alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Abbey Interrante","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/abbey-a-interrantenasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Invites You to Become a Citizen Scientist During US Total Solar Eclipse","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"007FvPGNLL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/science-research\/heliophysics\/nasa-invites-you-to-become-a-citizen-scientist-during-us-total-solar-eclipse\/\">NASA Invites You to Become a Citizen Scientist During US Total Solar Eclipse<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/science-research\/heliophysics\/nasa-invites-you-to-become-a-citizen-scientist-during-us-total-solar-eclipse\/embed\/#?secret=007FvPGNLL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Invites You to Become a Citizen Scientist During US Total Solar Eclipse” — NASA\" data-secret=\"007FvPGNLL\" 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\/02\/edu_srch_what-is-a-solar-eclipse.png?w=320","thumbnail_width":320,"thumbnail_height":239}
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 65474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26199]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 8936]


In the Matter of the Review of the Designation of National 
Liberation Army Also Known as ELN Also Known as Ejercito de Liberacion 
Nacional as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in these 
matter pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (``INA''), and in 
consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the 
Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the 
2008 decision to maintain the designation of the aforementioned 
organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization have not changed in 
such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the 
national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of 
the designation.
    Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the 
aforementioned organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, 
pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be 
maintained.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-26199 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

OUYEINC LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NaturalRays-Official and et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 20 cv 3591

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 41(a)(1)

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Ouyeinc Ltd.

(“Ouyeinc” or “Plaintiff”) hereby dismisses this action with prejudice pursuant to settlement as 

to the following Defendants:

Defendant Name Line No.

CCbeauty 55

CoooStar 57

Afternoon Life 49

powermup 77

DATED September 14, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James A. Karamanis

James A. Karamanis

Barney & Karamanis, LLP

Two Prudential Plaza

180 N. Stetson, Ste 3050

Chicago, IL 60601

Tel.: 312/553-5300

Attorney No. 6203479

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 60 Filed: 09/14/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:272
James@bkchicagolaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Ouyeinc Ltd.

Case: 1:20-cv-03591 Document #: 60 Filed: 09/14/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:273
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

EVELYN HUNTER individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUTOMATED HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., a 

Pennsylvania Corporation 

Defendant.

Case No.: 20-cv-3134

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

For the reasons in Plaintiff’s accompanying Memorandum of Law, the Court should 

remand this action to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. This Court should remand the 

action back to state court because there is no subject matter jurisdiction and Defendant does not 

meet the amount-in-controversy threshold.

Dated: June 23, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Mara Baltabols

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

David Fish

dfish@fishlawfirm.com

Mara Baltabols

mara@fishlawfirm.com

THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.

200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123

Naperville, Illinois 60563

Tel: 630.355.7590

Fax: 630.778.0400

docketing@fishlawfirm.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03134 Document #: 13 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:91
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the AnnualReport of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-K for the periodended August 26, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Hunt, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

|     |  |                                         |
|-----|--|-----------------------------------------|
| By: |  | /s/ Steven D. Hunt                      |
|     |  | Steven D. Hunt*Chief Executive Officer* |

Date: November 17, 2006
#### Geo. Carter *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law — Theft—Declaration of Party Accused Competent Evidence.

The declarations of a party accused of theft as to the manner in which he may have acquired possession of the stolen property are always admissible in his behalf, where the guilt of the accused is made to turn alone upon such possession.

APPEAL PROM PAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

June 13, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The failure to object to the testimony of Garrison Jones precludes this Court from considering the question now raised for the first time as to' tire competency of the witness.

The only facts proven connecting the appellant with the taking and asportation of the stolen mare, are that he was in possession of and sold her after she had been stolen. The question presented by the exception to the refusal of the court to allow the witness, Len Carter, to state to the jury what the appellant said at the time of the sale as to the manner in which he acquired such possession, is the only one we deem it necessary to' determine.

It is apparent from- the record that appellant was not, at the time these statements were made, suspected of the theft. According to the doctrine established by the case of *Rex v.*Abraham, 2 Karrinton & Kerwin, 550, which was approved by this Court in the case of *Tipper v.*Comlth., 1st Metcalfe 6, this testimony was competent, and the avowal of appellant as to what the answer to the question would be, shows that it was material.

Without indicating an opinion as to whether or not under such circumstances the declarations of a party accused of theft as to the manner in which he may have acquired possession of the stolen *795property are always admissible in his behalf, we are of opinion that in this case where the guilt of the accused is made to turn alone upon such possession, the declarations in question ought to have been permitted to’ be proven to the jury. For the error of the court below in sustaining the objection to this testimony the judgment must be reversed.

*Breckenfidge, for appellant.*

*Buckner, for appellee.*

The cause is remanded for a new trial upon principles consistent with this opinion.
H. Res. 330

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

November 13, 1997.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 2267) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and

related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,

1998, and for other purposes. All points of order against the

conference report and against its consideration are waived.

The conference report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 5, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129037 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 129037 COA: 259503 Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices Wayne CC: 01-001259-FH

v
JOSHUA SIMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the April 11, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1128 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 5, 2005

Clerk
Case 2:16-mj-01013-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01013-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01013-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/11/16 Page 3 of 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24 - 0 358 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. THERON SCOTT PLENTYHAWK,

Defendant and Appellant.

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until September 9 , 2024, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court August 6 2024

08/06/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0358
NO. 07-07-0500-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	FEBRUARY 28, 2008

	______________________________

	MILES B. HORTON, 

								Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

								Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. TWO OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2007-443823; HON. DRUE FARMER, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Abatement and Remand

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	Miles B. Horton (appellant) filed a notice of appeal from his conviction for driving while intoxicated on December 19, 2007.  On December 14, 2007, the trial court signed its certification representing that appellant has the right of appeal.  However, the appellate record reflects that appellant failed to sign the certification pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) which requires the certification to be signed by appellant and a copy served on him.1

	Consequently, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the County Court at Law Number Two of Lubbock County (trial court) for further proceedings.  Upon remand, the trial court shall take such action necessary to secure and file with this court a certificate of right to appeal that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) by March 28, 2008.  Should additional time be needed to perform these tasks, the trial court may request same on or before March 28, 2008.

	It is so ordered.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
#### George Faulkner, plaintiff, *vs.*Ferdinand Suydam *et al.,*defendants.

1. There is no reason for applying to the *coart*for orders directing judgments to be discharged of record, under the act of May 14, 1845, amending the act of April 18, 1838, “ for the relief of partners and joint debtors.”

2. The proper 'course is for the parties to present to the *dark*the memorandum mentioned in the act of 1845, with such proof of the assignment as can be obtained, and to request him to satisfy the judgment as to the compromising debtor-. If the clerk refuse so to satisfy the judgment, application may then be made to the court for an order directing him to do so; on which application the court will direct to whom, and in what manner, notice of the application shall be given.

(Before Jones, J., at Special Term,

December, 1867.)

By the act of the legislature of May 14, 1845, *(Laws of*1845, *chap.*348,) the 2d section of the act entitled “An act for the relief of partners and joint debtors,” passed April 18, 1838, was amended so as to read as follows:

“ § 2. Every such debtor or debtors, making such composition or compromise, shall take from the creditor or creditors with whom he may make the same, a note or-memorandum in writing, exonerating him or them from all and every individual liability incurred by reason of such connection with such partnership firm; which note or memorandum may be given in evidence by such debtor *615or debtors under the general issue, in bar of such credit- or’s right of recovery against him or them; and if such liability shall be by judgment in any court of record in this state, then on' a production to and filing with the clerk of such court, the said note or memorandum in writing, duly acknowledged, by the party or parties making the same, in the same manner as satisfaction of judgment is now required by law to be acknowledged, such clerk shall discharge said judgment of record, so far as the said compromising debtor or debtors shall be concerned.”

This is an application to the court for an order directing a judgment to be "discharged under the above mentioned .section.

Jones, J.

There is no reason why the court should be called on to make orders of this description.' The course of the parties is to present to the clerk the memorandum mentioned in chapter 348 of the laws'of 1845, with such proof of the assignment as can be obtained, and to request him to satisfy the judgment as to the compromising debtor. If the clerk refuse so to satisfy the judgment, application may be made to the court for an order directing him so to do; on which application the court will direct to whom, and in what manner, notice of the application shall be given.

Motion denied.
#### R. C. Jesse *v.*T. G. Dulin and Wife.

Partnership — Denial of Existence — Reference to Master for Settlement.

In as much as the existence of the partnership was denied by appellant and his contention sustained by the court, there was no reason why the cause should have been referred to the master for a settlement of the accounts between the parties.

APPEAL PROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

September 11, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Appellant concedes that the adjudication of the court as to the matters in litigation in the two actions originally begun in ordinary is substantially correct, but complains of the judgment in the suit brought for the settlement of the alleged partnership.

In as much as the existence of the partnership was denied, and as the court (as we think correctly) sustained appellants denial, there was no reason why the cause should have been referred to the master for a settlement of the account between the parties, and the failure to do so cannot be regarded as a ground of reversal.

The petition of appellee sets out that certain sums of money had been advanced by them to appellant, which the latter by his answer denied.

Upon hearing, the issues thus raised were settled by the judgment of the court, the question of partnership being first determined in appellant’s favor.

In this settlement we perceive no error. The evidence leaves no doubt but that appellant received the money on the $785 check, and we do not think he sustains his plea that he had the check cashed merely for the accommodation of Mrs. Dulin and paid the amount collected over to her at once.

Th evidence of young Jesse upon this point is not to be credited. It was impossible for him at the time his deposition was taken to have remembered the exact date of the transaction and the exact amount of the payment, he having made no memorandum and his attention not having been specially called to what was being done. Besides this it is altogether improbable that his father would have examined him as a witness without *559having first ascertained by inquiring what his testimony would be. The court below properly disregarded his evidence.

*Caldwell & Harwood, for appellant.*

*Bullock & Davis, for appellees.*

Conceiving the judgment of the circuit court to be substantially correct we do not feel authorized to disturb it.

Judgment affirmed on both original and cross-appeal.
#### Archer *v.*The Board of Commissioners of Allen County.

In an action against a board of county commissioners, for work and labour, or goods sold and delivered, the declaration must show some act, creating their liability, to have been done by them at a regular meeting of the board at the time fixed by law.

ERROR to the *Randolph*Circuit Court.

*H.*Cooper, for the plaintiff.

*D. H. Colerick*and *M. M.*Ray, for the defendants.

Blackford, J.

Assumpsit by *Archer*against the board of commissioners of *Allen*county. There are four counts in the declaration. Two of the counts are founded on a special contract relative to the making of bricks by the plaintiff for the defendants. The other counts are for bricks sold and delivered to the defendants by the plaintiff. General demurrer to the declaration,, and judgment for the defendants.

The declaration, in this case, cannot be sustained. The defendants are only charged in their corporate capacity. No act of theffs, relative to the subject-matter of this action, could render them liable.in their character of commissioners, unless such act was done by them at a regular meeting of the board'at the time fixed by law. The declaration does riot show any' act of the commissioners done at such a time; and it is consequently insufficient.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is'affirmed with costs.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 700

AN ACT

To remove the restriction on the distribution of cerCahuilla Indians. certain members of the Agua Caliente Band of tain revenues from the Mineral Springs parcel to
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 700

AN ACT

To remove the restriction on the distribution of certain revenues from the Mineral Springs parcel to certain members

of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 700 EH

1 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON DISTRIBUTION

2 OF CERTAIN REVENUES.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The fourth undesignated para4 graph in section 3(b) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to pro5 vide for the equalization of allotments on the Agua

6 Caliente (Palm Springs) Reservation in California, and for

7 other purposes’’ approved September 21, 1959 (25 U.S.C.

8 951 et seq.), is amended by striking ‘‘east: Provided,’’ and

9 all that follows through ‘‘deceased member.’’ and inserting

10 ‘‘east.’’.

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE AND AGREEMENT TO MAKE

12 PAYMENT.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall

13 apply with respect to net rents, profits, and other revenues

14 that accrue on or after the date of distribution of the pay15 ment, as provided in Tribal Ordinance 22 dated August

16 6, 1996, to those persons referenced in Exhibit B of Tribal

17 Ordinance 22.

Passed the House of Representatives September 8,

1997.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 2

Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-3 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:373
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-3 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:374
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-3 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:375
EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-3 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:376
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-3 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:377
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-3 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:378
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-3 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:379
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-3 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:380
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-3 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:381
EXHIBIT B

Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-3 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:382
 	
















 

!

"#$%&&%$$'	()*)+,("
+!(+"$$&($&-...//0*))/0*/0+$"($&-...//0*))1 

2345
67789:
;:345<:345=7789:>47?@ A9BC9D8
E7F
G998
H:I
J7:E9F


2345
67789:
K	L	
%$M 
N
0



#.
O

P#
Q
!Q
KL
!%$M
QR
N"!
Q
KNRL
!%$M



%S	L%$
T
% L%$
QR,
U
V%Q
K,L
!%$M

!
 WX

K
!LWX%$M


O

KL"
%&M
$	%$
L%$

O


KL	
%$M &


Y
$

&


!

$



&&

$






!


"

$"


!
%

	






!




!
$


T
"

!

"

!


$$


T



Z,
V
%
Y
"&"!
*



$








	



.

"




!
 






[
T!


!
#

Q,

!
 \ZYR)
"$
!
,
$"

Z,
V
]
	

,%



"&

!


$

"


"
,
""

,
T

!






"$

Z,
V







$






!
"




T%
"

$

!

!!"

!

&

$"
Z,
V


!

$

!$
"



$




T

&&





&


,%Q



,

!


!
$$

$


%
P!
$$








R

T
Z,%

P!

,


!

!
$$
%
^







,



!


$"


!

&
%

V

!
&


!
$$

$


,
"

,

$$T






$



Z,[
"



!
$






$


Z,
!

!



"



T

&&


!


&

$
%
P!

!
$$

!




,

!
"



!
$



,



!



!
"


,%


P!
T




$"



!
!&

!
"

,


!
$$




"
T%
S,

!

Z,
!

$




T


&


"

!

!

&






	


&


!


$"%
 







!
 







",


$"





!
$






$


,
"
!$
Z,
$

!
$$
%






	

!
 



!


&$

,
T
Z,
$

"&
"



Z,[





U"
R
[

!


!



$&
,T%






	

!
 




R
[





$$

!!




!

U"




!


!



!
"


$&
,T


!

$$T%







	

!
 







$$


!

"

,

$$T


T
Z,

!



%


O
",

$

!

$
$

!


T
,T

$
T




O
[
$




$
!!
"


T
&
"

!!

T


%


V


	







	



 
^O
 
^
 O

	


 

//
_

O
R,

 
%
.`

*..).0.*)

	L	
%$


a
ST
,
bV


$
$

^
&$



Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-3 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:383
EXHIBIT C

Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-3 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:384
Case: 1:20-cv-03551 Document #: 43-3 Filed: 07/27/21 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:385