alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4845

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the prohibition

against political fundraising activities in Federal buildings.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 13, 2000

Mr. HYDE (for himself, Mr. CANADY of Florida, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. WOLF, Mr. HANSEN, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. METCALF, Mr. SHAYS,

and Mr. CASTLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to

the prohibition against political fundraising activities in

Federal buildings.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Property Cam5 paign Fundraising Reform Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. FEDERAL FUNDRAISING REFORM.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 607(a) of title 18, United

8 States Code, is amended—
2

•HR 4845 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘to solicit or receive any con2 tribution within the meaning of section 301(8) of the

3 Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 in’’ and in4 serting ‘‘in, to, or from’’;

5 (2) by striking ‘‘occupied in’’ and inserting

6 ‘‘used for’’; and

7 (3) by striking the period at the end of the first

8 sentence and inserting ‘‘to solicit or receive by any

9 means any contribution’’.

10 (b) CONTRIBUTION DEFINED.—Section 607 of title

11 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end

12 the following new subsection:

13 ‘‘(c) In this section, the term ‘contribution’ means—

14 ‘‘(1) any contribution within the meaning of

15 section 301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign

16 Act of 1971; and

17 ‘‘(2) any other gift, subscription, loan, advance,

18 or deposit of money or anything of value (other than

19 any item described in any clause of section

20 301(8)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of

21 1971) which is made by any person—

22 ‘‘(A) for the purpose of influencing any

23 election for State or local office,

24 ‘‘(B) for any Federal, State, district, or

25 local political party, political committee of a po-
3

•HR 4845 IH

1 litical party, or subordinate party or committee

2 thereof,

3 ‘‘(C) for any political committee or con4 nected organization (as defined in section 301

5 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971),

6 or

7 ‘‘(D) for any person expending funds for

8 the purpose of influencing (directly or indi9 rectly) through advertising, polling, or other

10 means any election for Federal, State, or local

11 office or any ballot initiative.’’.

12 (c) EXCEPTION.—Section 607(b) of title 18, United

13 States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘or Executive Office

14 of the President’’ after ‘‘Congress’’.

15 SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF CONTRIBUTION DEFINITION TO

16 PROHIBITION AGAINST CONTRIBUTIONS BY

17 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES TO EMPLOYERS.

18 Section 603(a) of title 18, United States Code, is

19 amended by striking ‘‘within the meaning of section

20 301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971’’

21 and inserting ‘‘(as defined in section 607(c))’’.

Æ
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-1306EA

_____________ Lem Williams, Jr., * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Garland Nelson, State Parole Officer, * Little Rock, Arkansas, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: February 6, 1998

Filed: February 20, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Lem Williams, Jr., filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Garland Nelson, his formers tate parole officer, claiming constitutional violations in connection with Williams’s parole revocation, and seeking damages and release from custody. After the entry of a clerk’s default against Nelson was set aside, the district court grante d Nelson’s motion to dismiss, and Williams apeals. Having c arefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no abuse of discretion in the grant of relief from default, or in the denial of leave to file Williams’s amended complaint. We also conclude the district court correctly granted Nelson’s motion to dismiss. To the extent Williams’s-2-

claims were not barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Williams did not alle ge a compensable injury attributable to Nelson. See Heck , 512 U.S. at 487 n.7 ; Jones v. Moore , 986 F.2d 251, 253 (8th Cir. 1 993) (per curiam). We affirm the district court but modify the judgment to a dismi ssal without prejudice. See Schafer v. Moore , 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Williams’s motion to consolidate thi s appeal with his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action is denied. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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




I, Douglas R. Muir, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2010, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Douglas R. MuirDouglas R. MuirChief
      Financial Officer


Date: June 30, 2010




This certification shall not be deemed to be “filed” for the purpose of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be
incorporated by reference into any registration statement filed under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as
being incorporated therein by reference.




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. and will be retained by Krispy
Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.




---
**Exhibit
      32.2**


**Advanced
      Communications Technologies, Inc.**


**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 Advanced Communications Technologies,
      Inc.
      (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the SEC on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. Donahue, Vice President
      and
      Chief Financial 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)
                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.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Advanced Communications Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Advanced
      Communications Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:
                September 28, 2007/s/
                John E. DonahueJohn
                E. DonahueVice
                President and Chief Financial
                Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-22967-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

SHANNA BYNES, individually

and on behalf of all those

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

RGS FINANCIAL, INC.,

Defendant.

__________________________/

FINAL JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court following Plaintiff’s Notice of Acceptance of 

Defendant’s Offer of Judgment, ECF No. [16]. In accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Shanna Bynes and against Defendant RGS 

Financial, Inc., in the amount of $1,001.00.

2. The Court reserves jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees and costs.

3. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, all pending motions are denied as MOOT and 

all deadlines are TERMINATED.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October 20, 2022.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-22967-BB Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 1 of 1
§ 155.790 Deck lighting. ( a ) A self-propelled vessel with a capacity of 250 or more barrels of oil or hazardous material that is conducting transfer operations between sunset and sunrise must have deck lighting that adequately illuminates— ( 1 ) Each transfer operations work area and each transfer connection point in use on the vessel; and
( 2 ) Each transfer operations work area and each transfer connection point in use on each barge, if any, moored to the vessel to or from which oil or hazardous material is being transferred;
( b ) Where the illumination is apparently inadequate the OCMI or COTP may require verification by instrument of the levels of illumination. On a horizontal plane 3 feet above the deck the illumination must measure at least: ( 1 ) 5.0 foot candles at transfer connection points; and
( 2 ) 1.0 foot candle in transfer operations work areas.
( c ) Lighting must be located or shielded so as not to mislead or otherwise interfere with navigation on the adjacent waterways.
[CGD 75-124, 45 FR 7175, Jan. 31, 1980, as amended by CGD 86-034, 55 FR 36255, Sept. 4, 1990]
§ 334.235 Potomac River, Marine Corps Base Quantico (MCB Quantico) in vicinity of Marine Corps Air Facility (MCAF), restricted area. ( a ) *The area.* All of the navigable waters of the Potomac River extending approximately 500 meters from the high-water mark on the Eastern shoreline of the MCAF, bounded by these coordinates (including the Chopawamsic Creek channel, but excluding Chopawamsic Island): Beginning at latitude 38°29′34.04′′ N, longitude 077°18′22.4′′ W (Point A); thence to latitude 38°29′43.01′′ N, longitude 077°18′4.1′′ (Point B); thence to latitude 38°29′55.1′′ N, longitude 077°17′51.3′′ W (Point C); thence to latitude 38°30′10.1′′ N, longitude 077°17′40.3′′ W (Point D); thence to latitude 38°30′23.43′′ N, longitude 077°17′50.30′′ W (Point E); then along the western shoreline of Chopawamsic Island to latitude 38°30′35.13′′ N, longitude 077°17′47.45′′ W (Point F); thence to latitude 38°30′42.1′′ N, longitude 077°17′37.1′′ W (Point G); thence to latitude 38°30′50.71′′ N, longitude 077°17′54.12′′ W (Point H); then along the shoreline to latitude 38°30′0.058′′ N, longitude 077°18′39.26′′ W (Point I); then across the Chopawamsic Channel to latitude 38°29′58.45′′ N, longitude 077°18′39.97′′ W (Point J); thence to latitude 38°29′38.2′′ N, longitude 077°18′38.14′′ W (Point K); and thence to the beginning point of origin.
( b ) *The regulations.* ( 1 ) All persons, vessels, or other craft are prohibited from entering, transiting, drifting, dredging, or anchoring within the restricted area without the permission of the Commander, MCB Quantico or his/her designated representatives. The restriction will be in place 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
( 2 ) The boundary of the restricted area will be demarcated with marker buoys and warning signs set at 500 foot intervals. In addition, floating small craft intrusion barriers marked with reflective material will be placed across the Chopawamsic Creek channel at the entrance to the channel from the Potomac River and immediately west of the CSX railroad bridge.
( c ) *Enforcement.* The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the Commander, MCB Quantico or any such agencies he/she designates. The areas identified in paragraph (a) of this section will be monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Any person or vessel encroaching within the areas identified in paragraph (a) of this section will be directed to immediately leave the restricted area. Failure to do so could result in forceful removal and/or criminal charges.
( d ) *Exceptions.* Commercial fisherman will be authorized controlled access to the restricted area (with the exception of Chopawamisc Creek channel) after registering with MCB Quantico officials and following specific access notification procedures.
[76 FR 6328, Feb. 4, 2011; 76 FR 10524, Feb. 25, 2011]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 September 16, 2016

Order 

Clerk

September 16, 2016

154062(58)(61)

MENARD, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, SC: 154062

v COA: 325718

Tax Tribunal: 00-441600, 14-001918-TT

CITY OF ESCANABA, Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the separate motions of the Michigan Municipal 

League et al. and the Michigan Manufacturers Association to file briefs amicus curiae are

GRANTED. The amicus briefs submitted by those respective entities on September 8, 

2016, and September 9, 2016, are accepted for filing.
#### INSURANCE AGENTS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 14262.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Sept. 12, 1958.

Decided Oct. 23, 1958.

Certiorari Granted Jan. 26, 1959.

See 79 S.Ct. 352.

Mr. Isaac N. Groner, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Mr. Frederick U. Reel, Atty., N. L. R. B., with whom Messrs. Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., and Melvin Pollack, Atty., N. L. R. B., were on the brief, for respondent.

Mr. Nahum A. Bernstein, New York City, for Prudential Ins. Co. of America, amicus curiae. Mr. K. Norman Diamond, Washington, D. C., was on the brief.

Before Prettyman, Wilbur K. Miller and Washington, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the same question of law as was presented in Textile Workers Union of America, C.I.O. v. National Labor Relations Board, 1955, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 35, 227 F.2d 409, certiorari granted 350 U.S. 1004, 76 S.Ct. 650, 100 L.Ed. 867, certiorari vacated 1956, 352 U.S. 864, 77 S.Ct. 90, 1 L.Ed.2d 73. Amicus attempts to distinguish this case from Textile Workers Union, but we find no critical difference between the two eases. On the authority of that case, the order of the Board here under review must be set aside. One panel of this court will not attempt to overrule a recent precedent set by another panel, even though one or more of its members may disagree with the ruling.

So ordered.
Delta Health Allicance 

îìîïChronic Disease Self-Management Education Program Grantee 

Goals 

The overall purposes of this 4-year grant are to: 

Goal 1: Develop capacity to increase the number of older adults and adults with disabilities who 

participate in evidence-basedZ}v]]self-management education~^D and selfmanagement support programs to empower them to better manage their chronic conditions. 

Goal 2: Identify and implement one or more robust strategies that will promote the sustainability of 

evidence-based self-management education and self-management support programs. 

Strategies and Activities 

The grantee and its partners will: 

x Integrate these new CDSME programs into existing health and social service programs within 

underserved communities. 

x Focus recruitment for programs on marginalized populations utilizing known referral sources 

and partnerships with area businesses. 

x Develop community partnerships for referral sources to proposed interventions. 

x Expand services for chronic disease patients by implementing self-management programs.

Proposed Interventions 

x Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) (remote and in-person) 

x Chronic Pain Self-Management Program (CPSMP) (in-person) 

x Diabetes Self-Management Program (DSMP) (in-person) 

x Walk with Ease (in-person) 

Prevention and Public Health Fund 2023, effective May 1, 2023 

1 of 2
Partnerships 

To achieve the goals of the grant, grantee will collaborate with the following key partners: 

x South Delta Area Agency on Aging 

x The Social Services Collaborative 

x Delta Council 

x Delta Health Alliance's 30+ Outreach programs 

Anticipated Results 

The grantee and its partners propose to achieve the following results: 

x Reduce the risk for premature deaths, poor quality of life and functional status, unnecessary 

hospitalizations, depression, and social isolation among African-American, low income older 

adults and adults with disabilities living in rural communities of Mississsippi Delta. 

x Improve access to CDSMP to older and disabled population by improving health services. 

x Improve health of older adults and adults with disabilities as measured by assessment tools. 

x Engage 920 participants in self-management programs in six MS Delta counties. 

Contact: 

Lesa Baird Wise 

Associate VP of Clinical Programs, Delta Health Alliance 

lwise@deltahealthalliance.org 

For more information: 

Administration for Community Living 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Washington, DC 20201 

http://www.acl.gov 

Prevention and Public Health Fund 2023, effective May 1, 2023 

2 of 2
Case 0:22-cv-61734-RS Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2023 Page 1 of 1
EX. A

Case 1:22-mj-03273-MD Document 7-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2022 Page 1 of 1
-cr-06024-PAS Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2000 P
§ 20.901 Summary decisions. ( a ) Any party may move for a summary decision in all or any part of the proceeding on the grounds that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. The party must file the motion no later than 15 days before the date fixed for the hearing and may include supporting affidavits with the motion. Any other party, 10 days or less after service of a motion for summary decision, may serve opposing affidavits or countermove for summary decision. The ALJ may set the matter for argument and call for the submission of briefs.
( b ) The ALJ may grant the motion if the filed affidavits, the filed documents, the material obtained by discovery or otherwise, or matters officially noted show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that a party is entitled to a summary decision as a matter of law.
( c ) Each affidavit must set forth such matters as would be admissible in evidence and must show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavit. Once a party has moved for summary decision and supported his or her motion as provided in this section, no party opposing the motion may rest upon the mere allegations or denials of facts contained in his or her own pleadings. The response to the motion, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this section, must provide a specific basis to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for the hearing.
( d ) If it appears from the affidavit of a party opposing the motion that this party cannot, for reasons stated, present by affidavit matters essential to justify his or her opposition, the ALJ may deny the motion for summary decision, may order a continuance to enable the obtaining of information, or may make such other order as is just.
( e ) No denial of all or any part of a motion for summary decision is subject to interlocutory appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                              86
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                       454
<INVENTORY>                                     13,656
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,217
<PP&E>                                          38,026
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,568
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,410
<BONDS>                                         19,015
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,085
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,898)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,165
<SALES>                                         22,752
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,752
<CGS>                                           16,570
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,491
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    835
<INCOME-TAX>                                       337
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                498
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       498
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
[Civ. No. 2102.

Fourth Appellate District.

June 10, 1937.]

#### LUNA K. STEINER, Appellant, v. BYRON D. DAVIS, Respondent.

*335C. Arden Gingery and E. W. Miller for Appellant.

Hert & Withington for Respondent.

JENNINGS, J.

—Respondent’s notice of motion to dismiss the appeal in this action was filed on May 17, 1937. It was therein stated that the basis for the motion was that appellant had failed to file a record on appeal within the time required by the rules of this court. The motion was noticed for hearing on June 8, 1937. Prior to this date the clerk’s transcript and appellant’s opening brief were filed with this court. It appears from respondent’s notice of motion that the judgment from which the appeal has been taken was rendered after a demurrer to appellant’s third and supplemental complaint had been sustained and that no evidence was submitted to the trial court.  No record other than that provided by the clerk’s transcript now on file will be required for determination of the appeal. The fact that the clerk’s transcript was on file at the time respondent’s motion for dismissal was presented is a sufficient reason for denying the motion. *(Jaques*v. *Board of Supervisors,*22 Cal. App. 627 [135 Pac. 686]; *Snodgrass*v. *Hand,*125 Cal. App. 265 [13 Pac. (2d) 769]; *Sampson*v. *Boysen,*5 Cal. App. (2d) 282 [42 Pac. (2d) 704].)

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.