alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9590.

#### Smith *v.*The State.

Bloodworth, J.

No brief of evidence waS filed with the motion for a new trial. The hearing of the motion was set for the 3d day of October, 1917, by an order which provided “that movant have until October 3, 1917, to prepare and present for approval a brief of the evidence in said case.” On December 13, 1917, the following order, was passed: “The within motion is dismissed for want of prosecution, and for the further reason that no brief of evidence has been filed as required by law.” On December 21, 1917, the movant’s attorney filed a motion to set aside the order dismissing the motion for new trial, “1st. Because said judgment was signed within five days of the convening of the December term, 1917, and therefore after the September term of said court had as a matter of law adjourned, and when court was not legally in session. 2d. Because no notice was given to movant or his attorney that said motion would be called up at said time and at said place or at any other time, while under the law, said motion not having been heard at the time same was set, if was the duty of the solicitor to give ten-days notice in writing to movant or his .attorney, with intention to call same up.” On February 11, 1918, the following order was passed: “This motion to set aside judgment being set by special order for two o’clock p. m., and it now being two thirty p. m., this petition refused and motion overruled.” *Held:*Nothing in the record authorizes this court to hold that this order was erroneous. Counsel for the movant should have been present at the time fixed for the hearing of Ms motion. In addition to this, and even granting that the order dismissing *617the motion for a new trial was passed in vacation and without notice to the movant, this could not have injured his cause, for the time fixed for filing the brief of evidence was passed. The motion for a new trial never haying been perfected, the result was as if none had ever been made. “A motion for a new trial is not complete before the brief of evidence has been approved. Where the court in its order specifically limits the time within which the brief of evidence must be presented, and no brief is presented within that time, it is not error to dismiss this incomplete and defective motion for a new trial.” *Guthrie*v. *Hendley,*8 *Ga. App.*101 (68 S. E. 654). See also *Bell v. State,*19 *Ga. App.*41 (90 S. E. 733); *Baker*v. *Johnson,*99 *Ga.*374 (27 S. E. 706); *Brooks*v. *Proctor,*111 *Ga.*835 (36 S. E. 99); *Verner*v. *Gann,*144 *Ga.*843 (88 S. E. 204); *Reed*v. *Warnock,*146 *Ga.*483 (91 S. E. 545).

Decided October 8, 1918.

Motion for new trial; from city court of Floyd county—Judge Nunnally. February 11, 1918.

*M. B. Súbanles,*for plaintiff- in érror.

*J. F. Kelly, solicitor,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J,, concur.*
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 Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0801]
 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
 ACTION: Notice; correction.
 SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         of October 14, 2014. The document announced that a proposed collection of information had been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In this document, we correct some errors that appeared in the notice.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 
                        *PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov.*


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2014-24293, appearing on page 61643 in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     of October 14, 2014 (79 FR 61643), we make the following correction: On page 61644, replace table 1 with the following table: Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1
21 CFR section
Number of 
                             respondents
Number of 
                             responses per respondent
Total annual responses
Average 
                             burden per  
                             response
Total hours1.101(d) (Non-Tobacco) (CBER)
5
193
965
15
14,4751,101(d) (Non-Tobacco) (CDER)
5
180
900
15
13,5001.101(d) (Non-Tobacco) (CDRH)
63
130
8,190
15
122,850Total 2




150,8251
                         There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.2
                         Due to a clerical error, the reporting burden for “Exports: Notification and Recordkeeping Requirements”, which published on July 3, 2014 (79 FR 38036), was incorrect. Table 1 of this document contains the correct reporting burden for this collection.
 Dated: October 27, 2014. Leslie Kux, Assistant Commissioner for Policy.


[FR Doc. 2014-25910 Filed 10-30-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00119

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.R.L. , a Child

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- PA

- 01591 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal

because she qualifies as indigent under T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.

SIGNED July 6, 2016.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"SpaceX Dragon Heads to Space Station with NASA Science, Cargo","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"KCUek5Vdnp\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/spacex-dragon-heads-to-space-station-with-nasa-science-cargo-2\/\">SpaceX Dragon Heads to Space Station with NASA Science, Cargo<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/spacex-dragon-heads-to-space-station-with-nasa-science-cargo-2\/embed\/#?secret=KCUek5Vdnp\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“SpaceX Dragon Heads to Space Station with NASA Science, Cargo” — NASA\" data-secret=\"KCUek5Vdnp\" 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\/2020\/03\/spx_launch_0.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
|Exhibit 99.5 Holders of Record, holding 5% or more of the outstanding balance for Structured Asset Securities Corporation (as Depositor under the Trust Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2004, providing for the issuance of  Structured Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-7) as reflected in the security position listing as of December 31, 2004 provided by DTC.  Class
Name and Address of Holder


Amount Held
% Class
1-A1
FA MA INVT




463,826,000
100%

3900 Wisconsin Avenue NW

Washington, DC  20016
2-A1
Morgan Stanley



27,578,000
73%

One Pierrepont Plaza , Seventh Floor

Brooklyn, NY  11201

Wells Fargo Bank NA



10,000,000
27%

733 Marquette Avenue

Minneapolis, MN  55479
3-A1
The Bank of New York


30,000,000
58%

One Wall Street

New York, NY 10286

Citibank




21,993,000
42%

3800 Citibank Center B3-15

Tampa, FL 33610
AP
LHMNGV/LBI



2,107,507
100%

70 Hudson Street

Jersey City, NJ  07302
AX
LHMNGV/LBI



1,137,733
100%

70 Hudson Street

Jersey City, NJ  07302
PAX
LHMNGV/LBI



384,339
100%

70 Hudson Street

Jersey City, NJ  07302
B1
The Bank of New York


14,213,000
100%

One Wall Street

New York, NY 10286
B2
The Bank of New York


3,771,000
100%

One Wall Street

New York, NY 10286
B3
Mellon Trust



2,320,000
100%

525 William Penn Place, Suite 3418

Pittsburgh, PA 15259
R
TFINN & Co




100

100%

C/O Chase Manhattan Bank PO Box 50000, Dept 6583

Newark, NJ 07101
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
From: Khawaja, Omar F (HM Health Solutions Inc) 

Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2022 2:07 PM

To: aiframework <aiframework@nist.gov>

Subject: AI RMF Playbook

I recently reviewed the AI RMF - very helpful guide to enumerate trustworthy AI , key risks and 

controls.

When I reviewed the AI RMF Playbook, it felt more like a list of controls that an actual playbook 

that can be leverage to plan / execute AI RMF. This likely could be because it is still in draft.

Thanks for your efforts - very helpful!

__

Omar Khawaja | Highmark Health

Vice President, Chief Information Security Officer

Information Security & Risk Mgmt (ISRM)

infosec.highmark.com | infosec@highmark.com

To request any ISRM service, please visit infosec.highmark.com/request
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cr−00299

Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr.

Hardy Lee Browner

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, July 3, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr.as to Hardy Lee

Browner: By agreement of the parties, status hearing is set for 8/14/2020 at 9:30 a.m.

Please use the Court's toll−free call−in number 8773361829, conference access code is

6963747. Without objection, time is excluded through 8/14/2020 under the Speedy Trial

Act, 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) based on the Court's finding that the ends of justice served

by the exclusion of time outweigh the interests of the parties and the public in a speedy

trial given the need to protect the health and safety of defendants, defense counsel,

prosecutors, court staff, and the public by reducing the number of in−person hearings to

the greatest extent possible. Mailed notice (cdh, )

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-cr-00299 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/03/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:27
H. Res. 490

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 25, 1998.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 2676) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of

1986 to restructure and reform the Internal Revenue Service,

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.
#### SANDERS v. BROYHILL FURNITURE INDUSTRIES

No. 38P97

Case below: 124 N.C.App. 637

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1997.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 318 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 318

         Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 1997

   Mr. Gephardt submitted the following resolution; which failed of 
                                adoption

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
         Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas, the election contest concerning the 46th District of California should 
        be dismissed as there is no credible evidence to show that the outcome 
        of the election is different than the election of Congresswoman Loretta 
        Sanchez;
Whereas, State of California authorities should continue an investigation into 
        any questionable registration activities; and
Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should examine voter registration 
        procedures: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, that the contest in the 46th District of California is 
dismissed.
                                 <all>
```
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel, are you 

a Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 14 Filed: 07/31/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:89
FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION arte ai)
THOMAS G |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ele Use eer

CASE NUMBER:
v.

YEN CHAM YUNG ONDER seat 0 C R 2 3 1

GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO SEAL
COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT, AND ARREST WARRANT

Now comes the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR.,
United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and states as follows in
support of its Motion to Seal Complaint, Affidavit, and Arrest Warrant:

The public filing of the Complaint, Affidavit, and Arrest Warrant in this matter
before the arrest warrant can be executed could alert the defendant and result in his
flight and the destruction of evidence.

For this reason, the government respectfully requests that the Complaint,
Affidavit, and Arrest Warrant, as well as this Motion to Seal, be sealed until the time
of arrest of the defendant in this case or further order of the Court, whichever occurs
earlier.

DATE: May 12, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR.
United States Attorney

By: s/Rajnath Laud
Rajnath Laud
Assistant United States Attorney
219 S. Dearborn Street, Rm. 500
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 469-6306
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

*CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Granite City Food & BreweryLtd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 29,2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Steven J. Wagenheim, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.                                       the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Dated: | August 10,  2010 | By:    | /s/  Steven J. Wagenheim               |
|--------|-----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                  |   | Steven  J. Wagenheim                   |
|   |                  |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"2020 NASA Tipping Point Selections","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"lMu4nrTZnr\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/2020-nasa-tipping-point-selections\/\">2020 NASA Tipping Point Selections<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/2020-nasa-tipping-point-selections\/embed\/#?secret=lMu4nrTZnr\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2020 NASA Tipping Point Selections” — NASA\" data-secret=\"lMu4nrTZnr\" 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\/2020\/10\/as08-13-2225_orig.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":602}
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 13, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 13, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18I0155. DARRICK MARTIN v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: ST17CR1973
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201600225

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

AUSTEN T. COOK

Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel K.A. Parrella, USMC.

For Appellant: Lieutenant R.E. Weidemann, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 30 August 2016

_________________________

Before PALMER, MARKS, MILLER, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court