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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3499 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3499

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
                  In the Senate of the United States,

                       October 7 (legislative day, September 12), 1994.
      Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
3499) entitled ``An Act to amend the Defense Department Overseas 
Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

    Page 2 after line 12, insert:

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CASH AWARDS TO CERTAIN FEDERAL OFFICERS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 45 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 4507 the following new sections:
``Sec. 4508. Limitation of awards during a Presidential election year
    ``(a) For purposes of this section, the term--
            ``(1) `Presidential election period' means any period 
        beginning on June 1 in a calendar year in which the popular 
        election of the President occurs, and ending on January 20 
        following the date of such election; and
            ``(2) `senior politically appointed officer' means any 
        officer who during a Presidential election period serves--
                    ``(A) in a Senior Executive Service position and is 
                not a career appointee as defined under section 
                3132(a)(4); or
                    ``(B) in a position of a confidential or policy-
                determining character under schedule C of subpart C of 
                part 213 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    ``(b) No senior politically appointed officer may receive an award 
under the provisions of this subchapter during a Presidential election 
period.
``Sec. 4509. Prohibition of cash award to Executive Schedule officers
    ``No officer may receive a cash award under the provisions of this 
subchapter, if such officer--
            ``(1) serves in--
                    ``(A) an Executive Schedule position under 
                subchapter II of chapter 53; or
                    ``(B) a position for which the compensation is set 
                in statute by reference to a section or level under 
                subchapter II of chapter 53; and
            ``(2) was appointed to such position by the President, by 
        and with the advice and consent of the Senate.''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
chapter 45 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 4507 the following:

``4508. Limitation of awards during a Presidential election year.
``4509. Prohibition of cash award to Executive Schedule officers.''.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
```
SunOpta Inc.: Exhibit 10.3 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.3 

 

November 10, 2016 

John Ruelle 
[Address omitted] 

Dear John,

As we enter a new phase of SunOpta your participation in the
transformation work is critical. Starting now and through the coming year, we
need your commitment and dedication to effectively lead the work required and
support the changes in front of us.

Your retention is important to SunOpta so if you voluntarily
remain employed with the company through December 31, 2017, you will be paid a
discretionary bonus of fifty percent (50%) of your base rate as of December 31,
2017, less all applicable withholdings, in the first payroll period of 2018.

If you voluntarily terminate your employment prior to December
31, 2017 you will forfeit this discretionary bonus. If you are involuntarily
terminated by SunOpta for any reason other than cause, prior to December 31,
2017, you will be paid a prorated amount of the discretionary bonus from the
date of this letter.

I look forward to working with you over this new phase of
SunOpta.

Respectfully, 

/s/ Kathy Houde 

Kathy Houde 
Interim CEO 

I agree to the above conditions of employment.

	/s/ John Ruelle 	November 10, 2016 
	John Ruelle 	Date
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40336

Conference Calendar

JULIUS WARNER MARACALIN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

MARVIN D. MORRISON, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CV-631

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

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Julius Warner Maracalin, federal prisoner # 02617-095,

pleaded guilty to multiple counts of conspiracy to possess

cocaine base with intent to distribute and distribution of

cocaine base and was sentenced to 235 months of imprisonment. 

Maracalin challenges his underlying conviction and sentence by

arguing that: (1) he was not advised of the nature of charges

against him during the guilty-plea colloquy in violation of FED.

R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(1); (2) he was arrested pursuant to a
No. 05-40336

-2-

non-existent indictment and thus the prosecutor, arresting

officers, and the court committed fraud; (3) he was sentenced in

violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); (4) his indictment should be

dismissed because it failed to allege that he was being charged

pursuant to the penalty provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C);

(5) the use of judicially-found facts in determining his sentence

violates the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Booker,

543 U.S. 220 (2005); (6) Apprendi applies retroactively to his

case; and (7) his indictment should be dismissed because it

failed to charge a drug quantity. 

Although Maracalin seeks to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

pursuant to the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he has not

shown that the remedy available under § 2255 is inadequate or

ineffective. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893,

904 (5th Cir. 2001); Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.

2000). To the extent Maracalin argues that the Booker or

Apprendi lines of authority apply retroactively to cases on

collateral review and entitle him to file a § 2241 petition, his

argument is unavailing in light of Padilla v. United States, 416

F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT





I, Michael J. Wortley, certify that:





|   |                                                                                                                
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC; and




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.

Date: August 11, 2014


/s/  Michael J. WortleyMichael J. WortleyChief Financial Officer ofSabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC
#### Rachel MILLER, Appellant, v. BLUE CROSS OF FLORIDA, INC., and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., Florida corporations, Appellees.

No. 66-669.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 23, 1967.

Fuller & Brumer, Miami, and Edward A. Moss, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Milton R. Adkins, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant sought to recover under two policies of insurance issued by the appellees. The trial judge was called upon to construe certain provisions of the policies. (1) In the Blue Cross Policy:

> “Section I(j) ‘Hospital Service’ means * * * hospital services * * * for and during such time only as the subscriber IS NECESSARILY AN INPATIENT IN THE HOSPITAL, ifc jf: >7

> 

> “Section 111(b) * * * primarily for rest or rest cure, primarily for diagnostic purposes, * * * ”

> (2) In the Blue Shield Policy:

> “Section I(p) * * * an inpatient in a hospital * * * for treatment. * * ”

> * * * * * *

> “Section IV(b) * * * primarily for diagnostic purposes, primarily for rest or rest cure, or primarily for observation.”

The facts of the actual confinement and the expenses incurred by the plaintiff were not in dispute. The trial judge found for the defendants, and we affirm.

There is substantial, competent evidence to support the finding of the trial court, either that the plaintiff was not “necessarily an inpatient in a hospital” or that she was hospitalized “not for treatment” but was in fact hospitalized “primarily for diagnostic purposes, primarily for rest or rest cure, or primarily for observation”, which would activate the exclusions and prevent coverage.

Finding that there was substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s ruling, same will not be dis*132turbed on appeal. See: LaFrance Cleaners & Dyers, Inc., v. Argenio, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 330; Dade County, By and Through Bd. of County Com’rs v. Pepper, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 198; Wash Bowl, Inc. v. Miami Coin-O-Wash No. 3, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 674; Leeb v. Read, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 830.

Therefore, the final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

CHARLES CARROLL, J., dissents.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42279-42280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18004]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR18-33-000]


Sequitur Permian, LLC; Notice of Request for Temporary Waiver

    Take notice that on August 10, 2018, pursuant to Rule 204 of the 
Federal

[[Page 42280]]

Energy Regulatory Commission's (``Commission'') Rules of Practice and 
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.204, Sequitur Permian, LLC filed a petition 
seeking a temporary waiver of the tariff filing and reporting 
requirements applicable to interstate oil pipelines under sections 6 
and 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act and parts 341 and 357 of the 
Commission's regulations. This request pertains to certain oil pipeline 
facilities and associated appurtenances to be operated by Sequitur 
Permian, LLC within the State of Texas, all as more fully explained in 
the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1e585b4c5d51707277707b4d6b6e6e716c6a5e787b6c7d30797168"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a0c0f180905242623242f193f3a3a25383e0a2c2f3829642d253c">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on August 24, 2018.

    Dated: August 14, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18004 Filed 8-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Principal Financial Officer


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 PinstripesNYC, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Clifford Teller, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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/ Clifford Teller_______

Clifford Teller

Principal Financial Officer

February 14, 2011
#### Morris JETTI, Appellant, v. AMERICAN ROOF SLAB CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 67-783.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 31, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.L.

PETITION OF: A.G., NATURAL MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 177 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.G.

PETITION OF: A.G., NATURAL MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 178 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
258 La. 970

#### REE CORPORATION v. Richard Conway SHAFFER et al.

No. 51437.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1971.

In re: Ree Corporation applying for cer-tiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit Parish of Terrebonne. 246 So.2d 313.

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 he notified.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 S.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ended March 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kelly Tacke, 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:



| | (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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|             |  |                                         
|------------ |  | ----------------------------------------
|             | 
|By:          |  | /s/    KELLY TACKE                      
|             |  | Kelly Tacke, Chief Financial Officer    
|             |  | (Chief Financial and Accounting Officer)
|            
|June 4, 2007
Exhibit 32.2

                    PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In  connection  with the Annual  Report of CalPetro  Tankers  (Bahamas  II)
Limited (the  "Company") on Form 20-F for the annual  period ended  December 31,
2003, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  (the "SEC") on or
about the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Kate Blankenship,  Principal Financial
Officer and  Secretary 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

     A signed  original  of this  written  statement  has been  provided  to the
Company and will be retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

Date: June 8, 2004

/s/ Kate Blankenship
--------------------
Principal Financial Officer
#### Jack CARNER, Appellant, v. Nat RATNER, Appellee.

Nos. 67-486, 67-487.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 20, 1968.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1968.

*311Irving Cypen, Arnold Nevins and Ira M. Elegant, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Kaplan & Shapiro, Miami Beach, for ap-pellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Jack earner’s two interlocutory appeals to challenge two orders of the chancellor below have been consolidated.

His first argument on appeal is that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure have abrogated a pure bill for discovery.

We find no specific language in the Rules of Civil Procedure indicating an intent to abrogate, or abolish, the traditional right of a court to entertain pure bills of discovery. In First Nat. Bank of Miami v. Dade-Broward Co., 125 Fla. 594, 171 So. 510 (1937), the court stated:

> * * * * * *

> “The bill in controversy is a pure bill for discovery.

> “Such a bill lies to obtain the disclosure of facts within the defendant’s knowledge, or deeds or writings or other things in his custody, in aid of the prosecution or defense of an action pending or about to be commenced in some other court. The fact that there are legislative acts separately authorizing a discovery at law or in equity in other ways than by a bill in equity in the form of a pure bill for discovery is immaterial. Pure bills for discovery have so long been an acknowledged subject of equity jurisdiction that statutes purporting to give other and simpler means of obtaining that identical relief are not regarded as ousting the equity jurisdiction, at least in the absence of some clear legislative declaration to that effect. * * * ” (Id. at 171 So. 510-511).

> * * * * * *

Consequently, it has recently been held, under the authority of this case, that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to oust a court of equity from affording discovery relief under proper circumstances. Poling v. Petroleum Carrier Corporation, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 925.

Appellant next claims that the chancellor committed reversible error in the entry of the two orders appealed from in that they were “improvidently” entered. We have examined the orders herein challenged and find no reversible error was committed by their entry.

Affirmed.
it IGJNIL _I 1 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 23-0091 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

ALOYSIUS DENNIS BLACK CROW, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

FILED 

MAR 2 7 2023 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Aloysius Dennis Black Crow moves this Court "to have the felony parole violation 

warrant included into the dismissal that was handed down by the Honorable Kim 

Christopher on February 17, 2022." The dismissal order is the basis of Black Crow's 

appeal. Black Crow also asks that this Court dismiss the felony parole violation. The State 

of Montana has not filed a response to his motion. 

This Court received the Lake County District Court record on March 16, 2023. The 

court record includes a copy of the parole violation warrant that Black Crow references. 

M. R. App. P. 8(1) and 9(1). His motion is moot. His other request for dismissal is not 

appropriate upon a motion. M. R. App. P. 16(1). Black Crow may argue any issue 

concerning the parole violation in his briefs, if he preserved it for appeal. M. R. App. P. 

12(1). Barring that observation, this Court will not be reviewing the record prior to the 

completion of briefing and classification upon being sent to the Court. M. R. App. P. 19(1). 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Black Crow's Motion to Include the Felony Parole Violation 

Warrant with the February 17, 2022 Order is DENIED, as moot. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to 

Aloysius Dennis Black Crow along with a copy of this Court's Appellate Handbook. 

DATED this -a:4 day of March, 2023. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

03/27/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0091
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Trig Acquisition 1, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2012 (the “Report”), I, AJ Cervantes, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby 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), as applicable, 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.





|Date: August 20, 2012 | /s/ AJ Cervantes                                                                                          
|--------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      | AJ Cervantes                                                                                              
|                      | Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer and  and
        Principal 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
from 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.