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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1551 

To amend section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to allow 

for a private civil action against a person that provides substantial 

assistance in violation of such Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. REED, and Mr. KAUFMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 to allow for a private civil action against a person 

that provides substantial assistance in violation of such 

Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Liability for Aiding 

5 and Abetting Securities Violations Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PRIVATE CIVIL ACTION FOR AIDING AND ABETTING. 

7 Section 20(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

8 (15 U.S.C. 78t(e)) is amended— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1551 IS

1 (1) in the subsection heading, by striking 

2 ‘‘PROSECUTION OF’’ and inserting ‘‘ACTIONS

3 AGAINST’’; 

4 (2) by striking ‘‘For purposes’’ and inserting 

5 the following: 

6 ‘‘(1) ACTIONS BROUGHT BY COMMISSION.—For 

7 purposes’’; 

8 (3) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by in9 serting ‘‘or recklessly’’ after ‘‘knowingly’’; and 

10 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(2) PRIVATE CIVIL ACTIONS.—For purposes of 

12 any private civil action implied under this title, any 

13 person that knowingly or recklessly provides sub14 stantial assistance to another person in violation of 

15 this title, or of any rule or regulation issued under 

16 this title, shall be deemed to be in violation of this 

17 title to the same extent as the person to whom such 

18 assistance is provided.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1626 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1626

To require issuers of long term care insurance to establish third-party 
                 review processes for disputed claims.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 6, 2009

 Ms. Klobuchar introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require issuers of long term care insurance to establish third-party 
                 review processes for disputed claims.

    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 ``Long Term Care Insurance Integrity 
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REVIEW PROCESS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an 
insurance issuer that offers a long term care insurance plan shall 
develop and implement claims dispute resolution procedures that comply 
with the requirements of this section that shall be applicable to such 
plan.
    (b) Requirement.--A claims dispute resolution procedure under 
subsection (a) shall--
            (1) be designed to expeditiously resolve disputes 
        concerning claims under the plan involved;
            (2) with respect to such disputes provide for the 
        application of one or more alternative means of dispute 
        resolution involving independent third-party review under 
        appropriate circumstances by entities that are mutually 
        acceptable to the issuer and the enrollee involved, with the 
        decision of such reviewer being binding on the issuer; and
            (3) ensure that an enrollee is eligible to obtain claims 
        review only to the extent and in the manner provided for in the 
        applicable insurance contract.
    (c) Appeals.--An enrollee may appeal the decision of an independent 
reviewer under subsection (b)(2) to an appropriate State court as 
provided for under State law.
    (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to provide authority for an independent third-party reviewer 
under subsection (b)(2) to modify the terms of any long term care 
insurance contract.
                                 <all>
```
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

 

I, Gordon Samson, CFO and a director of Primegen Energy Corporation, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Primegen Energy Corporation, for the period ended September  30, 2006 (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 Primegen Energy Corporation. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| Dated: November 14, 2006 |   |                                                                                      |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   |                                                                                      |
|                     |   |                                                                                      |
|                     |   | /s/ Gordon Samson                                                                         |
|                     |   | Gordon Samson                                                                             |
|                     |   | CFO & Director(Principal Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting 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 Primegen Energy Corporation and will be retained by Primegen Energy Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 24, 2010 

y1117 

Order 

 

November 24, 2010 

138943 

LOREAN ALLEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 138943 

 COA: 283890 

Wayne CC: 07-724470-NH 

VICTORIA AHARAUKA and 

DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, 

 Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

HARPER HOSPITAL, SINAI 

HOSPITAL OF GREATER DETROIT, 

and SINAI GRACE HOSPITAL, 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 5, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

HATHAWAY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (2.3 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Thomas W. Adams, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Tronox Incorporated;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on our evaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.   /s/ Thomas W. Adams   Thomas W. Adams  Chief Executive Officer  August 7, 2007
Exhibit 3.8(a)
                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                     OF THE

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                     MULTIMEDIA CONCEPTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

     Under Section 242 of the Delaware Corporation Law:

     The   undersigned,   for  the  purpose  of  amending  the   Certificate  of
Incorporation of MULTIMEDIA  CONCEPTS  INTERNATIONAL,  INC., does hereby certify
and set forth:

         FIRST:

     The name of the Corporation is

                           MULTIMEDIA CONCEPTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

         SECOND:

     The  Certificate of  Incorporation  was filed by the Department of State on
June 6, 1994.

         THIRD:

     The  amendment  to the  Certificate  of  Incorporation  of the  Corporation
effected by this  Certificate  of Amendment is to  authorized an increase in the
authorized  number of  shares of Common  Stock  form  10,000,000  to  40,000,000
shares, as follows:

     The Certificate of Incorporation of this Corporation is amended by changing
?Article IV?, so that, as amended, said Article shall read as follows:

     "FOURTH:

     The amount of total  authorized  capital stock of this Corporation is FORTY
MILLION (40,000,000) shares of Common Stock, par value $.001 per share."

         FOURTH:

     The amendment to the  Certificate of  Incorporation  of the Corporation set
forth  above was  adopted  by  written  consent  of the  Corporation?s  majority
shareholder on the 15th day of May, 1996.

     IN WITNESS  WHEROF,  the  undersigned  President  of this  Corporation  has
executed this Certificate of Amendment on this 24th day of May, 1996.


                           MULTIMEDIA CONCEPTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.


                            /s/ Sheikhar Boodram                                
                           Sheikhar Boodram, President
Exhibit 10.5






EXHIBIT 10.5




Acknowledgement and Amendment of Employment Agreement




WHEREAS, the undersigned employee (the “Executive”) of Pride International, Inc. (the
“Company”) and the Company are parties to that certain Amended and Restated
Employment/Non-Competition/Confidentiality Agreement, effective as of December 31, 2008 (the
“Employment Agreement”); and



WHEREAS, the Company desires to terminate the car allowance benefit recited in Section 3.04 of
the Employment Agreement (the “Car Allowance”) in exchange for the Company’s agreement to reimburse
the Executive for up to $10,000 per calendar year of expenses the Executive incurs related to tax,
estate and/or financial advisory services (the “Financial Services”), subject to any conditions
specified by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors, including, but not
limited to, reimbursement in accordance with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code; and



WHEREAS, the Executive agrees to the termination of the Car Allowance in exchange for the
Financial Services benefit, subject to any conditions specified by the Compensation Committee of
the Company’s Board of Directors; and



WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6.09 of the Employment Agreement, no provision of the Employment
Agreement may be amended, waived or discharged except by the mutual written agreement of the
parties.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises herein and the consideration recited above,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree to this
Acknowledgement and Amendment of the Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”), effective as of
January 1, 2010, as follows:



1. From and after January 1, 2010, the Executive hereby acknowledges that the Company is no
longer obligated to provide to the Executive the Car Allowance.



2. The Executive hereby waives any right to the Car Allowance and discharges the Company from
the obligation to provide the Car Allowance.



3. From and after January 1, 2010, the Company agrees to provide to Executive the Financial
Services benefit, subject to any conditions specified by the Compensation Committee of the
Company’s Board of Directors.



4. The Executive acknowledges that the Company’s ceasing to provide the Car Allowance does not
constitute an involuntary termination or a constructive termination under the Employment Agreement.



5. The Executive and the Company hereby agree that the Employment Agreement is deemed to be
amended and modified to affect the intent of this Amendment.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive has hereunto set his hand, and the Company has caused these
presents to be executed in its name and on its behalf, on the dates indicated below, but effective
as of January 1, 2010.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	EXECUTIVE	 	PRIDE INTERNATIONAL, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Brian C. Voegele
 

Name (please print)

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Lonnie D. Bane
 

Name: Lonnie D. Bane
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title: SVP, Human Resources	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Brian Voegele
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Executive’s Signature

	 	 	 	Date: April 28, 2010	 	 






Date: April 28, 2010
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ROBERT LEON MERTENS,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 30182

D.C. No. 2:03

- cr

- 00073

- BLW

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 21, 2021 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Robert Leon Mertens appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . “[W] e review § 3582(c)(1) sentence

reduction decisions for abu se of discretion ,” United States v. Aruda , 993 F.3d 797,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 30182

799 (9th Cir. 2021) , and we affirm.

Mertens was sentenced in 2004 to 444 months’ imprisonment for

convictions including distribution of and possession with intent to distribute

controlled substances

, firearm possession , and money laundering. Since that time,

he has filed two successful motions for a sentence reduction, resulting in a

sentence of 314 months. In the instant motion, Mertens sought a further reduction

,

citing his ongoing rehabilitative efforts and changing societal attitudes regarding

marijuana.

Contrary to Mertens’s contention , the record shows that the court considered

his arguments and evidence showing that his rehabilitative efforts continued even

after his two successful sentence reduction motions

. The court did not abuse its

discretion by concluding that those additional efforts

, in addition to changing

societal attitudes about marijuana

, did not warrant a third sentence reduction. See

United States v. Robertson , 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 201 8) (district court

abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported

by the record)

.

Mertens’s “ Motion for a Notice to the Court and Request for a Hearing ” is

denied.

AFFIRMED

.
#### Clyde Thomas SMITH, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. C-87-480.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 24, 1988.

Elaine Meek, Asst. Public Defender, Tulsa, for petitioner.

No response necessary.

OPINION

PARKS, Judge:

Petitioner, Clyde Thomas Smith, entered a plea of nolo contendere and was convicted of Obtaining Merchandise by Bogus Check (21 O.S.Supp.1982, § 1541.2), After Former Conviction of A Felony (21 O.S. 1981, § 51), in Tulsa County District Court, Case Nos. CRF-86-4112 and CRF-86-3586, before the Honorable Joe Jennings, District Judge. Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment in each case, the sentences to run concurrently with each other, and with Tulsa County District Court Case Nos. CRF-86-3110, CRF-86-3102, and CRF-86-1114.

Because we find merit in appellant’s third assignment of error, we find it unnecessary to address his other contentions. In his third assignment of error, petitioner asserts that the trial judge failed to make an adequate determination of competency. We agree.

In determining whether to accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the trial court “must first determine if the defendant is competent by appropriate interrogation of the defendant, and his defense counsel ...regarding the defendant’s past and present mental state as well as by the *845defendant’s demeanor before the court....” *King v. State,*553 P.2d 529, 534 (Okla.Crim.App.1976). In the instant case, the competency evaluation consisted of the following:

> THE COURT: Are you satisfied, Mr. Reeh [defense counsel], that Mr. Smith is aware of all of his legal rights and is mentally competent to enter these pleas?

> MR. REEH: I am.

(S.Tr. 3)

> THE COURT: Based on statements of Judge [sic] Reeh and questioning of Mr. Smith, I’ll determine that he is mentally competent to enter these pleas.

(S.Tr. 9)

The trial judge made his competency determination by asking defense counsel if he was satisfied that petitioner was competent and by questioning petitioner on non-competency areas. At no point did the trial court conduct an appropriate interrogation of the petitioner and defense counsel “regarding the defendant’s past and present mental state....” as required by *King,*553 P.2d at 534. *See Love v. State,*738 P.2d 564, 565 (Okla.Crim.App.1987); *Burch v. State,*738 P.2d 157, 158-59 (Okla.Crim.App.1987); *Coyle v. State,*706 P.2d 547, 548 (Okla.Crim.App.1985).

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find that the trial court abused his discretion in not allowing petitioner to withdraw his pleas of nolo contendere, and therefore, the judgment and sentence is REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

BRETT, P.J., concurs.

BUSSEY, J., dissents.