alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
List of Subsidiaries


                       Matthews & Wright, Inc. (Delaware)
                    Snider, Williams & Co., Inc. (Delaware)
                    Randolph, Hudson & Co., Inc. (Delaware)
                      Shaw Realty Company, Inc. (New York)
                    Burrows, Hayes Company, Inc. (New York)
                     Dover, Sussex Company, Inc. (New York)
                     Housing Capital Corporation (New York)
                     Randel, Palmer & Co., Inc. (New York)
                      Parker, Reld & Co., Inc. (New York)
                     McAdam, Taylor & Co., Inc. (New York)
                     Helmstar Funding, Inc. (Pennsylvania)
                       Ryan, Jones & Co., Inc. (New York)
                 Movieplex Realty Leasing, L.L.C. (New Jersey)
                         CareerEngine, Inc. (New York)
                   Advanced Digital Networks, Inc. (New York)
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1938 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1938

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that members of the 
    Armed Forces serving on active duty who are diagnosed with post-
  traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury have access to 
           hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2013

  Mr. Jones introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that members of the 
    Armed Forces serving on active duty who are diagnosed with post-
  traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury have access to 
           hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PROVISION OF HYPERBARIC OXYGEN THERAPY FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS 
              OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.

    (a) HBOT Treatment.--
            (1) In general.--Chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
        Code, is amended by inserting after section 1074m the following 
        new section:
``Sec. 1074n. Provision of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for certain 
              members
    ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall furnish hyperbaric oxygen 
therapy to a covered member if such therapy is prescribed by a 
physician to treat post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain 
injury.
    ``(b) Use of Private Facilities.--The Secretary may carry out 
subsection (a) by furnishing hyperbaric oxygen therapy at private 
facilities in accordance with section 1074(c) of this title.
    ``(c) Covered Member Defined.--In this section, the term `covered 
member' means a member of the armed forces who is--
            ``(1) entitled to medical care under section 1074 of this 
        title; and
            ``(2) diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder or 
        traumatic brain injury.''.
            (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
        beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
        item relating to section 1074m the following new item:

``1074n. Provision of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for certain members.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60178

Conference Calendar

 

GARY MOAWAD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FRED CHILDS; AARON JAGER; 

CARMEN GETTIS CASTILLA; 

MACKEY HOPKINS; HUBERT FOSTER; 

JIMMY FULCE; ROBERT HUGHES; 

MARVEN BROSS; AND EUGENE MAILEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:90-CV-172-S

 - - - - - - - - - -

December 9, 1997

Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gary Moawad, Mississippi # 31272, appeals from the district

court’s denial of his motion for contempt. Moawad argues that

the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion

for contempt when the court failed to hold an evidentiary

hearing. Given the absence of clear and convincing evidence that

the defendants violated the agreed order, the district court did
No. 97-60178

-2-

not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for contempt

without holding a hearing. Travelhost, Inc. v. Blandford, 68

F.3d 958, 961 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Moawad’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
§ 1784.29 Grant servicing and accountability. ( a ) Grants will be serviced in accordance with 7 CFR part 1782.
( b ) RUS reserves the right to request and review project files from grantees at any time.
( c ) If at any time an application is determined ineligible, 7 CFR part 11 will be followed.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 0142 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM275AD

A670BA- 29 - 011, RA --- 7/27/10 A670BA- 29 - 011 --- 10/18/07 A670BA- 29 - 012, RA --- 7/27/10 A670BA- 29 - 012 --- 3/13/08 670BA - 29 - 013, RA --- 7/27/10 670BA - 29 - 013 --- 1/29/10 A670BA- 32 - 021, RC --- 7/27/10 A670BA- 32 - 021, RB -- - 10/18/07 A670BA- 32 - 021, RA --- 3/7/07 A670BA- 32 - 021 --- 11/21/06 670BA - 32 - 026, RA --- 7/27/10 670BA - 32 - 026 --- 1/29/10 670BA - 32 - 028 --- 12/22/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221

**DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
*Tuesday, September 15, 1998*

DISCIPLINARY DOCKET

96-2372.

#### Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Brown.

On May 14, 1997, this court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(1), permanently disbarred respondent, Stanley Brown, Attorney Registration No. 0041489, last known business address in Covington, Kentucky. On May 15, 1998, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a motion for order to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to obey this court’s May 14, 1997 order. On June 18, 1998, this court granted the motion to the extent that respondent was ordered to show cause on or before twenty days from the date of the order why he should not be held in *1425contempt. Respondent has not filed a response. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that respondent, Stanley Brown, be and hereby is, found in contempt.
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 1-6 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 4
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 1-6 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 4
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 1-6 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 1-6 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 4
U n i t e d S tates District Court

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Time Commenced: 10:30am Case # 3:20cv5358RV 

Time Concluded: 12:38pm Date: April 13, 2020 

 

DOCKET ENTRY: TELEPHONIC HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc #2). After hearing argument, the Court orally denies the EmergencyMotion.

 

PRESENT: HONORABLE ROGER VINSON , SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

 Mary Maloy Julie Wycoff Tim Inacio 

 Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Law Clerk 

Style of Case: JOHN T. DEDERO, et al, Ptfs v Walton County and Michael A. Adkinson, Jr., Defts 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Pltfs): Edward Wenger, Joseph Brown, Dwayne Safriet 

Attorneys for Defendant (Deft) WALTON COUNTY : Eric Krebs, Sidney Noyes, William Warner 

Attorneys for Defendant (Deft) MICHAEL ADKINSON, JR.: Gwendolyn Adkins, William Pafford, Zackery

Scharlepp 

PROCEEDINGS:

10:30am Telephonic Hearing begins

Participating Attorneys identify themselves 

Court summarizes the four claims in the Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc #2) 

10:36am Parties agree that the beaches in question are those that front the Gulf of Mexico

10:40am Pltfs (Atty Safriet) argues their Motion

11:33am Deft Walton County (Atty Warner) responds to Motion

12:02pm Deft Michael Adkinson, Jr. (Atty Adkins) responds to Motion

12:17pm Pltfs (Atty Safriet) rebuttal argument to Motion

12:30pm Deft Walton County (Atty Warner) responds to rebuttal argument

12:32pm Deft Michael Adkinson, Jr. (Atty Adkins) responds to rebuttal argument

12:33pm Court Denies Pltf’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

12:38pm Court adjourned

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 22 Filed 04/13/20 Page 1 of 1
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T20:43:10-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
**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 onForm 10-Q of AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, David Johnston,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his knowledge on the date hereof: 

(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: November 5, 2010
#### § 29.2292 Resweated.

The condition of tobacco which has passed through a second fermentation under abnormally high temperatures or refermented with a relatively high percentage of moisture. Resweated includes tobacco which has been dipped or reconditioned after its first fermentation and put through a forced or artificial sweat.
§ 3201.130 Feminine care products. ( a ) *Definition.* Feminine care products are products that are designed for maintaining feminine health and hygiene. This category includes sanitary napkins, panty liners, and tampons.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 65 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 6, 2020, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased feminine care products. By that date, Federal agencies responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased feminine care products.
[84 FR 32021, July 5, 2019]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71134-71135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29361]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Member Conflict: Neurodegenerative Disease and Anterior Eye 
Disorders.
    Date: December 9-10, 2010.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

[[Page 71135]]

    Contact Person: Suzan Nadi, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5217B, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-
1259, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b656a6f62784b68787925656263256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6907080d001a290a1a1b47070001470e061f">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: Bioengineering Sciences & Technologies 
Integrated Review Group; Biomaterials and Biointerfaces Study 
Section.
    Date: January 5-6, 2011.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Steven J Zullo, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5146, MSC 7849, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-
2810, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#18626d7474776b6c587b6b6a36767170367f776e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="770d021b1b1804033714040559191e1f59101801">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 16, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-29361 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### JOHNSTON v. LONG ISLAND INV. & IMP. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

Specific Performance—Decebe—Construction.

Where a decree for specific performance of a contract to convey land provided that, in case the defendant failed to comply with the terms of the decree or should be unable to convey to plaintiff a good and marketable title, plaintiff should recover money damages, etc., such provision was not one inserted for the benefit of the defendant, which it would be entitled to avail itself of at its election, instead of making specific performance, but was a provision for the benefit of plaintiff.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 44, Cent. Dig. Specific Performance, §§ 401-406, 437.]

Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.

Action by George B. Johnston against the Long Island Investment & Improvement Company. From an order .for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

See 83 N, Y. Supp. 961.

Clause 4 of the judgment, referred to in the memorandum of the justice at Special Term, is as follows:

“In case the defendant shall fail to comply with the terms of this decree, or shall be unable to convey to the plaintiff a good and marketable title, the plaintiff shall recover from the defendant, and have judgment for, the sum of $2,064.14, with interest from August 8, 1902, at 5 per cent., the amount of money paid by him on the contract of sale set forth in the complaint, less $100 per month (the rental of said premises since August 8, 1902), with interest at such rate on the various months’ rent as they become due.”

The following is the opinion of the court below:

The judgment awards specific performance to plaintiff, and directed compliance by the defendant, as clearly appears by clauses 1 and 2 thereof. Clause 4 of the judgment is not an alternative provision inserted for the benefit of the defendant, and which it is at liberty to avail itself of at its election, instead of making specific performance. It was intended to give, and does give, the plaintiff the right to avail himself of its terms, should he so elect, for the causes therein specified. Plaintiff has insisted upon specific performance, and is ready and willing to perform on his part. Defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, and thereupon deposited a deed in form as required by the judgment. After affirmance there he has appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the latter appeal is pending and undetermined. The practical interpretation of its obligations, in the event of an ultimate determination affirming the judgment thus made, should not be disturbed.

Motion denied, with $10 costs.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, JENICS, HOOKER, and MILLER, JJ.

A. G. N. Vermilya, for appellant.

Dana & Clarkson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, on memorandum of GARRET-SON, J., at Special Term, with $10 costs and disbursements.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 16

- 3684

_____________________________
M ARCUS O ’ N EAL J ENKINS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Jack Schemer , Judge

. June 27, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W ETHERELL , M AKAR , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Paul E. Bross
, Merritt Island, for Appellant.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:99cr2LAC

WARREN PHILLIPS

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on MAY 28, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 5/27/2008 Doc.# 138

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 3rd day of

July, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) Defendant was sentenced to the mandatory minimum term of life imprisonment

as required by statute. No matter if the guideline range is reduced under

Amendment 706 (as amended by Amendment 711), the mandatory minimum sentence of

life imprisonment remains unchanged. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:99-cr-00002-LC-MD Document 139 Filed 07/03/08 Page 1 of 1
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 February 5, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-13223

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-20320-CR-CMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEPHANIE SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(February 5, 2007)

Before BLACK, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Stephanie Smith appeals her convictions for conspiracy to commit health

care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; three counts of receiving health care

kickbacks, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320(b)(1)(A)-(B); conspiracy to commit

money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); and money laundering, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). She asserts the district court abused its

discretion by admitting into evidence tax forms Smith completed and attached to a

mortgage application after the health care fraud conspiracy had ended. Smith also

challenges one of the district court’s jury instructions.

We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270, 1280 (11th Cir. 2006). We review a

challenge to a jury instruction de novo. Id.

After hearing oral argument in this case and reviewing the record on appeal,

we have determined the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the

tax forms and did not err in instructing the jury. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 29.2404 Rule 13.

Length shall be stated in connection with each grade of the A, B and C groups and may be stated in connection with the grades of other groups. The standard tobacco sizes shall be used.

[51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
*Wednesday, October 7, 1998*

MERIT DOCKET

98-1397.

#### State ex rel. Diagnostic & Behavioral Health Serv., Inc. v. Felton.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Pfeifer, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.
- /app03/pdfs/403cv/001/81/27124t/00006001.tif
- /app03/pdfs/403cv/001/81/27124t/00006002.tif
- /app03/pdfs/403cv/001/81/27124t/00006003.tif
- /app03/pdfs/403cv/001/81/27124t/00006004.tif
- /app03/pdfs/403cv/001/81/27124t/00006005.tif
- /app03/pdfs/403cv/001/81/27124t/00006006.tif
- /app03/pdfs/403cv/001/81/27124t/00006007.tif
- /app03/pdfs/403cv/001/81/27124t/00006008.tif
- /app03/pdfs/403cv/001/81/27124t/00006009.tif
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent-Appellant, v Alfred A. Argentine, Appellant-Respondent.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered March 18, 1964 (as amended on September 25, 1964) convicting him of forgery in the second degree (two counts) and grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him, as a prior felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 10 to 20 years on each of the forgery counts and a term of imprisonment of from *2Vi*to 10 years on the grand larceny count, with all sentences to run concurrently. Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Nassau County, dated March 31, 1977, vacating the defendant’s March 1964 sentence and resentencing him *nunc pro tunc*as of March 18, 1974, "for the sole purpose of restarting the time within which he may appeal the severity of the sentence imposed”. Order dated March 31, 1977 reversed, on the law, and defendant’s appeal dismissed. The County Court was without power to resentence the defendant *nunc pro tunc,*under the guise of a CPL 440.20 motion, for the sole purpose of permitting him to take a limited *de novo*appeal from his 1964 judgment of conviction, the appeal from which judgment had been previously dismissed by this court on October 3, 1966 for failure to perfect and the reinstatement of which had been subsequently denied in orders dated November 23, 1966 and April 24, 1975. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.