alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Bernard Chetkof, Appellant, v. Marvin Cristenfeld et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Nassau, and Murray Rosenthal, Respondents.

In a proceeding to compel the respondent Board of Elections (1) to place the names of candidates for Party positions and for nomination for public office, in the Democratic Party Primary Election to be held on June 23, 1970, in vertical rather than horizontal form or, (2) in the alternative, to place the name of appellant, who :b a candidate for the Party position of State Committeeman for the 8th Assembly District, Nassau County, upon the same line as any and all other candidates for Party positions or for nomination for public office, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 11, 1970, which directed (1) that the respondent Board of Elections place appellant’s name on ballot in horizontal position to the names of all other candidates on the Democratic “B” Row or line “if this be physically possible” and (2) that, if that “ becomes a physical impossibility or impraeticality ”, it rearrange the ballot to “ one column for each of the 6 offices ” (five public offices and one Party position) with the candidates’ names “ one above the other in accordance with the priority previously determined between the candidates.” Judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00667-CR

Raymond Sandoval GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 383282

Honorable Timothy Johnson, Judge Presiding1

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 10, 2014.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

1 The Honorable Genie Wright is the presiding judge in County Court at Law No. 7. The Honorable Timothy Johnson, 

sitting as visiting judge, presided over the trial.
PUBLIC LAW 108–245—JUNE 25, 2004 118 STAT. 679

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3234 (S. 1763):

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 149 (2003): Oct. 28, considered and passed House.

Vol. 150 (2004): June 9, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–245

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14 Chestnut

Street in Liberty, New York, as the ‘‘Ben R. Gerow Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

14 Chestnut Street in Liberty, New York, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Ben R. Gerow Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Ben R.

Gerow Post Office Building’’.

Approved June 25, 2004.

June 25, 2004

[H.R. 3234]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 18, 2018

izm

Order 

Clerk

June 18, 2018

157955 (25)

MARCUS LORENZO WALLACE,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 157955

COA: 341374

BELLAMY CREEK CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY WARDEN,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is 

DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable 

for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall pay to the Clerk of 

the Court the initial partial filing fee of $72.00; submit a copy of this order; and 

refile the copy of the pleadings returned with this order. Failure to comply with this 

order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court.

If appellant timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments 

shall be made to the Department of Corrections in the amount of 50 percent of the 

deposits made to appellant’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$303.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) appellant shall not file a new civil action or appeal

in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to appellant and 

return a copy of appellant’s pleadings with this order.
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 Form 10-Q of Soligenix, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.











November 13, 2009

/s/ Christopher J. SchaberChristopher J. Schaber, Ph.D.President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 1307.13 Incidental manufacture of controlled substances.

Any registered manufacturer who, incidentally but necessarily, manufactures a controlled substance as a result of the manufacture of a controlled substance or basic class of controlled substance for which he is registered and has been issued an individual manufacturing quota pursuant to part 1303 of this chapter (if such substance or class is listed in Schedule I or II) shall be exempt from the requirement of registration pursuant to part 1301 of this chapter and, if such incidentally manufactured substance is listed in Schedule I or II, shall be exempt from the requirement of an individual manufacturing quota pursuant to part 1303 of this chapter, if such substances are disposed of in accordance with part 1317 of this chapter.

[79 FR 53565, Sept. 9, 2014]
# OoT-GSTM9S?-';^^S ^

> i ^jfryry^r-T^VN ^

CIT YO F LARAMI E mmiJ' ' TZ \

CIT

YMANAGER' S OFFIC E (307 ) 721-522 6 P.O . Bo xC FA X(307 ) 721-521 1 Laramie , Wyomin s 8207 3 TD D (307 ) 721-529 5 

# LARAMI E

Jul y21 , 201 0 Mr . Denni s J . DeVan y Essentia l Ai rServic e Divisio n Offic e o fAviatio n Analysi s U . S . Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S.E . Washingto n D.C . 2059 0 Dea rMr . DeVany : Than k yo u fo ryou rlette rconcernin g th e anticipate d renewa l o fth e essentia l ai rservic e contrac t wit h Grea t Lake s Aviation . I hav e share d you rlette rwit h Cit yCounci l an d especiall yt o ou rliaiso n t o th e airpor t board . A s w e hav e state d before , i n ou rlette rdate d t o yo u Jun e 23 , 2008 , th e servic e tha tGrea tLake s i s providin g ha s continue d t o b e unsatisfactor ydu e t o th e lac k o fconsisten tservic e an d dependability . Larami e i s hom e t o th e Universit yo fWyoming , WyoTec h Vocatio n College , an d numerou s corporations . Al l thes e entitle s requir e reliabl e ai rservic e t o conduc tbusiness . I n addition , i t become s eve n mor e essentia l t o hav e qualit yai rservic e whe n attractin g viabl e ne w businesse s t o Laramie . Ai rservic e i s crucia l t o th e Larami e Community . Th e Cit yo fLarami e concur s wit h th e Larami e Regiona l Airpor t t o suppor t th e Grea tLake s Aviatio n proposa l wit h th e anticipatio n tha tth e airpor t an d Grea t Lake s wil l foste rstron g partnership s tha twil l ultimatel yimprov e ai rservic e t o th e citizen s o fLaramie . Than k you . Janin e Jorda n Cit yManage r Cc : Mr . Jac k

Skinner , Larami e Regiona l Airpor t Ms . Gay e Stockman , Larami e Economi cDevelopmen tCorporatio n

0 \ "Improvin g Ou rQualit yo fLif e " %i w
#### § 1301.31 Administrative review generally.

The Administrator may inspect, or cause to be inspected, the establishment of an applicant or registrant, pursuant to subpart A of part 1316 of this chapter. The Administrator shall review the application for registration and other information gathered by the Administrator regarding an applicant in order to determine whether the applicable standards of section 303 (21 U.S.C. 823) or section 1008 (21 U.S.C. 958) of the Act have been met by the applicant.

[62 FR 13953, Mar. 24, 1997]
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 Annual
Report of UMED Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Ransom Jones, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |      |                                                                                                                                                     
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i)  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
|
| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| |  |                 |        |                         |  |  | 
| |  | --------------- | ------ | ----------------------- |  |  | 
| |  | /s/Ransom Jones |       
| |  |                 | Name:  | Ransom Jones            |  | 
| |  |                 | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |  | 
| |  |                 | Date:  | July
    19, 2018       |  |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher CLEMENTS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-10630.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 18, 2005.

Decided Oct. 21, 2005.

*572John R. Lusk, Esq., Attorney at Law, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade.

*

 The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher Clements appeals the district court’s decision denying his motion to suppress. We affirm, and deny Clements’ request for a limited remand for resen-tencing.

The officers had reasonable suspicion to search the residence of Clements, a probationer. In *United States v. Knights,*534 U.S. 112, 121, 122 S.Ct. 587, 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001), the Court held that “no more than reasonable suspicion” is required to conduct such a search. Clements cites no authority, and the court knows of none, holding that in Nevada a warrant is *required*to search the residence of a probationer where reasonable suspicion exists. Further, Clements’ arrest did not terminate the officers’ right to conduct such a search. *See Latta v. Fitzharris,*521 F.2d 246, 252 (9th Cir.1975) (holding that a “parole officer’s interest in inspecting [the parolee’s] place of residence did not terminate upon his arrest; if anything, it intensified”).

There was no dispute of fact as to whether reasonable suspicion existed. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Clements’ request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress. *See United States v. Howell,*231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir.2000), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 831, 122 S.Ct. 76, 151 L.Ed.2d 40 (2001).

Finally, in his plea agreement Clement waived the right to appeal his sentence. Therefore, he is not entitled to a limited remand for resentencing under *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See United States v. Cortez-Arias,*403 F.3d 1111 (2005) (holding that a waiver of the right to appeal bars an *Ameline*remand).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# EUR-Lex - 31994D0298 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994D0298

**94/298/EC: Commission Decision of 5 May 1994 amending Decision 94/85/EC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorize imports of fresh poultrymeat **

*
Official Journal L 131 , 26/05/1994 P. 0024 - 0024 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 57 P. 0159 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 57 P. 0159 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 5 May 1994 amending Decision 94/85/EC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorize imports of fresh poultrymeat (94/298/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/494/EEC of 26 June 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of fresh poultrymeat (1), as last amended by Directive 93/121/EC (2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas Commission Decision 94/85/EC (3) established a list of third countries from where importation of fresh poultrymeat is authorized;

Whereas further written assurances have been received from certain third countries;

Whereas examination of these assurances has shown that these countries satisfy the requirements of the Community;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 94/85/EC is amended as follows:

(1) the following is inserted after the word 'Annex':

'This is a list in principle and importations shall fulfil the relevant animal and public health requirements.'

(2) the following lines are inserted in accordance with the alphabetic order of the ISO-code:

' CN China (People's Republic) × HR Croatia × KR Korea (Republic) × LI Lithuania × TR Turkey × '

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 1 July 1994.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 May 1994.

For the Commission

René STEICHEN

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 35.

(2) OJ No L 340, 31. 12. 1993, p. 39.

(3) OJ No L 44, 17. 2. 1994, p. 31.
#### § 1880.220 What contracts and subcontracts, in addition to those listed in 2 CFR 180.220, are covered transactions?

NASA extends coverage of nonprocurement suspension and debarment requirements beyond first-tier procurement contracts under a covered nonprocurement action, to all lower tier subcontracts, at all dollar values, consistent with OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.220(c) and the figure in the appendix at 2 CFR part 180. NASA does not permit subcontracting to suspended or debarred entities at any tier, at any dollar amount.

[78 FR 13211, Feb. 27, 2013]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32780]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2011.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-32780 Filed 12-23-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
|    |                                                                            |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Liberty Global plc; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the "Form 10-K/A) 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 the Form 10-K/A; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in the Form 10-K/A, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K/A. |

|                                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      |  |
| /s/ Charles H.R. Bracken                             |   |
| Charles H.R. Bracken                                 |   |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                                 |   |
IV 

House Calendar No. 153 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 710 

[Report No. 109–386] 

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4167) to amend the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for uniform food 

safety warning notification requirements, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2006 

Mr. GINGREY, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4167) 

to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

to provide for uniform food safety warning notification 

requirements, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of 

3 rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee 

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further 

5 consideration of the bill (H.R. 4167) to amend the Federal 

6 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for uniform food 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HRES 710 RH 

1 safety warning notification requirements, and for other 

2 purposes. No further general debate shall be in order. The 

3 bill shall be considered as read. The bill shall be considered 

4 for amendment under the five-minute rule. Notwith5 standing clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment shall be 

6 in order except those printed in the report of the Com7 mittee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 

8 amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 

9 the report, may be offered only by a Member designated 

10 in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debat11 able for the time specified in the report equally divided 

12 and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall 

13 not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to 

14 a demand for division of the question in the House or in 

15 the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 

16 such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consid17 eration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 

18 and report the bill to the House with such amendments 

19 as may have been adopted. The previous question shall 

20 be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 

21 thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 

22 one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
House Calendar No. 153 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 710 

[Report No. 109

–386] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 

purposes. warning notification requirements, and for other Cosmetic Act to provide for uniform food safety 4167) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and 

MARCH 7, 2006 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
#### ZORN, Respondent, v. HALLINGS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

December 4, 1914.)

Action by Fred H. Zorn against Blatthew J. Hal-lings.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. Held, that the verdict of the jury is against the weight of the evidence, both as to defendant’s negligence and plaintiff's freedom from contributory negligence.

KRUSE, P. J., and ROBSON, J., dissent.
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

May 23, 2012

Mr. David K. Paylor, Director

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 1105

Richmond, Virginia 23218 

Dear Mr. Paylor:

On April 26, 2012, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to 

the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality which repeals duplicative administrative regulations from Virginia’s inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) regulations found in 9VAC5, Chapter 91. EPA has determined that the 

submittal is administratively and technically complete.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Mr. Harold A. 

Frankford at (215) 814-2108. He is the principal contact for this rulemaking. 

Sincerely, 

 /s/

 Diana Esher, Director

 Air Protection Division