alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ives Glover, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, the information dismissed and the fine remitted on the ground that the guilt of the defendant was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
 Date: November 7, 2008
    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR
WILLIAMS COAL SEAM GAS ROYALTY TRUSTBy:
    /s/ RON E. HOOPERRon E. HooperSenior Vice President and Administrator
Bank of America, N.A.
§ 11.19 Action on approved claim. ( a ) Payment of a claim approved under this part is contingent on claimant's execution of ( 1 ) a “Claim for Damage or Injury,” Standard Form 95, or a claims settlement agreement, and
( 2 ) a “Voucher for Payment,” Standard Form 1145, as appropriate. When a claimant is represented by an attorney, the voucher for payment shall designate both the claimant and his or her attorney as payees, and the check shall be delivered to the attorney, whose address shall appear on the voucher.
( b ) Acceptance by the claimant, his or her agent, or legal representative, of an award, compromise, or settlement made under section 2672 or 2677 of title 28, United States Code, is final and conclusive on the claimant, his or her agent or legal representative, and any other person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the claim has been presented, and constitutes a complete release of any claim against the United States and against any employee of the Government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim, by reason of the same subject matter.
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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Insightful Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, the undersigned, Richard
Barber, Chief Financial Officer of Insightful Corporation, does hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Insightful Corporation.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 15, 2006



By:

/s/ Richard P. BarberRichard P. BarberChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### § 5.11 Information collection.

The information collection requirements contained in this subpart have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.,* and assigned the following OMB clearance numbers: 1024-0026 for the National Park Service, 1004-0009 for the Bureau of Land Management and 1018-0102 for the Fish and Wildlife Service. This information is being collected to provide land managers data necessary to issue permits for commercial filming or still photography permits on Federal lands. This information will be used to grant administrative benefits. The obligation to respond is required in order to obtain a benefit. You may send comments on this information collection requirement to the Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., MS3530, Washington, DC 20240.
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

High Tech National, LLC and 

Automotive Key Controls, LLC, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

Jay Wiener and others, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22857-Civ-Scola

Order Denying Motion To Stay

This matter is before the Court upon the Defendant Sonia Wiener’s 

motion to stay the unjust enrichment claim set forth in Count XLV of the 

Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. For the reasons stated below, the Court

denies the Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 196.)

District Courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings in the exercise 

of their good judgment. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Here, the 

Defendant Sonia Wiener argues the Court should enter a stay because she is 

mentioned in only one count of the Plaintiffs’ complaint and because her 

liability for unjust enrichment hinges on whether or not the Plaintiffs are able 

to prove their case with respect to certain of the other Defendants. (ECF No. 

196, at 2.) Ms. Wiener states that requiring her to produce discovery before the 

Plaintiffs have proven liability with respect to certain of the other Defendants 

would be unjust and warrants a stay. The Court does not agree. 

The Court has already determined that the Plaintiffs have stated a

potential claim against Ms. Wiener when the Court denied Ms. Wiener’s motion 

to dismiss. (ECF No. 167.) Any discovery sought with respect to Ms. Wiener 

must be undertaken in a manner consistent with Federal Rule 26(b) which 

requires that discovery be “proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(1). Should Ms. Wiener find that the Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are 

abusive in some way, i.e. that they are not proportional to the needs of the case 

with respect to the Plaintiffs’ claim against Ms. Wiener, the appropriate course 

would be for her to seek a protective order, not to preemptively attempt to stay 

these proceedings, necessitating piecemeal and inefficient litigation. 

The Court therefore denies Ms. Wiener’s motion to stay. (ECF No. 196.)

The Court also denies Ms. Wiener’s request for a hearing on this matter. 

Case 1:20-cv-22857-RNS Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2021 Page 1 of 2
Done and ordered at Miami, Florida on February 17, 2021.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-22857-RNS Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2021 Page 2 of 2
(April 5, 1949.)

#### Bardons and Oliver, Inc., Respondent, v. Amtorg Trading Corporation, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 904.]
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 Willbros Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Warren L. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: June 16, 2006 |  | /s/ Warren L. Williams 
|                    |  | Warren L. Williams     
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer



48
September 1, 2006 

John L. Ferruolo, Supervising Radiological Health Specialist 

Office of Occupational and Radiological Health 

3 Capitol Hill, Room 206 

Providence, RI 02908-5097 

Dear Mr. Ferruolo: 



NRC Chronology Identificatio n FR Notic e (Date Du e fo r State Imple mentaion) RATS (P)/ Fina l (Fm 1 Rule / Licen s Condition (LC) ML # 4 NRC Rev iew / Y, N 2 / Date / ML # 4 Fina l St te Re gula ion 1 (Effectiv e Date) Criteria for the Release of
### §652. Jurisdiction

(a) Consideration of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Appropriate Cases.—Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary and except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), each district court shall, by local rule adopted under section 2071(a), require that litigants in all civil cases consider the use of an alternative dispute resolution process at an appropriate stage in the litigation. Each district court shall provide litigants in all civil cases with at least one alternative dispute resolution process, including, but not limited to, mediation, early neutral evaluation, minitrial, and arbitration as authorized in sections 654 through 658. Any district court that elects to require the use of alternative dispute resolution in certain cases may do so only with respect to mediation, early neutral evaluation, and, if the parties consent, arbitration.

(b) Actions Exempted From Consideration of Alternative Dispute Resolution.—Each district court may exempt from the requirements of this section specific cases or categories of cases in which use of alternative dispute resolution would not be appropriate. In defining these exemptions, each district court shall consult with members of the bar, including the United States Attorney for that district.

(c) Authority of the Attorney General.—Nothing in this section shall alter or conflict with the authority of the Attorney General to conduct litigation on behalf of the United States, with the authority of any Federal agency authorized to conduct litigation in the United States courts, or with any delegation of litigation authority by the Attorney General.

(d) Confidentiality Provisions.—Until such time as rules are adopted under chapter 131 of this title providing for the confidentiality of alternative dispute resolution processes under this chapter, each district court shall, by local rule adopted under section 2071(a), provide for the confidentiality of the alternative dispute resolution processes and to prohibit disclosure of confidential dispute resolution communications.

(Added Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, §901(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4659; amended Pub. L. 105–315, §4, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2994.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–315 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to alternative dispute resolution jurisdiction for provisions relating to arbitration jurisdiction.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Exception to Limitation on Money Damages

Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, §901(c), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4663, provided that notwithstanding establishment by former section 652 of this title of a $100,000 limitation on money damages with respect to cases referred to arbitration, a district court listed in former section 658 of this title whose local rule on Nov. 19, 1988, provided for a limitation on money damages of not more than $150,000, could continue to apply the higher limitation, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–315, §12(a), Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2998.
Order entered August 27, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00098-CV

RYAN GALLAGHER, Appellant

V.

COLLIN COUNTY, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-00049-2020

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s August 12, 2020 “Motion for Trial by Jury.” 

We DENY the motion.

Also before the Court is appellant’s August 20, 2020 “Motion for Hearing 

on Constitutionality of Statutes.” We DENY the motion.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Operating  Partners  1992-C  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of operations
contained  in its Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         484,315
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  458,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               969,363
<PP&E>                                         12,780,246
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (10,731,455)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,345,286
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          143,684
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,818,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,345,286
<SALES>                                        725,071
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               745,142
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  543,940<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                44,495
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            44,495
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   44,495
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>



</TABLE>
PUBLIC LAW 108–463—DEC. 21, 2004 118 STAT. 3877

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3147 (S. 2398):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–449 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Apr. 21, considered and passed House.

Dec. 7, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–463

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in Ogden,

Utah, as the ‘‘James V. Hansen Federal Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in

Ogden, Utah, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘James V.

Hansen Federal Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal building referred

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘James

V. Hansen Federal Building’’.

Approved December 21, 2004.

Dec. 21, 2004

[H.R. 3147]
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 quarterly report of Willbros Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
F. Curran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 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.







Date: May 7, 2004                               /s/    Michael F. Curran
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Michael F. Curran
                                                Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6615

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARQUITA LEIGH MEREDITH, a/k/a Baby Girl,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:19-cr-00061-RBS-RJK1)

Submitted: October 24, 2022 Decided: November 16, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marquita Leigh Meredith, Appellant Pro Se. Brian James Samuels, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6615 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/16/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

In March 2021, the district court denied Marquita Leigh Meredith’s motion for 

compassionate release for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. In light of our 

decision in United States v. Muhammad, 16 F.4th 126, 129-30 (4th Cir. 2021), we vacated 

that judgment and remanded for further proceedings, see United States v. Meredith, No. 21-

6763, 2021 WL 5851066 (4th Cir. Dec. 9, 2021). On remand, the court ruled that Meredith 

failed to the satisfy the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” standard under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and further found, in the alternative, that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors 

did not weigh in favor of a sentence reduction. The court thus denied Meredith’s motion 

for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for 

compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 

(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). 

Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s alternate ruling 

that the totality of the circumstances in this case, evaluated in light of the pertinent 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, did not warrant the grant of compassionate release or 

a sentence reduction. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 187 (4th Cir. 2021). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Meredith, No. 4:19-cr00061-RBS-RJK-1 (E.D. Va. May 13, 2022). We grant Meredith’s motion to supplement 

her informal brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6615 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/16/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 449

**Question 449:** Detectable, minor intakes may result for some individuals who do not wear respirators during specific radiological work activities for the purpose of maintaining the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA), as required by regulation. Such resulting intakes may involve substantial follow-up activities in terms of bioassay, internal dose assessment, and responses to various monitor alarms (e.g., hand-held friskers and portal monitors) as the individual continues to perform work in the restricted area in the period following the intake, due to the sensitivity of the monitors and the low monitor alarm set points, established to detect small amounts of contamination or hot particles on individuals exiting work areas or the restricted area. In evaluating whether or not to use respirators in a given situation, may the assessment of costs versus benefits appropriately include the resource costs associated with follow-up activities to potential intakes, and ultimately be factored into the decision making on wearing respirators?

**Answer:** Yes; however, there is no requirement that these costs be considered.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1702)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
<PAGE>
<TABLE>

                                                         EXHIBIT 11

                         WILLBROS GROUP, INC.
 COMPUTATION OF INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
          (In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
                             (Unaudited)
<CAPTION>
                                 
                                 
                           Three months ended  Nine months ended
                             September 30,       September 30,
                            1996       1995      1996       1995
                          -------    -------   -------    --------

PRIMARY
<S>                      <C>        <C>          <C>          <C>
Net income (loss)         $  (2,841) $  2,155      $    589     $   2,281
Preferred dividends               -         -        (1,448)            -
                          ---------  --------      --------     ---------    

Net income (loss)
  applicable to
  common shares           $  (2,841) $  2,155      $   (859)    $   2,281
                          =========  ========      ========     =========


Weighted average number
  of common and common
  equivalent shares
  outstanding            14,210,653 13,610,500    13,891,578   13,627,667

Adjustment to reflect
  common shares issued
  during the twelve months
  prior to May 31, 1996,
  as outstanding for all
  periods presented using the
  "treasury stock" method        -    596,191       172,180       596,191
                          --------  ---------     ---------    ----------

Weighted average number of
  common and common
  equivalent shares
  outstanding           14,210,653  14,206,691    14,063,758    14,223,858
                        ==========  ==========    ==========    ==========


Income (loss) per common
  and common
  equivalent share:

Net income (loss)       $     (.20)  $     .15   $     .04      $     .16
                        ==========  ==========   =========      =========

Net income (loss)
  applicable to
  common shares         $     (.20)   $    .15   $    (.06)     $     .16
                        ==========   =========   =========      =========   

</TABLE>

There  is  no  significant difference between primary and fully  diluted
income (loss) per share.
#### Charles F. Russell, Respondent-Appellant, v. Samuel A. Williams, Appellant-Respondent.

Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.