alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
chief executive officer of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (the "Company"), does
hereby certify that [to the undersigned's knowledge]:

      1)    the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K 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 Company's Annual Report on Form
            10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
            condition and results of operations of the Company.


  /s/ BERNARD ZEICHNER
-------------------------
    Bernard Zeichner
 Chief Executive Officer


December 13, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RODNEY KIM and MARY KIM, )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-340-CG-B

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Defendant.

ORDER

Counsel notified the Court that this action has been settled. Accordingly, it 

is ORDERED that all claims in the above-styled action are DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE subject to the right of any party to reinstate the action within thirty 

(30) days of the date of this order should the settlement agreement not be 

consummated.

DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of March, 2016.

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00340-CG-B Document 21 Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 1
#### Milton S. HANDLOS, Plaintiff, v. LITTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant.

No. 68-C-267.

United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin.

Oct. 8, 1970.

See also 304 F.Supp. 347.

Wickham, Borgelt, Skogstad & Powell, Edmund W. Powell, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant.

Kersten & McKinnon by Kenan J. Kersten, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.

OPINION

MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.

This memorandum will consider the objections which the defendant has raised regarding certain written interrogatories that had been submitted by the plaintiff.

Interrogatories 15 through 17 inquire as to the design of its ammunition hoists after September 18, 1967, which is the date of the alleged injury. I believe such interrogatories are irrelevant. Hammill v. Hyster Co., 42 F.R.D. 173 (E.D.Wis.1967). The plaintiff urges that there is materiality under certain exceptions to the general rule that *24post-accident changes are irrelevant, but I find no merit in this argument.

Interrogatories 18 and 19 relate to alterations which may have been made by the defendant’s shipbuilding division “prior to September 18, 1967”. There would be relevance to an inquiry into changes or alterations which were made before the date that the product in question was manufactured. See Shapiro v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 259 F.2d 760 (7th Cir. 1958). However, the objection to the interrogatories as framed in this case is well taken since these questions ask about changes made before the date of the alleged injury rather than the date of manufacture.

In interrogatory 35, the plaintiff asks the defendant to state what it claims “was the cause of the incident of September 18, 1967”. I believe that the plaintiff is entitled to an answer to this question. The defendant has not demonstrated that this interrogatory invades the protected area under the work product rule. Pressley v. Boehlke, 33 F.R.D. 316 (W.D.N.C.1963).

The defendant proposes that in the event the court overrules its objection to interrogatory 35, it be relieved of the duty to answer until it has had an opportunity to depose certain witnesses. In my opinion, it would be inappropriate to attach this condition. The court has previously established a cutoff date for discovery as of December 31, 1970; it is also noted that this action has already been pending for over two years.

Defendant’s counsel is requested to submit an appropriate order which grants or denies the objections to the interrogatories as outlined in this opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1992 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1992

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Human 
                 Genome Research for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Human 
                 Genome Research for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH 
              NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Human Genome 
Research for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $575,579,000.
                                 <all>
```
Opinion issued July 12 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 16
- 00393
- CR

——————————— DAVID LOZANO , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1443956

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, David Lozano , has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion to dismiss complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and no prior decision has issued. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.2(a), (b). Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Massengale. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet, Consolidated Statement of Loss, and
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows, in each case for the year ended December
31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such consolidated
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          50,698
<SECURITIES>                                    69,472
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,247
<PP&E>                                         365,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                     347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 515,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,560
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        108
<COMMON>                                           444
<OTHER-SE>                                     484,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   515,189
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,205
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (36,896)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (36,896)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (36,896)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (2.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.40)


</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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

      ( print page 77041)    
The National Science Board's Executive Committee, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

# DATE AND TIME:

Tuesday, January 6, 2015 from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. EST.

# SUBJECT MATTER:

(1) Chairman's opening remarks; and (2) Discussion of agenda for the February 2015 meeting.

# STATUS:

Open.

                        This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. A public listening line will be available. Members of the public must contact the Board Office [call 703-292-7000 or send an email message to                         *nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov*] at least 24 hours prior to the teleconference for the public listening number.                    

                        Please refer to the National Science Board Web site                         *www.nsf.gov/​nsb*                         for additional information. Meeting information and updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) may be found at                         *http://www.nsf.gov/​nsb/​notices/​.*                         Point of contact for this meeting is: James Hamos, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8000.                    

Ann Bushmiller,

Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.

[FR Doc. 2014-30179 Filed 12-19-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements as of and for the three months ended April 2, 2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000317540
<NAME>                        Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 APR-02-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                             6,622
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     58,547
<ALLOWANCES>                                         894
<INVENTORY>                                       44,355
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 142,086
<PP&E>                                           706,601
<DEPRECIATION>                                   250,593
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,102,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            115,397
<BONDS>                                          754,530
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          12,423
<OTHER-SE>                                        15,876
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,102,341
<SALES>                                          228,184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 228,184
<CGS>                                            122,243
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    122,243
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  93,996
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                13,936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (3,010)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (1,053)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (1,957)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,957)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.22)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

J anuary 8 , 2014 

# Order

Clerk January 8 , 2014

147296 ( 102 )

WAYNE COUNTY EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM and WAYNE

COUNTY RETIREMENT COMMISSION,

Plaintiffs/ Counter

Defendants

- Appellees,

SC: 147296

v COA: 308096

Wayne CC: 10

- 013013

- AW

CHARTER COUNTY OF WAYNE,

Defendant/Counter

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

a nd

WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________ /

On order o f the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants

- appellant s Wayne County

and Wayne County Board of Commissioners to extend the time to file their supplemental

brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if filed on or before

January 22, 2014.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29573]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the 
Advisory Committee to the Deputy Director for Intramural Research, 
National Institutes of Health.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Advisory Committee to the Deputy Director for 
Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health.
    Date: January 9, 2015.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To discuss the Advisory Committee to the Deputy Director 
for Intramural Research Report recommendations on the site visit 
review of the Office of Animal Care and Use.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 1, Room 160, 
Tele: 866-556-1098, Code 48960, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Michael M. Gottesman, Deputy Director, National 
Institutes of Health, Building One, Room 160, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
301-496-1921.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, 
Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan 
Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 
93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, 
Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired 
Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, 
Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged 
Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 12, 2014.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-29573 Filed 12-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 22, 2016

NO. 03

- 16

- 00418

- CV

Christopher Jason Medina, Appellant

v.

Kimberley Annette Medina, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on September 25, 2013. Having

reviewed the record , it appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the

C ourt dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. A ppellant shall pay all cos ts relating to this

appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
IN	THE	UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	COURT	FOR	THE

SOUTHERN	DISTRICT	OF	ALABAMA

SOUTHERN	DIVISION

UNITED	STATES	OF	AMERICA )

)

v. ) CRIMINAL	NO.	05-00231-CB

) CIVIL	ACTION	NO.	11-00523-CB

ANTONIO	DEMOND	SMITH, )

)

Defendant/Petitioner )

ORDER

This	matter	is	before	the	Court	on	a	motion	to	vacate,	set	aside	or	correct	

sentence	pursuant	to	28	U.S.C.	§	2255	filed	by	Antonio	Demond	Smith,	a	person	in	

federal	custody.		(Doc.	228.)		For	reasons	set	forth	below,	the	Court	finds	that	the	

motion	is	due	to	be	dismissed	as	a	second	or	successive	petition.

After	being	found	guilty	by	a	jury,	Smith	was	sentenced	in	this	case	on	June	

12,	2006, and	the	Judgment	of	Conviction	was	entered	on	June	26,	2006. (Doc.	158.)		

His	conviction	was	affirmed	on	appeal	by	order	issued	as	mandate	on	May	2,	2008.				

(Doc.	202.)		On	September	9,	2011,	Smith filed	a	motion	to	vacate	under	§	2255.		The	

government	moved	to	dismiss	the	motion	as	untimely.		By	order	dated	October	9,	

2012,	the	Court	granted	the motion	to	dismiss	and,	alternatively,	denied	the	motion	

to	vacate	on	the	merits.		(Doc.	205.)		Smith	appealed,	and	the	Eleventh	Circuit	denied	

his	request	for	a	certificate	of	appealability.		(Doc.	224.)	

A	district	court	is	without	jurisdiction	to	consider	a	second	or	successive	

petition	for	relief	under	§	2255	unless	the	movant	first	obtains	an	order	from	the	

appellate	court	authorizing	the	district	court	to	consider	it.		Farris	v.	United	States,	

333	F.3d	1211,	1216	(11th Cir.	2003)	(applying	28	U.S.C.	§	2244(b)(3)(A)).	

Case 2:05-cr-00231-CG-B Document 231 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

Therefore,	the current	motion	is	due	to	be	and	hereby	is	DENIED as	a	second	or	

successive	petition	filed	without	authorization	from	the	appellate	court.

Rule	11	of	the	Federal	Rules	Governing	Section	2255	Proceedings	requires	

that	the	district court	issue	or	deny	a	certificate	of	appealability	when	entering	a	

final	order on	a	§	2255	motion.	When	a	court	denies	a	motion	“on	procedural	

grounds	without	reaching	the	merits	of	any	constitutional	claims, .	.	.	a	petitioner	

will	be	granted	a	certificate	of	appealability	only	if	[he]	makes	both	a	substantial	

showing	that	he	had	a	valid	claim	of	the	denial	of	a	constitutional	right,	and	a	

substantial	showing	that	the	procedural	ruling	is	wrong,”	Jackson	v.	Crosby,	437	F.3d	

1290,	1295	(11th Cir.	2006) (internal	citations	and	quotations	omitted)	(citing Slack	

v.	McDaniel,	529	U.S.	473,	484	(2000)	).		A	“substantial	showing	means”	that	the	

issues—both	substantive	and	procedural—are	debatable	among	jurists	of	reason.		

Id.		In	this	case,	there	is	no	need	to	consider	the	constitutional	issue	because	no	

jurist	of	reason	could	find	that	this	§	2255	motion	was	not a	second	or	successive	

petition.		Accordingly,	the	certificate	of	appealability	is	DENIED.

DONE and	ORDERED this	the	30th day	of	June, 2016.

s/	Charles	R.	Butler,	Jr.

Senior	United	States	District	Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00231-CG-B Document 231 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>