alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). E O H / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J OS E P H G I DE ON HA NC OC K, P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF T HE ST ATE OF C AL I F ORNI A; B E N C UR R Y, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 07- 17060 D . C. N o . CV - 0 2 - 0 2 4 1 3 - FCD ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia F r a nk C . D a m r e l l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry16, 2010 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED MA R 01 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSE O H / Res ea r ch 07- 17060 2 C al i fo rn i a st at e p ri so n er Jo sep h G i d eo n H an co ckap p eal s p ro se f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f i rm. H a n c o c kc o n te n d s th a t th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s up p o rt h is co n v icti o n fo r a ss au ltw ith a f irea rm . T h e r ec o rd re flec ts th at th e s tate co u rt’s r e je c tio n o f

th is c la im w a s n e ith e rc o n tr a ryto , n o rin v o lv e da n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f

, c le a r lye s tab lis h e df

e d e r a l law . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; se e a l so J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 44 3 U . S . 30 7, 32 4 (19 79 ). H a nc oc k ne xtc ont e nds tha tthe j uryi ns truc t i ons i m pr ope r l yl ow e r e d the pr os e c ut i on’ s bur de n of pr oof . T he “ c ont e xtof

the ove r a l l c ha r ge ” doe s not s up p o rt H a n c o c k ’s c o n te n tio n . C up p v. N au gh ten , 4 1 4 U .S . 1 4 1 , 1 4 6 - 4 7 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . T he st at e c ou rt ’ s r ej ec t i on of thi s c l ai m w as nei ther c on traryt o, no r i nv ol ved an u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r lye s tab lis h e df

e d e r a l law . See 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 25 4(d)(1). H ancock’ s m ot i on t o exp and the ce rt i fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty i s deni ed . See 9 th C ir . R . 2 2 - 1 ( e ) ; s e e al s o Hi i v ala v . W

ood , 19 5 F . 3d 10 98 , 11 04 -05 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( per c uri am ). AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 32.2

Section 1350

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended March 26, 2006 as to which this Certification is an
exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|Signed May 5, 2006.                                 
|                                                    
|/s/ Harry V. Maccarrone                             
|Harry V. Maccarrone                                 
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



24
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4475

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study to identify future funding options for financing infrastructure projects under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 1994

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. CLINGER, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. BACCHUS of Florida, Mr.

BOEHNER, Mr. ZIMMER, and Mr. GILCHREST) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency to conduct a study to identify future funding

options for financing infrastructure projects under the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 Congress finds the following:

5 (1) Society cannot function without adequate

6 water pollution control facilities.
2

•HR 4475 IH

1 (2) Deteriorated and leaking sewage pipes and

2 collection systems and antiquated wastewater treat3 ment facilities threaten public health and the envi4 ronment.

5 (3) The Environmental Protection Agency esti6 mates that meeting the Nation’s 20-year design

7 needs for publicly-owned wastewater treatment

8 works will cost $137,000,000,000.

9 (4) Federal and State expenditures for infra10 structure projects under the Federal Water Pollution

11 Control Act will continue to be constrained due to

12 the enormity of the Federal budget deficit unless al13 ternative funding sources can be identified.

14 SEC. 2. FUTURE FUNDING OPTIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE

15 PROJECTS.

16 (a) STUDY.—The Administrator of the Environ17 mental Protection Agency shall conduct a study to identify

18 and examine future funding options for financing infra19 structure projects under the Federal Water Pollution Con20 trol Act.

21 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date

22 of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall

23 transmit to Congress a report containing the results of

24 the study conducted under subsection (a).
3

•HR 4475 IH

1 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is

2 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section

3 $100,000 for fiscal year 1995.

Æ
404 A.2d 1353

#### Commonwealth v. Boyd, Appellant.

Submitted June 12, 1978.

John W. Packel, Assistant Public Defender, Chief, Appeals Division, for appellant; Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, Chief, Appeals Division, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

JACOBS, former P. J., and HOFFMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5  
<LEGEND> 
                                                       Exhibit 27
                TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P.
                         FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the financial statements of Time Warner Entertainment Company,
L.P. for the quarter ended September 30, 1996 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>               0000893657
<NAME>              TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                  209
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,908
<ALLOWANCES>                            366
<INVENTORY>                           1,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      3,093
<PP&E>                                9,206
<DEPRECIATION>                        3,426
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       19,441
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 3,597
<BONDS>                               5,673
<COMMON>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                            6,638
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         19,441
<SALES>                               7,811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      7,811
<CGS>                                 5,250
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         5,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      356
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         262
<INCOME-TAX>                             49
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     213
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                            213
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0
        


</TABLE>
No. 10-11200.

#### Harvin *v.*Healthcare Funding Solutions et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16379]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-818, A-489-805]


Certain Pasta From Italy and Turkey: Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Russell Morris at (202) 482-1775, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

Time Limits

Statutory Time Limits

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination 
within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an 
order/finding for which a review is requested and a final determination 
within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination 
is published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review 
within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 
Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination 
to a maximum of 365 days and for the final determination to 180 days 
(or 300 days if the Department does not extend the time limit for the 
preliminary determination) from the date of publication of the 
preliminary determination.

Background

    On August 30, 1999, the Department published a notice of initiation 
of administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain 
pasta from Italy and Turkey, covering the period July 1, 1998, through 
June 30, 1999 (64 FR 47167). On February 4, 2000, the Department 
extended the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of 
these administrative reviews by 90 days (65 FR 5591). The preliminary 
results are currently due no later than June 30, 2000.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Review

    We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary 
results of these reviews within the extended 90 day time limit. 
Therefore the Department is extending the time limit for completion of 
these preliminary results for the full 120 days, until no later than 
July 31, 2000. See Decision Memorandum from Melissa Skinner to Holly 
Kuga, dated June 14, 2000, which is on file in the Central Records 
Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce building. We intend to issue the 
final results no later than 120 days after the publication of the 
preliminary results notice.
    This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

    Dated: June 16, 2000.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, Group II.
[FR Doc. 00-16379 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
252PA14-2

#### State v. Thomas Craig Campbell

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA13-1404-2)

1. Allowed 11/10/2015

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Allowed

3. State’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3. Special Order
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command, Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/377,743 entitled “Novel HIV Suppressor Factor Derived from Scrub Typhus,” filed August 20, 1999. This patent has been assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army.

# ADDRESSES:

Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland 21702-5012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-2065 or telefax (301) 619-5034.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The invention takes advantage of the anti-HIV effects of an inhibitory factor produced during scrub typhus infection. It is the object of the invention to provide a method of inducing an immunogenic response to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), in particular to HIV-1. It is a further object of the invention to provide a suppressor factor derived from scrub typhus infection in the form of purified sera, plasma, or immunogolobulin which is suitable for administration to patents at rink for , or infected with, HIV either alone or in combination with other agents. It is a particular object of the invention to provide an isolated suppressor factor from sera or plasma taken from patients with scrub typhus which has anti-HIV activity. It is also a further object in the invention to provide peptides from inhibitory strains of scrub typhus, which peptides function as antigens and can be used to produce antibodies effective for the prophylaxis and treatment of HIV infection.

Gregory D. Showalter,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-16402  Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
800

800

800

800

800

600

600

600

600

400

400

400

400

200

200

200

200

1000

1000

800

600

112

C A P E T R L

C A PE L O O P R D

K O IT L A H P O IN T R D

M A KA H I N D IA N R E S R D

P O IN T S T

P O IN T S T

A -L IN E R D

A-L INE R D

Flattery Creek

S T R A I T O F J U A N D E F U C A

Neah

Bay

Hole-in-the Wall

Midway

Classet

Bahokus Peak

Sah-daped-thl Classet

Cape

Flattery

Lighthouse

Tatoosh

Island

Duntze

Rock

Titacoclos

Falls

Chibahdehl

Rocks

Duncan

Rock

Fuca

Pillar

Kessiso

Rocks

Mushroom

Rock

Slant

Rock

Jones

Rock

Warmhouse

Beach

Cape

Flattery

Kydikabbit

Point

Koitlah

Point

3

45' 30"

30"

27'

73

000m

53

61

53 N

72

53

72 3 75 3

72

124° 3

62

3

65

75

53

48°

45' 37'

53

53

71

FEET

560

30" 30"

53

53

69

72

53

000

68

53

65

E

27'

FEET

000 FEET

690

53

68

53

71

78 3

53

76

69

66

48°

124°

22'

37'

53

22'

124°

48° 3 000mE

3

53

30"

70

53

30"

60

000m

79

61

53

64

71 3 73 3 76 3

N

3

73

63

40'

124° 40'

53

3 3

30'

53

66

53

53

53

67

70

63

3

78

53

74

67

000m

64

79

000 FEET

30"

30"

48° 30'

77

000

720

530

53

53

25'

42'

42'

60

25'

53

62

53

53

73

3 74 3 77

Cape

Flattery Waadah

Island

Makah

Bay Neah Bay

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

WASHINGTON

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

CAPE FLATTERY, WA

2011

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

CAPE FLATTERY QUADRANGLE

WASHINGTON

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 10U

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Washington Coordinate System of 1983

(north zone)

Imagery.............................................NAIP, September 2009

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2009

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2009

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 1999

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

M

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2 N

GN

UTM GRID AND 2011 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 16 ́

22 MILS

17° 28 ́

311 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

10U

CU

CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
**EXHIBIT 31.2****SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Mark A. Kopser, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of United Surgical Partners International, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3 [Intentionally omitted]  4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))for the Registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financialreporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordancewith generally accepted accounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in theRegistrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, theRegistrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who havea significant role in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting./s/ Mark A. Kopser Mark A. Kopser
# Comments on: 2018-1391: NOVA v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
No. 11-5225.

#### Solesbee *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### IN THE MATTER OF B. J. ROBERTS.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 675)

(380 SE2d 51)

Per curiam.

This proceeding was commenced by B. J. Roberts when he filed a petition for voluntary suspension under Bar Rule 4-106 and for voluntary surrender of his license based on his conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude.

Roberts was indicted on four counts of submitting false statements in violation of 18 USC §§ 1001, 1002. Initially, he was found not guilty on two counts and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining counts. On retrial, Roberts was convicted of the two *268remaining counts. He was fined, given a suspended sentence, and placed on probation, a special condition of which was that he not practice law for three years unless otherwise directed by the court.

Decided June 8, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Joe David Jackson, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

The Special Master, while noting Standard 66 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d) provides that conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude shall be grounds for disbarment, agreed with Roberts’ request that he be suspended for a definite period of time, and recommended Roberts be suspended for a period not to exceed three years or for whatever period Roberts is placed on probation for the crimes for which he was convicted. The special master’s recommendation was based on a letter of recommendation from the federal district judge who presided over the trials on the indictments against Roberts. (The State Board did not object to the introduction of this letter into evidence.) That judge stated he believed, from the evidence adduced at both trials, that Roberts’ conviction was an isolated occurrence, and that Roberts was otherwise of good moral character.

The State Bar, in adopting the Special Master’s recommendation, stated Roberts’ conduct in the criminal matter appeared to be an isolated incident, and recommended Roberts be required, prior to readmission to the Bar, to fulfill all the requirements for reinstatement, including the examination of the Board to Determine Fitness, and the taking and passing of the Georgia Bar Examination.

We adopt the State Bar’s recommendation. Accordingly, Roberts is suspended from the practice of law in the State of Georgia commencing July 1, 1989, for the longer of three years or the period of time he is placed on probation for the crimes for which he was convicted in the matter of *United States of America v. B. J. Roberts,*United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Case Number CR88-322-01A, imposed on January 26, 1989, or any modifications thereof.

*So ordered.*

*All the Justices concur.*