alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### FOR PUBLICATION


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Nos. 99-10478

Plaintiff-Appellee, 01-10720

v. D.C. No.

CR-95-00197-VRW N ORMAN A NTHONY K ING , aka Norm 

#  Northern District King; aka Norman August Klause, of California,

Defendant-Appellant. San Francisco
ORDER 

# 

Filed August 16, 2005

Before: Susan P. Graber, Raymond C. Fisher and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

In this case, we affirmed the judgment of conviction on December 23, 2002. The mandate issued on March 11, 2003. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 2, 2003. On August 9, 2004, defendant-appellant King filed a pro se motion “requesting amendment to [the] mandate and remand for resentencing ” in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker , 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). We construe this motion as a motion to recall the mandate, and deny it.

We will recall a mandate only “in extraordinary circumstances.” Calderon v. Thompson , 523 U.S. 538, 550 (1998) (power to recall mandate is “one of last resort, to be held in reserve against grave, unforeseen contingencies ”). See also Nevius v. Sumner , 105 F.3d 453, 460-61 (9th Cir. 1996). The circumstances here do not qualify as such. Although the

10683Supreme Court has invalidated the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines under which King was sentenced, the remedy put in place allows sentencing judges to continue to apply the Guidelines, albeit under a new discretionary regime in which other factors are relevant. Booker , 125 S.Ct. at 764-68; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). At best, defendant would be entitled to a limited remand at which his sentencing judge could determine whether or not to resentence. See United States v. Ameline

, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir. 2005).

We therefore conclude that the “extraordinary circumstances” necessary to justify recalling a mandate are not present here.

The motion filed August 9, 2004, is denied. 10684 U NITED S TATES v. K INGPRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2005 Thomson/West.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Hawk 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 J.
Levanduski, Chief Financial 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.


/s/ JOSEPH J. LEVANDUSKI
------------------------
Joseph J. Levanduski
Chief Financial Officer

March 26, 2004

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained in that statute, and not for any other
purpose.


                                       84
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Thomas P. Russo, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best of my
knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A
(Amendment No. 1) for the period ended March 31, 2006 of the Registrant (the
"Report"):

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

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

          By:                       /s/ THOMAS P. RUSSO
             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Thomas P. Russo
              EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, TREASURER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                                       METAMORPHIX, INC.

Date:  December 15, 2006
ATTENDEEES: Ashley Armstrong, DOE

Laura Barhydt DOE

Eric Stas, DOE

Francine Pinto , DOE

R. Bruce Carnevale, Bradford White Corporation

Mark Taylor, Bradford White Corporation

Adam S. Olsen, Sconset Strategies, LLC on behalf of Bradford White Corporation

MEETING DATE: Tuesday, March 24 , 2015

SUBJECTS DISCUSSED :

Notice of proposed rulemaking establishing a mathematical conversion factor

for consumer water heaters and certain commercial water heaters, specifically:

1.) NOPR release date and th e burden manufacturers will incur with the condensed

timeline

2.) Concerns with the implementation timeline difference between the use of the

UEF and the FTC labeling change. Manufacturers will not be compliant with either DOE or FTC because of this time line difference

3.) Potential for enforcement relief because of the timeline difference noted above

4.) Potential for negative impact on development of new, energy efficient products

because the conservation standards are in EF, yet requirement is to use UEF after 7/13/15

5.) Potential to reduce the energy conservation standards and violate “anti

backsliding” provisions, or make the conservation standard more stringent by determining the new conservation standard as a UEF by applying the conversion factor to the current EF
EX-10.2






Exhibit 10.2




Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of June 14, 2005 among Thomas & Betts Corporation,
as Borrower, The Guarantors Party Thereto, The Financial Institutions Party Thereto, Bank of
America, N.A., Suntrust Bank and Regions Bank, as Co-Syndication Agents, LaSalle Bank, N.A., as
Documentation Agent and Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent, Swing Bank
and Issuing Bank (Filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K dated June
14, 2005, and incorporated herein by reference).
July 7, 2011 MEMORANDUM FROM: Kenneth Davidson

Assessment and Standards Division TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2010 - 0162 SUBJECT: BenMAP Air Quality Modeling Data Files for Estimation of Health Impacts Associated with the Final Heavy - Dut y National Pr ogram The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit BenMAP air quality modeling data input and configuration files used for the e stimation of PM and ozone - related health impacts associated with the final Heav y - Duty National Program . When used as input fi les to the publicly - available Environmental Benefits Mapping and Anal ys is Program (BenMAP), 1 a user will be able to replicate the health impacts analy sis results presented in the RIA for this rulemaking . The summary files are as follows: File 1: BenMAP_A irQualityGrids .zip

 12km ambient PM and ozone air quality grid input data for BenMAP (baseline and control for 2030 ) File 2 : BenMAP_Configurations .zip

 PM and o zone health effects configuration file for BenMAP (.cfg files)  PM and o zone health effects aggregation, pooling, and valuation file for BenMAP (.apv files) File 3: BenMAP_Executable.zip

 BenMAP executable file (.exe) T he health impacts analysis is discussed in Section VIII .H of the preamble and Chapter 8 of the Regulatory

Impact Analy sis .

1 BenMAP is compatible with these files and can be downloaded at http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap/download.html
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2438 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2438

To modify and extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain vacuum 
              relief valves designed for use in aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modify and extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain vacuum 
              relief valves designed for use in aircraft.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN VACUUM RELIEF VALVES DESIGNED FOR USE IN AIRCRAFT.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.83 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to vacuum relief valves) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking the article description and inserting the 
        following: ``Vacuum relief valves for equalizing pressure 
        between the internal cabin and the external atmosphere 
        certified by the importer for use in civil aircraft (provided 
        for in subheading 8481.40.00)''; and
            (2) by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/
        2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer of GFI Group Inc.**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report of GFI Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James A. Peers, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

 

1.                 The Reportfully 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.

 

Date: November 9,2009

 
| /s/ JAMES A. PEERS        |     |
|---------------------------|----------|
| James A. Peers            |     |
| *Chief Financial Officer* | * * |

 

----
#### DeMoss, Appellee, *v.*Conart Motor Sales, Inc., Appellant.

(No. 31126

Decided March 31, 1948.)

*Mr. Fred G. Cain,*for appellee.

*Mr. Hobart Roby,*for appellant.

By the Court.

It is disclosed' that no bill of ex*300ceptions was allowed and signed by the Court of Appeals, and it does not appear that a bill of exceptions was even prepared and presented to that court.

This court, therefore, has before it only the pleadings and the journal entry showing the finding and decree of the Court of Appeals.

The alleged contract is not disclosed by the pleadings.

The printed record filed in this court is apparently a transcript of the evidence adduced in the Court of Common Pleas and presumably the case was presented to the Court of Appeals upon that transcript although there is no such statement in the journal entry of the Court of Appeals. It recites that it was heard on the petition, answer and the evidence.

It is obvious that there is no record before this court upon which the court can review the decree of the Court of Appeals. The situation presented is almost precisely that involved in the cases of *Micklethwait*v. *City of Portsmouth,*110 Ohio St., 514, 144 N. E., 274, and *Marriott*v. *Hawk,*111 Ohio St., 285, 145 N. E., 287. In the *Marriott case*it was said:

> “The bill of exceptions, so called, is the transcript of the evidence taken in the Court of Common Pleas and used by consent of the parties' in the Court of Appeals. No bill was prepared in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals did not sign or allow the transcript of the evidence; hence issues raised by the petition in error and not raised by the pleadings and judgment, which require the' bill of exceptions, so called, to present them to this court, are not before us.”

See, also, *Hill*v. *Bassett,*27 Ohio St., 597; *Detroit, T. & I. Rd. Co.*v. *Blaum,*120 Ohio St., 612, 169 N. E., 297; *Schlarb, Exr.,*v. *Hartwell, Admr.,*129 Ohio St., 493, 196 N. E., 273.

*301The decree of the Court of Appeals is necessarily affirmed.

*Decree affirmed-*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

October 31, 2011

Mr. Eric Stevenson

Director of Technical Services

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

939 Ellis Street

San Francisco, California 94109

Dear Mr. Stevenson :

Thank you for your timely submission of the 20 10 Air Monitoring Network Report, finalized July 1,

2011 . We have reviewed the submitted document and have found that it is complete, informative, very

detailed and meets all of the requirements for annual network plans as requi red by our regulations set

forth under 40 CFR Part 58.10. While this letter serves as official approval of the annual network plan,

it does not constitute approval of the system modifications that are proposed in the plan for the future.

We will continue to work with your district to review system changes as they proceed.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at (415) 972

- 3851 or Gwen

Yoshimura at (415) 947

- 41 34.

Sincerely,

/s/

Matthew Lakin, Manager

Air Quality Analysis Office

Air Division

Enclosure

cc: Glen Colwell, BAAQMD

Karen Magliano, ARBComments on Bay Area AQMD’s 2010 Air Monitoring Network Report (f inalized July 1, 2011 )

Please update next year’s annual network plan to reflect the following comments:

Minimum Monitoring Requirement for PM10: The minimum number of PM 10 monitors is based

on concentration, rather than the number of exceedances, per Table D

- 4 in 40 CFR Part 58

Appendix D. T he Design Value column in Table 5, page 15, should reflect the 24

- hour PM 10

ambient concentration as stated in T able D

- 4 of 40 CF R 58 Appendix D. For example, the

maximum concentration over a three year period within the MSA could be used. It appears that

BAAQMD is meeting the minimum monitoring requirements, however, future monitoring

network plans should be reflect the metric in dicated in 40 CFR 58 Appendix D.

Monitors within Bay Area MSAs, run by other agencies: In the minimum monitoring

requirement tables, the “Number of Monitors Active” numbers appear to include monitors that

are not run by BAAQMD, but are within the Bay Are a MSAs. When totals include monitors

that are run by other agencies, please asterisk the totals and indicate how many of the monitors

are run by BAAQMD.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 110

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas among the world’s 26 richest nations, the United

States accounted for 73 percent of child homicide victims;

Whereas at least 3 children a day die from physical abuse or

chronic neglect in the United States;

Whereas April has been designated as National Child Abuse

Prevention Month, an annual tradition started by President Jimmy Carter in 1979; and
2

•HCON 110 EH

Whereas the fourth Friday of each April is National Children’s Memorial Flag Day, when many State and local

governmental agencies and private organizations fly the

Children’s Memorial Flag to remember children lost to violence and to heighten public awareness of the need for

communities to help vulnerable children and families:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) supports National Children’s Memorial Flag

4 Day; and

5 (2) encourages national, State, and local agen6 cies and private organizations to fly the Children’s

7 Memorial Flag—

8 (A) to remember children lost to violence;

9 and

10 (B) to raise public awareness about the

11 continuing problem of violence against children.

Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 110

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress in support of

National Children’s Memorial Flag Day.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

July 29, 2013 

# Order

Clerk July 29, 2013

142842( 88 )

KENNETH ADMIRE,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 142842

v COA: 289080

Ingham CC: 07

- 001752

- NF

AUTO

- OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

______________________________ /

On order of the Court, the motion for rehearing is considered and it is DENIED.
Exhibit 31.3

 

CERTIFICATION

I, Richard Toselli, certify that:

 

1.    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) of InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp.; 

 

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: January 3, 2018

 

 

|   | /s/ Richard Toselli            |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   | Richard Toselli                |
|   | Acting Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (principal executive officer)  |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 37 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 37

To express gratitude for the service of the Chief Justice of the United 
       States as Presiding Officer during the impeachment trial.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 1999

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To express gratitude for the service of the Chief Justice of the United 
       States as Presiding Officer during the impeachment trial.

Whereas article I, section 3, clause 6 of the Constitution of the United States 
        provide that, when the President of the United States is tried on 
        articles of impeachment, the Chief Justice of the United States shall 
        preside over the Senate;
Whereas, pursuant to rule IV of the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the 
        Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials, on January 6, 1999, the 
        Senate notified William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United 
        States, of the time and place fixed for consideration of the articles of 
        impeachment against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United 
        States, and requested him to attend;
Whereas, in the intervening days since January 7, 1999, Chief Justice Rehnquist 
        has presided over the Senate, when sitting on the trial of the articles 
        of impeachment, for long hours over many days;
Whereas Chief Justice Rehnquist, in presiding over the Senate, has exhibited 
        extraordinary qualities of fairness, patience, equanimity, and wisdom;
Whereas, by his manner of presiding over the Senate, Chief Justice Rehnquist has 
        contributed greatly to the Senate's conduct of fair, impartial, and 
        dignified proceedings in the trial of the articles of impeachment; and
Whereas the Senate and the Nation are indebted to Chief Justice Rehnquist for 
        his distinguished and valued service in fulfilling his constitutional 
        duty to preside over the Senate in the trial of the articles of 
        impeachment: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate expresses its profound gratitude to 
William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, for his 
distinguished service in presiding over the Senate, while sitting on 
the trial of the articles of impeachment against William Jefferson 
Clinton, President of the United States.
    Sec. 2. The Secretary shall notify the Chief Justice of the United 
States of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Senior Airman MICHAEL BURL

United States Air Force

ACM 38433

23 April 2014

Sentence adjudged 18 June 2013 by G CM convened at Keesler Air Force

Base, Mississippi . Military Judge: Gr ant L. Kratz

.

Approved S entence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 2 6 months

, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E

- 1

.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Captain Jeffrey A. Davis

.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Don M. Christensen

.

Before

ROAN

, HELGET, and MARKSTEINER

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release

.



### PER CURIAM :

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occ urred. Article 66(c),

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed , 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000).

Accor dingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court