alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_____________ No. 94-4054EA

_____________ Danny L. Ball; * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * John L. Grigsby, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * Larry Norris, Director, * Arkansas Department of * Appeal from the United States Correction; PHP Healthcare, * District Court for the Eastern Inc.; Dr. Jackie Wade, * District of Arkansas. Diagnostic Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction; Dr. * [UNPUBLISHED] Jay Owens, Cummins Unit, * Arkansas Department of * Correction; Delois Ford, Unit * Nurse, Originally sued as "Mrs. * Ford"; Sue Guirl, Warden; Lt. * Roger Ferrell, Mississippi * County Work Release Center, * Arkansas Department of * Correction, * * Defendants-Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: May 16, 1996 Filed: June 21, 1996

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________
PER CURIAM.
Danny L. Ball appeals the dismissal of Ball's 42 U.S.C. § 918 3 action. H aving reviewed de novo the evidence presented at a pretria l evidentiary hearing to determine whether Ball's case would survive a motio n for judgment as a matter of law, see Hobbs v.

### -2-

Lockhart , 46 F.3d 864, 868 (8th Cir. 1995), we conclude Ball's evidence di d not establ ish a jury question on his claim that defendants acted wit h deliberate indifference to Ball's serious dental needs when they delayed sending him to an oral surgeon. See Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). We affirm.
Ball failed to show any personal involvement on the part of th e Arkansas Department of Correction employees, PHP Healthcare, Inc. (PHP), and P HP Nurse Delois Ford in denying or delaying his dental treatment
. Ball cannot predicate his Eighth Amendment claim s against these defendants on a risk of harm of which they were unaware or on a respondent superior theory. See Farmer v. Brennan , 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994); Martin v
. Sargent , 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). Ball's testimony established that he saw PHP Dentist Jackie Wade for tooth pain only once. Wade prescribed penicillin for two abscesses, and Ball did not seek dental treatment again until several months later. At that tim e, PHP Dentist Jay Owens told Ball he had two abscesses and a n impact ed wisdom tooth, prescribed penicillin and pain relievers, and a t some point referred Ball to an outside oral surgeon who removed six o f Ball's teeth. Ball p roduced no evidence that Wade or Owens intentionally delayed Ball's treatment or his referral to a specialist. See Estelle , 42 9 U.S. at 104-05. The only damage Ball attributed to the delay in his denta l surge ry was pain, and Ball's testimony showed his pain relief wa s compro mised because he shared his pain medication with another inmate
. Further, at oral argu ment, Ball's counsel made clear that Ball would have been pain free if he had taken all of his pain medication. Thus, Bal l failed to show he suffered any detrimental effects from the delay in denta l treatment. See Beyerbach v. Sears , 49 F.3d 1324, 1326-27 (8th Cir. 1995)
. Accordingly, we affirm.

### -3- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Nilo HERNANDEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 85-5747

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 11, 1986.

*390Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, HILL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Hernandez filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that prison officials had unconstitutionally miscalculated his gain time credits. In his petition, Hernandez sought as his sole prayer for relief his immediate release from state custody. While the petition was pending, Hernandez was released from custody. Following this release, the magistrate recommended that the petition be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since Hernandez was no longer in custody and there was no possibility that the length of his sentence would have collateral legal consequences. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice as moot on the grounds that the sole request for relief was release from detention, which Hernandez had already obtained. We affirm.

This court has jurisdiction to hear only live cases or controversies as delineated in Act III, § 2 of the Constitution. *See Sosna v. Iowa,*419 U.S. 393, 402, 95 S.Ct. 553, 559, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975). Even though an appellant has completed his sentence, a criminal appeal is moot only if no possibility exists that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed upon the petitioner. *Wolfe v. Coleman,*681 F.2d 1302, 1305 (11th Cir.1982). In his petition, Hernandez attacked the length of his confinement, not the underlying conviction. It is the existence of the underlying conviction, however, rather than the length of confinement, which creates the necessity to consider collateral legal consequences; susceptibility to an increased sentence for a subsequent offense. *Cf. Wolfe v. Coleman,*681 F.2d at 1305-06. Also, as the district court dismissal was without prejudice, it will not act as a legal bar to a future action seeking damages for loss of employment opportunities or any other consequences resulting from any illegal confinement. Hernandez will suffer no collateral legal consequences from dismissal of his petition. The district court properly dismissed the petition as moot.

AFFIRMED.
# EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATE OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of FCCC, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Bernard Zimmerman, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer certify, 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, as amended, and
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. |  | The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Company.
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | 
| |  | 
| |  | 

|                            | Name: Bernard Zimmerman                                                                    | 
|--------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|                            | Title:   President, Principal Executive Officer and            Principal Financial Officer | 
|Dated:      August 13, 2009 |                                                                                            | 

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                        222,000
<SECURITIES>                  000
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,158,000
<ALLOWANCES>                  000
<INVENTORY>                   000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,380,000
<PP&E>                        000
<DEPRECIATION>                000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,457,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         195,000
<BONDS>                       000
<COMMON>                      000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         000
<PREFERRED>                   000
<OTHER-SE>                    1,262,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,457,000
<SALES>                       000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,114,000
<CGS>                         000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 29,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              223,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>              000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            000
<INCOME-PRETAX>               862,000
<INCOME-TAX>                  000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           862,000
<DISCONTINUED>                000
<EXTRAORDINARY>               000
<CHANGES>                     000
<NET-INCOME>                  862,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 13.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                 13.38
        

</TABLE>
§ 1010.210 Roads. ( a ) State the estimated cost to the developer of the proposed road system.
( b ) If the developer is to complete any roads providing access to the subdivision, submit copies of any bonds or escrow agreements which have been posted to guarantee completion thereof.
( c ) Submit copies of any bonds or escrow agreements which have been posted to assure completion of the roads within the subdivision.
( d ) If the interior roads are to be maintained by a public authority, submit a copy of a letter from that authority which states that the roads have been, or the conditions upon which they will be, accepted for maintenance and when.
OSHA•NIOSH WORKERINFO

WHATTO DO DURING THETEST

• Wear comfortable clothing for the test. You will

be asked to stand or sit comfortably and wear a

nose clip to stop air from moving through your

nose during the test.

• Listen to the spirometry technician’s instructions

and follow suggestions to get proper results.

• Take a deep breath that completely fills your

lungs. Seal your lips around the spirometer

mouthpiece. Then, as hard and as fast as you can,

blow all of your air into the mouthpiece. Keep

blowing until the technician tells you to stop.

• You will usually rest before repeating the test.

You will need to give your best effort at least

3 times.

SPIROMETRY RESULTS

A healthcare professional should explain the

results to you. The healthcare professional will

compare the current test results with your past

results (if any) to see if your breathing ability has

changed. You have the right to get a copy of your

test results.

A spirometry breathing test shows how well

you can move air in and out of your lungs.

THE NEED FOR SPIROMETRYTESTING

Inhalation of some dusts, gases, or other air

contaminants in your workplace as well as some

personal exposures, such as cigarette smoking,

can harm your lungs. Spirometry testing (a type

of pulmonary or lung function test) may identify

breathing problems early, which may prevent

more serious problems. Spirometry testing is

required for some workers by OSHA standards

(see Screening and Surveillance: A Guide to

OSHA Standards at:

www.osha.gov/Publications/ osha3162.pdf).

Spirometry testing may be performed on workers

who are required to perform job tasks that are

physically demanding, require wearing a respirator, or cause exposure to certain possible breathing hazards. Workers who show signs of breathing

problems may also be tested. Depending on your

situation, you may be asked to take the test every

6 months to 3 years.

PROTECT

YOURSELF

SPIROMETRY

BREATHING TEST

www.osha.gov

(800) 321-OSHA

www.cdc.gov/niosh

(800) 232-4636

For more complete information:

This guidance document is not an OSHA standard or regulation but contains recommendations that are advisory

in nature and intended to assist employers in providing a safe and healthful workplace. The mention of any nongovernmental organization or link to its web site in this guidance does not constitute an endorsement by NIOSH

or OSHA of that organization, its products or services or web site.

OSHA 3418-3-11 DHHS (NIOSH) 2011-132
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 Research Frontiers
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Saxe,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Technology Officer of the
Company, 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), as applicable, 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.


/s/ Robert L. Saxe
    Robert L. Saxe
    Chairman of the Board and Chief Technology Officer

Date: May 6, 2010
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

#### § 36.4342 Qualification for designated fee appraisers.

To qualify for approval as a designated fee appraiser, an applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Secretary that his or her character, experience, and the type of work in which he or she has had experience for at least 5 years qualifies the applicant to competently appraise and value within a prescribed area the type of property to which the approval relates.

(Authority 38 U.S.C. 3703(c)(1), 3731)
#### § 4.28 Prestabilization rating from date of discharge from service.

The following ratings may be assigned, in lieu of ratings prescribed elsewhere, under the conditions stated for disability from any disease or injury. The prestabilization rating is not to be assigned in any case in which a total rating is immediately assignable under the regular provisions of the schedule or on the basis of individual unemployability. The prestabilization 50-percent rating is not to be used in any case in which a rating of 50 percent or more is immediately assignable under the regular provisions.

| | Rating |
| --- | --- |
| Unstabilized condition with severe disability— | |
| Substantially gainful employment is not feasible or advisable | 100 |
| Unhealed or incompletely healed wounds or injuries— | |
| Material impairment of employability likely | 50 |

Note (1):

Department of Veterans Affairs examination is not required prior to assignment of prestabilization ratings; however, the fact that examination was accomplished will not preclude assignment of these benefits. Prestabilization ratings are for assignment in the immediate postdischarge period. They will continue for a 12-month period following discharge from service. However, prestabilization ratings may be changed to a regular schedular total rating or one authorizing a greater benefit at any time. In each prestabilization rating an examination will be requested to be accomplished not earlier than 6 months nor more than 12 months following discharge. In those prestabilization ratings in which following examination reduction in evaluation is found to be warranted, the higher evaluation will be continued to the end of the 12th month following discharge or to the end of the period provided under § 3.105(e) of this chapter, whichever is later. Special monthly compensation should be assigned concurrently in these cases whenever records are adequate to establish entitlement.

Note (2):

Diagnosis of disease, injury, or residuals will be cited, with diagnostic code number assigned from this rating schedule for conditions listed therein.

[35 FR 11906, July 24, 1970]
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2570 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2570

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 301 Boardwalk Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado, as the ``Dr. Karl E. 
                     Carson Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2007

Mrs. Musgrave (for herself, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Tancredo, 
  Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Salazar, and Ms. DeGette) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 301 Boardwalk Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado, as the ``Dr. Karl E. 
                     Carson Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DR. KARL E. CARSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 301 Boardwalk Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Dr. Karl E. Carson Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dr. Karl 
E. Carson Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statement of Operations, Statements of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in Part I, Item 1. of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          70,802
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,352
<PP&E>                                          10,798
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 525,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,096,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   464,011
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (170,845)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (52,843)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (118,002)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (170,845)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
CSH 2015.03.31 EX 4.1


EXHIBIT 4.1




THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE 
 
 
dated as of February 26, 2015 
 
among 
 
CASH AMERICA INTERNATIONAL, INC., 
 
 
The Guarantor(s) Party Hereto 
 
and 
 
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 
as Trustee 





5.75% Senior Notes due 2018













THIS THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE (this “Supplemental Indenture”), entered into as of February 26, 2015, among CASH AMERICA INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), CSH HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Undersigned”) and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Company, the Guarantors party thereto and Trustee entered into the Indenture, dated as of May 15, 2013 (as amended, modified, extended, restated, replaced, or supplemented from time to time, the “Indenture”), relating to the Company’s 5.75% Senior Notes due 2018 (the “Notes”);
WHEREAS, as a condition to the Trustee entering into the Indenture and the purchase of the Notes by the Holders, the Company agreed pursuant to the Indenture to cause any newly acquired or created Subsidiaries to provide Guaranties in certain circumstances.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein contained and intending to be legally bound, the parties to this Supplemental Indenture hereby agree as follows:
Section 1.  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein are used as defined in the Indenture.
Section 2.  The Undersigned, by its execution of this Supplemental Indenture, agrees to be a Guarantor under the Indenture and to be bound by the terms of the Indenture applicable to Guarantors, including, but not limited to, Article 10 thereof.
Section 3.  This Supplemental Indenture shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.
Section 4.  This Supplemental Indenture may be signed in various counterparts which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 5.  This Supplemental Indenture is an amendment supplemental to the Indenture and the Indenture and this Supplemental Indenture will henceforth be read together.
Section 6. The Trustee shall not be responsible for or in respect of the validity or sufficiency of this Supplemental Indenture or for or in respect of the recitals contained herein, all of which recitals are made solely by the Undersigned and the Company.









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Supplemental Indenture to be duly executed as of the date first above written.
	
		
	CASH AMERICA INTERNATIONAL, INC., as Issuer

	By:
	/s/ Austin D. Nettle

	 
	Name:   Austin D. Nettle

	 
	Title: Vice President – Finance and Treasurer








                        	
		
	CSH HOLDINGS LLC
as Guarantor


By:  CASH AMERICA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
        Its Sole Member



	By:
	/s/ Austin D. Nettle

	 
	Name:   Austin D. Nettle

	 
	Title: Vice President – Finance and Treasurer








	
		
	WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee

	By:
	 

	 
	Name:   Patrick T. Giordano

	 
	Title:   Vice President
§ 59a.11 Programs to which these regulations apply. ( a ) This subpart applies to grants made under section 475 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 286b-6). Grants are awarded to medical libraries to enable them to serve as regional medical libraries for their geographic areas. The purpose of the program is to develop a national system of regional medical libraries, each of which would have sufficient facilities to supplement the services of other medical libraries in its region.
( b ) The purpose of the program may also be supported by contracts. Since the primary purpose of these contracts is to assist regional libraries and is not for the purpose of acquiring supplies or services for use of the Federal Government, the provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1) do not apply. Any contract awarded pursuant to section 475 of the Act shall be subject to the applicable provisions of this subpart.