alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 5.1

                       [Headed paper of White & Case LLP]

June 30, 2003

iPayment, Inc.
40 Burton Hills Boulevard, Suite 415
Nashville, TN 37215

Ladies and Gentlemen:

          We refer to the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (the "Registration
Statement") under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"),
in the form in which it is to be filed today by iPayment, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation (the "Company"), with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Commission"), relating to the registration of (i) 1,966,475 shares of common
stock (the "Incentive Plan Common Stock") pursuant to the Company's Stock
Incentive Plan (the "Incentive Plan"), and (ii) 347,025 shares of common stock
(the "Directors Plan Common Stock" and, together with the Incentive Plan Common
Stock, the "Plan Common Stock") pursuant to the Company's Non-Employee Directors
Stock Option Plan (the "Directors Plan" and, together with the Incentive Plan,
the "Plans").

          We have examined the originals, or photostatic or certified copies, of
such records of the Company, certificates of officers of the Company and of
public officials and such other documents as we have deemed relevant and
necessary as the basis for the opinion set forth below. We have relied upon such
certificates of officers of the Company and of public officials and statements
and information furnished by officers of the Company with respect to the
accuracy of material factual matters contained therein which were not
independently established by us. In such examination we have assumed the
genuineness of all signatures, the authenticity of all documents submitted to us
as originals, the conformity to original documents of all documents submitted to
us as photostatic or certified copies, and the authenticity of the originals of
such copies.

          Based upon our examination described above, subject to the assumptions
stated, it is our opinion that the Plan Common Stock, upon issuance and sale by
the Company as contemplated under the Plans against payment therefor, will be
duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable.

          We consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement. In giving this consent, we do not thereby admit that we
are within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of
the Securities Act or the rules and regulations of the Commission.

                                         Very truly yours,

                                         /s/ White & Case LLP
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**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 of Ultitek. Ltd., a Nevada corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Roman Price, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
      knowledge and belief:





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.




Dated:
                May 14,2007
            
            /s/ ROMAN
                PRICERoman
                PricePresident,
                Chief Executive Officer and Sole Director
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
#### § 641.730 How will the Department assist grantees in the transition to the new core performance measures?

As soon as practicable after January 2, 2018, the Department will determine if a SCSEP grantee's performance under the measures in effect prior to January 2, 2018 would have met the expected levels of performance for the Program Year 2018. If the Department determines that the grantee would have failed to meet the Program Year 2018 expected levels of performance, the Department will provide technical assistance to help the grantee to transition to eventually meet the expected levels of performance under the measures in § 641.700.
#### § 654.13 Determination of areas of substantial unemployment.

An area of substantial unemployment, for purposes of Executive Order 10582, shall be any area classified as a labor surplus area at § 654.5 of this part pursuant to the procedures set forth at subpart A of this part.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOHN HAYWARD,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D15-2609

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 24, 2016

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County,

Keith A. Carsten, Judge.

William R. Ponall, of Ponall Law, Maitland, 

for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant 

Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

John Hayward appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief 

filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One, 

Two, Three, Five, and the supplemental claim. However, because the record does not 

conclusively refute Hayward’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the 

admission of collateral crimes evidence, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Four 
2

and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or for 

an evidentiary hearing. See Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) ("[A] 

defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) 

the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to 

no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing Maharaj v.

State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996))).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
AL 

Jf n tbe Wniteb ~tates ~ourt of jf eberal ~Iaittt5 

No. 15-1556C 

(Filed May 5, 2017) 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

* 

BEATRICE ROBINSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNITED STATES, 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Defendant. * 

* 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ORDER 

FILED 

MAY - 5 2017 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff, Beatrice Robinson, filed a complaint in our court contending that 

the Department of Education (Department) was improperly garnishing her social 

security disability benefits to satisfy a student loan which had been discharged due 

to disability. Compl. ir 2. In response to the complaint, and after some forms were 

received and processed, the Department refunded to Ms. Robinson the money it had 

offset from her benefits and ceased the garnishment. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss (Def.'s 

Mot.) Exs. A-B. As this remedial action mooted plaintiff's claim, defendant moved 

for the dismissal of the complaint. Def.'s Mot. at 1. 

Plaintiff acknowl~dges that she h as received the relief she sought, but 

opposes the government's motion to dismiss because she claims she is a "prevailing 

party" entitled to the reimbursement of her $400 filing fee. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. 

at 1. Unfortunately for plaintiff, as both the Federal Circuit and t he Supreme 

Court have made clear, a party who obtains all the relief it seeks because the 

government voluntarily agrees to provide the relief requested, without the 

involvement of the court, is not a prevailing party within the meaning of the Equal 

Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Bucl?-hannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. 

Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 610 (2001); Brickwood 

Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 288 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Rice Servs., 

Ltd. v. United States, 405 F.3d 1017, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Dellew Corp. v. United 

States, No. 2016-2304, 2017 WL 1541520, at *3 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2017). As this 
Court may only tax costs when a plaintiff is a prevailing party, U.S. ex rel. Long v. 

GSDMidea City, L.L.C., 807 F.3d 125, 129 (5th Cir. 2015); see also 28 U.S.C. § 

2412(a)(l) & 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1), plaintiff cannot be awarded the fee she seeks.t As 

plaintiff has obtained all other relief she sought, her complaint is moot. See 

Technical Innovation, Inc. v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 276 (2010). Accordingly, the 

defendant's motion to dismiss the case is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to close 

t he case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Judge 

~4i~ 

t As plaintiff cannot be awarded the only relief she seeks, there is no reason to stay 

this case while she seeks an attorney. Accordingly, her motion for a continuance is 

DENIED. 

- 2 -
[Exhibit 32.1]

                 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 of Lightwave Logic,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harold R.
Bennett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (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.

Dated: April 9, 2008

                                  /s/ Harold R. Bennett
                                  ---------------------------
                                  Harold R. Bennett,
                                  Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Pedro Enrique DE LA GARZA, Defendant — Appellant.

No. 05-50093.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 21, 2006.

Consuelo S. Woodhead, Esq., Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Suzanne M. Lachelier, AFP, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Enrique De La Garza appeals from a judgment of conviction for being an alien found in the United States subsequent to deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), as enhanced by (b)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

De La Garza contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. Because De La Garza did not raise this issue before the district court, we review for plain error, *see United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558, 563 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc), and we affirm.

De La Garza acknowledges that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but contends that subsequent decisions have undermined its vitality such that *Almendarez-Torres*is no longer good law. This argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Weiland,*420 F.3d 1062, 1079, n. 16 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.

In accordance with *United States v. Rivera-Sanchez,*222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to § 1326(b)(2). *See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Oscar R. Taylor, Respondent, v. Hiter King, Appellant.

There was no laches shown which should deprive the defendant of a bill of particulars. *(Tilton*v. *Gans,*155 App. Div. 612.) The allegations of the complaint as to the nature of the contract and the damages recoverable were such as to entitle the defendant to a bill of particulars under appropriate conditions. The order is, therefore, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion for a bill of particulars granted, without costs. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapletonand Putnam, JJ., concurred.
### §§5962, 5963. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title XIII, §1351(11), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3607

Section 5962, Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title XIII, §1307, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1661, related to annual certifications on use of facilities being constructed for Cooperative Threat Reduction projects or activities.

Section 5963, Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title XIII, §1308, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1662; Pub. L. 110–53, title XVIII, §1811(4), Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 493; Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title XIII, §1305, Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 413, related to authority to use Cooperative Threat Reduction funds outside the former Soviet Union.
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  Quarterly  Report  of  Marwich  II,  Ltd.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
J. Maender,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and 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.




By:  /s/ William J. Maender
         ---------------------
         William J. Maender
         Chief Financial Officer


September 14, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.1



             CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                  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 Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of First
Keystone Corporation (the "Corporation") for the period ended September
30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, J. Gerald Bazewicz, President and CEO, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

    2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of
        operations of the Corporation as of and for the period covered
        by the Report.



                                  /s/ J. Gerald Bazewicz
                                  J. Gerald Bazewicz
                                  President and CEO


November 9, 2009
§ 678.400 Who are the required one-stop partners? ( a ) Section 121(b)(1)(B) of WIOA identifies the entities that are required partners in the local one-stop delivery systems.
( b ) The required partners are the entities responsible for administering the following programs and activities in the local area: ( 1 ) Programs authorized under title I of WIOA, including: ( i ) Adults;
( ii ) Dislocated workers;
( iii ) Youth;
( iv ) Job Corps;
( v ) YouthBuild;
( vi ) Native American programs; and
( vii ) Migrant and seasonal farmworker programs;
( 2 ) The Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service program authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 *et seq.*), as amended by WIOA title III;
( 3 ) The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) program authorized under title II of WIOA;
( 4 ) The Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program authorized under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 720 *et seq.*), as amended by WIOA title IV;
( 5 ) The Senior Community Service Employment Program authorized under title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 *et seq.*);
( 6 ) Career and technical education programs at the postsecondary level authorized under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 *et seq.*);
( 7 ) Trade Adjustment Assistance activities authorized under chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 *et seq.*);
( 8 ) Jobs for Veterans State Grants programs authorized under chapter 41 of title 38, U.S.C.;
( 9 ) Employment and training activities carried out under the Community Services Block Grant (42 U.S.C. 9901 *et seq.*);
( 10 ) Employment and training activities carried out by the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
( 11 ) Programs authorized under State unemployment compensation laws (in accordance with applicable Federal law);
( 12 ) Programs authorized under sec. 212 of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17532); and
( 13 ) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) authorized under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*), unless exempted by the Governor under § 678.405(b).
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.1585 Evidence permitted on review. ( a ) *General.* Generally, the Appeals Council will not consider evidence in addition to that introduced at the hearing. However, if the Appeals Council finds the evidence offered is material to an issue it is considering, it may consider that evidence, as described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Individual charged filed an answer.* ( 1 ) When the Appeals Council finds that additional evidence material to the charges is available, and the individual charged filed an answer to the charges, the Appeals Council will allow the party with the information to submit the additional evidence.
( 2 ) Before the Appeals Council admits additional evidence into the record, it will mail a notice to the parties, informing them that evidence about certain issues was submitted. The Appeals Council will give each party a reasonable opportunity to comment on the evidence and to present other evidence that is material to an issue it is considering.
( 3 ) The Appeals Council will determine whether the additional evidence warrants a new review by a hearing officer or whether the Appeals Council will consider the additional evidence as part of its review of the case.
( c ) *Individual charged did not file an answer.* If the representative did not file an answer to the charges, the representative may not introduce evidence that was not considered at the hearing.
[83 FR 30859, July 2, 2018]
§ 604.2 Definitions. ( a ) *Department* means the United States Department of Labor.
( b ) *FUTA* means the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. 3301 *et seq.*
( c ) *Social Security Act* means the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 501 *et seq.*
( d ) *State* means a State of the United States of America, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands.
( e ) *State UC agency* means the agency of the State charged with the administration of the State's UC law.
( f ) *State UC law* means the law of a State approved under Section 3304(a), FUTA (26 U.S.C. 3304(a)).
( g ) *Unemployment Compensation (UC)* means cash benefits payable to individuals with respect to their unemployment.
( h ) *Week of unemployment* means a week of total, part-total or partial unemployment as defined in the State's UC law.
§ 663.640 May an individual with a disability whose family does not meet income eligibility criteria under the Act be eligible for priority as a low-income adult? Yes, even if the family of an individual with a disability does not meet the income eligibility criteria, the individual with a disability is to be considered a low-income individual if the individual's own income: ( a ) Meets the income criteria established in WIA section 101(25)(B); or
( b ) Meets the income eligibility criteria for cash payments under any Federal, State or local public assistance program. (WIA sec. 101(25)(F).)
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

CHINOOK SALMON REPORT

March 2008

Note:Bold numbers are not verified by DFG & DWR Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Winter Run Chinook Salmon Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) Spring Run Chinook Salmon Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) 

Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Dail

Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged* No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag In 

DATE Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated

Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss

1-Mar-08 0 54 0 18 0 72 18 651 0000 0 0 15 0 1,441 2-Mar-08 0006 0 6 18 657 0030 3 0 18 0 1,169 3-Mar-08 0906 0 15 18 672 0000 0 0 18 0 1,049 4-Mar-08 0 17 0 4 0 21 18 693 0000 0 0 18 0 1,072 5-Mar-08 0 52 0 4 0 56 18 749 0000 0 0 18 0 2,030 6-Mar-08 0003 0 3 18 752 0000 0 0 18 0 1,918 7-Mar-08 0 17 0 8 0 25 18 777 0030 3 0 21 0 1,917 8-Mar-08 0 17 0 3 0 20 18 797 0030 3 0 24 0 2,493 9-Mar-08 0006 0 6 18 803 0000 0 0 24 0 2,646 

10-Mar-08 0 17 0 3 0 20 18 823 0000 0 0 24 0 1,967 11-Mar-08 0 35 0 14 0 49 18 872 0003 0 3 24 3 1,970 12-Mar-08 0 26 0 19 0 45 18 917 0000 0 0 24 3 2,016 13-Mar-08 0 10 0 16 0 26 18 943 0000 0 0 24 3 1,440 14-Mar-08 0 0 0 16 0 16 18 959 0 0 4 10 4 10 28 13 1,412 15-Mar-08 0004 0 4 18 963 0000 0 0 28 13 1,072 

16-Mar-08 0008 0 8 18 971 0000 0 0 28 13 969 17-Mar-08 0 18 0 0 0 18 18 989 0000 0 0 28 13 981 18-Mar-08 0 26 0 4 0 30 18 1,019 0 27 0 4 0 31 28 44 1,907 19-Mar-08 0904 0 13 18 1,032 0 44 0 4 0 48 28 92 1,950 20-Mar-08 0 34 0 8 0 42 18 1,074 17 9 0 7 17 16 45 108 1,986 21-Mar-08 0 9 0 11 0 20 18 1,094 0 17 0 0 0 17 45 125 1,522 22-Mar-08 0 51 0 3 0 54 18 1,148 0 17 0 7 0 24 45 149 1,449 23-Mar-08 0 18 0 11 0 29 18 1,177 17 0 0 0 17 0 62 149 1,032 24-Mar-08 0003 0 3 18 1,180 0034 3 4 65 153 1,320 25-Mar-08 0000 0 0 18 1,180 0929 2 18 67 171 1,537 26-Mar-08 0008 0 8 18 1,188 0 0 0 19 0 19 67 190 1,460 27-Mar-08 0003 0 3 18 1,191 0066 6 6 73 196 1,526 28-Mar-08 0004 0 4 18 1,195 0 32 0 6 0 38 73 234 1,457 29-Mar-08 0000 0 0 18 1,195 0 0 0 10 0 10 73 244 1,451 

30-Mar-08 0008 0 8 18 1,203 0003 0 3 73 247 1,317 31-Mar-08 0004 0 4 18 1,207 0 0 0 10 0 10 73 257 897 

Total 0 419 0 209 0 628 18 1,207 34 155 24 102 58 257 73 257 48,374 

Winter Run Incidental Take Levels (Oct 1 thru May 31) Spring Run Incidental Take Levels for Season Combined Total (Oct 1 thru Jun 30)Tagged Yellow Light Level = ??? SeasonTagged Red Light Level = ??? SeasonNo Tag Yellow Light Level = ??? SeasonNo Tag Red Light Level = ??? Season* This number is determined by Winter Run Length only until the tags have been read. All tags from Winter Run Length Fish have been read and numbers are updated thru 3/19/05.

Banks T