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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DERRICK WALKER, )

)

Petitioner/Defendant, ) Civil Action No. 14-00202-WS

)

v. ) Criminal No. 09-00236-WS-N

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the petition filed by Derrick Walker is

DENIED. Further, the petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability and 

is therefore not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE this the 20th day of April, 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cr-00236-WS-N Document 232 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         841501
<NAME>                        OWENS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                          5,218,485
<SECURITIES>                    250,000
<RECEIVABLES>                   3,082,581
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                8,551,066
<PP&E>                          13,249,798
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  221,341,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,653,443
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                      219,687,824
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    221,341,267
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                5,647,402
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1,170,686
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             4,476,716
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    4,476,716
<EPS-BASIC>                   .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .02



</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Interior

###### National Park Service

          - [NPS-SERO-BICY-16765; PPSESEROC3, PMP00UP05.YP0000]

# AGENCY:

National Park Service, Interior.

      ( print page 74113)    

# ACTION:

Notice of intent to assess Big Cypress National Preserve lands for wilderness eligibility.

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964, and in accordance with National Park Service (NPS)                         *Management Policies*                         (2006), Section 6.2.1, the NPS intends to assess lands within the original 1974 legislated boundary of Big Cypress National Preserve for wilderness eligibility. A determination of eligibility and subsequent future actions will be announced in the                         **Federal Register**                         upon completion of the assessment.                    

# DATES:

The eligibility assessment began on September 16, 2014 and is anticipated to be completed by January 30, 2015.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Suggestions, comments, and requests for further information should be directed to Big Cypress National Preserve Chief of Interpretation Bob Degross by phone at 239-695-2000, via email at                         *Bob_DeGross@nps.gov,*                         or by mail at Big Cypress National Preserve, 33100 Tamiami Trail East Ochopee, Florida 34141.                    

Dated: November 19, 2014.

Sherri L. Fields,

Acting Regional Director, Southeast Region.

[FR Doc. 2014-29259 Filed 12-12-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-JD-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

(For Revocation of Supervised Release)

v.

Case Number: 1:12-CR-00219-001

USM Number: 12851-003

GABRIEL S. McCULLUM

a/k/a Gabriel Simone McCullum

Dennis J. Knizley, Esquire standing in for

H. Chase Dearman, Esquire

Defendant’s Attorney

THE DEFENDANT:

admitted that the Government could prove a prima facie case with respect violation of the statutory conditions and condition 7

of the terms of supervision as set forth in the Petition dated 9/20/2016.

was found in violation of condition(s) after denial of guilt.

The defendant is adjudicated guilty of these violations:

Violation Number Nature of Violation Violation Ended

Statutory

Statutory

7

New Offense

New Offense

Technical

07/12/2016

07/12/2016

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 2 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to the Sentencing 

Reform Act of 1984.

The defendant has not violated condition(s) ________________________ and is discharged as to such violation(s) condition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this district within 30 days of any 

change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are 

fully paid. If ordered to pay restitution, the defendant must notify the court and United States Attorney of material changes in 

economic circumstances.

 

October 27, 2016

Date of Imposition of Judgment

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

Signature of Judge

CALLIE V. S. GRANADE

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Name and Title of Judge

November 3, 2016

Date

Case 1:12-cr-00219-CG-N Document 44 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 2
AO 245D (SDAL 01/16) Judgment in a Criminal Case Judgment -- Page 2 of 2

DEFENDANT: GABRIEL S. McCULLUM, a/k/a Gabriel Simone McCullum

CASE NUMBER: 1:12-CR-00219-001

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of:

EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS.

The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:

at a.m. p.m. on 

as notified by the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons:

before 2 p.m. on 

as notified by the United States Marshal.

as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

Defendant delivered on to 

at , with a certified copy of this judgment.

 

UNITED STATES MARSHAL

By 

DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

Case 1:12-cr-00219-CG-N Document 44 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 2
Terms of Recognition for A2LA (Revised April 27, 2023)

Name: American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) 

Address: 5202 Presidents Court, Suite 220

Frederick, MD 21703

United States of America

Authorized 

Representative:

Ryan Kidwiler, A2LA 

Date(s) of Initial 

Recognition: 

April 20, 2007 (FCC, ISED, IMDA)

November 3, 2008 (OFCA)

August 27, 2010 (MIC)

Renewed to: March 31, 2025

Criteria for 

Recognition: 

ISO/IEC 17011 (2017) and NVCASE Program Handbook NISTIR 6440:2004 ED 

Scope of 

Recognition: a. United States: Federal Communication Commission's Telecommunication 

Certification Body (TCB) Program as described in its Report & Order 98-338 

(GEN Docket 98-68), Public Notice DA 99 1640, and the FCC TCB Program 

Roles and Responsibilities document

b. Canada: Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) 

requirements as described in REC-CB under APEC TEL MRA Phase II

c. Singapore: Info-communications Media Development Authority 

(IMDA) requirements as described in the IMDA MRA REC SCHEME document 

under APEC TEL MRA Phase II

d. Hong Kong: Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA) requirements 

as described in OFCA MRA 001 and OFCA MRA 002 documents under APEC 

TEL MRA Phase II

e. Japan: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) requirements 

of the Radio Law and Telecommunications Business Law (and related 

ordinances) as described in the US-Japan MRA

To apply for accreditation, please contact: 

Mr. Ryan Kidwiler

American Association for Laboratory Accreditation

5202 Presidents Court, Suite 220

Frederick, MD 21703

Phone: 240 575 6297

Email: rkidwiler@a2la.org

___________________________________________________
ASME International 

345 East 47th Street 

New York, NY 10017-2392 

U.S.A. 

Codes and Standards 

Tel: 21 2-705-8500 - I 4J*,,..’r*%WT - 

Fax: 212-705-8501 

Elevators, 

Fire, and 

Accessibility 

Papers presented at; The 2nd Symposium on Elevators, Fire, and Accessibility 

Baltimore, Maryland 

April 19 - 21,1995 

Sponsored by; American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

Accessibility Equipment Manufacturers Association 

American Hotel and Motel Association 

US Architectural and Transportation Bamers Compliance Board 

Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. 

Building Owners and Managers Association International 

Council of American Building Officials 

Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association 

International Conference of Building Officials 

National Association of Elevator Contractors 

National Association of Elevator Safety Authorities 

National Association of Vertical Transportation Professionals 

National Elevator Industry, Inc. 

National Easter Seal Society 

National Fire Protection Association 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

Paralyzed Veterans of America 

Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. 

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
#### UNITED STATES v. MANUFACTURERS TRUST CO.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

April *3,*1951.

Irving H. Saypol, U. S. Atty., New York City (Wiliam B. McKeown, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for United States.

Newman & Bisco, New York City (George B, Balamut, Judson W. Pearl, and *757David G. Sacks, all of New York City, of Counsel), for defendant.

CLANCY, District Judge.

This is an action by the United States of America to recover $83 plus interest from the defendant, Manufacturers Trust Company. The plaintiff served a notice of levy and warrant for distraint for $83 on the defendant bank attaching the savings account of a delinquent taxpayer. Defendant refused to honor the notice of levy and pay over the amount demanded because plaintiff failed to produce the depositor’s passbook. Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment on the ground that under § 3710 (a), Title 26 U.S.C.A. it is not required to produce the passbook in order to receive the money. § 3710 (a) reads as follows: “Any person in possession of property, or rights to property, subject to distraint, upon which a levy has been made, shall, upon demand by the collector or deputy collector making such levy, surrender such property or rights to such collector or deputy, unless such property or right is, at the time of such demand, subject to an attachment or execution under any judicial process.”

The relation of a bank to a depositor is that of debtor and creditor according to the terms of their contract. This defendant had agreed with its depositor to pay him any monies only if his passbook was presented or on his giving satisfactory indemnity in case of its non-production because of its loss, theft, destruction or other exceptional reason. There is nothing in § 3710 (a) which effects any change in the vested rights of the parties. In so far as the passbook requirement is concerned, neither law nor equity supports any reason why the defendant’s contracted right should be ignored. In fact even the most liberal construction of the terms “property” or “rights to property” as used in § 3710 (a) could not justify an alteration of the existing liabilities and obligations between the defendant and its depositor. U. S. v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., 1 Cir., 127 F.2d 880; U. S. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 2 Cir., 130 F.2d 149; U. S. v. Penn. Mutual Life Insurance Company, 3 Cir., 130 F.2d 495, 142 A.L.R. 888.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is therefore denied. Defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment is granted.
#### Frederick Bender, plaintiff *vs.*Albert Comstock, defendant.

Where there is an incongruity between the summons and the complaint, served at the same time, the former containing a notice that in default of an answer the plaintiff will take judgment for a specified sum mentioned in the complaint, whereas the latter is for a tort, the proper remedy to rectify such a variance is a motion to set aside the complaint, and not a motion to set aside the summons.

(Before Robertson, Oh. J. at special term,

November 7,1865.)

*I. F. Daly,*for the plaintiff.

*Comstock & Gale,*for the defendant.

Robertson, Ch. J.

This is a motion to set aside the complaint, for not following the character of the summons with which it was served. The latter contains a notice that in default of answering, the plaintiff will take judgment for a speci*645fied sum mentioned in the complaint, whereas the former is for a tort. It is urged, that the remedy of the defendant for the incongruity, where the summons is served with the complaint, is a motion to set aside the summons. But I think the correct remedy is to set aside the complaint. The service of the summons is the commencement of the action, and the notice in it determines the relief sought, in case no defense is made to the action, and also the class of actions to which the suit in question belongs. *(Ridder*v. *Whitlock,*12 *How.*208.) The same rule formerly prevailed where a capias had no *ac etiam*clause in it, and the declaration was upon a contract. The following additional authorities sustain this view: *Boington*v. *Lapham,*(14 *How.*360;) (Id. *39*5*;) Johnson*v. *Paul, (Id.*454;) *Tuttle*v. *Smith,*(6 *Abb.*330;) *Shafer*v. *Humphrey,*(15 *How.*564;) *Davis*v. *Bates,*(6 *Abb.*15;) *Campbell*v. *Wright,*(21 *How.*13.) These cases control the prior ones of *Webb*v. *Mott,*(6 *How. Pr.*439;) *Voorhies*v. *Scofield,*(7 *id.*51;) *Baxter*v. *Arnold,*(9 *id.*445;) and *Ritdder*v. *Whitlock,*(12 *id.*208.) The language used in *Hemsen*v. *Decker,*(29 *How. Pr.*385,) is not controlling, as the point was not necessary for the decision of the case.

The motion must therefore be granted, with liberty to the plaintiff to amend his complaint or summons, on paying §7, the costs of this motion.
|   | 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:                April                28, 2006 | /s/                Lee W. Hendrickson          Lee                W. HendricksonChief                Financial Officer |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### Samuel Lusks *v.*D. M. Anderson and Wife.

Decedents’ Estates — Competency of Witnesses.

Devisees are competent as witnesses in a contest between the executor and a third party asserting a claim against the estate.

*267Competency of Witnesses.

A party to the action against the executor is not allowed to testify, except as to facts occurring after the death of the decedent, unless the personal representative should call on such witnesses to testify as to transactions or conversations occurring with the decedent prior to his death.

APPEAL FROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT.

December 17, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

There is nothing in the chapter on evidence, General Statutes, rendering the devisees incompetent as witness in a contest between the executor and a third party asserting a claim against the estate. A party to the action against the executor is not allowed to testify, except as to facts occurring after the death of the decedent or parent, unless the personal representative should call on witnesses to testify as to transactions or conversations occurring with the testator or decedent prior to his death,, etc. In that event, the party to the action may also testify as to such specific transactions or private conversations. In this case the devisees were introduced to prove the delivery of the property to the appellee by the testator, from which the jury might have inferred that it was delivered in satisfaction of the debt, and also offered to prove by these witnesses the declarations of the testator as to the purpose in view in giving this property to the daughter, viz., “that it was in satisfaction of the debt.” -

These declarations, made by the testator in his behalf, were incompetent, regardless of the statute, and all that was competent, the appellee in her testimony admitted to be true, viz., that she received the horse, colt, money, etc. Therefore the appellant has no right to complain. The appellant, on cross-examination made the appellee his witness, and established by her the reception of the property from her father; but the witness went further and stated that it was in consideration of the debt declared on. This witness being a party to the action, and prosecuting it for the recovery of money to which she was entitled, was not competent to prove these facts unless called on to make the statements by the adverse party, the executor. She was examined in her own behalf, to testify only as to a conversation between herself and another witness introduced by the appellant for the purpose of contradicting that witness, and the appellant then making her his witness as to facts occurring before the death of her father, must abide by the consequences. Besides, appellant proved *268by William Lusk the delivering of this same property to the appellee, and the jury had before them all the facts that they could legitimately hear. The husband could not testify against the wife, nor were his declarations that the money had been paid her, competent upon the issue made.

*George W. Dunlap, for appellant.*

*Burdett & Hopper, for appellees.*

Judgment *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         841501
<NAME>                        Owens Mortgage Investment Fund
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                          4,593,339
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,561,902
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                6,155,241
<PP&E>                          9,963,220
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  212,903,741
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,238,057
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                      211,665,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    212,903,741
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                5,905,924
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                948,414
<LOSS-PROVISION>                250,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 4,707,414
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             4,707,414
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    4,707,414
<EPS-BASIC>                   .022
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .022



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT L. JOHNSON, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 05-0389-WS-D

 )

LEVAN THOMAS, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

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

raised, and there having been no objections filed, 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 this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

prosecute. 

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2005.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00389-WS-D Document 9 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Huntsman International LLC (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Kimo Esplin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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 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.

|/s/ J. KIMO ESPLINJ. Kimo Esplin Chief Financial OfficerMarch 30, 2004 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks