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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6255

WILLIAM A. ASHLOCK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

S. V. PRUETT, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.

(CA-99-393-AM)

Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William A. Ashlock, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

January 28, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on February 1, 2000. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

William A. Ashlock seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

Ashlock’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Ashlock v.

Pruett, No. CA-99-393-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 1, 2000).* We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

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 AnnualReport of Badger State Ethanol, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for theperiod ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, (the “Report”), I, James Leitzinger, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May  13, 2003 |   |   |                     |
|---------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|                |   |   |                     |
|                |   |   |                     |
|                |   |   | /s/ James Leitzinger     |
|                |   |   | James  Leitzinger        |
|                |   |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
No. 57951.

protests 145288-K, etc. (New York).

#### George F. Bassett Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the items of merchandise marked with the letter “A” were held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 (a), and the items marked with the letter “B” at 10 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476).
##### 



Exhibit 10.40
  January 26, 2005
    
    VIA HAND DELIVERY
 
   BASE SALARY:
    
    You will receive a base salary of $7,083.33 paid
semi-monthly in accordance with the normal Anadys
payroll cycle, which if annualized, amounts to
$170,000.00 per year.STOCK OPTIONS:
    
    Upon commencement of your employment with Anadys
and subject to the approval of the Board of
Directors, you will be eligible for an initial
stock option grant allowing you to purchase
30,000 shares of Anadys common stock at a fair
market value on the date of the grant. These
stock options are subject to the terms and
conditions outlined in the Anadys Equity
Incentive Plan. You will be provided full details
of the Anadys Equity Incentive Plan once you
begin employment.SIGN-ON BONUS:
    
    As a further incentive for you to join Anadys,
you will be given a one-time sign-on bonus of
$15,000, less applicable employment taxes. This
bonus will be paid to you over three quarters
after your hire date. Should you leave the
Company within one year of your hire date you
will be required to reimburse Anadys for this
sign-on bonus within thirty days after your
termination date. Should you receive a bonus in
excess of $5,000.00 from your current company,
you will be required to reimburse $5,000.00 to
Anadys.BONUS:
    
    You are eligible to receive an annual
discretionary bonus of between 0  20% of your
then current annual base salary, contingent upon
your own and the Companys performance.BENEFITS:
    
    You will be eligible for group benefits for
yourself and your eligible dependents, effective
the first day of the month following your date of
hire, subject to the terms and conditions of the
relevant insurance plan. Basic benefits include
comprehensive health insurance; dental insurance,
and vision care insurance. In addition, you will
be eligible for term life insurance and long-term
disability insurance for yourself only. You will
be eligible to participate in the Anadys 401K
plan as well as the Anadys ESPP (Employee Stock
Purchase Plan), all in accordance with Company
policy. You will also receive 2 weeks of extra
paid vacation in addition to the regular accrued
pro-rata share of fifteen days of paid vacation
per year, and be eligible for paid holidays, all
in accordance with Company policy.




---



##### 



EMPLOYMENT AT WILL:
    
    Anadys is an at-will employer and as such your
employment is to be entered into voluntarily and
for no specified period. As a result, you are
free to resign or the company may terminate your
employment at any time, for any reason, with or
without cause. No one other than the President
and CEO has the authority to alter this
employment relationship, either verbally or in
writing.
        
  /s/ Jennifer K. Crittenden
    
    01/26/2005Jennifer K. Crittenden
    
    Date
 2
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 147 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 147

       To prevent a taxpayer bailout of health insurance issuers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 17, 2017

Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mr. Flake, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Cotton) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To prevent a taxpayer bailout of health insurance issuers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Obamacare Taxpayer Bailout 
Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF BAILOUT OF HEALTH INSURANCE ISSUERS.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by 
striking section 1342 (42 U.S.C. 18062).
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CAROLINE BEHREND, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

COMCAST CORPORATION, et al. : NO. 03-6604

ORDER

AND NOW, this 12th day of April 2012, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 441), all responses and documents filed in connection thereto,

oral argument heard by the Court on January 24, 2012, and for the reasons stated in the

accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

1. Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks judgment in Defendants’ 

favor on 

a. Count I of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, to the extent that it asserts

a Sherman Act section 1 per se liability claim; 

b. those portions of Counts II and III of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint

asserting that Comcast’s (1) clustering conduct, (2) its conduct blocking

RCN’s access to cable infrastructure installation contractors, and (3) its

conduct in licensing CSN Philadelphia to RCN, constituted acts of

monopolization or attempted monopolization under Sherman Act section 2. 

JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on these

claims. 

2. The Motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks judgment in Defendants’ favor on

Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 476 Filed 04/12/12 Page 1 of 2
a. Count I of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, to the extent that it asserts

a Sherman Act section 1rule of reason claim;

b. those portions of Counts II and III of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint

asserting that Comcast’s targeted discounts constituted acts of

monopolization or attempted monopolization under Sherman Act section 2. 

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ John R. Padova 

 

John R. Padova, J.

Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 476 Filed 04/12/12 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 13,704.

#### SWOPE v. PURDY.

[1 Dill. 349; 12 West. Jur. 167.]

Circuit Court, D. Kansas.

1870.

Taxation — Kaw Half-Bueei> Lands — Indian Reservation — Tax Titles. '

' 1. A sale of lands for taxes in Indian reservation not subject to state taxation is void.

[Cited in Wau-pe-man-qua v. Aldrich, 28 Fed. 497.]

[Cited in Phillips v. Jefferson Co. Com'rs, ó Kan. 417.]

2. A state statute of limitations is not applicable to a sale of lands exempted, by federal authority, from state taxation.

[Cited in Tayler v. Miles. 5 Kan. 500.]

This action was brought by plaintiff to recover possession of a section on reserve No. 10, of these lands. Plaintiff offered in evidence the treaty made with the Indians in 1825 [7 Stat. 244], in which a reservation of the lands in controversy was made to one Joseph Butler, who conveyed the same to the plaintiff. Defendant offered in evidence a tax deed for the land in controversy, and deed from Joseph Butter, reservee to R. -S. Stevens, dated August 15, 1800 (to show outstanding title).

J. T. Morton, for plaintiff.

W. Shannon, for defendant

MILLER, Circuit Justice, held:

1. That the legal title to the land reserved to Butler did not vest in him by the treaty of 1825.

2. That although the first section of the act of 1800 [12 Stat. 21] concerning these reservations, if standing alone, was sufficient to vest a full fee simple title in Butler, with right of alienation, yet by the second and third sections of that act. the right of alienation was taken away and vested in the United States in trust for Butler. The deed of Butler prior to July 17, 1802. therefore conveyed no title. Stevens v. Smith, 2 Kan. 243; Brown v. Belmarde, 3 Kan. 41.

3. That under the decision of the supreme court of the United States, in the ease of *577Blue Jacket v. Johnson Co., at the December term, 1800, lands so situated were not liable to state taxation. The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. [72 U. S.] 737.

4. Consequently the tax sale and tax deed were void, and conferred no title.

5. The fifty-seventh section of the tax law of Kansas, which forbids suits to be brought for lands sold for taxes unless brought within two jrears after the tax deed is recorded, is not applicable to this case, for two reasons: First, that the same act requires a tax deed to be witnessed and acknowledged before, it is entitled to be recorded, and this tax deed is not witnessed; second, because the exemption of the land from state taxation, being an exemption prescribed by federal authority, no legislation of the state can extend the effect of its laws for taxation over lands exempted by federal authority.

6. The joint resolution of congress of July 17, 1862 [12 Stat. 628], removed the restriction of the right of alienation imposed by the second and third sections of the act of 1860, and therefore the deed made in 1864, by Butler to plaintiff, conveyed the legal title.

The plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover the possession of the land. Judgment accordingly.
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB     Document 16      Filed 12/20/2004     Page 1 of 5

Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB     Document 16      Filed 12/20/2004     Page 2 of 5

Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB     Document 16      Filed 12/20/2004     Page 3 of 5

Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB     Document 16      Filed 12/20/2004     Page 4 of 5

Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB     Document 16      Filed 12/20/2004     Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Duska
Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Reynolds, the Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ MARK REYNOLDS      
|Mark Reynolds          
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|March 30, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NOLA TRESSLAR and

GUY TRESSLAR

:

:

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4291

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04291-CMR Document 6 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
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 Annual Report of ZymoGenetics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 (15 U.S.C. 78m 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: July 17, 2003

/s/    BRUCE L.A. CARTERBruce L.A. Carter Chief Executive Officer/s/    JAMES A. JOHNSONJames A. Johnson Chief Financial Officer




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 required by Section 906, has been
provided to ZymoGenetics, Inc. and will be retained by ZymoGenetics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

 : NO. 05-62-01

v. :

 : CIVIL ACTION

JOHN NIGRO : NO. 08-1987

 :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 2009, upon consideration of John Nigro’s pro se Motion to

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(Document No. 117, filed April 28, 2008); Nigro’s pro se Memorandum of Law and Amplification of

Claims in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 128, filed October 7, 2008);

Government’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Document No. 134, filed

February 17, 2009); Nigro’s counseled Supplemental Memorandum (Document No. 141, filed June 3,

2009); Government’s Response to Petitioner’s Supplemental Memorandum Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(Document No. 142, filed June 18, 2009); the Hearing on Claim M in the Motion held on June 18,

2009; and oral argument on Claim M and other issues raised in the Motion on June 18, 2009, IT IS

ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Memorandum of July 2, 2009, John Nigro’s Motion to

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that a certificate of appealability will not issue on the

ground that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right as

required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois 

JAN E. DUBOIS, J.

Case 2:05-cr-00062-JD Document 145 Filed 07/06/09 Page 1 of 1
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Form 941cPR, planilla para lacorreccion de informacion facilitada anteriormente en cumplimiento con la leydel seguro social y del seguro medicare**
 
1996 | 2003 | 2006
 
SuDoc Number:T 22.51:941 C-PR/
Item Number:0964-E (online)
CGP systemNumber:000561532
 
February 18, 2020
Exhibit 31-5
**FORM 10-K CERTIFICATION**
I, David E. Meador, Manager and Chief Executive Officer of The Detroit EdisonSecuritization Funding LLC, certify that:          1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Detroit EdisonSecuritization Funding LLC;          2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis annual report;          3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;          4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:     a.       Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;            b.       (Intentionally omitted)           c.       Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and            d.       Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and         5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):            a.       All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and            b.       Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.     /s/ DAVID E. MEADORDavid E. Meador
March 25, 1947.

No. 51629.

Suit 4550.

#### Marshall *Field & Co.*v. *United*States.

C. D. 983 affirmed January 7, 1947. C. A. D. 357.
No. 59490.

protests 171542-K, etc. (St. Albans).

#### Central Vermont Railway, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
August 19, 1957

No. 61254.

petition 7211-R.

#### Louis S. Josephson, as surviving partner of Kobe Import Co. *v.*United States,

Petitioner’s application for rehearing denied.