alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 99.1




                          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 Angelica Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 26, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Don W. Hubble, Chairman, President and Chief Executive 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.



                                   /s/ Don W. Hubble
                                   -----------------------------------------
                                   Don W. Hubble
                                   Chairman, President and Chief Executive
                                   Officer of Angelica Corporation

                                   June 6, 2003



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains Summary Financial Information Extracted from Goup Long
Distrance, Inc. Financial Statements Ended April 30, 1998 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001004570
<NAME>                        Group Long Distance, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1.000
<CASH>                                             303,962
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,050,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (572,000)
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,881,270
<PP&E>                                             368,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (273,736)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,913,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,733,032
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (7,931,787)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,913,525
<SALES>                                         54,340,938
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,759,864
<CGS>                                           38,118,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,118,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,651,158
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,633,630
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 340,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,983,430)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       649,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,633,330)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,633,330)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (2.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (2.76)
        


</TABLE>
[Cite as State v. Ruffin, 2014-Ohio-1885.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2013-11-208 

 : D E C I S I O N

 - vs - 5/5/2014 

 : 

CHRISTOPHER RUFFIN, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2013-07-1159 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 

High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for plaintiff-appellee 

Neal D. Schuett, 121 West High Street, Oxford, Ohio 45056, for defendant-appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Christopher Ruffin, has filed a brief with this 

court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) 

indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any 
Butler CA2013-11-208

 - 2 - 

errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of 

error may be predicated; (2) lists three potential errors "that might arguably support the 

appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record 

independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and 

without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw 

as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that 

a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that 

it is wholly frivolous. 

RINGLAND, P.J., S. POWELL and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 130395 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 130395 COA: 256303 Wayne CC: 03-014017-01 HORACE WALLACE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to a ppeal the December 1, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0522 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2006

Clerk
Instructions for Obtaining a Copy of the CDs of the CASAC Teleconferences

1. The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards will order a CD of each of the 

teleconferences. As soon as we get each CD we will send it to the public docket (OAR2005-0172).

2. You will be able to find the entry at www.regulations.gov. Click on advanced search 

and you will be able to specify: Agency, docket # (OAR-2005-0172), entry type 

(supporting and related materials), posting date range, and key words.

3. The titles of the entries will be:

"Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Teleconference on February 

18, 2011. Discussion of EPA's Solicitation of CASAC Advice on the 

Reconsideration of the 2008 Primary Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard"

"Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Teleconference on March 23, 

2011. Discussion of EPA's Solicitation of CASAC Advice on the Reconsideration 

of the 2008 Primary Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard"

4. Click on the entry and there will be instructions on how to order a copy of the CD by 

telephone, fax or email. Copies will be sent out within 10 working days.
No. 10-11029.

#### Serafin-Rodriguez, aka Serafin *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-8399.

#### Vann *v.*Oklahoma.

Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-11044.

#### Lathrop *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 1:22-cv-24066-KMM

GRACE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, CITY OF MIAMI

The undersigned gives notice of his appearance as co-counsel in this matter for Defendant, 

City of Miami, and requests to be furnished with all documents filed in this matter.

Dated October 27, 2023

VICTORIA MÉNDEZ, City Attorney

ERIC J. EVES, Senior Appellate Counsel

Attorneys for City of Miami

444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 945

Miami, FL 33130-1910

Telephone: (305) 416-1800

Primary Email: EEves@miamigov.com

Secondary Email: CSantos@miamigov.com

By: /s/Eric J. Eves_________

Eric J. Eves

Florida Bar No. 91053

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2023 Page 1 of 1
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5679

To provide that a State may use a proportional voting system for multiseat

congressional districts.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 15, 2000

Ms. MCKINNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide that a State may use a proportional voting system

for multiseat congressional districts.

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 cited as the ‘‘Voters’ Choice Act’’.

5 SEC. 2. MULTISEAT DISTRICTS PERMITTED FOR ELECTION

6 OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR STATES WITH A

7 PROPORTIONAL VOTING SYSTEM.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the Act entitled

9 ‘‘An Act for the relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala

10 and to provide for congressional redistricting’’, approved
2

•HR 5679 IH

1 December 14, 1967 (Public Law 90–196; 2 U.S.C. 2c),

2 a State that is entitled to more than one Representative

3 in Congress may establish a number of districts for elec4 tion of Representatives that is less than the number of

5 Representatives to which the State is entitled, if and only

6 if, that State uses a system that meets the following condi7 tions:

8 (1) It meets the constitutional standard of ma9 jority rule and of individuals having equal voting

10 power.

11 (2) It ensures the election of any candidate who

12 receives a share of votes cast that is at least one

13 vote greater than one-third of the total votes cast in

14 the multiseat district.

15 (b) NO RESTRICTION ON SELECTION.—A State is not

16 restricted to selecting systems that require candidates to

17 obtain at least one vote more than one-third of the elec18 torate in order to be elected. As long as the conditions

19 specified in subsection (a) are met, a State may use sys20 tems that allow a smaller group of voters to elect Rep21 resentatives.

22 (c) EQUALITY REQUIREMENT.—In a State that uses

23 multiseat districts, the number of residents per Represent24 ative in a district shall be equal for all Representatives

25 elected.
3

•HR 5679 IH

1 (d) ONE-SEAT DISTRICTS ALLOWED.—A State may

2 use one-seat districts alone or in combination with

3 multiseat districts.

4 SEC. 3. RELATION TO VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965.

5 The rights and remedies established by this Act are

6 in addition to all other rights and remedies provided by

7 law, and the rights and remedies established by this Act

8 shall not supersede, restrict, or limit the application of the

9 Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.). Noth10 ing in this Act authorizes or requires conduct that is pro11 hibited by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973

12 et seq.).

Æ
Natoma

Manors

Bay

Heights

Golden Pines

North

Grove

Shorecrest

Bay Point

Miami International Airport

Morningside

Grapeland Heights

Little Havana Dodge Island

Shenandoah

Virginia Key

Auburndale

Liberty City

Silver Bluff

Wynwood

Little River

Downtown

The Roads

Allapattah

Little Haiti

Overtown

Flagami

Brickell

Omni

C

O

C

O

N

U

T

G

R

O

V

E

pU

ep Er sa St edi

r et a wegdE

2

0

2

2

E

n

j

oin

e

d

Pla

n

Districts

12345

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 173-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 1 of 1
#### § 109-43.307-2.51 Holding hazardous personal property.

Excess or surplus hazardous personal property shall not be commingled with non-hazardous personal property while waiting disposition action.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

KENNETH C. GRIFFIN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-24023-Scola/Goodman

NOTICE OF SELECTION OF MEDIATOR

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, in accordance with this Court’s June 6, 2023 Scheduling

Order and Order of Referral to Mediation requiring that “[t]he parties must agree upon a mediator

within 60 days from the date of this Order” (ECF No. 30 at 5), the Parties in the above-captioned

action, by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully provide notice that they have agreed

upon Elaine E. Feldman, Esq. of Salmon & Dulberg Dispute Resolution, 1395 Brickell Avenue,

Suite 800, Miami, Florida 33131, to serve as a mediator in this action.

Date: August 9, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,

For Plaintiff

By: /s/ Jason D. Sternberg

William A. Burck (admitted pro hac vice)

Derek L. Shaffer (admitted pro hac vice)

Alexander J. Merton (admitted pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 538-8334

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/09/2023 Page 1 of 3
2

williamburck@quinnemanuel.com

derekshaffer@quinnemanuel.com

ajmerton@quinnemanuel.com

Christopher D. Kercher (admitted pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor

New York, New York 10010

(212) 849-7000

christopherkercher@quinnemanuel.com

John F. Bash, III (admitted pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

300 West 6th St, Suite 2010

Austin, TX 78701

(737) 667-6100

johnbash@quinnemanuel.com

Jason D. Sternberg (Florida Bar No. 72887)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 1550

Miami, FL 33133

(786) 850 3607

jasonsternberg@quinnemanuel.com

For Defendant

DAVID A. HUBBERT

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

By: /s/ Elizabeth N. Duncan

Elizabeth N. Duncan

ELIZABETH N. DUNCAN

Virginia Bar No. 90685

ZACHARY A. GRAY

California Bar No. 291376

STEPHANIE A. SASARAK

Maryland Bar No. 1012160096

Trial Attorneys, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 14198

Washington, D.C. 20044

202-514-6546 (v) | 202-514-4963 (f)

Elizabeth.N.Duncan@usdoj.gov

Zachary.A.Gray@usdoj.gov

Stephanie.A.Sasarak@usdoj.gov

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/09/2023 Page 2 of 3
3

Of counsel:

MARKENZY LAPOINTE

United States Attorney

Southern District of Florida

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 9th day of August, 2023, I filed a copy of the foregoing

document with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF electronic filing system, which will send

notification to all counsel of record.

By: /s/ Jason D. Sternberg

Jason D. Sternberg

Fla. Bar No. 72887

jasonsternberg@quinnemanuel.com

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/09/2023 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4564

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BENJAMIN ROBERT SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:16-cr-00030-WO-1)

Submitted: July 23, 2021 Decided: July 29, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Kathleen A. Gleason, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Kyle D. 

Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Robert Smith entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of stolen 

firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j), 924(a)(2), and brandishing a firearm during 

a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and he was sentenced to 

113 months in prison. As authorized by his conditional guilty plea, Smith’s challenges on 

appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the § 924(c) charge, which 

was predicated on a substantive Hobbs Act robbery offense. According to Smith, Hobbs 

Act robbery does not qualify as a proper predicate for the § 924(c) charge under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(3)’s “force clause” and, after Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2563 

(2015) (holding that “residual clause” of Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague), Hobbs Act robbery cannot support the 

§ 924(c) charge under § 924(c)(3)’s “residual clause.”*

 We affirm.

We review a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment de novo 

where, as here, it depends solely on a question of law. United States v. Said, 798 F.3d 182, 

193 (4th Cir. 2015). Although Smith is correct that the “residual clause” of § 924(c)(3) is 

unconstitutionally vague, United States v. Davis, __ U.S. __, __, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336

(2019), Smith’s argument otherwise is foreclosed by binding precedent, see United States 

v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that Hobbs Act robbery categorically 

* This appeal has been in abeyance pending our decision in United States v. Ali, 

Appeal No. 15-4433, which issued on March 19, 2021. See United States v. Ali, 991 F.3d 

561 (4th Cir. 2021).
3

qualifies as “crime of violence” under the “force clause” of § 924(c)(3)). We therefore find 

no error in the district court’s denial of Smith’s motion to dismiss the § 924(c) charge.

Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 301-52.1 Must I file a travel claim?

Yes.
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 764

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 6, 1999

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 764 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Abuse Preven3 tion and Enforcement Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM.

5 Section 102(b) of the Crime Identification Tech6 nology Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601(b)) is amended by

7 striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (15), by striking

8 the period at the end of paragraph (16) and inserting ‘‘;

9 and’’, and by adding after paragraph (16) the following:

10 ‘‘(17) the capability of the criminal justice sys11 tem to deliver timely, accurate, and complete crimi12 nal history record information to child welfare agen13 cies, organizations, and programs that are engaged

14 in the assessment of risk and other activities related

15 to the protection of children, including protection

16 against child sexual abuse, and placement of chil17 dren in foster care.’’.

18 SEC. 3. USE OF FUNDS UNDER BYRNE GRANT PROGRAM

19 FOR CHILD PROTECTION.

20 Section 501(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Con21 trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3751) is

22 amended—

23 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

24 (25);

25 (2) by striking the period at the end of para26 graph (26) and adding ‘‘; and’’; and
3

HR 764 RFS

1 (3) by adding at the end the following:

2 ‘‘(27) enforcing child abuse and neglect laws,

3 including laws protecting against child sexual abuse,

4 and promoting programs designed to prevent child

5 abuse and neglect.’’.

6 SEC. 4. CONDITIONAL ADJUSTMENT IN SET ASIDE FOR

7 CHILD ABUSE VICTIMS UNDER THE VICTIMS

8 OF CRIME ACT OF 1984.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1402(d)(2) of the Victims

10 of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(d)(2)) is

11 amended—

12 (1) by striking ‘‘(2) the next $10,000,000’’ and

13 inserting ‘‘(2)(A) Except as provided in subpara14 graph (B), the next $10,000,000’’; and

15 (2) by adding at the end the following:

16 ‘‘(B)(i) For any fiscal year for which the

17 amount deposited in the Fund is greater than the

18 amount deposited in the Fund for fiscal year 1998,

19 the $10,000,000 referred to in subparagraph (A)

20 plus an amount equal to 50 percent of the increase

21 in the amount from fiscal year 1998 shall be avail22 able for grants under section 1404A.

23 ‘‘(ii) Amounts available under this subpara24 graph for any fiscal year shall not exceed

25 $20,000,000.’’.
4

HR 764 RFS

1 (b) INTERACTION WITH ANY CAP.—Subsection (a)

2 shall be implemented so that any increase in funding pro3 vided thereby shall operate notwithstanding any dollar

4 limitation on the availability of the Crime Victims Fund

5 established under the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.

Passed the House of Representatives October 5,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
335P15

#### Robert K. Stewart v. Moore Family Care, Dr. Thomas Leonard, M.D., and Vonda Reeves

1. Pit’s *Pro Se*Motion for Medical Malpractice Civil Action

1. Dismissed

2. Pit’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

2. Allowed