alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Press Office BD
1325 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463
Phane: Lotal 523-4065 Toll Free 800-424-9530

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 31, 1980

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES TOP $12 MILLION
WASHINGTON -- ‘Independent expenditures to influence the 1980 elections
&
for federal office have exceeded $12 million, according to reports filed
with the Federal Election Commission. More than $7.5 million has been
spent since September 1, based on a review of the most recent filings.
More than 120 political committees, groups, and individuals
have made independent expenditures involving approximately 300 candidates.
While more than $10 million has been spent to promote certain candidates,
at least $2 million has been spent in efforts to defeat candidates.
Preliminary figures show the following are the leading spenders: ~
National Conservative Political Action Committee $4 million
Congressional Club $ 3 million
Fund for a Conservative Majority $ 2 million
Americans for an Effective Presidency $ 0.8 million
Americans for Change $0.5 million
Cecil Haden $0.4 million

(Figures are based on itemized entries on reports filed. Totals may not
include all expenditures, as reports are still being processed.)

At least. $10.7 million has been spent in regard to Presidential
primaries and general election races. Expenditures on behalf of or against
Senate and House campaigns total more than $1.3 million, (Senate races account
for at least $1.1 million of that total.) |

Independent expenditures are those that are made without the
cooperation or consent of the candidate(s). They cannot involve any
consultation or coordination with candidates or their staffs. Political
committees and individuals are unlimited in the amounts they may spend
independently of campaigns. These unlimited expenditures are in addition

to contributions which may be given to campaigns.

-30-

1/ Figures are rounded to the nearest tenth of a million.” ..
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, William Slater, Chief Financial Officer of Saba Software, Inc. (the“Company”) hereby certify, as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge: 

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Date: April 7, 2011
EXHIBIT 10.7

GARY BROWNELL

PROMISSORY NOTE
Aug 1, 2000


$45,454.00

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, each as principal, jointly and
severally, promise(s) to pay to the order of INNOVATIVE MEDICAL SERVICES at El
Cajon, CA the sum of $45,454.00 DOLLARS with interest thereon from Aug 1, 2000,
at the rate of 6.0 percent per annum due and payable at July 31, 2001.
     The parties do not intend this note to obligate the signers of this note to
pay any money in excess of the legal rate of interest allowed by the laws of the
state of CA. If the signers do pay any money in excess of the legal rate of
interest allowed by the laws of the state of CA, the holder shall apply such
excess money to reduce the principal amount the signers owe the holder.
     Interest shall first be deducted from the payment, and any balance shall be
applied on principal.
     Principal and interest not paid when due shall draw interest at the rate of
10%percent per annum. Upon default in payment of any interest, or any
installment of principal, the whole amount then unpaid shall become immediately
due and payable at the option of the holder without notice. The undersigned, in
case of suit on this note, agrees to pay attorney's fees.
     Makers, endorsers and sureties waive demand of payment, notice of
nonpayment, protest and notice. Sureties, endorsers and guarantors agree to all
of the provisions of this note, and consent that the time or times of payment of
all or any part hereof may be extended after maturity, from time to time,
without notice.

/s/ Gary Brownell            August 1, 2000
-----------------            -------------------------------
Signature                    Date
§ 95.701 Purpose and scope of subpart. ( a ) This subpart prescribes requirements concerning the computation of claims for Federal financial participation in the cost of equipment under public assistance programs. This subpart also prescribes requirements for the management and disposition of equipment whose costs are claimed for Federal financial participation under these programs.
( b ) This subpart applies to equipment purchased by State agencies (as defined in § 95.703) and to equipment purchased under service agreements with other State agencies and under cost-type contracts.
# C_2011311EN.01001702.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2011 — Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG v Kreis Düren

(Case C-386/11)

2011/C 311/27

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Kreis Düren

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings: Stadt Düren

Other party to the proceedings:

Question referred

Question referred

Is a ‘public contract’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1) to be understood as also meaning a contract between two local authorities whereby one of them assigns strictly limited competence to the other in return for the reimbursement of costs, in particular where the task assigned concerns only ancillary business, not official activities as such?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BENJAMIN FOREMAN,

 

Petitioner, Case Number 5:14-cv-13336

 Honorable John Corbett O'Meara

v.

J A TERRIS,

Respondent.

________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TO AMEND OR ALTER

JUDGMENT [Dkt. 5]

Petitioner, Benjamin Foreman, a federal prisoner, filed this case under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,

asserting that his conviction is invalid because his guilty plea was not entered in open court. On

September 17, 2014, the Court summarily dismissed the petition because Petitioner had not

demonstrated that his remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, was ineffective or inadequate. See Wooten

v. Cauley, 677 F. 3d 303, 307 (6th Cir. 2012). Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to

alter or amend the judgment on the grounds that the savings clause of section 2241 permits review

of his claim.

 Petitioner's motion is properly analyzed as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local

Rule 7.1 of the Eastern District of Michigan. Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich.

1999). Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. The movant must not only

demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that

a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. A palpable defect is a defect

that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D.

Mich. 1997).

5:14-cv-13336-JCO-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 11/04/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 50
In certain circumstances, the savings clause of section 2241 is available to prisoners raising

certain fundamental sentencing claims. Sentences that erroneously exceed the statutory maximum,

or that were erroneously based on a statutory mandatory minimum, are cognizable under the savings

clause when the error is revealed by a retroactively applicable decision of this Court that both (1)

postdated the prisoner's sentencing, direct appeal, and initial Section 2255 motion; and (2)

overturned circuit precedent previously foreclosing his claim. See U.S. Br. at 14-19, Persaud v.

United States, No. 13-6435 (Dec. 20, 2013); Br. in Opp. at 12-17 & n.2. Petitioner’s claim does not

involve these types of alleged defects. Therefore, his motion his denied. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: November 4, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record

on this date, November 4, 2014, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

-2-

5:14-cv-13336-JCO-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 11/04/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 51
#### Mabel Clark, *Appellant, v.*William Candee, Respondent.

The appeal book does not show that the order appealed from has ever been entered in the office of the clerk. Case not considered. Mem. by

Haight, J.
# C_2008208EN.01002001.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 208/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/20

---

Corrigendum to the Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and the People's Republic of China

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 177 of 12 July 2008
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 177 of 12 July 2008

(2008/C 208/09)

On page 17, footnote 1, third sentence:

for:

‘It is a confidential document pursuant to Article 29 of the basic Regulation and Article 12 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.’

read:

‘It is a confidential document pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation and Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-dumping Agreement).’

---
-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

KELLY BYSOUTH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FLEET MANAGEMENT, et al., 

Defendants. 

 / 

Case No. 14-cv-13654 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

R. STEVEN WHALEN

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT [57] 

 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Kelly Bysouth’s Motion for Leave to Amend 

the Complaint [57], filed on October 27, 2015. The Plaintiff sought to add new parties to her 

action. On December 22, 2015, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why her claims 

against the new parties were not barred by the statute of limitations. See Dkt. No. 62. 

 On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff conceded that her claims under the Fair Debt Collection 

Practice Act against the new defendants had expired. See Dkt. No. 63 (Pg. ID No. 380). 

Plaintiff’s state law claims however are governed by a six-year statute of limitations, which has 

yet to expire. Plaintiff requested that this Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state 

law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

 Under the standard enunciated in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 83 U.S. 715 (1966) and 

codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), this Court has broad discretion to exercise its supplemental 

jurisdiction. Even where “the [Court] arguably [has] supplemental jurisdiction over the state law 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a), the Court has discretion to decline to exercise its 

2:14-cv-13654-GAD-RSW Doc # 64 Filed 01/07/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 393
-2- 

supplemental jurisdiction...” Cirasuola v. Westrin, 1997 WL 472176, at *1 (6th Cir. Aug. 18 

1997). 

 As the Supreme Court held in City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 

That § 1367(a) authorizes district courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 

state law claims . . . does not mean that the jurisdiction must be exercised in all 

cases. The district courts can decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over such 

claims in the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. 

522 U.S. 156, 158, 118 S. Ct. 523, 526, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997). 

 Accordingly, supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state law claims is DENIED. 

The hearing on the matter, scheduled for January 19, 2016 at 11:00 a.m., being no longer 

necessary is hereby CANCELED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 7, 2016 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

Detroit, MI HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Court Judge

2:14-cv-13654-GAD-RSW Doc # 64 Filed 01/07/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 394
----

|   | (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 21st Century Holding Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:  /s/ Michael H. Braun                                     |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael H. Braun, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|                                                                    |   |
| May 16, 2011                                                            |   |

----
##### 



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 Annual Report of Citizens First Financial Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, C.
William Landefeld, 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 to the best of my 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 operations of
the Company. /s/
    
    C. William LandefeldC. William LandefeldChief Executive OfficerMarch 29, 2004
# C_2008106EN.01000101.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 106/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 27.2.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 731/07 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Veneto |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Contributo per le aree sciabili di interesse locale |
| Legal basis | Legge regionale del Veneto n. 2/2007, art. 11 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Regional development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 2 million
  Overall budget: EUR 4 million |
| Intensity | 70 % |
| Duration | 2008-2010 |
| Economic sectors | Recreational, cultural sporting activities |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Regione del Veneto |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

27.2.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 731/07

Member State

Italy

Region

Veneto

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Contributo per le aree sciabili di interesse locale

Legal basis

Legge regionale del Veneto n. 2/2007, art. 11

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Regional development

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 2 million

Overall budget: EUR 4 million

Intensity

70 %

Duration

2008-2010

Economic sectors

Recreational, cultural sporting activities

Name and address of the granting authority

Regione del Veneto

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
#### Smith v. Belden.

Appeal by defendant from an order at special term refusing to set aside an inquest.

The action was brought by German Smith against E. P. Belden and another.

*H. Brewster,*for appellant.

*W. H. Townley,*for respondent.

Talcott, J.

The order was affirmed on the ground that the defendant had full notice from the other side of the intention to take an inquest, and that the defendant made the motion to procure delay rather than in a belief that he would be able to make a successful defense. No point of general importance was passed upon in the opinion.

*Order affirmed.*
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 ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Uli Hacksell, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.



|                       |  |  |  |                                            
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ ULI HACKSELL                           
|                       |  |  |  | Uli Hacksell, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer

This certification shall not be
deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**Rule 13a-14(a)/15(d)-14(a) CertificationI, Joseph J. Millin, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Nextera Enterprises, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablelikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 15, 2006      By: /s/ Joseph J. Millin     President    (Principal Executive Officer)  
22
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 Artificial Life, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eberhard Schoeneburg,
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


                                  /s/ Eberhard Schoeneburg

                                      Eberhard Schoeneburg
                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                 Principal Financial Officer
May 16, 2005
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Amended Written Statement of the Chief Executive and Acting Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350**

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial Officer of Human BioSystems (the "Company"),  hereby certify, based on  my  knowledge,  that  the Amended Quarterly Report  on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company  for  the  quarter ended September 30, 2007  (the "Report") fully complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934  and that information contained in the  Report fairly presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition  and results of operations of the Company.

Date: December 18, 2007 

/s/Harry Masuda 

Harry Masuda 

Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer