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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 203 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 203

  To authorize document production, testimony, and representation of 
  Senate employees, in a matter before the Grand Jury in the Western 
                       District of Pennsylvania.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 14, 1999

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To authorize document production, testimony, and representation of 
  Senate employees, in a matter before the Grand Jury in the Western 
                       District of Pennsylvania.

Whereas, in a proceeding before a grand jury in the United States District Court 
        for the Western District of Pennsylvania, documents have been subpoenaed 
        from the offices of Senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, and 
        testimony from Senate employees may be requested;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be 
        taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with 
        the privileges of the Senate; and
Whereas, pursuant to section 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978 (2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2)), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent Members and employees of the Senate with 
        respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony or the 
        production of documents relating to their official responsibilities: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the records custodians in the offices of Senator 
Rick Santorum and Senator Arlen Specter, and any other employee of the 
Senate from whom testimony or document production may be required, are 
authorized to testify and produce documents in this grand jury 
proceeding or in any related proceeding, except concerning matters for 
which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Senators Specter and Santorum and any employee of the Senate in 
connection with the document production and testimony authorized in 
section one of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
* The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3839

___________ Marie Chapman, * * Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Arkansas. Western Arkansas Anesthesiology * Associates, P.A.; Irene France, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellants. *

___________ Submitted: April 10, 2000 Filed: April 19, 2000

___________ Before McMILLIAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBAUM, * District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Western Arkansas Anesthesiology Associates, P.A. and Irene France (collectively the appellants) appeal the judgment of the district court entered on a jury verdict holding them liable in Marie Chapman's medical malpractice action. After careful consideration of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the district court correctly rejected the appellants' claim that the testimony of Chapman's medical expert-2-

shouldhave been excluded because the expert was not familiar with the standard of care for a certified registered nurse anesthetist in the Fort Smith, Arkansas, locality in whichthe appellants practice or a similar community. We also conclude that an extensive discussion would serve no useful precedential purpose in this diversity-based case. Having concluded the district court's ruling is correct, we thus affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### STATE ex rel. Charles BALLET v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 86-KH-1815.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1987.

In re Ballet, Charles; applying for remedial writs; Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 15474.

Granted. The district court is ordered to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the merit of relator’s claim that he tendered his guilty plea in exchange for the promise of defense counsel that if he maintained good behavior, he would be released from confinement after serving ten years and six months in prison. See *Smith v. Blackburn,*785 F.2d 545 (5th Circuit 1986).

MARCUS,' J., dissents.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

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

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Real Mex Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending September 26, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frederick F.Wolfe, Chief Executive 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 tomy knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Frederick  F. Wolfe |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Frederick F.  Wolfe     |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| November 10, 2004  |

 

----
# Amtsblatt C 296A/3. A

| | ISSN 1977-088X |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | C 296A |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen | 65. Jahrgang3. August 2022 |

ISSN 1977-088X

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

C 296A

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen

65. Jahrgang3. August 2022

---

| Inhalt | Seite |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Bekanntmachungen |
| | VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN |
| | Gemeinsames Unternehmen Fusion for Energy |
| 2022/C 296 A/01 | Bekanntmachung zur Änderung der Bekanntmachung des Europäischen Gemeinsamen Unternehmens für ITER und die Entwicklung der Fusionsenergie (F4E) — Ausschreibung der Stelle des Direktors (m/w) — (Bedienstete/-r auf Zeit — Besoldungsgruppe AD 14) — COM/2022/20086 ( ABl. C 285 A vom 26.7.2022 ) | 1 |

Inhalt

Seite

V   Bekanntmachungen

VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN

Gemeinsames Unternehmen Fusion for Energy

2022/C 296 A/01

Bekanntmachung zur Änderung der Bekanntmachung des Europäischen Gemeinsamen Unternehmens für ITER und die Entwicklung der Fusionsenergie (F4E) — Ausschreibung der Stelle des Direktors (m/w) — (Bedienstete/-r auf Zeit — Besoldungsgruppe AD 14) — COM/2022/20086 ( ABl. C 285 A vom 26.7.2022 )

( ABl. C 285 A vom 26.7.2022 )

1

---

| DE | |
| --- | --- |

DE

---

V Bekanntmachungen

VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN

Gemeinsames Unternehmen Fusion for Energy

| 3.8.2022 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | CA 296/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2022

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

CA 296/1

---

Bekanntmachung zur Änderung der Bekanntmachung des Europäischen Gemeinsamen Unternehmens für ITER und die Entwicklung der Fusionsenergie (F4E) — Ausschreibung der Stelle des Direktors (m/w) — (Bedienstete/-r auf Zeit — Besoldungsgruppe AD 14) — COM/2022/20086

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 285 A vom 26. Juli 2022
  )

(2022/C 296 A/01)

Auf Seite 5, „Beschäftigungsbedingungen“, sechster Absatz:

| Anstatt: | „Die Stelle ist ab dem 1. Januar 2024 verfügbar.“ |
| --- | --- |

Anstatt:

„Die Stelle ist ab dem 1. Januar 2024 verfügbar.“

| muss es heißen: | „Die Stelle ist ab dem 1. Januar 2023 verfügbar.“ |
| --- | --- |

muss es heißen:

muss es heißen:

„Die Stelle ist ab dem 1. Januar 2023 verfügbar.“

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4862

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed April 18, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Hillsborough County; Tom Barber, 

Judge.

Manuel Rodriguez, pro se. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Jones v. State, 569 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1990); Campbell v. 

State, 884 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           ============

        Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Rotoblock
Corporation (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven M. Schneider,
Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

   (1)  the quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.

                                Rotoblock Corporation, Registrant

Date:  September 14, 2005       /s/ Steven M. Schneider
                               --------------------------------------
                               By: Steven M. Schneider,
                               Chief Executive Officer and Director










<PAGE>
SERVED: SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

r r i 

IN THE MATTER OF _ ~^^ ^ 

COLGAN AIR, INC. -Q §^ 2 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09EA0018 •; ^^~ ^ 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2009-0582 

^ O CO 

NOTICE OF PREHEARING CONFERENCE 

The Prehearing Telephone Conference previously noticed for September 22, 2010, is 

hereby re-scheduled for September 28, 2010, at 3 p.m.. Eastern Time. 

All parties should be prepared to discuss all issues and facts at issue. All documents that 

have been exchanged and that have not already been provided to the Judge should be furnished 

to him by September 13, 2010. 

Pursuant to Section 556 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(8), each 

party shall be represented by someone who has authority to negotiate concerning resolution of all 

issues in controversy. 

SO ORDERED 

Romie A. Yoder,/ 

Chief Administrative Law 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09EA0018 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1OOO' 

ONE COPY 

Mark A. Dombroff, Respondent's Counsel 

DOMBROFF GILMORE JAQUES & FRENCH, P.C. 

1676 International Drive - Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

TEL: 703-336-8700 

FAX: 703-336-8750 

Christian L. Lewerenz, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, EAL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3273 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building- Suite2W1000, 

Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### Eladio T. ELIZAGARATE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 85-218, 85-1250.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 13, 1986.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and John H. Lipinski, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Mark J. Ber-kowitz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, NESBITT and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We reject the defendant’s claim that he had a right to elect to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines for life felonies committed prior to October 1, 1983. See. 921.001(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983); *Wade v. State,*488 So.2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); *State v. Smith,*470 So.2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of MailTec, Inc.., on Form
10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Jeff A.
Hanks, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.






Date: August 20, 2007   /s/Jeff A. Hanks
                        ----------------
                        Jeff A. Hanks
                        Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD FRANKLIN BACON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

REETIKA KUMAR, M.D.; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16909 

D.C. No. 3:15-cv-04477-LB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted September 26, 2017***

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Ronald Franklin Bacon appeals pro se from the 

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging 

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 6 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-16909 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th 

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bacon’s deliberate 

indifference claims relating to wheelchair authorization and drug prescriptions 

because Bacon failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 

defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his serious medical needs. 

See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she 

knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; neither a difference of 

opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in diagnosing or 

treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); see also Jackson 

v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (a plaintiff “must show that the 

course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the 

circumstances”).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. 

See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts 

not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2416 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2416

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic staple fibers that 
      are not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mrs. Hagan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic staple fibers that 
      are not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN SYNTHETIC STAPLE FIBERS THAT ARE NOT CARDED, COMBED, 
              OR OTHERWISE PROCESSED FOR SPINNING.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Acrylic staple      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          fibers containing                                                  31/2011.......
                          at least 85
                          percent by weight
                          of acrylonitrile
                          units and 2
                          percent or more
                          but not over 3
                          percent of water,
                          raw white
                          (undyed),
                          crimped, with
                          average filament
                          decitex of 1.3
                          (plus or minus 10
                          percent) and
                          fiber length of
                          38 mm (plus or
                          minus 10 percent)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          5503.30.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Francis Edward ORZECHOWSKI, Appellant, v. Nina Ann APPLEGATE, Appellee.

No. 88-0042.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 20, 1988.

*972Francis Edward Orzechowski, Lakeland, pro se.

Amanda Traweek of Polk County Legal Aid Society, Lakeland, for appellee.

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

The marriage between the appellant and the appellee was dissolved in 1985. The parties have one daughter born in 1982. Appellant sought to modify an order granting him six weeks of summer visitation with his daughter. The trial court granted the appellant eight weeks of visitation, beginning in the summer of 1989. On appeal he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not modifying the visitation privileges to allow him a minimum of ten weeks during the summer. We find no abuse of discretion. *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). However, the court also imposed the following requirement:

> 3. All future requests for modification made by Husband shall be accompanied by a deposit with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of an amount sufficient to cover Wife’s transportation costs to and from her home and Polk County, plus any fee required by the Clerk for depositing such funds.

Although both appellant and appellee have been contentious with regard to visitation rights, we find no history of frivolous actions for modification by the appellant. Should such occur in the future, the court can deal with the situation at that time. On the stated record before us, the requirement for advance deposit, particularly in view of the appellant’s financial circumstances, may deprive him of his right of access to the courts guaranteed by section 21 of the Declaration of Rights in Article I of the Florida Constitution.

We delete paragraph 3 of the Order Modifying Summer Visitation of December 28,

1987. As amended, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

HALL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John RONDENO.

No. 86-CK-2533.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Rondeno, John; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of *210Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. C-6429; Parish of Orleans, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, Div. “D”, No. 161-948.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 415.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
Exhibit 23.01

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our reports dated June 5, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule and internal
control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of New Frontier Media, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2009. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of New Frontier Media, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-26479, effective
May 5, 1997; File No. 333-92081, effective December 3, 1999; File No. 333-57554, effective March 23, 2001; File
No. 333-102694, effective January 24, 2003; and File No. 333-147314, effective November 13, 2007) and Forms S-3 (File
No. 333-75733, effective on or about August 13, 1999; File No. 333-90803, effective on or about November 22, 1999; and File
No. 333-64786, effective on or about August 7, 2001).

/s/
GRANT THORNTON LLP
Denver, Colorado
June 5, 2009

---



QuickLinks