 Filed 06/02/22 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Television to Broadcast Next Space Station Crew Launch, Docking","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"iVb8zY7tDF\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-television-to-broadcast-next-space-station-crew-launch-docking\/\">NASA Television to Broadcast Next Space Station Crew Launch, Docking<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-television-to-broadcast-next-space-station-crew-launch-docking\/embed\/#?secret=iVb8zY7tDF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Television to Broadcast Next Space Station Crew Launch, Docking” — NASA\" data-secret=\"iVb8zY7tDF\" 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\/2019\/10\/koch_meir.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
#### Josiah Veach *v. W.*H. Perkins.

Attachment — Instruction as to Damages.

An instruction in an attachment proceedings, to allow the jury to assess damages for any remote injury resulting from the interruption of the regular course of the plaintiff’s business, is erroneous and misleading.

Attachment — Damages for Wrongful Suing Out.

Recovery for the wrongful suing out of an attachment can only be had for such damages as are natural and proximate. And does not extend to cover supposed tosses sustained by a mere derangement of the business.

APPEAL PROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

October 9, 1871.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The same instruction given in this case qualifying and explaining the first, substantially informed, the jury, that they were authorized, in their finding, to estimate and allow damages to the plaintiff for being interrupted in the course of his business in consequence of the attachment. It is well settled that in a case like this, not proceeding for a malicious abuse of the process of the law, the plaintiff can only recover on the attachment bond such damages as are natural and proximate; and that the defendants responsibility does not extend to losses supposed to have been sustained by the mere derangement to the business of the plaintiff, caused by the attachment, or of merely contingent or prospective profits, of which it may have operated to deprive him *(Pettit & Owens v. Mercer, 8 B. Monroe, 51; Carpenter v. Stevenson, 6 Bush, 259).*This case is not analogous to the one last cited where a particular and immediate injury was alleged and shown, by preventing the use of materials for a building, already prepared to comply with a contract. The ruling of the court in this case was such as to allow the jury to assess damages for any remote injury resulting from the interruption of the regular course of the plaintiff’s business, and in that respecct *98was misleading and erroneous for the reason we have indicated and according to the authorities cited.

Veech, *Bay &*Hardin, *Sweeney & S.} for appellant.*

James, *for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 8938]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Display of Sixteen Hellenistic Silver Objects from the Republic of Italy, Sicily Region,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about December 1, 2014, until on or about December 1, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: October 29, 2014.

Kelly Keiderling, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2014-26281 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Watch Next Space Station Crew Launch Live on NASA TV, NASA App","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"2fuZ79rVzU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/watch-next-space-station-crew-launch-live-on-nasa-tv-nasa-app\/\">Watch Next Space Station Crew Launch Live on NASA TV, NASA App<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/watch-next-space-station-crew-launch-live-on-nasa-tv-nasa-app\/embed\/#?secret=2fuZ79rVzU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Watch Next Space Station Crew Launch Live on NASA TV, NASA App” — NASA\" data-secret=\"2fuZ79rVzU\" 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\/04\/nhq202103200018_large.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL SANCHEZ

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 2 44

- C R

Appeal from the

243 rd D istrict Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2 0170D03473 )

O R D E R

The record before us does not contain the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s

right of appeal. T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court is ordered to prepare and file with

the trial court clerk within thirty days from the date of this order a certification of the defendant’s

right of appeal as required by T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2 (d). The trial court clerk shall

prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification and file it with this Court no

later than April 1 9

, 201 8

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5 th day of March , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
9095.

#### Cowart *v.*Maddox.

Decided April 11, 1918.

Distraint; from city court of Dublin—Judge Flynt. June 20/ 1917.

*8. W. Sturgis,*for plaintiff in error. *J. S. Adams,*cdntra.

Jenkins, J.

A tenant can not dispute his landlord’s title, or attorn to another claimant, without first surrendering possession of the premises. The evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions or inferences therefrom, having demanded a finding that no such surrender had been made, and there being no dispute as to the amount involved, the judge did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff in the distress warrant proceedings.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, O. J., and Luhe, J., eon’eur.*
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, MICHAEL SCHUTZ, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Most Home Corp.;

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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(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: December 14, 2006
 
/s/ Michael Schutz
		 
 
Michael Schutz		Chief Financial Officer |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2812
STUART COLE, Petitioner, versusJEWELL RIDGE COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of An Order of the Benefits Review Board. (84-3344-BLA) Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: March 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stuart Cole, Petitioner Pro Se. Michael Francis Blair, PENN, STUART, ESKRIDGE & JONES, Abingdon, Virginia; Christian P. Barber, Sarah Marie Hurley, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order modifying the administrative law judge's award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1995). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Cole v. Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. , No. 84-3344-BLA (BRB Aug. 14, 1995). 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
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Ana Guzman","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/ana-d-guzmannasa-gov\/","title":"A Researcher\u2019s Guide to: Technology  Demonstration","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7Ugh4m4coJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/science-research\/for-researchers\/a-researchers-guide-to-technology-demonstration\/\">A Researcher\u2019s Guide to: Technology  Demonstration<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/science-research\/for-researchers\/a-researchers-guide-to-technology-demonstration\/embed\/#?secret=7Ugh4m4coJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“A Researcher\u2019s Guide to: Technology  Demonstration” — NASA\" data-secret=\"7Ugh4m4coJ\" 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\/2022\/07\/tech-demo-guide-cover-b.png?w=540","thumbnail_width":540,"thumbnail_height":834}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

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 Tuesday, October 27, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Magistrate status

hearing held. Parties appeared telephonically and discussed the decision recently issued by

the Seventh Circuit in this case. By agreement, the stay of discovery stands. By COB on

11/16/2020, the parties shall file a joint status report. A telephonic status hearing is set for

11/18/2020 at 9:15 a.m. Parties shall dial in using the Court's conference call−in number.

The conference call− in number is 1−877−411−9748 and the passcode is 1814539. Please

note that the Court's conference call−in will be used by all cases that are on the Court's

calendar for the said date, therefore counsel must be in a quiet area while on the line and

must have the telephone muted until your case is called by the Court. Once the Court has

heard your case you shall disconnect from the conference line. Mailed notice (ao,)

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 #: 153 Filed: 10/27/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3836
*

Judge Williams did not participate in consideration of this

case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6656

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JASPER SIMPSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CR-02-936; CA-03-3280-5-23)

Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS,*

 and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jasper Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Brereton Barbier, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jasper Simpson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Simpson has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Simpson’s motion for a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED