alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 96.71 Review by the accrediting entity of complaints against accredited agencies and approved persons. ( a ) The accrediting entity must establish written procedures, including deadlines, for recording, investigating, and acting upon complaints it receives pursuant to §§ 96.69 and 96.70(b)(1). The procedures must be consistent with this section and be approved by the Secretary. The accrediting entity must make written information about its complaint procedures available upon request.
( b ) If the accrediting entity determines that a complaint implicates the Convention, the IAA, the UAA, or the regulations implementing the IAA or UAA: ( 1 ) The accrediting entity must verify that the complainant has already attempted to resolve the complaint as described in § 96.69(b) and, if not, may refer the complaint to the agency or person, or to the primary provider, for attempted resolution through its internal complaint procedures;
( 2 ) The accrediting entity may conduct whatever investigative activity (including site visits) it considers necessary to determine whether any relevant accredited agency or approved person may maintain accreditation or approval as provided in § 96.27. The provisions of §§ 96.25 and 96.26 govern requests for and use of information. The accrediting entity must give priority to complaints submitted pursuant to § 96.69(d);
( 3 ) If the accrediting entity determines that the agency or person may not maintain accreditation or approval, it must take adverse action pursuant to subpart K of this part.
( c ) When the accrediting entity has completed its complaint review process, it must provide written notification of the outcome of its investigation, and any actions taken, to the complainant, or to any other entity that referred the information.
( d ) The accrediting entity will enter information about the outcomes of its investigations and its actions on complaints into the Complaint Registry as provided in its agreement with the Secretary.
( e ) The accrediting entity may not take any action to discourage an individual from, or retaliate against an individual for, making a complaint, expressing a grievance, questioning the conduct of, or expressing an opinion about the performance of an accredited agency, an approved person, or the accrediting entity.
[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 40636, July 14, 2014]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Jones, Also Known as Eugene Jones, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 29, 1975, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), possession of a weapon, as a felony, escape in the second degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree and menacing, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the convictions of *610robbery in the first degree, and the sentences imposed thereon, and the said counts are dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. We hold, and the People concede, that in view of the circumstances present here the jury reached a repugnant verdict when it convicted defendant on the counts of robbery in the first degree while acquitting him on the counts of grand larceny in the third degree (cf. *People v Carbonell,*40 NY2d 948). We find that defendant’s contention that the Trial Judge erroneously refused to charge the defense of justification (see Penal Law, § 35.15) is academic. That defense relates to the robbery counts, which counts have been dismissed. Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
§ 39.21 Public information. ( a ) *General.* A derivatives clearing organization shall provide to market participants sufficient information to enable the market participants to identify and evaluate accurately the risks and costs associated with using the services of the derivatives clearing organization. In furtherance of the objective in this paragraph (a), a derivatives clearing organization shall have clear and comprehensive rules and procedures.
( b ) *Availability of information.* A derivatives clearing organization shall make information concerning the rules and the operating and default procedures governing the clearing and settlement systems of the derivatives clearing organization available to market participants.
( c ) *Public disclosure.* A derivatives clearing organization shall make the following information readily available to the general public, in a timely manner, by posting such information on the derivatives clearing organization's website, unless otherwise permitted by the Commission: ( 1 ) The terms and conditions of each contract, agreement, and transaction cleared and settled by the derivatives clearing organization;
( 2 ) Each clearing and other fee that the derivatives clearing organization charges its clearing members;
( 3 ) Information concerning its margin-setting methodology, except that a derivatives clearing organization that clears only fully collateralized positions instead may disclose that it does not employ a margin-setting methodology because it clears only fully collateralized positions;
( 4 ) The size and composition of the financial resource package available in the event of a clearing member default, updated as of the end of the most recent fiscal quarter or upon Commission request and posted as promptly as practicable after submission of the report to the Commission under § 39.11(f)(1)(i)(A), except that a derivatives clearing organization that clears only fully collateralized positions instead may disclose that it does not maintain a financial resource package to be used in the event of a clearing member default because it clears only fully collateralized positions;
( 5 ) Daily settlement prices, volume, and open interest for each contract, agreement, or transaction cleared or settled by the derivatives clearing organization, posted no later than the business day following the day to which the information pertains;
( 6 ) The derivatives clearing organization's rulebook, including rules and procedures for defaults in accordance with § 39.16;
( 7 ) A current list of all clearing members, except that a derivatives clearing organization may omit any clearing member that clears only fully collateralized positions and is not a futures commission merchant;
( 8 ) A list of all swaps that the derivatives clearing organization will accept for clearing that identifies which swaps on the list are required to be cleared, in accordance with § 50.3(a) of this chapter; and
( 9 ) Any other information that is relevant to participation in the clearing and settlement activities of the derivatives clearing organization.
[76 FR 69430, Nov. 8, 2011, as amended at 85 FR 4861, Jan. 27, 2020; 88 FR 53684, Aug. 8, 2023]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ascona Santiago, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 73]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.), rendered April 27, 1998, convicting him of *259manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a determinate term of 25 years imprisonment.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing by a different Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his challenge for cause of a juror who admitted having arthritis in his back. However, that juror conformed to all of the qualifications specified in Judiciary Law § 510, and no questions were raised with regard to his impartiality *(see,*Judiciary Law § 510, as amended by L 1995, ch 86). The Supreme Court stated that if the juror’s back began to hurt from sitting too long, it would accommodate him by taking frequent breaks *(see, People v Guzman,*76 NY2d 1). Thus, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant’s challenge for cause.

However, the case must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing. The remarks made by the Supreme Court demonstrated that it considered crimes of which the defendant was acquitted as a basis for sentencing *(see, People v Grant,*191 AD2d 297; *People v Coward,*100 AD2d 628). O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Mail and Express Company and Others.

Motions granted; questions certified. Present —■ Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
Case 3:08-cv-04847-SI Document 80 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:08-cv-04847-SI Document 80 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2557 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2557

   To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener electric devices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2005

Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on air freshener electric devices.

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

SECTION 1. AIR FRESHENER ELECTRIC DEVICES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following:

``      9902.98.08       Air freshener      Free         No Change        No Change        On or Before 12/  ''.
                         electric devices                                                   31/2008
                         that diffuse
                         fragrance
                         throughout a room
                         using a
                         continuous action
                         battery-operated
                         ultrasonic micro-
                         pump controlled
                         by a microchip
                         that
                         automatically
                         releases measured
                         puffs of
                         fragrance
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         8424.89.70)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST

LITIGATION

TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., )

et al., S.D. Florida, C.A. No. 1:10-21452 ) MDL No. 1827

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-7)

On April 17, 2007, the Panel transferred seven civil actions to the United States District Court for

the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1407. See 483 F.Supp.2d 1353 (J.P.M.L. 2007). Since that time, 74 additional actions

have been transferred to the Northern District of California. With the consent of that court, all such

actions have been assigned to the Honorable Susan Yvonne Illston.

It appears that the action on this conditional transfer order involves questions of fact that are

common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned to

Judge Illston.

Pursuant to Rule 7.4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 199

F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), this action is transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the Northern District

of California for the reasons stated in the order of April 17, 2007, and, with the consent of that court,

assigned to the Honorable Susan Yvonne Illston.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall

be stayed 14 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of

the Panel within this 14-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

___________________________

 Jeffery N. Lüthi

 Clerk of the Panel

Jun 22, 2010

Jul 07, 2010

By Jakeia R. Mells on Jul 07, 2010

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1886 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32(i)



Certification



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER

OF ATMOSPHERIC GLOW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

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 Atmospheric Glow Technologies,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the undersigneds knowledge:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 13, 2006



/s/ Thomas W. ReddochThomas W. Reddoch, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer




Date: February 13, 2006



/s/ Sharon L. DraperSharon L. Draper, Chief Accounting Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certificate is being
furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
### §3797aa–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797aa–1 was editorially reclassified as section 10652 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            1000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    12729
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 19802
<PP&E>                                          302348
<DEPRECIATION>                                   86546
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  243100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            62991
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           194
<OTHER-SE>                                      162471
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    243100
<SALES>                                          95183
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 95183
<CGS>                                            43313
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    43313
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 48108
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1727
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2035
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2035
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2035
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        

</TABLE>
FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL Case No. 08-cv-04577 VRW

DARRYL M. WOO (CSB No. 100513)

dwoo@fenwick.com

CHARLENE M. MORROW (CSB No. 136411)

cmorrow@fenwick.com

TYLER A. BAKER (CSB No. 65109)

tbaker@fenwick.com

FENWICK & WEST LLP

555 California Street, 12th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 875-2300

Facsimile: (415) 281-1350

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants

INTERCEDE GROUP PLC and INTERCEDE LTD.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ACTIVIDENTITY CORPORATION, a 

Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERCEDE GROUP PLC AND 

INTERCEDE LTD., both of Lutterworth, 

UK,

Defendants.

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

Case No.: 3:08-cv-04577 VRW

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF 

ENTIRE ACTION 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Vaughn R Walker

April 7, 2010 ...

Case 3:08-cv-04577-VRW Document 140 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 2
FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL - 1 - Case No. 08-cv-04577 VRW

Plaintiff ActivIdentity Corporation (“ActivIdentity”) and Defendants Intercede Group plc 

and Intercede Ltd. (collectively, “Intercede”), by and through their attorneys, respectfully submit 

this Joint Stipulation of Dismissal. In accordance with a formal Settlement Agreement that 

resolves all claims between ActivIdentity and Intercede in the above-captioned action, 

ActivIdentity and Intercede have agreed to dismiss, and ActivIdentity hereby dismisses with 

prejudice, all claims for patent infringement asserted or that could have been asserted in this 

action. Also pursuant to said Settlement Agreement, Intercede hereby dismisses, with prejudice, 

all defenses and counterclaims asserted against ActivIdentity in this action.

Accordingly, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1), ActivIdentity and Intercede hereby 

stipulate to said dismissals with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.

Dated: April 1, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

FENWICK & WEST LLP

By: /s/ Joseph S. Belichick

Joseph S. Belichick

Attorneys for Defendants

INTERCEDE GROUP PLC and INTERCEDE LTD.

Dated: April 1, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

By: /s/ Julie M. Holloway

Julie M. Holloway

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ACTIVIDENTITY CORPORATION

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

I hereby attest that I have received Julie M. Holloway’s concurrence in the e-filing of this 

document as indicated by the “conformed” signature (s/) above.

By: /s/ Joseph S. Belichick

Joseph S. Belichick

Case 3:08-cv-04577-VRW Document 140 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Joseph WATKINS, Appellant, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General; Jonathan C. Miner, Warden of U.S.P. Allenwood.

No. 07-1285.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 May 10, 2007.

Filed: May 31, 2007.

Joseph Watkins, Allenwood USP, White Deer, PA, for Appellant.

Kate L. Mershimer, Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Ap-pellee.

BEFORE: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Joseph Watkins, timely appeals from the District Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Watkins, a federal inmate, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the administration of his sentence. Many of the issues therein had been raised previously in a 2002 petition and rejected both by the District Court and by this Court on appeal. *See*M.D.Pa. Civ. No. 02-cv-1903; C.A. No. 04-1097. At the time this earlier petition was filed, Watkins had a full term expiration date of January 24, 2008, and a projected release date, factoring in good time credit, of December 12, 2005. We agree with the District Court’s refusal to revisit petitioner’s old claims and to consider only those alleged miscalculations in petitioner’s sentence which occurred after the period addressed in his prior petition. The instant petition appears to allege a miscalculation of his good time credit during this period, which has led to a projected release date of November 13, 2007. The District Court found no error in the government’s calculations and rejected the petition.

We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 & 2253 and undertake pie-*83nary review of the judgment of the District Court. *See Ruggiano v. Reish,*307 F.3d 121, 126 (3d Cir.2002). Like the District Court, we find no error in the government’s calculation of petitioner’s release date.1 When we last reviewed petitioner’s sentence, the full term expiration date was January 24, 2008. Factoring in good time credit, his projected release date was December 12, 2005. Since that time, Watkins has been penalized for various infractions by the forfeiture of 688 days of good time credit. He also earned an additional 7 days of good time credit for time spent in a Residential Reentry Center. Finally, the Bureau of Prisons corrected a computation error in his sentence which led to the addition of 27 days to his full term release date and the addition of 7 days projected good time credit. In total, these changes have resulted in the addition of 701 days to his projected release date. Petitioner does not challenge the validity of these adjustments, but rather contends “improper computation.” The government has made its calculations correctly and set Watkins’s projected release date as November 13, 2007, 701 days after December 12, 2005.

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the district court. Petitioner’s motion for summary reversal is denied.

1

. As the events in this case are familiar to the parties and ably summarized in the District Court's memorandum, we limit ourselves to a short summary of the relevant changes in petitioner’s release date.
#### Berliana Corporation v. Narragansett Industries, Inc.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procux-es the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before May 3, 1962, with notice of argument for May 15, 1962, said appeal to be *639argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.