alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

RENE GUZMAN-MONTANO,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5175M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 (X) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 (X) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 (X) Immigration and Naturalization Service detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

 ( ) Other: 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 September 28, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-mj-05175-GHK Document 7 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 1
#### Moishe Oshry et al., Appellants, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 482]

—Appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.), dated May 26, 1994.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Feinberg at the Supreme Court. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Before the Second Division,

December 13, 1965

No. 69684.

#### William Adams, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 64/6111 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candelabra, silver plated on nickel silver, but not in chief value of silver, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.11
Compensation Arrangements for the Executive Officers
Set forth below is a summary of the compensation by SEACOR Marine Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) to its named executive officers in their positions as of the date of filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017. All of the Company's executive officers are at-will employees whose compensation and employment status may be changed at any time in the discretion of the Company's Board of Directors.
Base Salary.  The named executive officers are scheduled to receive the following annual base salaries in their current positions:
	
					
	Name and Current Position
	 
	Base Salary

	John Gellert, President and Chief Executive Officer
	 
	$
	450,000
	


	Matthew Cenac, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 
	$
	325,000
	


	Robert Clemons, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
	 
	$
	250,000
	





Cash Bonus and Share Incentive Plan.  In their current positions, the named executive officers are eligible to:
		
	•
	Receive an annual cash incentive award subject to the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.


		
	•
	Participate in incentive programs, which currently involve awards of restricted stock and stock options pursuant to SEACOR Marine Holdings Inc.'s 2017 Equity Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.5 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K).


Benefit Plans and Other Arrangements.  In their current positions, the named executive officers are eligible to participate in the Company's broad based benefit programs generally available to its salaried employees, including health, disability and life insurance programs and a qualified 401(k) plan, subject to applicable law.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1




                    SOFTWARE SPECTRUM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                   July 31,        June 30,
                                                     1997            1996
                                                  -----------    ------------
<S>                                               <C>           <C>         
Net income (loss)                                 $   541,000   $    (256,000)
                                                  ===========    ============

Shares as adjusted:
     Average number of shares
        outstanding                                 4,332,282       4,288,084
     Incremental shares
        from outstanding stock
        options as determined
        under the treasury stock
        method, using the
        average market price                            8,764              -- *
                                                  -----------    ------------

Shares as adjusted                                  4,341,046       4,288,084
                                                  ===========    ============

Primary earnings (loss) per share                 $      0.12    $      (0.06)
                                                  ===========    ============
</TABLE>

     *    No incremental shares from outstanding stock options are included as
          they would be anti-dilutive.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report
of Cemtrex, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Saagar Govil,
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 and belief:



(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/ Saagar Govil                | 
|------------------------------- | 
|                                | 
|Saagar Govil                    | 
|Chief Executive Officer         | 
|and Principal Executive Officer | 
|                                | 
|January 3, 2013                 | 



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 

AND DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF ADDRESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

JERRY BRENDEN, )

) Case No. C05-1681L

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SELLEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ) NEW TRIAL AND DIRECTING

) SUBMISSION OF ADDRESS

Defendant. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion: For New Trial Rule

50.” Dkt. # 11. Plaintiff’s motion is premature and without merit. Plaintiff was granted leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on December 15, 2005, and this action is less than one month old. 

The Court has not yet established a case management schedule for this litigation, defendant has

had only the briefest opportunity to challenge the legal adequacy of plaintiff’s complaint, and

neither party has conducted discovery or otherwise prepared for trial. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 50 does not require or even authorize a trial in such circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion

for a “new trial” is DENIED.

As mentioned above, plaintiff is proceeding pro se against his former employer,

Sellen Construction Company. His application to proceed in forma pauperis was approved on

December 15, 2005, and his complaint was accepted for filing as of that date. As a general

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 17 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 1

 In this case, plaintiff has already attempted service by mailing a copy of his complaint to

defendant’s counsel. Defendant rightly argues that such service is insufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 

AND DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF ADDRESS -2-

matter, the Court attempts to serve process by mail on behalf of litigants in plaintiff’s position.1

A review of the record shows that plaintiff has not provided an accurate or complete mailing

address for Sellen Construction Company, however. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to provide all

necessary information for the Court to effect service of process on each defendant, including his

or her address. See Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). Because service

usually must be accomplished within 120 days of the filing of the Complaint (see Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(m)), plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to provide an accurate and complete mailing address for

defendant Sellen Construction Company within thirty(30) days from the date of this Order. 

Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 17 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Nam Koo Hyung et al., Appellants, v Bernard B. Perl-man et al., Defendants and Flushing Hospital, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 646]

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), entered September 29, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant Flushing Hospital and against them, dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Nam Koo Hyung sustained injury to his spine *650when he slipped and fell. After spending one week in Flushing Hospital, he was operated on by Dr. Bernard Perlman to remove a portion of a herniated disc. A first year resident was assigned by the Hospital to assist Dr. Perlman, and did so by holding the nerve root as retracted by Perlman. Following the operation the injured plaintiff suffered, among other things, permanent paralysis of the anal and ureter sphincters. He and his wife, the plaintiff Jung Sun Hyung, subsequently commenced this medical malpractice action against, among others, Perlman and Flushing Hospital. After settling the claims against the other defendants, a trial was held against Flushing Hospital. The jury entered a verdict in favor of the Hospital, and this appeal ensued.

There is no merit to the plaintiffs’ allegation that the trial court, to the extent that it marshaled the evidence, did so unfairly and summarized the plaintiffs’ contentions briefly while presenting a detailed outline of the defendant’s contentions. While the procedure followed by the court in obtaining the parties’ written contentions may leave something to be desired, the plaintiffs were free to submit detailed contentions which incorporated the evidence by which those contentions were supported, as their adversary did. Their failure to do so is not a fault of the trial court, and does not warrant reversal *(see, Raney v Suffolk Obstetrical & Gynecological Assocs.,*200 AD2d 612; *Norfleet v New York City Tr. Auth.,*124 AD2d 715).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions do not warrant reversal under the circumstances of this case. Joy, J. P., Altman, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER ON MOTION TO WAIVE COMPLIANCE WITH MEDIATION REQUIREMENT - 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

SOBHANA RETNASAMI and RANDALL

KENNEDY, individually and the marital

community comprised thereof,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HAL ANTILLEN N.V., a Netherlands Antilles

corporation; HOLLAND AMERICA LINE N.V.,

a Netherlands Antilles corporation; HOLLAND

AMERICA LINE INC., a Washington

corporation; HOLLAND AMERICA LINE -

USA INC., a Delaware corporation; HOLLAND

AMERICA LINE WESTOURS, INC., a

Washington corporation; and ENTITIES “A”

through “Z”,

Defendants.

No. CV5-1615 MJP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO WAIVE

COMPLIANCE WITH MEDIATION

REQUIREMENT OF LOCAL RULE

39.1.

 

 

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to waive compliance with the mediation requirement of Local

Rule 39.1. Plaintiffs allege that mediation would impose an unreasonable expense on them due to the

fact that they reside in Mauritius. But Plaintiffs have not documented their residency in Mauritius or

their travel plans to and from the United States. Mediation is required under the local rules and is a

good first step in the litigation process. The parties must attempt mediation with a private mediator

before the Court will consider appointing a judge to conduct a settlement conference pursuant to

Local Rule 39.1(e). 

The parties shall secure a date to conduct the mediation within ten days of this order. The

mediation may be conducted telephonically.

Case 2:05-cv-01615-MJP Document 19 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER ON MOTION TO WAIVE COMPLIANCE WITH MEDIATION REQUIREMENT - 2 

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Dated this ____ day of October, 2006.

/s Marsha J. Pechman

 

 Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01615-MJP Document 19 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT
      15**











**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**








To
      the
      Board of Directors and Shareholders of


Mediware
      Information Systems, Inc.





We
      have
      reviewed, in accordance with standards established by the Public Company
      Accounting Oversight Board (United States) the unaudited interim condensed
      consolidated financial statements of Mediware Information Systems, Inc. and
      subsidiaries as of March 31, 2006 and for the three and nine month periods
      ended
      March 31, 2006 and 2005 as indicated in our review report dated April 26, 2006.
      Because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on those financial
      statements.





We
      are
      aware that our review report, which is included in your Quarterly Report on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, is incorporated by
      reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-07591,
      No. 333-83016, No. 333-119503, No. 333-123496 and No.
      333-130576).





We
      are
      also aware that our review report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
      Securities Act of 1933 (the "Act"), is not considered a part of the Registration
      Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
      certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the
      Act and the accountants’ Section 11 liability does not extend to such
      report.








Eisner
      LLP


New
      York,
      New York


April
      26,
      2006
Exhibit 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Zhengdong Zhu, Chief Executive Officer of China Distance Education Holdings Limited (the Company), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form
20-F for the year ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.

Date: March 25, 2011



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Zhengdong Zhu      
|Name:  |  | Zhengdong Zhu          
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 601 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        August 2, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3159) to mandate minimum periods of rest 
and recuperation for units and members of the regular and reserve components of 
the Armed Forces between deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation 
Enduring Freedom. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in 
the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now 
printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions of the bill, as 
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services; and (2) one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 3159 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 
Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
No. 62807.

#### Pagel, Horton & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/6468 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, James D. Palm, Chief Executive Officer of Gulfport Energy Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to 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 quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 7, 2010



/s/ James D. PalmJames D. PalmChief Executive Officer


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.
Before the Third Division,

August 22, 1966

No. P66/198.

#### Arnart Imports, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 64/8993, etc. (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of statuary, sculptures, and/or copies, replicas, or reproductions thereof, valued at not less than $2.50 each, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 CCPA 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 475 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 18, 2007.
Whereas, on June 6, 2007, the University of Arizona Wildcats defeated the 
        University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers to win the 2007 National 
        Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women's College World Series 
        Softball Championship, their eighth such title since 1991;
Whereas Wildcats pitcher Taryne Mowatt set a College World Series record for 
        most innings pitched, and was named the Most Valuable Player of the 
        qualifying tournament;
Whereas Wildcats players Kristie Fox, Jenae Leles, and Caitlin Lowe were 
        selected for the all-tournament team;
Whereas the Wildcats, after beginning the 2007 season with a losing record, 
        completed the season with a 50-14-1 record; and
Whereas Wildcats coach Mike Candrea has taken the Wildcats to the College World 
        Series 19 times in the last 20 years, winning eight College World Series 
        titles: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates the University of Arizona Wildcats on their 
        victory in the National Collegiate Athletic Association 2007 Division I 
        Women's College World Series Softball Championship; and
            (2) recognizes and commends the efforts of the University of Arizona 
        Wildcats players, coaches, and support staff in achieving their victory.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```