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

# AGENCY:

U.S. Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Designation of Performance Review Board Standing Register.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         on October 8, 2014, (79 FR 60845) listing the names of the Performance Review Board Standing Register. This document amends that notice by removing the name of Sarah Gamage and adding in its place, the                               ( print page 66365)                            name of Sharlene Weatherwax. DOE also published a correction notice on October 27, 2014 (79 FR 63915). Also added are the new names listed below as alternates for the Performance Review Board Standing Register.                    

# DATES:

This appointment is effective as of September 30, 2014.

Campagnone, Mari-Jo

Grose, Amy

Horton, Linda

Livengood, Joanna

Lockwood, Andrea

Rasar, Kimberly

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 3, 2014.

Tonya M. Mackey,

Director, Office of Executive Resources.

[FR Doc. 2014-26502 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 226 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 226

Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives on the death 
                     of Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 10, 1997

Mrs. Northup (for herself, Mr. Christensen, and Mr. Menendez) submitted 
   the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                        International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives on the death 
                     of Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

Whereas the House of Representatives has heard with great sorrow of the death of 
        Mother Teresa of Calcutta;
Whereas Mother Teresa of Calcutta personally cared for the sick, the dying, and 
        the poorest of the poor for a half century;
Whereas Mother Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity, which now comprises 
        over 3,000 members in 25 countries who are engaged in caring for the 
        sick, dying, and poor;
Whereas Mother Teresa's humanitarian work and the inspiration she provided to 
        others has been recognized by the award of the first Pope John XXIII 
        Peace Prize in 1971, the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International 
        Understanding in 1972, the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, and the 
        Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1985;
Whereas in 1997, pursuant to Public Law 105-16, Mother Teresa was awarded the 
        Congressional Gold Medal; and
Whereas Mother Teresa's life-long example of selfless dedication to humanitarian 
        work has inspired millions of people around the world: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives expresses its 
admiration and respect for the life and work of Mother Teresa, and its 
sympathy to the Missionaries of Charity on their loss.
    Sec. 2. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall transmit a 
copy of this resolution to the General Mother House of the Missionaries 
of Charity in Calcutta, India.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3

Eastern Division

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03758

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, March 29, 2023:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: CFTC's motion for entry

of final judgment [123] is granted. Enter order. The telephone status hearing set for

4/7/2023 is vacated. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (ecw, )

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-03758 Document #: 124 Filed: 03/29/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2909
#### Holcomb *v.*Johnson and Others, on Appeal.

AN execution in favour of *Johnson*and others, was levied on certain goods as the property of Rogers, the execution-defendant. *Holcomb*claimed the goods, and a jury, summoned under the statute to try the right of property, determined in favour of the claimant, and found.the probable value-of the goods to be 152 dollars. One of the execution-plaintiffs prayed an appeal, the others, according to the justice’s entry on his docket, saying they would proceed no further. The appeal was granted, and the cause tried in the Circuit Court without any objection as to parties: a verdict and judgment were rendered that the property was subject to the execution, and a judgment was given against the claimant for costs.

*Held,*that there was no error in the proceedings.
20-CV-2868

JUDGE PALLMEYER

MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALDEZ

PC5

Case: 1:20-cv-02868 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:15
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RONALD JOSEPH GOLDBERG,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1156

[May 5, 2022]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Sherri L. Collins, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020-CT009625-AXXX-NB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Elijah Giuliano, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
ISO\IEC 17025 Crosswalk – MANAGEMENT REVIEW

NIST Weights and Measures Page 1 of 1 October 2018

2005 ELEMENT FOCUS 2017 ELEMENT FOCUS

4.15.1

Ensure continuing suitability & 

effectiveness QMS and lab activities. 

Introduce necessary changes or 

improvements. Predetermined schedule 

and procedure 

8.9.1

Ensure continuing suitability, adequacy, 

effectiveness of policies & objectives.

Planned Intervals [Increased Flexibility].

Procedure not required [Best practice 

OWM recommends]

4.15.1

4.15.2

Responsibility. Laboratory top 

management conducts MR and ensure 

actions are carried within appropriate 

and agreed timescale

8.9.1

Responsibility. Laboratory management.

Deadlines not required [Best practice 

OWM recommends]

4.15.1

NOTE 1

Frequency. Periodically conduct review 

lab activities. Typically, once per 12 

months (annual)

8.9.1 Planned Intervals [Increased Flexibility]

4.15.1

NOTE 2

Flow into planning system for the next 

year (e.g., goals, objectives, action plans)

* [Best practice]

4.15.1

NOTE 3

Includes related subjects at regular 

management meetings

* [Best practice]

Topics/Elements/Inputs

* 8.9.2(a) Changes in relevant issues (both internal & 

external)

* 8.9.2(b) Objectives fulfillment

4.15.1 Suitability of policies and procedures 8.9.2(c) Suitability of policies and procedures

4.15.1 Reports from managerial and supervisory 

personnel 8.9.2(d) Previous MR action status

4.15.1 Internal audits 8.9.2(e) Internal audits

4.15.1 Corrective and preventive actions 8.9.2(f) Corrective actions

4.15.1 External assessment (e.g., Accreditation, 

Recognition) 8.9.2(g) External assessments (e.g., Accreditation, Recognition)

4.15.1 ILC or PT results 8.9.2(n) Assurance validity of results outcomes

4.15.1 Changes work volume and type 8.9.2(h) Changes work volume and type. Work with 

laboratory scope

4.15.1 Customer feedback 8.9.2(i) Customer and personnel feedback

4.15.1 Complaints 8.9.2(j) Complaints

4.15.1 Improvement Recommendations 8.9.2(k) Implemented improvements effectiveness

4.15.1

Other relevant factors, such as quality 

control activities, resources and staff 

training.

8.9.2(l)

8.9.2(o)

Resource adequacy.

Other factors (e.g., monitoring activities, 

training)

* 8.9.2(m) Risk identification (New)

Records

4.15.2 Record findings and arising actions, 

implement with appropriate deadlines

8.9.2

8.9.3

Record inputs and outputs, including 

decisions and actions related to 1) QMS & 

process effectiveness 2) Improvements 3) 

Resource provision 4) needed changes. 

Deadlines not required [Best practice 

OWM recommends]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Nelson FOURQUET, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-1995.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 29, 2004.

Yuanchung Lee, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

Benjamin M. Lawsky, David M. Rody, Assistant U.S., Attorneys for the Southern District of New York, for Appellee.

Present: NEWMAN, POOLER, and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the District Court’s judgment be AFFIRMED.

*167We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of appellate issues and hold as follows.

All of defendant-appellant Nelson Fourquet’s arguments are made pursuant to *Blakely v. Washington,*— U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). The mandate in this ease, therefore, will be held pending the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 11, 159 L.Ed.2d 838, and *United States v. Fanfan,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 12, 159 L.Ed.2d 838 (2004). Should any party believe there is a need for the district court to exercise jurisdiction prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, it may file a motion seeking issuance of the mandate in whole or in part. Although any petition for rehearing should be filed in the normal course pursuant to Rule 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court will not reconsider those portions of its order that address defendant’s sentence until after the Supreme Court’s decision in *Booker*and *Fanfan.*In that regard, the parties will have until 14 days following the Supreme Court’s decision to file supplemental petitions for rehearing in light of *Booker*and *Fanfan.*

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
{"id":3384,"count":1,"description":"","link":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/t-34c\/","name":"T-34C","slug":"t-34c","taxonomy":"category","parent":2655,"meta":{"redirect":"","media-tag":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/3384"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/taxonomies\/category"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/2655"}],"wp:post_type":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/hdsnav?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gallery?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/reference?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/mission?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/feature?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/press-release?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/stem-content?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/people?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/event?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/image-article?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/nasa-blog?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/migration?categories=3384"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/podcast?categories=3384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Jay M. Short, Ph.D., the Chief Executive Officer of Diversa
Corporation (the Company), and Edward Shonsey, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:



1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, to which this Certification is attached
as Exhibit 32 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company
at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.



Dated: November 3, 2004



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ JAY M. SHORT        |  | /s/ EDWARD SHONSEY     
|Jay M. Short, Ph.D.     |  | Edward Shonsey         
|Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided by Diversa Corporation and will be retained by Diversa Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3

Eastern Division

LKQ Corporation, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02753

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

General Motors Company, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, November 28, 2022:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: The Court grants in part

LKQ's Opposed Motion for Leave to File an Overlength Brief Pursuant to L.R. 7.1 [255],

however, opening briefs must be limited to 40 pages, response briefs to 40 pages, and

reply briefs to 20 pages. The parties must also limit their Rule 56.1 Statements of Material

Facts to 160 numbered paragraphs. In light of the parties filing nearly 20 pages of briefing

arguing about the number of pages they should be afforded for their summary judgment

briefs, the parties are reminded that the local rules impose a brevity requirement on both

movants and non−movants. Barth v. Vill. of Mokena, No. 03 C 6677, 2006 WL 862673,

at *8 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2006). Mailed notice. (ecw, )

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-02753 Document #: 262 Filed: 11/28/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:5052
14,861.

#### Goodwine *v.*Leak et al.

*Dbainage.*— Authority *of Drainage*Commissioners.— *Objections.*— The authority of drainage commissioners to act in the matter of opening a ditch can not be questioned for the first time by a motion for a new trial.' *Same.*— New *Trial.*— It is no ground for granting a new trial to the appellant that other lands than his were not properly assessed.

From the Warren Circuit Court.

*J. W. Sutton*and *W. L. Rabourn,*for appellant.

*C. V. McAdams,*for appellees.

Elliott, J.

The appellant prosecutes this appeal from a decree establishing a public ditch and laying an assessment, for benefits, upon land of which he is the owner.

It appears from the record, in the reports and elsewhere, that the persons who viewed the lands, recommended the opening of the ditch, and fixed the amount of benefits, were drainage commissioners. As such they were recognized by the court, and their authority to act was in no way questioned until the filing of the motion for a new trial, nor was it specifically questioned in the motion; for the only specific cation in the motion which it is claimed presents any question as to the authority of the commissioners is that which alleges that the finding is not supported by the evidence. It seems quite clear that, even if such a question can be collaterally made, it can not be made for the first time by a motion for a new trial. In order to present such a question in proceedings commenced in a court of general jurisdiction, as was this, the party must opportunely interpose specific objections, obtain a ruling, except to it, and then specify the ruling as a cause fora new trial. We do not mean to be understood as deciding that it is necessary to prove, in the first instance, that the commissioners were regularly appointed as the law directs; on the contrary, we are inclined to believe that where the law authorizes the appointment of officers, *570and they assume to act, the presumption is. that they were officers of right, and not usurpers. We are, at all events, quite well satisfied that where they do act under the supervision of a court, and are recognized as rightfully acting by the court, a party who interposes no objection when their reports are presented, nor at any time before the finding, is in no situation to make the objection for the first time by a motion for a new trial.

Filed April 3, 1891.

' It is no reason for granting the appellant a new trial that other lands than his were not properly assessed. If his assessment is not erroneous he can not complain.

We can not say that there was any error in assessing benefits against the appellant’s land, for there is evidence fully justifying the inference that the assessment was right.

Judgment affirmed.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

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

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

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

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 30 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RONALD RAY COLEMAN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STEVE HARGETT; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

OKLAHOMA,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 96-6209

(D.C. No. CIV-96-16-M)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining petitioner’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
1 Because petitioner filed his habeas petition before enactment of the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, AEDPA’s certificate of appealability requirements do

not apply to this appeal. See United States v. Kunzman, No. 96-1310, 1997 WL

602507, at *1 n.2 (10th Cir. Oct. 1, 1997). Instead, the pre-AEDPA certificate of

probable cause requirements apply here. Regardless of the label we attach to the

requirements, petitioner’s substantive burden is the same, see Lennox v. Evans,

87 F.3d 431, 434 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 746 (1997), overruled

in part by Kunzman, 1997 WL 602507, at *1 n.2.

-2-

Petitioner seeks review of the district court’s order denying his petition for

habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before petitioner can proceed on appeal,

however, he must secure a certificate of probable cause from this court, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2253.1 Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we

conclude that petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of

a constitutional right. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983); Lennox

v. Evans, 87 F.3d 431, 434 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 746 (1997),

overruled in part by United States v. Kunzman, No. 96-1310, 1997 WL 602507,

at *1 n.2 (10th Cir. Oct. 1, 1997).

We, therefore, DENY the application for a certificate of probable cause,

and DISMISS the appeal. Petitioner’s motion for reimbursement of fees is
-3-

GRANTED. His motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of

costs or fees is DENIED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge
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: All parties are

directed to respond to International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 700's motion for

leave to renew motion to intervene or, in the alternative, for reconsideration [82] by

5/15/2020, proposed intervenor's reply due 5/22/2020. The court will issue its ruling via

CM/ECF. 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 #: 83 Filed: 05/01/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2196
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 December 21, 2018

a1217

Order 

Clerk

December 21, 2018

157519

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 157519

COA: 340277

Macomb CC: 2014-004731-FH

DANIEL GENE FRITZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 22, 2018 

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.