alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001074545
<NAME>                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING VI, L.P.


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         85
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                        (100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
792 A.2d 595

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Timothy Edward CASSIDY, Respondent.

No. 726, Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 5, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 5th day of March, there having been filed with' this Court by Timothy Edward Cassidy his verified *89Statement of Resignation dated January 23, 2002, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of Timothy Edward Cassidy be and it is hereby accepted and he is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
(75 South. 706)

#### ABRAMS v. STATE.

(6 Div. 308.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 29, 1917.)

Criminal Law <§=>1094 — Appeal—Affirmance on Record in Absence of Bill of Exceptions.

Where there is no bill of exceptions in the transcript, and no error apparent from the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

[Ed. Note. — Ear other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2807, 3204.]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Eort, Judge.

Marion Abrams, alias, etc., was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMEORD, J.

The defendant was indicted in two counts in an indictment charging grand larceny and buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property, and from a judgment of conviction for grand larceny, he appeals.

There is no bill of exceptions in the transcript, and we find no error in the record, and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
110TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 43

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns

3 on any day from Friday, August 3, 2007, through Friday,

4 August 31, 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to this

5 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des6 ignee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12 noon on

7 Tuesday, September 4, 2007, or such other time on that

8 day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his des9 ignee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time

10 of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent

11 resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the

12 House adjourns on any legislative day from Friday, Au13 gust 3, 2007, through Wednesday, August 8, 2007, on a

14 motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by

15 its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned

16 until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, or until the

17 time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this con18 current resolution, whichever occurs first.
 †

2

SCON 43 ES

1 SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and

2 the Speaker of the House, or their respective des3 ignees, acting jointly after consultation with the Mi4 nority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader

5 of the House, shall notify the Members of the Senate

6 and House, respectively, to reassemble at such place

7 and time as they may designate if, in their opinion,

8 the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the Senate August 3, 2007.

Attest:

Secretary.
110TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 43

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess

the House of Representatives.of the Senate, and a conditional adjournment of
Factores que 

las Familias de Inmigrantes deben 

saber la Cobertura del Mercado 

¿Desea más información o tiene preguntas?

Visite CuidadoDeSalud.gov/es/immigrants.

Comuníquese con el Centro de Llamadas del Mercado al 1-800-318-2596. Los usuarios de TTY pueden 

llamar al 1-855-889-4325.

Usted tiene derecho a obtener la información del Mercado en un formato accesible, como letra grande, Braille o audio. También 

tiene el derecho de presentar una queja si piensa que ha sido discriminado. Visite CMS.gov/about-cms/agency-information/

aboutwebsite/cmsnondiscriminationnotice.html o comuníquese con el Centro de Llamadas del Mercado al 1-800-318-2596 

para obtener más información. Los usuarios de TTY pueden llamar al 1-855-889-4325. 

Debe ser ciudadano

estadounidense o estar

legalmente presente

en los EE. UU. para

ser elegible para una

cobertura

del Mercado.

Puede ser elegible

para una cobertura

de Medicaid o del

Programa de Seguro

Médico para Niños

(CHIP) si es un ciudadano

estadounidense o si tiene

un estado de inmigración

“calificado”.

En algunos estados,

los niños y/o mujeres

embarazadas

legalmente presentes

pueden ser elegibles

para Medicaid o CHIP.

Es posible que deba

esperar 5 años luego

de haber obtenido el

estado de inmigración

“calificado” para

obtener cobertura de

Medicaid o CHIP.

Es posible que pueda

solicitar ayuda para

afrontar los costos

médicos a través del

Mercado, incluso duran,

te su período de espera

de 5 años.

Si no es un ciudadano

estadounidense ni

residente legalmente

presente, puede

obtener Medicaid para

condiciones médicas

de emergencia, lo que

incluye el parto.

Es posible que deba

enviar documentos

para demostrar su

estado de inmigración

o ciudadanía. Su

información nunca

se utilizará con

propósitos de control

inmigratorio.

CMS Producto No. 11870-S

Revisado en agosto de 2018

Pagado por el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Frank STRINGI, Ernest Nightingale, Joseph Horovitz, Sharlann S. Simon, also known as Charlann Marie Simon and Elvin E. Cochran. Frank Stringi, Appellant in No. 15974, Ernest Nightingale, Appellant in No. 15975.

Nos. 15974, 15975.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued June 19, 1967.

Decided June 30, 1967.

*897Charles N. Caputo, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant Stringi.

Vincent M. Casey, Pittsburgh, Pa., Margiotti & Casey, Pittsburgh, Pa., Robert M. Keim, Livengood, Braucher & Keim, Somerset, Pa., (on the brief), for appellant Nightingale.

Nick S. Fisfis, Asst. U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa. (Gustave Diamond, U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges and VAN DUSEN, District Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The appellants have been tried and convicted on several substantive and conspiracy counts growing out of events which occurred during the winter and spring of 1963 in a small county of Pennsylvania. Each count involved some aspect or aspects of a series of transactions in which purported endorsements of owners of United States Series E Savings Bonds were forged and, thereafter, the bonds were negotiated.

Over the appellants’ objections all counts were tried together. In our view the offenses and the transactions charged were so related that the court’s insistence that they be tried together did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

The appellants also complain that the court permitted the cross-examination of character witnesses as to whether they had heard that the defendant Nightingale, as to whose reputation for honesty they had testified, had asserted in an earlier civil case that certain writings were on a check at the time it was drawn when in fact, as subsequently proved, he himself had added the writing after the check had been cashed. The court below was satisfied by a government tender of proof, made in the absence of the jury, that the government could prove the occurrence of the derogatory transaction thus inquired about to impeach the testimony of good reputation. Moreover, two of the character witnesses admitted that they had or may have heard the derogatory information about the defendant. In these circumstances, we find no error in the inquiry made about any awareness to this matter in the cross-examination of the defense character witnesses.

The conviction and sentence of each defendant were proper and will be affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

Lee Enterprises, Incorporated 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No. 333-06435, No. 333-105219, No. 333-132767, No. 333-132768 andPost-Effective Amendment No. 1 to 333-132768) on Form S-8 of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated (the Company) of our report dated December 11, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated andsubsidiaries as of September 27, 2009 and September 28, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss), stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the 52-week periods then ended, which reportappears in the September 27, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated. 

 

Our report states that effective September 27, 2009, the Company changed the measurement date of its pension and postretirement obligations to the date of the fiscal year-end balance sheet in accordance withASC Topic 715, *Retirement Plans,*and effective October 1, 2007, changed its method of accounting for uncertain tax positions in accordance with ASC Topic 740, *Income Taxes.*

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Chicago, Illinois 

December 11, 2009
#### § 38.30 Requisite skill and authority of Equal Opportunity Officer.

The EO Officer must be a senior level employee of the recipient who has the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to fulfill the responsibilities competently as described in this subpart. Depending upon the size of the recipient, the size of the recipient's WIOA Title I-financially assisted programs or activities, and the number of applicants, registrants, and participants served by the recipient, the EO Officer may, or may not, be assigned other duties. However, the EO Officer must not have other responsibilities or activities that create a conflict or the appearance of a conflict with the responsibilities of an EO Officer.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00341-CV

CITY OF CEDAR PARK

v.

JUAN DELAPENA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF C.D.L.P., A MINOR; 

AND KORINA DELAPENA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF

THE ESTATE OF C.D., A DECEASED MINOR

On Appeal from the

201st District Court of Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-19-007803

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered. The 

Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment in 

accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellees.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 17, 2022
§ 2700.28 Filing of petition for assessment of penalty with the Commission. ( a ) *Time to file.* Within 45 days of receipt of a timely contest of a proposed penalty assessment, the Secretary shall file with the Commission a petition for assessment of penalty.
( b ) *Contents.* The petition for assessment of penalty shall: ( 1 ) List the alleged violations and the proposed penalties. Each violation shall be identified by the number and date of the citation or order and the section of the Act or regulations alleged to be violated.
( 2 ) Include a short and plain statement of supporting reasons based on the criteria for penalty assessment set forth in section 110(i) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 820(i), unless a single penalty assessment has been proposed under 30 CFR 100.4.
( 3 ) State whether the citation or order has been contested pursuant to § 2700.20 and the docket number of any contest proceeding.
( 4 ) Advise the party against whom the petition is filed that an answer to the petition must be filed within 30 days pursuant to § 2700.29 and that the answer must be filed regardless of whether the party has already filed a notice of contest of the citation, order, or proposed penalty assessment involved.
( c ) *Attachments.* A legible copy of each citation or order for which a penalty is sought shall be attached to the petition for assessment of penalty. If a legible copy is not available, the petition for assessment of penalty shall set forth the text of the citation or order.
[58 FR 12164, Mar. 3, 1993, as amended at 71 FR 44207, Aug. 4, 2006]
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 of Lite King Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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 operation of the Company.

Date: March 10, 2006                    By:     /s/ David L. Norris
                                                ------------------------
                                        Name:    David L. Norris
                                        Title:   Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lite King Corporation
and will be retained by Lite King Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6997

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

THOMAS LEE BONNER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District

Judge. (CR-00-831; CA-02-1683-4-12)

Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 24, 2004

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Lee Bonner, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Lee Bonner seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final

order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F. 3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Bonner has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.108 District of Columbia contracts.

Section 2(a) of the Act covers contracts (and any bid specification therefor) in excess of $2,500 which are “entered into by the * * * District of Columbia.” The contracts of all agencies and instrumentalities which procure contract services for or on behalf of the District or under the authority of the District Government are contracts entered into by the District of Columbia within the meaning of this provision. Such contracts are also considered contracts entered into with the Federal Government or the United States within the meaning of section 2(b), section 5, and the other provisions of the Act. The legislative history indicates no intent to distinguish District of Columbia contracts from the other contracts made subject to the Act, and traditionally, under other statutes, District Government contracts have been made subject to the same labor standards provisions as contracts of agencies and instrumentalities of the United States.

[48 FR 49762, Oct. 27, 1983; 48 FR 50529, Nov. 2, 1983]
Exhibit 10.2


 





AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment, dated
as of April 9, 2015 (the “Amendment”), to Employment Agreement dated as of August 13, 2010 and effective as of July
1, 2010, as amended to date (collectively, the “Agreement”), is by and between WidePoint Corporation (the “Company”)
and James T. McCubbin (“Executive”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned
to such terms in the Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, the parties
desire to further amend the Agreement as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual covenants and undertakings herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto intending to be legally bound do hereby agree as follows:


 


1. Effective as of
April 1, 2015, Section 2 of the Agreement is amended to provide that the term of Executive’s employment under the Agreement
shall be extended to March 31, 2017.


 


2. Effective as of
April 1, 2015, Section 4 of the Agreement is amended to provide that the Base Salary of Executive shall be Two Hundred Sixty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($265,000.00) per annum during the term of the Agreement.


 


3. Except as expressly
provided in this Amendment, all other terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement remain unaltered and are in full force
and effect and are expressly hereby ratified and confirmed. The Agreement and this Amendment shall be read and construed as one
agreement.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties have executed this Amendment to the Agreement as of the date first written above.


 





 


	WIDEPOINT CORPORATION	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Steve L. Komar	 	/s/ James T. McCubbin
	Name:	Steve L. Komar	 	James T. McCubbin
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer	 	Individually
#### CULLEN & VAUGHN CO v BENDER CO

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21887.

Decided March 5, 1930

Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
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 Lite King Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      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 operation of the
Company.


Date: February 13, 2007                 By:    /s/ John T. Ruddy
                                               ---------------------------------
                                        Name:  John T. Ruddy
                                        Title: President and
                                               Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lite King Corporation
and will be retained by Lite King Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                 EXHIBIT 32.1-1
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 14-422

________________________________________________________________________

DEFENSE

Status of Forces

Agreement Between the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

and BURUNDI

Signed at Bujumbura April 14, 2014 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent

evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof

or authentication thereof.”
 BURUNDI

 Defense: Status of Forces

 Agreement signed at Bujumbura

 April 14, 2014;

 Entered into force April 22, 2014.