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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FRANK HALE, III, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0222-CG-N

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

)

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having 

been no objections filed, the Amended Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(1) and dated April 24, 2015, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant Commissioner’s final 

decision issued March 6, 2014, denying Plaintiff Hale’s application for DIB and SSI 

benefits is AFFIRMED under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00222-CG-N Document 20 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2142 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2142

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
  Agencies, Small Business Administration, Salaries and Expenses 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 Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
  Agencies, Small Business Administration, Salaries and Expenses 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 INDEPENDENT 
              AGENCIES, SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, SALARIES AND 
              EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Independent Agencies, 
Small Business Administration, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 
2024 may not exceed $267,500,000.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

        EXHIBIT 12 -- COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
             (COMBINED WITH 50% OWNED UNCONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       2000    1999     1998    1997    1996
           FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31             ----    -----    ----    ----    ----
                    (In millions)
<S>                                                    <C>     <C>      <C>     <C>     <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations.............  $113    $(112)   $ 82    $106    $ 65
Add
  Interest...........................................   134      146     133     124     102
  Portion of rentals representative of interest
     factor..........................................    15       18      12      12       8
  Preferred stock dividend requirements of
     majority-owned subsidiaries.....................             --       1      --      --
  Income tax expense (benefit) and other taxes on
     income..........................................    91      (47)     67      75      67
  Amortization of interest capitalized...............    --       --      --      --       1
                                                       ----    -----    ----    ----    ----
  Earnings as defined................................  $353    $   5    $295    $317    $243
                                                       ====    =====    ====    ====    ====
Interest.............................................  $134    $ 146    $133    $124    $102
Interest capitalized.................................     5       --       1       1       3
Portion of rentals representative of interest
  factor.............................................    15       18      12      12       8
Preferred stock dividend requirements of
  majority-owned subsidiaries on a pre-tax basis.....    --       --       2      --      --
                                                       ----    -----    ----    ----    ----
Fixed charges as defined.............................  $154    $ 164    $148    $137    $113
                                                       ====    =====    ====    ====    ====
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges...................  2.29     (a)     1.99    2.31    2.15
                                                       ====    =====    ====    ====    ====
</TABLE>

---------------
(a) In 1999, earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $159 million.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAMES R. FORRESTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2477

[July 2, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2017-CF010881-AXXX-MB.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant 

Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 

Fourth District, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2027 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2027

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
      Educcation, Student Aid Administration 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 Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
      Educcation, Student Aid Administration 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 
              EDUCCATION, STUDENT AID ADMINISTRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Education, 
Student Aid Administration for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0.
                                 <all>
```
11860.

#### Boatright *v.*The State.

Decided March 9, 1921.

Indictment for larceny; from Bacon superior court — Judge Summerall. July 34, 1930.

*I. J. Bussell,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. B. Spence, solicitor-general,*contra.

Luke, J.

It appearing from the recitals in the bill of exceptions that it was tendered to the trial court more than 20 days after the date of the judgment complained of, the writ of error, must be

*Dismissed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
|   | · | The                Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and                    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | · | The                information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |

| Date:  May                3, 2007 | /s/  J.                Matt Simmons,                Jr.                                                |
|---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                        | J.                Matt Simmons, Jr.Vice                President and ControllerPPL                Electric Utilities Corporation                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
Ex10.3 Director Compensation Arrangements


Exhibit 10.3


Director Compensation Arrangements
The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has approved the following compensation arrangements for the non-employee directors serving on the Board of Directors and its committees.
Cash Compensation
Beginning on May 7, 2015, an annual retainer of $60,000 will be paid to the non-employee director serving as the Chairman of the Board.  Beginning on July 1, 2015, (i) each non-employee director will be paid an annual retainer of $50,000 for serving on the Board; (ii) each non-employee director will be paid an annual retainer of $5,000 for serving on a standing committee of the Board; (iii) an annual retainer of $17,000 will be paid to the non-employee director serving as the Chair of the Audit Committee; (iv) an annual retainer of $10,000 will be paid to the respective non-employee directors serving as the Chair of the Compensation Committee and the Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee; and (v) each non-employee director will be paid a per meeting fee of $1,500 for each Board and committee meeting attended (of which the non-employee director is a member) that is in excess of a total aggregate amount of eighteen (18) Board and committee meetings during a fiscal year.
Long-Term Incentive Compensation
Each non-employee director will receive an annual equity grant under the Air Transport Services Group, Inc. 2015 Long-Term Incentive Plan, with a total grant value of $75,000.  The grant shall be awarded in the form of restricted stock units.  The restricted stock units will vest and settle on the first anniversary of the date of grant, unless the non-employee director elects (no later than December 31st of the year immediately preceding the year of grant) to defer the settlement to either a specific date after the first anniversary of the date of grant or the date upon which the non-employee director’s board service ends.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RAFAL PODCHUL, :

 :

Petitioner, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0566-WS-M

 :

WARDEN BILL BATEMAN et al., :

 :

Respondents. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this

file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been

no objections filed, the 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 and to obey the Court's Order.

DONE this 8th day of November, 2006.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00566-WS-M Document 6 Filed 11/08/06 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8498

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. SHONTAYNE DWAYNE PITTMAN, a/k/a Wayne, a/k/a Light,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (4:97-cr-00005-F-9)

Submitted: March 23, 2009 Decided: April 9, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shontayne Dwayne Pittman, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Shontayne Dwayne Pittman appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), in which he sought the benefit of Amendments 505 and 706 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, and denying his

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Pittman , No. 4:97-cr-00005-F-9 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2008 & Nov. 18, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED

* We note that Amendment 505 became effective prior to Pittman’s initial sentencing in 1997. That Amendment therefore factored into Pittman’s original guideline calculation, and his claim that he is entitled to the benefit of that Amendment is moot.
IN THE UNITED DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

DANIEL KEITH LOLLEY, #207815, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00555-CG-B 

LOUISIANA CORRECTIONAL 

SERVICES, et al., : 

 Defendants. : 

JUDGMENT 

 It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Defendant John Doe I and John 

Doe II be and are hereby DISMISSED. 

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of June, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:09-cv-00555-CG-B Document 18 Filed 06/09/10 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6568

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ANDRE LAMAR RICKS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00171-RDB-2; 1:08-cv-01061-RDB)

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Andre Lamar Ricks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ricks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED
                                  STATES CODE)

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Internet
Initiative Japan Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's
knowledge, that the Company's annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended
March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: July 11, 2006

                                 INTERNET INITIATIVE JAPAN INC.

                                        /s/ Koichi Suzuki
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                 Name:  Koichi Suzuki
                                 Title: President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                        Representative Director
Exhibit 32.1   ForeverGreen Worldwide Corp.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officers of ForeverGreen Worldwide Corp. certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  * the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  * the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  January 14, 2009/s/ Ronald K. Williams
Ronald K. Williams
Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Paul T. Frampton
Paul T. Frampton
Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2124 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2124

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
Agencies, Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation, Salaries and Expenses 
                         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 Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
Agencies, Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation, Salaries and Expenses 
                         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 INDEPENDENT 
              AGENCIES, HARRY S. TRUMAN SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION, 
              SALARIES AND EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Independent Agencies, 
Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation, Salaries and Expenses for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $1,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered M a rch 14 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 21 - 00565 - CR No. 05 - 21 - 0056 6 - CR HENRY LEE CAREY , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On App ea l f

rom the Criminal Di strict Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 19 - 55133 - H & F19 - 10416 - H

O RDER Before the Court is appel lant ’s March 9, 2022 fourth mo tion for an ext e nsion of time to file his brief. W e GRANT the motion and ORDER ap pell ant ’s br ief received with the motion filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE KEVIN WILLIAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0048-CG-M

)

KENNETH JONES, )

)

Respondent. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, 

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

is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that this habeas petition be DENIED and that this action 

be DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that any certificate of appealability filed 

by Petitioner be DENIED as he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00048-CG-M Document 33 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 1
11961.

#### GRINSTEAD *v.*CITY OF HAWKINSVILLE.

In sustaining a certiorari on the ground that the evidence demanded a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in certiorari, it was proper to remand the case for another trial, instead of rendering final judgment in his favor.

Decided January 25, 1921.

Certiorari; from Pulaski superior court — Judge Gower presiding. September 24, 1920.

*Marion Turner,*for plaintiff in error.

*205Broyles, C. *J.*

The only assignment of error in the petition for certiorari which is argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error is that the judgment of the mayor and council of the City of Hawkinsville is contrary to law and the evidence, and that the evidence demanded a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in certiorari. The judge of the superior court sustained the certiorari and remanded the case for another trial, and the plaintiff in certiorari excepts to that part of- the judgment which remands the ease for another trial. This exception is without merit. In such a case, where the undisputed evidence demands a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in certiorari, the judge of the superior court should sustain the certiorari, but should not render a final judgment in his favor. ££ This is so for the reason that in such a case the error complained of is not £ an error in law which must finally govern the case, ’ and further, because it could not be known with certainty that the evidence on another trial would be the same. ” *Seaboard Air-Line Ry.*v. *Blue,*120 *Ga.*228 (47 S. E. 569); *Cook*v. *Atlanta,*6 *Ga. App.*356 (64 S. E. 1107). Under this ruling the judge of the superior court did not err in failing and refusing to render a final judgment in the case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodtuorth, JJ., concur.*