alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 45 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Condemning the deadly attack on May 26, 2017, in Portland, 

Oregon, expressing deepest condolences to the families 

and friends of the victims, and supporting efforts to 

overcome hatred, bigotry, and violence. 

Whereas, on May 26, 2017, 3 brave community members— 

Rick Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and Micah 

David-Cole Fletcher—were stabbed as they protected 2 

young women who were the targets of threatening antiMuslim hate speech while riding on the Metropolitan 

Area Express Light Rail (commonly known as the 

‘‘MAX’’) in Portland, Oregon; 

Whereas Rick Best and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche lost 

their lives and Micah David-Cole Fletcher was gravely injured as a result of the attack; 

Whereas acts of heroism and sacrifice for the safety and sake 

of others in the face of acts of domestic terrorism were 

demonstrated by the deceased and surviving victims; 

Whereas Oregonians and people across the United States 

grieve for the families of all people affected by this needless tragedy; and 

Whereas the people of the United States stand in solidarity 

against terrorism, white supremacy, hate, and intolerance: Now, therefore, be it 
2 

†SJ 45 ES 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress— 

4 (1) condemns the deadly attack on May 26, 

5 2017, in Portland, Oregon, in which 2 innocent peo6 ple were killed and 1 other person was injured while 

7 standing up to hate and intolerance; 

8 (2) offers deepest condolences to the families 

9 and friends of Rick Best and Taliesin Myrddin 

10 Namkai-Meche; 

11 (3) expresses hope for the swift and complete 

12 recovery of Micah David-Cole Fletcher; 

13 (4) supports community efforts to heal from 

14 this terrible crime; and 

15 (5) supports nationwide efforts to overcome ha16 tred, bigotry, and violence. 

Passed the Senate June 8, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 45 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Condemning the deadly attack on May 26, 2017, in 

and violence. supporting efforts to overcome hatred, bigotry, to the families and friends of the victims, and Portland, Oregon, expressing deepest condolences
#### Laura B. Ledet, as Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph H. Ledet, Deceased, et al., v. United Aircraft Corporation.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1997
<CASH>                                          16,161
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,039
<INVENTORY>                                     91,987
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               197,663
<PP&E>                                         437,524
<DEPRECIATION>                                 283,303
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 380,172
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,079
<BONDS>                                         18,705
<COMMON>                                        21,969
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     208,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   380,172
<SALES>                                        213,062
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               213,062
<CGS>                                          157,584
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  193,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (652)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   148
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,497
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,518
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,979
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,979
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84
        

</TABLE>
#### Danielle L. Litz, Respondent, v F.J. Gray & Co. et al., Appellants.

[835 NYS2d 227]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), entered November 28, 2005, which denied *491their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendants’ assertions, they failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see *Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The affirmed medical report of the defendants’ examining neurologist conceded the existence of limitations of motion of the plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spine *(see McDonald v Rookie Hacking Corp.,*37 AD3d 430 [2007]; *Quinones v E & L Transp., Inc.,*35 AD3d 577 [2006]; *Museau v New York City Tr. Auth.,*34 AD3d 772, 772-773 [2006]; *Smith v Delcore,*29 AD3d 890 [2006]; *Sano v Gorelik,*24 AD3d 747 [2005]; *Spuhler v Khan,*14 AD3d 693, 694 [2005]; *Omar v Bello,*13 AD3d 430 [2004]; *Scotti v Boutureira, 8*AD3d 652 [2004]), and stated “[s]ymptoms are causally related to the incident by history.” Since the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs papers in opposition to the defendants’ motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see McDonald v Pookie Hacking Corp., supra; Iles v Jonat,*35 AD3d 537 [2006]; *Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Crane, J.P., Santucci, Florio, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-35408, 333-41572, 333-47185, 333-48912, 333-48914, 333-53282, 333-57202, 333-71878, 333-74787, 333-76767, 333-92507, 333-99623, 333-110075, 333-114327, 333-130589, 333-140052,333-147297, 333-171960) of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation of our report dated May 8, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation for the year ended March 31, 2009,which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation for the year ended March 31, 2011. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

San Jose, California 

May 9, 2011
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST )

COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE )

POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT )

DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2003, )

MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL INC. )

TRUST 2003-NC8, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 2607

)

ALITA A. ABELL, CAPITAL ONE BANK )

(USA), N.A., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST )

TO CAPITAL ONE BANK, CRESANDRA )

WILLIAMS, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Alita Abell ("Abell"), the mortgagor co-defendant in this mortgage foreclosure action, has

filed her Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("ADs") to the Complaint brought by Deutsche Bank

National Trust Company as Trustee. Because that responsive pleading is problematic in a

number of respects, this Court sua sponte strikes that pleading, but with leave granted to file a

corrected version.

For one thing, Abell's counsel has ignored (and therefore not complied with) this District

Court's LR 10.1. There is a good reason for that provision, and counsel must comply with it

when she returns to the drawing board.
Next, Answer ¶ 1 says that no response is required to Complaint ¶ 1. No such exception

is contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(b) -- and more importantly, the allegation must

obviously be admitted rather than denied.

There are a number of places where Abell's counsel attempts to invoke the disclaimer

permitted by Rule 8(b)(5) (see Answer ¶¶ 2, 3, 5, 10(d), 10(l) and 10(n)). In every instance,

counsel has inexplicably failed to follow the clear roadmap charted by that Rule. And beyond

that, each attempted disclaimer is followed by "and therefore denies same." That is of course

oxymoronic – how can a party that asserts (presumably in good faith) that it lacks even enough

information to admit or deny an allegation (let alone to form a belief, as should have been

asserted) then proceed to deny it in compliance with Rule 11(b)?

Next, Answer ¶ 1 is not the only place that Abell's counsel has made the unwarranted

assertion that no response is required to the Complaint's allegations -- see Answer ¶¶ 7, 10(o),

10(q), 10(r) and 10(s). Counsel should take a fresh look at those allegations.

As stated at the outset, the present pleading is stricken, but with leave to file an

appropriate responsive pleading on or before July 30, 2012. It should be added that this Court

has made no effort to address the ADs, either in terms of their viability or otherwise -- that

subject will be left to plaintiff's counsel.

__________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 20, 2012.

- 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 Quarterly
Report of Lubys, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended February 9, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Christopher J. Pappas, President and 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: March 11, 2011 |  | By: |  | /s/ Christopher J. Pappas            
|                     |  |     |  | Christopher J. Pappas                
|                     |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

June 8, 2020

Memorandum

TO: Chief State School Officers

FROM: Mark Schultz

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration

Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of the

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative

Services

SUBJECT: Waiver Authority for the Period of Availability for Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) Part B Funds for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018

Under section 3511(b)(1)(B) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act 

(CARES Act), Pub. L. No. 116-136 (March 27, 2020), the Secretary of Education is authorized 

to consider waivers to extend the period of availability for certain Federal funds. The CARES 

Act provides substantial relief to children and educators who have been profoundly affected by 

the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

You may request a waiver that will permit your State educational agency and subgrantees (e.g. 

local educational agencies) to use Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 IDEA Part B grant award funds 

for an additional year beyond what is known as the Tydings period. This action is taken as a 

result of the on-going national emergency declared by the President under the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and to assist in your planning for how to resume 

or continue the provision of special education and related services for children with disabilities 

and their families.

You may now submit a streamlined waiver request for an extension of the period of availability 

in Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) for FFY 2018 IDEA Part B 

grant award funds. Upon approval of a waiver, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant award funds 

will be available for obligation through September 30, 2021 and may be liquidated through 

December 30, 2021. OSERS is committed to acting on and responding to complete waiver 

requests as quickly as possible. To that end, a waiver template is available which, if completed 

and submitted electronically to IDEAwaiver@ed.gov, will result in an expedited response from 

the Department. The waiver template in fillable portable document format (PDF) is attached to 

this memorandum and is also posted at www.ed.gov/coronavirus.

Thank you for your ongoing work in support of educators, families, and children and youth with 

disabilities during these extraordinary circumstances. If you have questions or need additional 

information regarding submission of your IDEA Part B waiver request, please contact us at 
2

IDEAwaiver@ed.gov. If you have general questions regarding COVID-19 and how the U.S. 

Department of Education can best support you, please contact COVID-19@ed.gov. I encourage 

you to continue to monitor information regarding COVID-19 from the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention and stay abreast of information and resources for schools and school 

personnel at www.ed.gov/coronavirus.

Attachment

cc: State Directors of Special Education
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

 

T.M., A CHILD,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5D17-3053

 LT No. 2016-CJ-004393-A-O

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed September 29, 2017

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,

A Case of Original Jurisdiction.

Robert Wesley, Public Defender, and 

Stephanie Nicole Osman, Assistant Public 

Defender, Orlando, and Sarah L. B. 

Jordan, Assistant Public Defender, 

Kissimmee, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he is being wrongfully 

detained in secure detention. Petitioner pled to lewd and lascivious conduct on a victim 

less than twelve years of age, and the trial court ordered Petitioner held in secure 

detention while awaiting an opening in a non-secure residential commitment program.

Petitioner did not score high enough for secure detention on his risk assessment 
2

instrument, and the State concedes that the trial court did not enter any written findings 

otherwise justifying secure detention.

Generally, determinations regarding placement of a minor in secure detention are 

based on the risk assessment. § 985.245(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). However, section 985.255 

permits the court to otherwise order secure detention based upon written findings. See

§ 985.255, Fla. Stat. (2016). However, "[w]here a statute requires a written order giving 

findings and reasons, the transcript of the proceedings upon which the order was based 

cannot act as a substitute." A.D. v. State, 45 So. 3d 575, 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting

R.B.S. v. Capri, 384 So. 2d 692, 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)). 

Although the trial court made findings of fact at the hearing sufficient to support 

secure detention, the trial court failed to enter a written order reflecting those findings as 

required by statute. Therefore, we direct the trial court to either enter a written order 

justifying Petitioner's secure detention, or to order Petitioner's release therefrom, by 5:00 

p.m. on the second business day following the date of issuance of this opinion. See A.D. 

v. State, 45 So. 3d at 576.

PETITION GRANTED.

ORFINGER, EDWARDS, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
[J-69-2015] [MO: Dougherty, J.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

MELVIN KNIGHT,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 702 CAP

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence 

entered on August 31, 2014 in the Court 

of Common Pleas, Westmoreland 

County, Criminal Division at No. CP-65-

CR-0000851-2010. Post Sentence 

Motions Denied July 16, 2014.

SUBMITTED: October 7, 2015

CONCURRING OPINION

JUSTICE TODD DECIDED: November 22, 2016

I join the Majority Opinion, except for Part V. For the reasons expressed by 

Justice Baer in his Concurring Opinion, see Concurring Opinion (Baer, J.) at 3, I do not 

join what are, in Part V, essentially advisory statements by the majority.
From: Richard Krock

Sent: 8/30/2005 9:47:16 AM To: Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Subject: Vinyl Institute Letter on Resin Stripping and 10-26-10 Meeting

Dear Ms. Howard,

Thank you for taking time to meet with the Vinyl Institute and some of its members on October 26, 2010. As you requested as a follow up to the discussion from that meeting, I am attaching a brief letter and chart that documents some of our comments regarding resin stripping and other items that were reviewed. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thank you.

Richard Krock Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute 1737 King Street Suite 390 Alexandria, VA 22314 Direct: 571.970.3392 Mobile: 571.216.4474 Fax: 571.970.3271 Email: rkrock@vinylinfo.org http://www.vinylinfo.org http://www.vinylindesign.com
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ZIMMER NEXGEN KNEE IMPLANT

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2272

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO−66)

On August 8, 2011, the Panel transferred 18 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1407. See 802 F.Supp.2d 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2011). Since that time, 280 additional action(s)

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

actions have been assigned to the Honorable Rebecca R Pallmeyer.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are

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

Judge Pallmeyer.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the

Northern District of Illinois for the reasons stated in the order of August 8, 2011, and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Rebecca R Pallmeyer.

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 Illinois. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be

stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the

Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

 Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

A TRUE COPY-ATTEST

THOMAS G. BRUTON, CLERK

 -

By: s/ ENJOLI FLETCHER

DEPUTY CLERK

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

 -

May 1, 2012
IN RE: ZIMMER NEXGEN KNEE IMPLANT

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2272

SCHEDULE CTO−66 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN

CAN 3 12−01838 Waller v. Zimmer, Inc. et al

CAN 4 12−01837 Downey v. Zimmer, Inc. et al

MINNESOTA

MN 0 12−00964 Brown et al v. Zimmer, Inc. et al
#### SYNTHON IP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2007-1344.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 17, 2008.

Rehearing Denied July 24, 2008.

Nichole W. Stafford, Wilson Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, of Austin, Texas, argued for plaintiff-appellant. On the brief were Jonathan G. Graves and John P. Moy, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, of Reston, Virginia; Michael A. Ladra and Terry Kearney, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich *&*Rosati, PC, of Palo Alto, California; Of counsel was Nathan K. Cummings, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, of Reston, Virginia.

Jack B. Blumenfield, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, of Wilmington, Delaware, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Maryellen Noreika, and James W. Parrett, Jr. Of counsel was John F. Anderson, Troutman Sanders LLP, of McLean, Virginia; and Derek J. Fahnestock, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, of Wilmington.

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge and DYK, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The court, having considered the submissions and oral arguments of the parties, and having considered the record before and judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, holds that the findings of inequitable conduct and exceptional case, and the award of attorney fees are *affirmed.*Under these circumstances, we need not reach the issues of infringement and validity-
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

New Hampshire Department of Education25 Hall StreetConcord, NH 03301-3860 Phone: (603) 271-3494Website: https://www.education.nh.gov/

### State Higher Education Agency

Higher Education Commission25 Hall StreetConcord, NH 03301-3860 Phone: (603) 271-3494Website: https://www.education.nh.gov/who-we-are/higher-education-commission

### Special Education Agency

Bureau of Special EducationNew Hampshire Department of Education25 Hall StreetConcord, NH 03301-3860 Phone: (603) 271-3494Website: https://www.education.nh.gov/who-we-are/division-of-learner-support/bureau-of-student-support/special-education

### State Adult Education Agency

Bureau of Adult EducationNew Hampshire Department of Education25 Hall StreetConcord, NH 03301-3860 Telephone:  (603) 271-6699Website: https://www.education.nh.gov/who-we-are/division-of-learner-support/bureau-of-adult-education

Back to state map
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph Millici, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Kings County, rendered June 29, 1960, on his plea of guilty, convicting him of attempted possession of a dangerous weapon as a felony (Penal Law, § 1897, subd. 4), and sentencing him as a third felony offender to serve a term of three and one-half to seven years. The appeal is taken solely upon the ground of exeessiveness of the sentence. Judgment modified on the facts by reducing the sentence to a term of one year and nine months to seven years. As so modified, judgment affirmed. In our opinion, under all the circumstances disclosed, the sentence was excessive. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.