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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STAN MOORE, :

Plaintiff, :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-00797-CG-B

WARDEN JERRY FERRELL, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

This cause is before the court on plaintiff’s objection the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 32-1), in which the Magistrate recommended that defendant’s motion for

summary judgment be granted and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 31). Plaintiff

contends that he informed prison officials that “some inmates was [sic] plotting to attack him,” and

that prison officials “knew of reckless indangerment [sic] happening at this facility due to past

stabbings and fights in this facility.” (Doc. 32-1 at 2, 3). Plaintiff’s pleadings, however, fail to

provide any evidence to support plaintiff’s contentions in his objection to the Report and

Recommendation that plaintiff notified prison officials about any particular threat to him or that

prison officials possessed knowledge of an excessive risk of inmate-on-inmate violence. Instead,

plaintiff casts a smattering of conclusory allegations to suggest that the prison officials should have

known that plaintiff would be attacked. (See, e.g., Doc. 1, p.3, ¶¶ 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 , 30 ,

32). In addition, plaintiff provides that “[f]ights or attacks often occur in the rear of dorms without

being reported.” (Id. at 3, ¶ 14). Unreported incidents are insufficient for this court to conclude that

the conditions under which plaintiff was incarcerated presented “a substantial risk of serious harm.”

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

Case 1:04-cv-00797-CG-B Document 33 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 2
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 Recommendation to which objection

is made, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is

ADOPTED as the opinion of this court. Therefore, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment

is hereby GRANTED. 

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of August, 2006.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00797-CG-B Document 33 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 2
#### J. W. Grimes *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law — Sureties on Bond.

When a defendant, after his cause has been submitted to the jury, was, by order of the court, remanded to the custody of the jailer, the sureties are released and cannot bind themselves to further stand on the bond.

APPEAL PROM PAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

September 15, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

The accused, after the cause had been submitted to the jury, was by an order of the court remanded to the custody of the jailor. His sureties had consented that he might stand on his bond during the progress of the trial, but the court very properly placed him in jail, or in the custody of the jailor, after the jury had taken charge of the case. When placed in jail or in the jailor’s custody by the order of the court, the sureties had no longer any control over the accused, and their liability as such terminated. They had fulfilled their obligation when the prisoner was placed in jail or in custody of the jailor, all power to control their principal in any way having ceased. *Commonwealth v. Coleman, et al.,*2 Met. 382; *Askins v. Commonwealth, 1*Duv. 275.

If when placed in custody the sureties were released, the stipula*742tions of the bond or its covenants could not be revived without their consent; and it may be questioned whether a consent in open court by the sureties (after the bond had been complied with by the delivery of the prisoner and his being taken into custody) to remain bound on the bond, would have been obligatory. The safer course would be the execution of a new bond. The judgment is *reversed*and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*Huston & Mulligan, for appellant..*

*Breckenridge & Shelby, Frank Waters, for appellee.*
#### C. A. McLaughlin, et al., *v.*Frank A. Avoid, et al.

Appeals — Bill of Exceptions.

Time to prepare a bill of exceptions may be extended to the succeeding term of the court but not beyond such succeeding term.

*257APPEAL PROM KENTON CHANCERY COURT.

December 12, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

It is recited in the judgment in this case that the cause was heard upon the oral and written proof.

Sec. 11 of the act establishing the chancery courts for the counties of Kenton, Campbell, etc., Vol. 1, p. 75, Acts of 1871, provides that in certain contingencies, the court may hear oral evidence on the trial of any action or proceeding in equity, and that “such evidence and all exceptions thereto, may be made part of the record by bills of evidence and exceptions, as now provided by law in ordinary cases.”

The judgment appealed from was rendered on the 29th of June, 1872. The first mention of a bill of exceptions, as shown by the record, was on the 7th day of February, 1873. This was certainly not in the term at which the judgment was rendered, and unless the terms had been changed since the passage of the act of March 20, 1871, two terms had intervened. The motion then made was that leave be given until a succeeding term to prepare and file a bill of exceptions.

On the 14th of April, 1873, time was extended until the 18th day of that term of the court, and on the 30th day of April further time was given until the second Monday in June, 1873. June 9, the time was further extended until the sixth day of the term. Afterwards extensions were made until the December term, 1873, when the paper styled a bill of exceptions and copied into the record was finally ordered to be made part thereof.

Sec. 364, Civil Code, provides that the exception must be made in the time of the decision complained of, “and that time may be given to reduce the exception to writing, but not beyond the succeeding term.” In this case no time was asked or given to reduce the exceptions to writing until after the expiration of the term. No motion was made until a succeeding term, and the court had then lost all control in the matter.

But if this were not so, the court certainly had no power to extend the time to still another term. *Porter v. Juny,*Mss. Opinion, July, 1856; Myer’s Code, p. 481. *Kennedy & Bro. v. Cunningham,*2 Met. 538.

We cannot consider the paper on file termed a bill of exceptions, *258and as the payment is authorized by the pleadings, we must presume that it was sustained by the evidence heard by the chancellor.

*Stevenson & O’Hara, for appellants.*

*J. G. Carlisle, for appellees.*

Judgment *affirmed.*
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-89,230-04

IN RE TIMOTHY DESHUN WATERS, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 1477950-B IN THE 230 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 230 District Court of Harris County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the th

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Harris County. Should the

response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was

served with the habeas application and that the 180-day time frame set out in TEX. R. APP. P.

73.4(b)(5) has not expired shall also be submitted with the response. This application for leave to

file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the appropriate

response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: June 19, 2019

Do not publish
United States Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Ohio

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), maintains a documented calibration program, documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully completed training and proficiency tests, submitted a quality management system, and has demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope

(Rev.: September 2021)

2023 to 2024

____________________________________

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Effective Dates: 2023-02-01 to 2025-02-01

Mass Echelon II

50 kg to 1 mg

50 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.015625 oz

Mass Echelon III

1000 kg to 1 mg

5000 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.015625 oz

Weight Carts

6000 lb to 3000 lb

Volume Transfer, II

1000 gal to 5 gal

Volume Transfer, II LPG

100 gal

Length

Tapes

100 ft to 1 ft

Rigid Rules

72 in to 1 in

Time

Stopwatches

 24 h
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CA 10-0156-CG-C 

MICHAEL B. BENDOLPH, : 

 Defendant. : 

 

ORDER

 After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the 

issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated June 24, 2010 is ADOPTED as the 

opinion of this Court. 

DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of July, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00156-CG-C Document 13 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 1
As of January 2024

MODERNIZE TALENT MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP

2024 MEETING SCHEDULE

Meeting times will take place the third Thursday of every month at 1:00PM 

Eastern Time to serve members from different time zones. 

January 18, 2024 Thurs

February 15, 2024 Thurs.

March 21, 2024 Thurs.

April 18, 2024 Thurs.

May 16, 2024 Thurs.

June 20, 2024 Thurs.

July 18, 2024 Thurs.

August 15, 2024 Thurs.

September 19, 2024 Thurs.

October 17, 2024 Thurs.

November 21, 2024 Thurs.

December 19, 2024 Thurs.

All meetings will be held through Microsoft Teams, unless otherwise indicated. 

If you are a new member, please add a meeting hold to your calendar for each 

meeting. New members will receive the official calendar invite from the NICE 

Program Office one week prior to the meeting date.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 5, 2024

No. 04-23-00447-CR

EX PARTE Hugo Armando ULLOA MONTEJO

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14043CR

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS Hugo Armando Ulloa 

Montejo’s appeal of the denial of his application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus for want of 

jurisdiction. We further consider Ulloa Montejo’s appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus and 

DENY his request for mandamus relief WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on June 5, 2024.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of June, 2024.

_____________________________

Luz Estrada, Chief Deputy Clerk
United States Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Virginia

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully 

completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, and 

demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope

Mass Echelon II

20 kg to 1 mg

Mass Echelon III

25 kg to 1 mg

2500 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Weight Carts

6000 lb to 3000 lb

Volume Transfer, II

10 gal to 5 gal

Tuning Forks

10 kHz to 1 kHz

(Rev.: September 2021)

2023

____________________________________

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Effective Dates: 2023-02-01 to 2024-02-01
|    |                                                                                 |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of GP Strategies Corporation; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |

|                                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      |
| Date: April 30, 2018                                 |
|                                                 |
| /s/ Michael R. Dugan                                 |
| Michael R. Dugan                                     |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
USGv6 Test Selection Tables 

IPv6 IPsec SHA-512 Requirements (IPsec, IKEv2)

I11-Interoperability: Security Requirements R1v1.0 

Applicable Profile: NIST SP 500-267B Revision 1 USGv6 Profile – November 2020. 

Test Specification Id: 

• [IPsec Interoperability] IPv6 Ready Test Specification IPsec and IKEv2, [editor: IPv6 Ready Logo ]. 

Interoperability Partner Requirements: 

• Any implementation claiming compliance with the USGv6 profile MUST demonstrate evidence of 

interoperability with three or more independent implementations of IPv6.

• The three implementations must include at least one End-Node and at least one SGW. 

• Target nodes must not change once testing has begun.

IPsecv3-Interoperability

If your Device Under Test (DUT) Type is End-Node: 

• DUT = TAR-EN1 for all tests.

• TAR-EN2 = Independent Implementation Device B

• TAR-SGW1 = Independent Implementation Device C

• Third Interoperability Partner is satisfied by executing the test specification again using the following:

o TAR-SGW2 = Independent Implementation Device D

or

o TAR-EN3 = Independent Implementation Device D

Test Case Names – Test IPsec.IO.3.1, IPsec.IO.3.2

Appended to the name of these test cases is the topology and configuration required for the test run.

• EN.EN.1 – Configuration End-Node vs. End-Node 1, Transport, using Topo.EN.EN.1

• EN.EN.2 – Configuration End-Node vs. End-Node 2, Tunnel, using Topo.EN.EN.1

• EN.SGW.1 – Configuration End-Node vs. SGW 1, Tunnel, using Topo.EN.SGW.1
IPsec-SHA-512 Capability

Reference Test 

Specification Id Test Number Device Type

[RFC 8247] IPsecInteroperability IPsec.IO.3.1.EN.EN.1.IKESA.3: IKE_SA_INIT Algorithms End-Node

[RFC 8247] IPsecInteroperability IPsec.IO.3.1.EN.EN.2.IKESA.3: IKE_SA_INIT Algorithms End-Node

[RFC 8247] IPsecInteroperability IPsec.IO.3.1.EN.SGW.1.IKESA.3: IKE_SA_INIT Algorithms End-Node

[RFC 8221] IPsecInteroperability IPsec.IO.3.2.EN.EN.1.IPSECSA.3: IKE_AUTH Algorithms End-Node

[RFC 8221] IPsecInteroperability IPsec.IO.3.2.EN.EN.2.IPSECSA.3: IKE_AUTH Algorithms End-Node

[RFC 8221] IPsecInteroperability IPsec.IO.3.2.EN.SGW.1.IPSECSA.3: IKE_AUTH Algorithms End-Node

References: 

• [RFC8221] Wouters, P., Migault, D., Mattsson, J., Nir, Y., and T. Kivinen, "Cryptographic Algorithm 

Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and 

Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 8221, DOI 10.17487/RFC8221, October 2017, https://www.rfceditor.org/info/rfc8221 . 

• [RFC8247] Nir, Y., Kivinen, T., Wouters, P., and D. Migault, "Algorithm Implementation Requirements 

and Usage Guidance for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 8247, DOI 

10.17487/RFC8247, September 2017. Online at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8247

The objective of this test selection sheet is to provide a reference for available test specifications that identifies tests 

applicable to the USGv6 Profile.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

JANET MARSHALL TAYLOR 

v. Record No. 2839-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

EDWIN COOKE TAYLOR JULY 16, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANOVER COUNTY 

Richard H. C. Taylor, Judge 

 (Thomas W. Blue, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Harry M. Johnson, Jr.; Smith, Hinton & 

Johnson, on brief), for appellee. 

 Janet Marshall Taylor (wife) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court granting Edwin Cooke Taylor (husband) a divorce on 

the grounds of the parties living separate and apart for one 

year. Wife contends husband failed to prove a separation by the 

parties with the intent to divorce for the statutory period. 

Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude 

that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily 

affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. 

 The evidence in this matter was submitted solely by 

deposition. 

 "The rule is firmly established in Virginia 

that a divorce decree based solely on 

depositions is not as conclusive on appellate 

review as one based upon evidence heard ore 

tenus, but such a decree is presumed correct 

and will not be overturned if supported by 

substantial, competent and credible 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

evidence." 

Collier v. Collier, 2 Va. App. 125, 127, 341 S.E.2d 827, 828 

(1986) (citation omitted). 

 Husband testified that he formed the intent to divorce wife 

when he was served with a court order on December 2, 1993 which 

required him to leave the farm which had been the marital 

residence. Husband filed for divorce the next day. While 

husband did not voluntarily leave the farm, the evidence was 

sufficient to establish that husband intended to separate 

permanently from wife and that the parties had lived separate and 

apart for more than one year. "[A]s a prerequisite for a divorce 

under Code § 20-91(9), there must be proof of an intention on the 

part of at least one of the parties to discontinue permanently 

the marital cohabitation, followed by physical separation for the 

statutory period." Hooker v. Hooker, 215 Va. 415, 417, 211 

S.E.2d 34, 36 (1975). Husband admitted that he continued to view 

the farm as his primary residence, but gave unambiguous testimony 

that it was his desire to separate from wife. Therefore, there 

was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision 

awarding husband a divorce on the grounds of a one-year 

separation. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74720-74721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29506]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 
10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, December 16, 2014, to consider the following 
matters:
    Summary Agenda: No substantive discussion of the following items is 
anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a 
member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the 
discussion agenda.
    Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule Integrating OTS and FDIC 
Flood Insurance Regulations.
    Summary reports, status reports, and reports of actions taken 
pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors.
    Discussion Agenda: Memorandum and resolution re: Proposed 2015 
Corporate Operating Budget.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Regulatory Capital Rules, Liquidity

[[Page 74721]]

Coverage Ratio, Proposed Revisions to the Definition of Qualifying 
Master Netting Agreement and Related Definitions.
    The meeting will be held in the Board Room temporarily located on 
the fourth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., 
Washington, DC.
    This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet and 
subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the 
event. Visit https://fdic.primetime.mediaplatform.com/#!channel/1232003497484/Board+Meetings to view the event. If you need any 
technical assistance, please visit our Video Help page at: http://www.fdic.gov/video.html.
    The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign 
language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees 
needing such assistance should call 703-562-2404 (Voice) or 703-649-
4354 (Video Phone) to make necessary arrangements.
    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be 
directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the 
Corporation, at 202-898-7043.

    Dated: December 11, 2014.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29506 Filed 12-12-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P