alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-16-00589-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 13-FD-0848

Style: Winnie Stacey Alwazzan

v. Isa Ali Alwazzan and International Agencies Co., Ltd.

Date motion filed*: December 11, 2019

Type of motion: Motion to Extend Time to File Response

Party filing motion: Appellee

Document to be filed: Response to Appellant's Motion for En Banc Reconsideration

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: December 11, 2019

Number of previous extensions granted: 0

Date Requested: 16 days

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: December 27, 2019

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: December 12, 2019
SCWC-18-0000906

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

In the Interest of HK and KK

(CAAP-18-0000906)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In the Matter of the Guardianship of HK and KK

(CAAP-18-0000907)

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CASE NOS. FC-S No. 16-00210 and FC-G No. 18-1-6064)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Father-Appellant’s application for writ of

certiorari, filed on December 11, 2019, is hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no oral argument will be

heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant

to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move

for retention of oral argument. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 17, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000906

17-JAN-2020

02:22 PM
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29599]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8975]


In the Matter of the Review of the Designation of Palestinian 
Islamic Jihad as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 
219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) and (b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C), (b)) (``INA''), 
and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the 
Treasury, the Secretary of State concludes that the circumstances that 
were the basis for the 2008 decision to maintain the designation of the 
aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization have 
not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the 
designation and that the national security of the United States does 
not warrant a revocation of the designation of Palestinian Islamic 
Jihad.
    Therefore, the Secretary of State hereby determines that the 
designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist 
organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall 
be maintained.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: December 5, 2014.
 John F. Kerry,
 Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-29599 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
#### Snideman *v.*Rinker.

*Jurisdiction.—Common Pleas Court.—Specific*Performance.—Where in an action in the court of common pleas for specific performance of a contract . for the sale and conveyance of real estate, the court overruled a demurrer to the complaint for want of jurisdiction;

*Held,*that as it did not appear that the title to the property would be involved, and as the proper course, if such had been the case, would perhaps have been a motion to transfer the cause to the Circuit Court, there was no error.

*Same.—Trial and*Judgment.—An answer of general denial was filed, not sworn to, and the court tried the case and rendered judgment for specific performance .

*Held,*that it could not be said that the court erred in entertaining jurisdiction.

APPEAL from the Henry Common Pleas.

Downey, J.

The only question in this case is, whether *224the common pleas had jurisdiction in a suit for the specific performance of a contract for the sale and conveyance of real estate. The question arises upon the overruling of a demurrer to the complaint for want of jurisdiction in the court. Appellant refers to 2 G. & H. 6, sec. 5; also, *id.*22, sec. 11; *Clark*v. *Trovinger,*8 Ind. 334; *Dixon*v. *Hill,*8 Ind. 147; *Livesey*v. *Livesey,*30 Ind. 398; and *Mason*v. *Weston,*29 Ind. 561. The appellee relies on *Wolcott*v. *Wigton,*7 Ind. 44; *Holliday*v. *Spencer,*7 Ind. 632; *Carpenter*v. *Vanscoten,*20 Ind. 50; and *Macy*v. *Allee,*18 Ind. 126.

*y. Brown*and *R. L. Polk,*for appellant.

*D. W, Chambers*and *E. Saint,*for appellee.

The question is not clear of doubt and difficulty. But suppose, when the issues are formed, the only question in dispute should be, whether the purcha'se-money had been paid or not; would the title to real estate be then in issue ? We think not. Upon a demurrer to the complaint, it did not necessarily appear that the title would be in issue. If it did, .perhaps the proper course would have been a motion to transfer the cause to the circuit court. 2 G. & H. 22, sec. 11. The answer was the general denial, not verified by the oath of the party. The court entertained jurisdiction and decreed specific performance. We can not say that there was any error.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             467
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   467
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,269
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,002
<OTHER-SE>                                    (81,804)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       467
<SALES>                                       (81,804)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (9,135)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,135)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (857)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,135)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONNIE JAMES, : 

Petitioner, : 

v. : 

CIVIL ACTION 05-0664-BH-M

KENNETH L. JONES, : 

 

Respondent. : 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in

this file, and a de novo determination of those portions of

the Recommendation to which objection is made, the Court

concludes that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is due to be adopted as

the opinion of this Court. 

The Court specifically notes that petitioner does not

take issue with the fact that his petition contains both

exhausted and unexhausted claims. Instead, petitioner seeks

to have this Court stay its consideration of his habeas

petition until all claims are properly exhausted rather than

dismiss the action without prejudice. The petitioner does

so in order that he not run afoul of the one-year statute of

limitation set forth in the Antiterrorist and Effective

Case 1:05-cv-00664-BH-M Document 29 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 2
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1). 

Upon consideration of this matter, however, the Court

concludes that such a stay would inappropriately circumvent

the AEDPA. To the extent any post-exhaustion petition filed

by the petitioner is challenged on limitation grounds, the

Court would be at liberty to apply equitable tolling

standards.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) be and

is hereby adopted as the opinion of this Court and that this

action be DISMISSED without prejudice as Petitioner has

filed a mixed petition and needs to pursue unexhausted

remedies in the State Courts. 

DONE this 4th day of April, 2006.

 s/ W. B. Hand 

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00664-BH-M Document 29 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 2
#### In re Tommy Ray ROBINSON, Petitioner.

No. 01-6076.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided June 5, 2001.

Tommy Ray Robinson, Petitioner pro se.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Tommy Ray Robinson has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus from this court ordering the district court to rule on his motion for a preparation of a transcript at government expense. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re Catawba Indian Tribe,*973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir.1992). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. *Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,*449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). Robinson has failed to make such a showing.*

Accordingly, we deny Robinson’s petition for mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*

*

 The record reveals that the district court has in fact ruled on Robinson's motion for a transcript.
Tips for Working with Microsoft Word Forms 

NVLAP has converted several of its most used on-site assessment forms to Microsoft Word 

forms to allow you to fill out the forms on your computer. There are both advantages and 

disadvantages to Word forms that you should be aware of when deciding whether to use the 

form-enabled version or the Adobe PDF version of a NVLAP form. (All of the forms are 

available as Adoble PDF documents, which can be downloaded and printed in the traditional 

manner.) 

The following tips may be useful to you when working with Microsoft Word forms: 

1) When you first open a form file, depending upon how your computer is set up, you may 

receive a security warning saying that the file contains macros. It is okay to disable the macros if 

you wish, as this should not affect the functionality of the form. 

2) By design, a user cannot fill out a Microsoft Word form unless it has been protected to 

allow only certain types of editing. The good news is that completed forms are consistent in 

appearance and content and that controlled documents cannot be altered in accordance with 

NVLAP’s document control policy. 

The bad news is that Word's protection feature disables quite a few important functions, even if 

only a single section of a document is protected. As well as the spell-checker, many of the items 

on the View, Insert, Format, Tools, and Table menus are disabled. 

3) To fill out a protected form, you may enter information only into the gray-shaded areas or 

click on check boxes. Use the Tab key to move from form field to form field. 

4) The forms have no page breaks in order to allow the forms to “grow” as you type and add 

text. You do not need to add page breaks before sending a form to NVLAP. Note that the 

Previous Page and Next Page arrows on the vertical scroll bar are disabled. 

5) To work around the spell-checker issue, you may type the text in another document and 

spell check it. Then you can copy the clean text and paste it into the gray-shaded areas of the 

Word form. DO NOT unprotect a document in order to check the spelling. 

6) When you enter a laboratory’s NVLAP Lab Code on page 1 of a form (in the shaded box in 

the upper right corner), it will automatically be printed in the header of all pages that follow. 

You will not be able to see this until you print the document, but the Lab Code is really there! 

This is accomplished through the use of the “bookmark” feature in Word with “fill-in enabled” 

turned on in the forms options. 

7) As forms are revised, we will be adding a date field to page 1 of each form, which will 

automatically be printed in the header of all pages that follow−just like the Lab Code reference in 

the header. Please ensure that both the Lab Code and the date have been entered on page 1. 

Rev. 2006-07-25
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.4

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Regina O. Sommer, certify that

    1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Netegrity, Inc.;

    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; and

    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.

Date: January 29, 2004                          /s/ Regina O. Sommer
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Regina O. Sommer
                                                Chief Financial Officer and
                                                Treasurer (Principal Financial
                                                Officer and Principal Accounting
                                                Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29736]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: International Trade Administration.
    Title: Steel Import License.
    OMB Control Number: 0625-0245.
    Form Number(s): ITA-4141P.
    Type of Request: Regular submission (extension of a currently 
approved information collection).
    Number of Respondents: 3,500.
    Average Hours per Response: 0.17 hour/response (10 minutes).
    Burden Hours: 92,878.
    Needs and Uses: In order to monitor steel imports in real-time and 
to provide the public with real-time data, the Department of Commerce 
(DOC) must collect and provide timely aggregated summaries about these 
imports. The Steel Import License proposed by the International Trade 
Administration of the DOC is the tool used to collect the necessary 
information. The Census Bureau currently collects import data and 
disseminates aggregate information about steel imports. However, the 
time required to collect, process, and disseminate this information 
through Census can take up to 70 days after importation of the product, 
giving interested parties and the public far less time to respond to 
injurious sales.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. 
Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections 
currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to OIRA <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#edbe988f80849e9e848283ad82808fc388829dc38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="401335222d293333292f2e002f2d226e252f306e272f36">[email protected]</span></a> or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: December 16, 2014.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-29736 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IB 

Union Calendar No. 297 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1727 

[Report No. 118–363] 

To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act to extend the 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2023 

Mr. TRONE (for himself, Mr. MOONEY, Mr. RASKIN, Ms. NORTON, Ms. 

WEXTON, Mr. CONNOLLY, and Mr. BEYER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

JANUARY 30, 2024 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on March 22, 2023] 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1727 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act 

to extend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1727 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chesapeake and Ohio 

5 Canal National Historical Park Commission Extension 

6 Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HISTOR8 ICAL PARK COMMISSION. 

9 Section 6(g) of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Devel10 opment Act (16 U.S.C. 410y–4(g)) is amended by striking 

11 ‘‘40’’ and all that follows through the period at the end and 

12 inserting ‘‘on October 1, 2031.’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 297 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1727 

[Report No. 118–363] 

A BILL 

To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal DevelopCanal National Historical Park Commission. ment Act to extend the Chesapeake and Ohio 

JANUARY 30, 2024 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 19, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128839 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128839 COA: 249618 Wayne CC: 02-012731-01

KEITH LAMAR CLARK, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the Ap ril 21, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1012 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 19, 2005

Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

REGINA BROWN, on behalf of :

GREGORY L. BROWN,

:

Plaintiff, 

:

vs. 

 : CIVIL ACTION 05-0661-CG-M

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner of :

Social Security, 

:

Defendant. 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, 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.

It is ORDERED that the opinion of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED and that this

action be DISMISSED.

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of August, 2006.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00661-CG-M Document 20 Filed 08/15/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Hudson Forwarding & Shipping Co., Inc., Respondent, *v.*The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December 15, 1924.

Carriers'— carriers of goods — action for losses after delivery to collector of customs — carrier not liable for failure of collector to carry out instructions.

A carrier of goods is not liable for losses sustained by a shipper where it appears that the shipment was made in accordance with the Federal statute (21 U. S. Stat. at Large, 173) known as the “ Immediate Transportation Act ” and was delivered to the collector at the port of its destination with proper instructions and that the losses occurred through the failure of the collector to follow the instructions.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, First District, in favor of plaintiff, after a trial by a judge without a jury.

*157
      *Alex. S. Lyman [Lawrence B. Walton*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Leopold K. Simon,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff engaged the defendant to make a shipment in accordance with the Federal law known as the *“*Immediate Transportation Act ” — 21 U, S. Stat. at Large, 173; United States Compiled Statutes of 1916, section 5697 (Act June 10, 1880, chap. 190, § 3), whereunder common carriers are made *“*responsible to the United States as common carriers for the safe delivery of such merchandise to the Collector at the Port of its destination.” The goods in suit were so delivered with appropriate instructions as given to the carrier by the plaintiff, the shipper. The instructions, however, seem to have been disregarded by the collector.

We do not understand by what course of reasoning the defendant can be held responsible for the plaintiff’s resulting loss.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed in favor of defendant, with costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Wagner and Levy, JJ.