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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY JONES, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0685-CG-C

WILBER JOHNSON, et al., : 

Defendants. :

ORDER

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. It is ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment of

fees (Doc. 6) be and is hereby DENIED. It is further ORDERED that this action be and

is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DONE this 9th day of June, 2006.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00685-CG-C Document 10 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Shubael F. White, relator v. Kent Circuit Judge

*Pleas puis da/rrein continuance.*

A plea of payment'of a judgment in garnishment *puis darrein continuance*was held good where a former plea, alleging that defendant had been garnished, had been withdrawn by leave of the court and the plea of payment on a judgment in the same proceeding in garnishment had been made in lieu of it.

Mandamus to require respondent to restore to the files a *■plea^?uis darreim, continucmee*which had been overruled on ■demurrer in justice’s court, and which, on appeal, had been stricken from the files on plaintiff’s motion.

Submitted and granted with costs October 11.

*White c& McMahon*for the motion.

*■John O. Quinsey*against.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM SHANE COWART )

BOP Reg. # 10438-003, )

 Petitioner, ) 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00402-KD

v. )

 ) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 14-00037-KD-N-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 Respondent. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been no 

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 1231) of the Magistrate Judge dated 

March 28, 2016, and made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C), Rule 8(b) of the Rules 

Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 

72(a)(2)(R), is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner William Shane Cowart’s operative Motion 

to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 120) is DENIED and 

DISMISSED with prejudice, that his initial § 2255 motion (Doc. 118) is MOOT, and that 

Cowart is not entitled either to a Certificate of Appealability or to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of May 2016.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 All “Doc.” citations herein refer to the docket of the above-styled criminal action.

Case 1:14-cr-00037-KD-N Document 124 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 1
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_contracts.cfm 1

Awarded Contracts for External Experts to Support the 

NIST World Trade Center (WTC) Disaster Investigation

Contract No. Awarded to Date Awarded

SB1341-03-W-0083 Dr. Norman Groner 10/16/2002

OUTSIDE EXPERT TEAM MEMBER

Under solicitation number SB 1341-02-Q-0710, firm fixed-price purchase orders have been awarded to:

Dr. Norman Groner, an independent consultant from California. He has a doctorate in psychology 

and 25 years of experience in the human factors field, much of it in the area of cognitive factors 

related to fire safety and emergency planning. He also has expertise and experience in 

interviewing techniques. He is coordinator for the independent World Trade Center Evacuation 

Initiative.
**Exhibit21.1****Listof Subsidiaries of Golden Telecom, Inc.**   **COMPANY** **JURISDICTION**Golden Telecom Group, Inc. DelawareSFMT-CIS, Inc. DelawareGTS Finance, Inc. DelawareGTS Ukrainian TeleSystems LLC DelawareGTS Mobile Services, Inc. DelawareGolden TeleServices, Inc. DelawareSFMT-Rusnet, Inc. DelawareCellUkraine Ltd. DelawareGolden Holdings, Inc. DelawareROL Holdings Ltd. CyprusAgama Ltd. CyprusGTS-Vox Ltd. England & WalesGolden Telecom Limited British Virgin IslandsST HOLDINGS, s.r.o. Czech RepublicAntel Rascom Limited British Virgin IslandsFortland Limited British Virgin IslandsPrunescom Ltd. British Virgin IslandsEDN Sovintel LLC RussiaZAO “TeleRoss-Vladivostok” RussiaZAO “TeleRoss-Novosibirsk” RussiaZAO “TeleRoss-Tyumen” RussiaZAO “TeleRoss-Kubanelectrosvyaz” RussiaZAO “TeleRoss-Ekaterinburg” RussiaZAO “TeleRoss-Voronezh” RussiaZAO “TeleRoss-Volgograd” RussiaZAO “TeleRoss-Samara” RussiaZAO “Samara Telecom” RussiaOOO “Agency of Business Communication” RussiaOOO “Informtechnology” RussiaOOO “Vitus” RussiaOOO “Alkar” RussiaOOO “Satel Centr” RussiaZAO “Direct Net” RussiaOAO “Satcom-Tel” RussiaZAO “First Telecommunications Company” Russia
 

 
   **COMPANY** **JURISDICTION**ZAO “Cityline” RussiaZAO “Cortec” RussiaZAO “Kabelstroy” RussiaZAO “Investelectrosvyaz” RussiaOOO “CKN” RussiaOOO “NTT” RussiaZAO “WestBalt Telecom” RussiaZAO “Comincom-Chernozemiye” RussiaOOO “Sakhalin-Telecom Limited” RussiaZAO “Rascom” RussiaOOO “Dicom” RussiaZAO “Tatintelcom” RussiaOOO “RusTeleNet” RussiaZAO “Golden ISP” RussiaZAO “Sochitelecom” RussiaOOO “Kubtelecom” RussiaOOO “Spectr” RussiaZAO “Kubintersvyaz” RussiaOOO “Kolangon-Optim” RussiaOOO “ElcomLine” RussiaOOO” Dial-Impex” RussiaOOO “Intervest” RussiaOOO “Mediainfrom” RussiaOOO “Prime Time” RussiaOOO “Aston” RussiaZAO “Bryansktel” RussiaOOO “Bryanskintel” RussiaOOO “Golden Telecom” UkraineOOO “Invest Holding” UkraineOOO “TTK Ivano-Frankovsk” UkraineOOO “S-Line” UkraineTOO “Golden Fiber” UkraineTOO “SA-Telcom” KazakhstanOOO “Joint Venture Buzton” Uzbekistan
**FOURTH AMENDMENT TO**

**RUBY TUESDAY, INC. SALARY DEFERRAL PLAN**

 

THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT is made on the 8th day of December 2005, by Ruby Tuesday, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the “Primary Sponsor”). 

 

**WITNESSETH:**

 

WHEREAS, the Primary Sponsor maintains the Ruby Tuesday, Inc. Salary Deferral Plan under an indenture dated April 9, 2001 (the “Plan”), as subsequently amended by the First through Third Amendments thereto.

 

WHEREAS, the Primary Sponsor now desires to amend the Plan to allow for the automatic rollover of distributions in excess of $1,000 as provided in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Primary Sponsor hereby amends the Plan, effective as of March 28, 2005, as follows:

 

|   | 1. | By deleting the existing Section 8.1(c) and substituting therefor the following: |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

“(c)        In the event a Participant experiences a Termination of Employment, as soon as administratively feasible thereafter, such Participant’s vested Account balance shall be distributed as follows: 

 

(1)          for a Participant whose vested Account is $1,000 or less, such Participant shall have his Account balance distributed in a lump sum payment to the Participant; and

 

(2)          for a Participant whose vested Account is greater than $1,000, but $5,000 or less, such Participant shall have his Account balance distributed to an individual retirement plan of a trustee or issuer designated by the Plan Administrator, unless the Participant elects in writing to have the payment made directly to the Participant or to another individual retirement plan.  The Plan Administrator shall notify the Participant in writing that the distribution may be transferred by the Participant to another individual retirement plan.”

 

|   | 2. | By deleting the existing Section 9.1(c) and substituting therefor the following: |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

“(c)        (1)         Payment of a Participant’s vested Account under subsection (a) or (b) above may be made in the form of a lump-sum payment in cash; provided, however, if the Participant’s interest in the Investment Fund investing primarily in shares of Company Stock equals or exceeds the value of hundred (100) shares of Company Stock, that interest may be distributed in the form of whole shares of Company Stock if the Participant so elects, in the manner prescribed by the Plan Administrator.

 

 

Page 1

 

 

----
<PAGE>

                            EXCERPTS FROM MINUTES OF
                          BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF
                              NASH FINCH COMPANY ON
                                  APRIL 9, 1996


RESOLVED, that effective May 1, 1996, the director elected to serve as Board
Chair, if such director is not a present full time employee of Nash Finch
Company or its subsidiaries, shall, in addition to and not in lieu of any other
compensation paid to such director as an outside member of this Board of
Directors, be compensated with a monthly retainer equal to two times the amount
of the monthly retainer paid to outside members of this Board of Directors
generally; and that, upon becoming effective, this resolution shall supercede
any resolution heretofore adopted by this Board of Directors pertaining to
compensation of the Board Chair.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Peter R. Huntsman, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Huntsman International LLC for the year ended December 31,
2004;

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;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
July 18, 2005

| |  | /s/PETER R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive
Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### Charles Winchester v. Robert B. King.

*Trial*— Theory *of ease*— Mm'tgage *by eonfraet purchaser.*

The plaintiff has a right to have the case submitted to the jury upon the theory oh which he presents it.

Mortgaging goods held under a contract of purchase, before fulfilling the obligations of the contract, is an assumption of ownership, and the intent with which it is done is immaterial so far as concerns the vendor’s right to reclaim them.

Error to Iosco.

Submitted April 13.

Decided April 27.

Replevin for goods which plaintiff claims to have placed in defendant’s hands under a contract, and which defendant mortgaged to one Forrest. Plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

*R. Z. Roberts*for plaintiff in error.

*William H. Simpson*and *Hatch & Cooley*for defendants in error.

Marston, C. J.

We are of opinion that the court erred in the instructions given relating to the chattel mortgage placed upon the goods by King. The plaintiff had a right to have the case submitted to the jury upon the theory that the goods mortgaged had been furnished by him under the written contract of March 26th, and in this view of the case the court was requested to charge the jury that giving a chattel mortgage thereon to Forrest would be such a “ termination of the bailment as to entitle the plaintiff to the possession of the goods.” This was refused, but the court did charge that placing a chattel mortgage thereon with intent to deprive the plaintiff of the proceeds of the goods, if done fraudulently, would justify the plaintiff in rescinding the agreement.

The intention with which the act was done would be immaterial. It was an assumption of ownership by King, *103and wholly inconsistent with the title claimed by Winchester under the contract. The effect as to Winchester’s rights was the same, whatever the intent of King may have been.

For this error the judgment must be reversed with costs and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      pursuant to**


**Section
      1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**








In
      connection with the annual report of Theater Xtreme Entertainment Group, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      the undersigned Scott R. Oglum, being the Principal Executive Officer of the
      Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that, to my knowledge:




1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                and




2.
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.










Date:  October
      15, 2007








/s/
      Scott R.
      Oglum


Name:  Scott
      R. Oglum


Title:    Chief
      Executive Officer








The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350; it is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing
      of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of
      any
      general incorporation language in such filing.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, John Okubo, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Bay View Capital 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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting. Date: August 13, 2004 /s/ John OkuboJohn OkuboExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1509 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1509

 To amend the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 to 
   reauthorize the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2023

     Ms. Lee of California (for herself, Ms. Brown, and Mr. Evans) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                              Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 to 
   reauthorize the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy Food Financing Initiative 
Reauthorization Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE.

    Section 243(d) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act 
of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6953(d)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(d) Mandatory Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation, the Secretary shall use to carry out this section--
            ``(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2024;
            ``(2) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2025;
            ``(3) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2026;
            ``(4) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2027; and
            ``(5) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2028 and each fiscal year 
        thereafter.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Prince et al. *v.*The State, ex rel. Sage et al.

Sheriff’s Bond.—Pleading.—Demurrer.—In a suit upon a sheriff’s bond, a failure to set out the bond -with the complaint renders the complaint bad on demurrer.

APPEAL from the Tipton Circuit Court.

Downey, J.

Upon an examination of the record in this case, we find that it was an action by the appellees against the appellants on a sheriff’s bond, in which Prince was the principal and the other appellants his securities. The complaint was in three paragraphs, the first of which was stricken out on motion of the defendant. Demurrers to the second and third were overruled, and the defendants excepted. The defendants filed an answer, and there were demurrers to the fifth and sixth paragraphs thereof, which were sustained, and the defendants again excepted. The issues were completed, there was a trial by the court, and a special finding, on which, over a motion for a new trial, judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs.

Errors are assigned calling in question the correctness of the rulings of the court in overruling the demurrers to the complaint, in sustaining the demurrers to the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the answer, and in various other particulars.

In attempting to understand and determine the first question, that is, the sufficiency or insufficiency of the second and third paragraphs of the complaint, we have examined the record, and fail to find, in connection with the. pleadings, any copy of the bond on which these paragraphs are founded. The paragraphs do not set out either the tenor or purport of the bond. Hence we are unable to know what was in the bond, or that the matters alleged as a breach of its condition were such as to constitute a cause of action.

The demurrer says they were not sufficient. Under such a demurrer it has been repeatedly ruled by this court, that a failure to file the original or a copy of the instrument, on *316which the pleading is founded, is a fatal defect in the pleading. *Wolf v.*Schofield, 38 Ind. 175; *The Peoria, etc., Ins. Co.*v. *Walser,*22 Ind. 73, and cases there cited. Hence we must hold that the second and third paragraphs of the complaint were not sufficient, and that the demurrers to them should have been sustained. It maybe well enough to state that each of the paragraphs in question alleges that a copy of the bond is filed, and such may have been the fact. But we are not allowed to infer such filing, in the absence of the • instrument in the record in connection with the pleadings.

*Bell & Bell, C. N. Pollard, N. P. Richmond,*and *C. E. Hen-dry,*for appellants.

*R. Vaile,*for appellees.

The next question relates to the sufficiency of the fifth and sixth paragraphs bf the answer. We cannot decide whether these paragraphs of the answer were sufficient or not, when we do not legally know what the cause of action was.

The same may be said as to the other questions presented.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded, with instructions to sustain the demurrers to the second and third paragraphs of the complaint.
|   | 1. | The                Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));                and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                July                31, 2006 | /s/                Lee W. Hendrickson             Lee                W. HendricksonChief                Financial Officer |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----