alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 ) 

EVYLYN B. COBB ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0516-CG-C 

 ) 

SPRINGHILL SENIOR RESIDENCE ) 

NURSING HOME, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

JUDGMENT

 In accordance with the court’s order entered this date, granting defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this case is 

DISMISSED with prejudice. 

 DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2010. 

 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00516-CG-C Document 31 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 1
National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact 

Reduction (NACWIR) Members Bio 

 

Donald Scott

Vice President, Director of Engineering

PCS Structural Solutions

Mr. Scott’s expertise is in structural engineering, particularly high-end 

commercial and institutional buildings. He received his Master of 

Science degree in Structural Engineering from the University of Idaho. 

He is a registered Professional Structural Engineer in Idaho, Nevada, 

Washington, Hawaii, Iowa, Oregon, Michigan and Utah, and a 

registered Professional Civil Engineer in Indiana, Iowa and Montana. 

Mr. Scott is the Vice President and Director of Engineering at PCS Structural Solutions, where 

he has been a Principal of the firm since 1986. He has led many of the firm’s educational, 

commercial, institutional, and private projects for new and renovated construction. Mr. Scott has 

authored many technical publications and has presented numerous seminars and webinars for the 

American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) and NCSEA 

on wind design throughout the country. 

Mr. Scott has extensive experience on development of building standards and codes. He chairs 

the ASCE 7 Standard’s Wind Load Subcommittee, and is also a member of the ASCE 7 General 

Provisions Committee, a member of the ASCE 7 Steering Committee, Chairman of the NCSEA

Wind Committee, and a former Chair of the Structural Engineers Association of Washington 

Wind Load Committee.

In other professional service, Mr. Scott has served as President of the Applied Technology 

Council, a non-profit corporation whose mission is to develop and promote state-of-the-art, userfriendly engineering resources and applications for use in mitigating the effects of natural and 

other hazards on the built environment. Mr. Scott currently chairs the NIST Community 

Resiliency Panel Buildings and Facilities Committee.
Order entered July 13, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00337-CV

IN RE JAMES MEEHAN, BODMD MEDICAL GROUP (OK), P.C. AND 

CATALYST UTICA, P.C., Relators

Original proceeding from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-06699-2018

ORDER

Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle

Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED without prejudice to 

filing a petition that complies with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
1

 This allegation is obviously inconsistent with his claim that he previously filed the court

forms sent to him in conjunction with the July 27, 2009 order. 

2

 The Clerk is directed to again mail the Court’s required forms for a complaint and

motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs when mailing this order to the plaintiff. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MITCHELL HICKS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00452-KD-B

RENETTA CHAPMAN, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

that this action be dismissed for failure of plaintiff Mitchell Hicks to submit his motion to

proceed without prepayment of fees and costs and his complaint on the Court’s required forms

(doc. 10). Plaintiff filed an objection in which he states that he has not received any orders from

the Magistrate Judge or any forms from the Court.1

 Plaintiff also claims that he previously

submitted his complaint and motion to proceed without prepayment of fees on the required court

form (doc. 11). After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to

the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and

Recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED2

 without

prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's Orders. 

DONE this March 12, 2010.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00452-KD-B Document 12 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4695 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4695

To amend the Small Business Act to extend the redesignation period for 
certain Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZones) in States 
                  with persistently high unemployment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2004

   Mr. Larsen of Washington introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Small Business Act to extend the redesignation period for 
certain Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZones) in States 
                  with persistently high unemployment.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF REDESIGNATION PERIOD FOR CERTAIN HISTORICALLY 
              UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESS ZONES (HUBZONES) IN STATES WITH 
              PERSISTENTLY HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT.

    Section 3(p)(4) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(4)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(D) Additional period.--Notwithstanding the 3-year 
        limitation under subparagraph (C), a HUBZone in a redesignated 
        area under that subparagraph shall be a HUBZone for one 
        additional year for each year during the 3-year period for 
        which--
                    ``(i) the unemployment rate for the State involved 
                is higher than such rate for the year in which the 
                HUBZone was created; and
                    ``(ii) the unemployment rate for the HUBZone is at 
                least 85 percent of such rate for the year in which the 
                HUBZone was created.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with
the Annual Report of Miller Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending April 30, 2016
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Angelo Napolitano,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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





|Dated: January 19, 2017                                                               |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 
|/s/  Angelo Napolitano                                                                |  |  | 
|Angelo Napolitano
        Chief Executive Officer and
        Chief Financial Officer |  |  | 





A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Miller Industries, Inc.
and will be returned by Miller Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission

# DATE AND TIME:

*Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.*

# PLACE:

 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor)

# STATUS:

 This meeting will be open to the public.

# ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

      ( print page 73074)    

Correction and Approval of Minutes for November 6, 2014

Draft Advisory Opinion 2014-18: Rayonier Inc. and Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc.

Petition to Amend 11 CFR 100.4—Draft Notice of Disposition

2014 Legislative Recommendations

Revised Enforcement Manual

Management and Administrative Matters

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

 Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shelley E. Garr,

Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2014-28937 Filed 12-5-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
March 5, 1975 The Honorable Alton R. Griffin Criminal District Attorney Opinion No. H- 546 Lubbock County Courthouse Lubbock, Texas 79401 Re: Inclusion ofpersons who are seventeen years ofage in the composition ofthe jury wheel. Dear Mr. Griffin:

You have requested our opinion concerning whether persons on the voter registration list ofa county who are 17years ofage should be placed onthejury wheel pursuant to article 2094, V. T. C.S.

Article 2094 provides:

Between the first and fifteenth days ofAugust of each year, in each county in this State, the tax collector, sheriff, county clerk, and district clerk ofthe county, each in person or represented by one ofhis deputies, shall meet at the county courthouse and recon&ttte the jury wheel, using as the sole and mandatory source, all names on the voter registration lists from all precincts in the county. The voter registration lists of each county are therefore the “sole and mandatory source” ofthe jury wheel, and the wheel is to be reconstituted each year. Shelby v. State, 479 S.W. 2d 31 (Tex. Grim. 1972); Attorney General Opinions M-911, M-903 (1971). Article 5.10a(2), Election Code, allows persons to register who will be 18years of age or older within 30 days after applying for registration. Under ar.ticle 2133, V. T. C.S., persons 18years ofage or older are qualified jurors.

p. 2456. . The Honorable Alton R. Griffin page 2 (H- 546)
Attorney General Opinion H-82 (1973) dealt with the similar situation ofpersons on the voter registration lists who, due to age, would be ineligible as jurors until the effective date ofarticle 5923b, V. T. C.S. We stated therein:

[T]he names ofall registered voters . . .should be included in reconstituting thejury wheel
. . . Ifcalled to serve before [they become eligible], [they] should be excused from jury duty. This principle being equally applicable in this instance, it is **our** opinion that persons on the voter registration lists who are not yet 18 years ofage are to be placed on thejury wheel. Ifthey are called before they reach 18years ofage, they should be excused from **jury** duty. SUMMARY Names ofpersons on the voter registration lists who are not yet 18years ofage are to be placed on thejury wheel. If they are called before they reach 18years ofage, they should be excused from jury duty. Very truly yours,

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Attorney General of Texas

Opinion Committee

p. 2457
11138.

#### Withers *v.*State of Georgia.

Decided July 19, 1920.

Éule for contempt; from Hall superior court—Judge J. B. Jones. November 6, 1919.

*W. V. Lance,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. G. Collins,*contra.

Stephens, J.

The superior courts of this State, having been established by the constitution, possess the power to define and punish contempts. Where, in the exercise of such power, an attachment is issued by a superior court, defining as a contempt the failure and refusal of a person to be and appear at court to prosecute a criminal case and testify as a witness therein, after he had originally instituted the prosecution by swearing out a warrant against the defendant in the criminal case, the attachment alleges a state of facts sufficient to constitute contempt within the, power of the court to define; and where the person proceeded against is adjudged in contempt, such judgment will not be arrested upon the ground that the acts set out in the attachment are not sufficient to constitute a contempt. Nor will the final order adjudging the respondent in contempt be set aside as contrary to law, where the allegations in the attachment are supported by the evidence. *Bradley*v. *State,*111 *Ga.*.168 (36 S. E. 630, 50 L. R. A. 691, 78 Am. St. Rep. 157) ; *In re Fite,*11 *Ga App.*665.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4731 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 417
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4731

                          [Report No. 108-678]

  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                       National Estuary Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2004

 Mr. Gerlach (for himself and Mrs. Tauscher) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

                           September 13, 2004

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                       National Estuary Program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

    Section 320(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.

                                                 Union Calendar No. 417

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4731

                          [Report No. 108-678]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                       National Estuary Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 13, 2004

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME OF
MONSANTO COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND THE STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL POSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999. SUCH
INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             284
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,618<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,728
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,787
<PP&E>                                           5,754
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,434
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,750
<BONDS>                                          5,903
<COMMON>                                         1,694
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,535
<SALES>                                          9,146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,146
<CGS>                                            3,272
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,272
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 345
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    751
<INCOME-TAX>                                       248
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                503
<DISCONTINUED>                                      92
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                          (20)
<NET-INCOME>                                       575
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .88
<FN>
<F1>Reported net of allowances of $167


</TABLE>
11044.

#### Holcomb, Croft & Company *v.*Finch.

Decided May 5, 1920.

Stephens, J.

1. A petition for certiorari must plainly and distinctly set forth the errors complained of.

2. A petition for certiorari which assigns error upon the grant of a new trial upon oral motion, by a judge of the municipal court of Atlanta, fails to set forth any ground of error where the only assignment of error to such judgment is in the following language: “To the order granting the new trial petitioner then and there excepted, now excepts and assigns the same as error, upon the ground that the same was contrary to law, the principles of equity and justice.” The petition for certiorari recites that the plaintiff made “ an oral motion for new trial,” and that upon a hearing the trial judge sustained and “granted the same.” It not appearing what grounds of error were urged in the oral motion for new trial, such general assignment of error to the judgment on the motion is insufficient. See, in this connection, *Mutual Building & Loan Asso.*v. *Glessner,*99 *Ga.*747 (27 S. E. 187); *Erskine*v. *Duffy,*76 *Ga:*602; *Groover*v. *Inman,*60 *Ga.*407, (5).

3. The judge did not err in failing to sustain the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*

*262Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. October 14, 1919.

*Moore & Pomeroy, Coles & Savage,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Walter S. Dillon, C. M. Lancaster,*contra.
42.161427
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

**           **I, Coley L. Bailey, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Mississippi Chemical Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifythat the accompanying annual report on Form 10‐K/A for the fiscalyear ended June 30, 2004, filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complieswith the requirements of that section.

            I further certify that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                                                    /s/Coley L. Bailey                                                                                                                                 ColeyL. Bailey                                                                                    ChiefExecutive Officer

October 6, 2004