alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1220.003 Information collection. ( a ) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* The approved OMB control number is identified in 30 CFR 1210.10. The information will be used to determine all allowable direct and allocable joint costs incurred during the term of the lease, appropriate overhead allowances permitted on these costs pursuant to § 1220.012, and allowances for capital recovery calculated pursuant to § 1220.020. The information collection is mandatory in accordance with the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982, 30 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.*
( b ) Send comments regarding the burden estimates or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden, to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Attention: Rules & Regs Team, OMB Control Number 1012-0009, P.O. Box 25165, Denver, CO 80225-0165.
[57 FR 41868, Sept. 14, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 64903, Dec. 10, 1993 75 FR 61087, Oct. 4, 2010; 76 FR 76616, Dec. 8, 2011]
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3095

___________________________ Sean Edward Krier lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Derek Gosnell, Captain; Weston Weathington, Captain; Bruce Billings; Shane

Jobe; Manny Sandoval; Steve Dill lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

____________ Submitted: February 7, 2024 Filed: February 12, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Iowa inmate Sean Krier appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action raising Eighth Amendment excessive force claims based on two incidents. Upon careful de novo review, we affirm. See Gareis v. 3M Co., 9 F.4th 812, 818 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review). We agree with the district court that, based on the video evidence Krier submitted, no reasonable jury could find that the defendant correctional officers used force maliciously and sadistically to cause harm in either incident. See Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010) (per curiam) (core judicial inquiry in Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim is whether force was used in good-faith effort to restore or maintain discipline, or maliciously or sadistically to cause harm); Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81 (2007) (where non-movant’s version of events was blatantly contradicted by video evidence such that no reasonable jury could believe it, court should not adopt that version of facts in ruling on summary judgment motion, but should view facts in light depicted by video). As to Krier’s other arguments, we lack jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge’s order denying Krier’s motion for discovery and a continuance, as Krier did not appeal the order to the district court. See McDonald v. City of Saint Paul, 679 F.3d 698, 709 (8th Cir. 2012) (declining to review appellant’s challenge to magistrate’s order denying non-dispositive motion, because he did not object to such order before district court). We decline to consider the arguments regarding law library access Krier newly raises in his reply brief. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir. 2007) (points not meaningfully argued in opening brief are waived). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. -2-
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3128 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3128

 To affirm that Federal employees are protected from discrimination on 
 the basis of sexual orientation and to repudiate any assertion to the 
                               contrary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 30, 2005

 Mr. Waxman (for himself, Mr. Shays, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Foley, 
   Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Engel, Ms. 
Baldwin, Mr. Van Hollen, and Ms. Norton) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To affirm that Federal employees are protected from discrimination on 
 the basis of sexual orientation and to repudiate any assertion to the 
                               contrary.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Clarification of Federal Employment 
Protections Act''.

SEC. 2. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION PROHIBITED.

    (a) Repudiation.--In order to dispel any public confusion, Congress 
hereby repudiates any assertion that Federal employees are not 
protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
    (b) Affirmation.--It is the sense of Congress that, in the absence 
of the amendment made by subsection (c), discrimination against Federal 
employees and applicants for Federal employment on the basis of sexual 
orientation is prohibited by section 2302(b)(10) of title 5, United 
States Code.
    (c) Amendment.--Section 2302(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
            (2) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (E); and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(F) on the basis of sexual orientation.''.
                                 <all>
```
### SUBCHAPTER IV—BROADBAND AFFORDABILITY
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-119994) pertaining to the 2004Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. of our report dated March 17, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Los Angeles, California

March 23, 2005
#### Universal Vending Service Company, appellee, v. Frank Indelli, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,586.

Consolidated with No. 28,578 ante. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Per Curiam.
Skip Navigation

#         Archive-It      

Login

      - HOME
      - EXPLORE
      - LEARN MORE
      - CONTACT US

### The leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing cultural heritage on the web 

Built at the Internet Archive

        - Explore
        - Federal Depository Library Program Web Archive
        - Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

#  Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 

**Collected by:** Federal Depository Library Program Web Archive 

**Archived since:**May, 2015

**Description:**
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - the United States' primary source for criminal justice statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics was first established on December 27, 1979 under the Justice Systems Improvement Act of 1979, Public Law 96-157 (the 1979 Amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Public Law 90-351).

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is a component of the Office of Justice Programs in the U.S. Department of Justice.

**Subject:**    	    Government - US Federal,     	    Consumer Protection & Public Safety

**Creator:**    	    U.S. Department of Justice

**Language:**    	    English,     	    Spanish

**Collector:**    	    U.S. Government Publishing Office

## Narrow Your Results

### 

            There are no further ways to narrow your results.           

Sites for this collection are listed below. Narrow your results at left, or enter a search query below to		      find a site, specific URL or to search the text of archived webpages.
Clear

              - Sites
              - Search Page Text

Page 1 of 1  (4 Total Results)

**Sort By:**
                - Title (A-Z)
                - Title (Z-A)
                - URL (A-Z)
                - URL (Z-A)

### URL:     https://bjs.gov/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://bjs.ojp.gov/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://twitter.com/BJSgov/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://www.bjs.gov/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

Page 1 of 1  (4 Total Results)

Archive It

#### Archive-It 

*Built at the Internet Archive*
2014 Archive-ItThe leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing  cultural heritage on the web 

      - Home
      - Learn More         - About Archive-It
        - News/Press
        - Meet the Team
        - Publications
      - Contact Us
§ 1202.552 How do I determine how much royalty I must pay if my lease is in an approved Federal unit or communitization agreement (AFA)? You must pay royalties each month on production allocated to your lease under the terms of an AFA. To determine the volume and the value of your production, you must follow these three steps: ( a ) You must determine the volume of your entitled share of production allocated to your lease under the terms of an AFA. This may include production from more than one AFA.
( b ) You must value the production you take using 30 CFR part 1206. If you take more than your entitled share of production, see § 1202.553 for information on how to value this production. If you take less than your entitled share of production, see § 1202.554 for information on how to value production you are entitled to but do not take.
Exhibit32.1

Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002

In connection with the annual report of Ames TrueTemper, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended September  30,  2006, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), I, Richard Dell, the Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|  |           |                                                                                                                                    |
|--|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (i)  | The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |

|  |            |                                                                                                                                                    |
|--|------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (ii)  | The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. |

Date:December  22,  2006

/s/ RichardDell                Richard DellChiefExecutive Officer(Principal ExecutiveOfficer)

----
----

| 13. | EARLY TERMINATION OF SERVICE ORDER SUPPORTING GOVERNMENT CONTRACT.  If a Service Order is entered into by Verizon and GCI in support of a government contract (which fact, for the convenience of the Parties may be noted on the Service Order), and the government terminates its contract with Verizon, Verizon may terminate the Service Order without penalty or payment of any early termination fees that might otherwiseapply under this Agreement upon ten (10) days notice to GCI.  Verizon will pay for Services up to the date of termination. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Michael Rose

*Deborah DelPrete Sullivan,*assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

*Mitchell S. Brody,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided December 22, 1992

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 29 Conn. App. 421 (AC 10471), is denied.
#### David Vogel, Inc. v. John S. Speaker et al. Arthur E. Fuss et al. v. Dorothy Spraker Francke et al.

Motion for a stay granted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                6108
<SECURITIES>                                         19794
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     93094
<PP&E>                                              127859
<DEPRECIATION>                                      115152
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      324658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               533600
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                             20
<COMMON>                                             91863
<OTHER-SE>                                         (300765)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        324698
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       592026
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (534489)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (534489)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (534489)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.06)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1



I, Gary Johnson, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of PortalPlayer, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report,
fairly present in all material respects the consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



Date: March 18, 2005

|    |  |                                                                                 
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /S/    GARY
JOHNSON                                                             
|    |  | Gary Johnson President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### JAMES McCREERY & CO., Appellants, v. OPPENHEIM et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

February 28, 1905.)

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District. Action by James Mc-Creery & Co. against Albert P. Oppenheim and others. From a judgment for defendants, after a trial before the court without a jury, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed. Gould & Wilkie (Arthur F. Gotthold, of counsel), for appellants. Bandler & Haas, for respondents.

SCOTT, J.

Whatever may have been the actual agreement between Sadie Jacobs and the defendants, it was not communicated to plaintiffs/ I think that under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence the defendants are estopped from denying responsibility for the amount sued for. The whole arrangement seems to have been devised with a view to giving Miss Jacobs credit on the faith of her apparent connection with defendants, and yet at the same time to leave an avenue of escape open in case of need. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.
#### Kathleen George, as Administratrix of the Estate of Katherine David, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v Mt. Sinai Hospital, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 27, 1977, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. A Civil Court summons and complaint to recover damages for personal injuries sustained on August 13 and 14, 1972, specifying one Katherine David as plaintiff, was served on September 19, 1973. However, Katherine David had died on August 28,1973. Accordingly, the 1973 action was a nullity. On May 29, 1975, decedent’s daughter Kathleen George was appointed administratrix. An amended summons and complaint (the amendment entailed the naming of the administratrix as plaintiff) was served in early 1976 on defendant’s insurer. The service of the amended summons and complaint was not timely and was barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations which commenced to run on August 13 and 14, 1972 (CPLR 214; *Stutz v Guardian Cab Corp.,*273 App Div 4). Further, the 1976 amendment could not relate back to the original 1973 pleading under CPLR 203 (subd [e]) because the original pleading was a nullity. The Civil Court action was terminated by stipulation on January 18, 1977. On May 19, 1977 the instant action naming the administratrix as plaintiff was commenced in the Supreme Court. Special Term denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, citing CPLR 205 (subd [a]) which provides that "If an action is timely commenced and is terminated in any other manner than by a voluntary discontinuance, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment upon the merits, the plaintiff, or, if he dies, and the cause of action survives, his executor or administrator, may commence a new action upon the same cause of action within six months after the termination.” As *951the prior 1973 action was a nullity and the 1976 amendment could not relate back, there was no prior action timely commenced. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Evans and Markewich, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVEOFFICER OF TRAMMELL CROW COMPANYPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

In connection with the accompanying report onForm 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 and filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RobertE. Sulentic, Chief Executive Officer of Trammell Crow Company (the “Company”),hereby certify that:

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

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                    | /s/ ROBERT E. SULENTIC    |
|--------------------|---------------------------|
|               | Name: Robert E.  Sulentic |
| Date: May 10, 2005 |                      |

 

----
§ 891.582 Management and occupancy reviews. ( a ) The contract administrator will conduct management and occupancy reviews to determine whether the owner is in compliance with the HAP Contract. Such reviews will be conducted in accordance with a schedule set out by the Secretary and published in the Federal Register, following notice and the opportunity to comment. Where a change in ownership or management occurs, a management and occupancy review must be conducted within six months.
( b ) HUD or the Contract Administrator may inspect project operations and units at any time.
( c ) Equal Opportunity reviews may be conducted by HUD at any time.
[87 FR 37997, June 27, 2022]