alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 1 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 2 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 3 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 4 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 5 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 6 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 7 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 8 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 9 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 10 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 11 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 12 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 13 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 14 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 15 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 16 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 17 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 18 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 19 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 20 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 21 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 22 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 23 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 24 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 25 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 26 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 27 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 28 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 29 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 30 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 31 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 32 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 33 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 34 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 35 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 36 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 37 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 38 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 39 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 40 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 41 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 42 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 43 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 44 of 45
Case 4:09-cv-00664-JFM Document 29 Filed 02/11/10 Page 45 of 45
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 27, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20405 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ELENA GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-279-3

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Elena Gutierrez pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to transport aliens within the United States for financial gain. She appeals her 24-month sentence and argues that the district court gave insufficient notice of its intent to upwardly depart at sentencing. This issue is, as she concedes, reviewed for plain error only due to her failure to object to the alleged error in the district court. See United States v. Jones , 444 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir. 2006). Gutierrez has not shown that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence if she hadNo. 06-20405 -2- received advance notice of its intent to depart. Consequently, she has failed to establish plain error. See id. at 443. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
255 La. 803

#### Will WINTERS v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT.

No. 50416.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 3, 1970.

In re: City of Shreveport applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 230 So.2d 866.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.

Granted. Limited to the issue of penalties and attorneys’ fees.
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 AirNet Communications Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph F. Gerrity, Chief Financial 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 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/    JOSEPH F.
GERRITY                               
|Joseph F. Gerrity Chief Financial Officer March 8, 2004
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn alternate concept for expanding man's presence in spaceA logical next step after shuttle is a manned orbital service system (MOSS) consisting of a two-man crew module mated with a propulsion module. The resulting spacecraft would remain in low Earth orbit for months or years at a time conducting civil or military satellite servicing, experimental, or applications missions while being periodically supplied and refueled by Shuttle flights from the ground. The system would accumulate experience invaluable to the design of future large and more expensive spacecraft. Key features of the vehicle are versatility and mobility. With Centaur-type propulsion and a large payload, the MOSS could leave an initial orbit of 370 km (200 nmi) altitude and inclinations up to 56 deg, make a plane change of up to + or - 14 deg, reach altitudes to 5500 km (2970 nmi), and then return the payload to the original orbit altitude and inclination. Obviously, the size of the performance envelope varies with the payload and propulsion-unit selected. The MOSS can reach orbits and perform tasks not possible with Shuttle alone or with the much larger space stations currently being proposed.Document ID19840007104Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHook, W. R.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Osborne, R. S.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateFebruary 1, 1983Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:84617NASA-TM-84617Accession Number84N15172Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840007104.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
[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:Medicare and home health care.**
 
1999 | 2003 | 2004 | 2010 | 2017
2020
 
SuDoc Number:HE 22.53:
Item Number:0512-A-84 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001040405
 
August 28, 2018
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 ASB Financial Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert M. Smith, the President 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/ Robert M. Smith
-----------------------------------
Robert M. Smith
President
[Chief Executive Officer]
September 28, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to ASB Financial Corp. and will be retained by ASB Financial
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.


<PAGE>  29
I 1



### BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic Conferences of the International Air Transport Association OST-:2012- 

## Od

# 1/..

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS BY THE INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTASSOCIATION
lATA AGREEMENT APPROVED & IMMUNIZED DOCKETOST- /

# Z- 00

# Ze ACTION

## DATE~"""...... +-'(

## ,~12- This approval and grant ofantitrust immunity is subject, where ap to conditions previously imposed. This aciion is effective atter 7days unless a petition is filed under 14 CFR 385.30 or a review is undertaken on the Department's own motion. In view ofthe agreement's noncontroversial nature and the availability of the above oceclure, th · in 14 CFR**303.4~** is waived

. 

# ..

8 May 2012 Communications with respect to this document should be sent to Douglas E. Lavin Regional Vice President
- North America International Air Transport Association 1776 K.St. N.W. #12th Floor Washington DC 20006
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF ANTHONY LEE AS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Anthony Lee, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2005 of Pacific Magtron International Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and 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 and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

      b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in 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; and

      c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The Registrant's other officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

      a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2005


By: /s/ Anthony Lee
------------------------------
Anthony Lee
Chief Financial Officer
#### Bobby Quinn EVANS v. E. A. MARIANNI ASPHALT CO. et al.

No. 38990.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 216 

For the relief of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for settlement of certain 

claims against the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2005 

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for 

settlement of certain claims against the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

4 (a) AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT.—Notwith5 standing any other provision of law, subject to subsection 

6 (b), the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the 

7 Pottawatomi Nation in Canada $1,830,000 from amounts 

8 appropriated under section 1304 of title 31, United States 

9 Code. 
2

•S 216 IS

1 (b) PAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STIPULATION

2 FOR RECOMMENDATION OF SETTLEMENT.—The payment 

3 under subsection (a) shall— 

4 (1) be made in accordance with the terms and 

5 conditions of the Stipulation for Recommendation of 

6 Settlement dated May 22, 2000, entered into be7 tween the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada and the 

8 United States (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Stipu9 lation for Recommendation of Settlement’’); and 

10 (2) be included in the report of the Chief Judge 

11 of the United States Court of Federal Claims re12 garding Congressional Reference No. 94–1037X, 

13 submitted to the Senate on January 4, 2001, in ac14 cordance with sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28, 

15 United States Code. 

16 (c) FULL SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.—The payment 

17 under subsection (a) shall be in full satisfaction of all 

18 claims of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada against the 

19 United States that are referred to or described in the Stip20 ulation for Recommendation of Settlement. 

21 (d) NONAPPLICABILITY.—Notwithstanding any other 

22 provision of law, the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use 

23 or Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) does not 

24 apply to the payment under subsection (a).

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                      21,658,051
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,073,788
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,649,000
<INVENTORY>                                 15,829,486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            61,792,759
<PP&E>                                      21,182,909
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,221,484)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              80,147,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       36,363,148
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    78,922,914
<OTHER-SE>                                (35,883,399)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                80,147,742
<SALES>                                     83,997,447
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            83,997,447
<CGS>                                       49,333,071
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               49,333,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             3,307,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             229,579
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (42,706,346)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,434,835
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (44,141,181)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (44,141,181)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HELLE B R

ANDON, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ANDREW

M
. SAUL, C om

m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 18-55890 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-07420-KK
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia K e nly Kiy a Kato, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 11, 2020 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , B YB EE, a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s . M ic he lle B randon a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt's judgm e nt re m a nding the
a dm inistra

tive la w judge ’ s (ALJ) de c ision for furthe r proc e e dings ra the r tha n a n im m e diate aw ard of be ne fits. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 42 U.S.C . § 405(g) 

# FIL ED SEP 15 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).and re vie w the distric t c ourt's de c ision to re m a nd for furthe r proc e e dings for a buse of disc re tion, H

arman v . Apfe l , 211 F.3d 1172, 1173 (9th C i r. 2000). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it re m ande d for furthe r a dm inistra

tive proc e e dings be c a

use outsta nding issue s re m a in in there c ord
re ga rding c onsulta

tive e xam ine r Dr. M i c ha e l Kushne r's opinion. Se e Domingue z v . C olv in , 808 F.3d 403, 408–10 (9th C ir. 2015) (a ffirm i ng distric t c ourt’ s re m and for furthe r proc e e dings ra

the r tha n a n im m e diate aw ard of be ne fits whe re outsta nding issue s, inc luding c onflic t s be twe e n the e rrone ously re je c te d opinion a

nd othe r re c o rd e vide nc e , re m a in unre solve d ); Tre ic hle r v . C omm’r Soc . Se c . Admin. , 775 F.3d 1090, 1104–05 (9th C i r. 2014) (a ffirm ing distric t c ourt’ s re m and for furthe r proc e e dings whe re c onflic ts a nd a m biguitie s be twe e n the e rrone ously re j e c te d te stim ony and othe r re c ord e vide nc e we re unre solve d). The distric t c ourt found (1) tha t Dr. Kushne r’ s e rrone ously disc o unte d opinion wa s c onsiste nt, ra the r tha n inc o nsiste nt, with the

tre atm e nt re c ord a

nd B ran don’ s GAF sc ore s, a nd (2) tha t it
wa s not c le ar from

the re c ord whe the r the ALJ would be re quire d to find B randon disa ble d onc e this e v ide n c e wa s prope rly e va luate d, in pa

rt be c a use no voc ationa l
e xpe rt te s tifie d. The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc l ude d tha

t re m and wa s wa

rrante d for the ALJ to “re a sse s s the e vide nc e and provide suffic ie nt re a sons supporte d by the re c ord” for re

je c ting Dr. Kushner's opinion.
2AFFIRM ED.

3