alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol Campus
Print-friendly Map of the Capitol Campus
A print-friendly map of the buildings and grounds cared for by the Architect of the Capitol.
        
                  Image
    Map of the buildings and grounds cared for by the Architect of the Capitol. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
#### Thompson v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co.

20316

9/29/97

Reversed, Vacated and Remanded
Exhibit 23
Micron Electronics, Inc.
Consent of Independent Accountants




   We  consent  to  the  incorporation by  reference  in  the  registration
statement of Micron Electronics, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-14035)  and
on Form S-8 (File No. 33-63701) of our report, dated September 28, 1998, on
our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule  of Micron  Electronics, Inc., as of September 3, 1998 and August 28,
1997 and for  each  of the three years in the period ended September 3, 1998,
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                   /s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP


Boise, Idaho
September 28, 1998
#### First Hawaiian Bank v. Hayashi

18211

4/18/97

Remanded
December 1, 1998

20779

#### Hawaiian Ins. & Guar. Co., Ltd. v. Dumlao

Affirmed
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF - 

AUSTIN 

. a-Q.- 

-- 

Iionwublo R. I). Os%lt 

County Attorney 

W.lbarger Gouatg 

Vernon, n?xEl 

Rear Slrr 

Lois on the fm 

g this privlPX of the.52 oun eea shorlff of xo:m county In 

or axtondad the prlvhlogc 

%lox tioa: ‘GlodLd It be necessary that tho 

Conm~Qsioners Court pmt him a leave of abncncc, 

that lx the oomm3sionci?s oourt of his couoty? 
Ronorablc R. D. Cstglt, page 2 

DO Caid COIZI!~LSX~D~~~O C&Pt htiv, tbE Wthority 

to want such Xesvc? And LP not, by what au-. 

thoritg would he be ent2tled to take this J.ca-+s 

upon? 

%u;d he be entitled ‘to his roguler salary 

during the time he was receiving euc!~ tra4-@.Sng? ’

No quota from 11 Texas JurPeprud.encc, pageo 553- 

4-5, as follows I 

“Counties, beIn coLQonen:nt, parts OS the 

@t8ta, havo no poue?? or duties except thoso vhich 

are .clearZLy set fOrth and defined ii1 the C0113*5.- 

tution and statutes. ‘in0 statute3 havo~clearly . 

defined t’ne Dolb’ere, prcscrIbed ths duties, and 

imDosed the liabilities of the cor;nissionars’ 

oouxts, the medium throu$c which the different 

oountios act, and from theeo statutes must coma 

all the euthority vested lu the counties. “ . . 

“Ca~03i0n~Or3~ courts are courts of U&ted jurisdilotion, in that their authority extends 

only to matters pertainln;: ~to the general velfnrc of their rcspect%ye counties end that said 

porrms exe only those expressly or impliedly 

conferred upon them by la&, that ia, by the 

Const;Ltution and .atatutea of the state.” 

. 

lie, hnve b&u urinbls to Pind any statute requiring 

the sheriff to get permIssion from the co~%ssioners~ court. 

In OPW? to go outside his county or outoide or” Texa,s. 

In. Opinion. No. O-2333 110 hold that the bohxL33ionorx~ court of Lsm&r County, Texas, had ‘no authority to grant 

a Leave of absence to the county attorney to enter the U.S. 

Army. m~ls opiaion also ccf’orrcd to opinion HO. o-3M8 of 

this department r?h.?.ch held that the commIs:!loners~ court 

could not deitlaro a vacancy in the office of county attorney 

ca tho aut!lority to doc2are a vacancy.~~ould be ti the Matrict Cowt, citing Iistilton v., fling, 206 S. W. 953, and 

that the county attorney was entitled to hfs enlary during 

the tom of his oEfioo or. until a vacmcy vas estnblisiled~ 

Ve enclose hercvith a copy of Opinion Xo. 0-253j for your 

inrormation, 

‘., 

: 

* 

, 
~onorab2e R, D. OsvaX., pag? 3 

xi; ia our opinion that, under the fRGt9 at&cd, the ‘_ 

aOrZ~iSsi01~?J?8’ co-mt has no authority to gmnt a loave ‘or 

obscixe to the ahcriff for the pwpo& s;t,atcd or any other 

pw?po8es. Rowever, tf the ahmiff desires tdgo he my GO 

on hi.0 own volition a5 he needs no pcrlalaJioli frorj the cm- 

‘ini~eloncrs~ court. As long as he Ls cheriff he w%U be cntLt;lcd to PeGc2iVe 113.5 8Utary. Of C0?2?250, .hoWeV~r, the, GOZlmlesionem~ oourt vould not be autho,nleod to oxpmd county 

fund8 for the pnywnt of the shm!.Cf~s oxpenaas Zn or goins 

to and frm the rrchool in k?ashin~Zoq as seem uou2d not bs 

on county ~busfnaa~ but purely 0;1 the ohcriff*s o?m p&vale 

busincsa; 

’ . 

,’ 

UJP:db 

Enclo.oquPe
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10692 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTHONY CRENSHAW, also known as Ant, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-128-2-Y

- - - - - - - - - - June 3, 1998 Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court appointed counsel for Anthony Crenshaw has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS 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 quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of PLC Systems Inc. (the “Company”) for the periodended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Mark R. Tauscher, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his knowledge:

 

                (1)  the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

                (2)  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  May 14, 2008 | By:    | /s/  Mark R. Tauscher                  |
|--------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                     |   | Mark  R. Tauscher                      |
|                     |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                     |   | (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

 

 

                In connection with the quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of PLC Systems Inc. (the “Company”) for the periodended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, James G. Thomasch, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that, to his knowledge:

 

                (1)  the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

                (2)  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  May 14, 2008 | By:    | /s/  James G. Thomasch         |
|--------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|                     |   | James  G. Thomasch             |
|                     |   | Chief  Financial Officer       |
|                     |   | (Principal  Financial Officer) |

 

 

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.25.3

                                FOURTH AMENDMENT
             GROUP PURCHASING ORGANIZATION PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT

         This Fourth Amendment to Group Purchasing Organization Participation
Agreement ("Amendment") is entered into as of the 13th day of June, 2000, by
and between QUORUM HEALTH GROUP, INC. ("Quorum"), a Delaware Corporation and
PREMIER PURCHASING PARTNERS, L.P., f/k/a APS Healthcare Purchasing Partners,
L.P. (the "Partnership") a California Limited Partnership.

         WHEREAS, Quorum and the Partnership entered into a Group Purchasing
Organization Participation Agreement (the "GPO Agreement") dated November 30,
1995, which was amended by a First Amendment to Group Purchasing Organization
Participation Agreement (the "First Amendment") dated June 1, 1997, a Second
Amendment to Group Purchasing Organization Agreement effective as of December
31, 1999 (the "Second Amendment"), and a Third Amendment to Group Purchasing
Organization Participation Agreement dated March ___, 2000 (the "Third
Amendment"). The GPO Agreement, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment and
the Third Amendment are collectively referred to herein as the Agreement; and

         WHEREAS, the parties have entered into discussions to extend and
modify their relationship and desire to further amend certain provisions of the
Agreement as further set forth herein.

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby
amend the Agreement as follows:

         1.       Section 1 of the Second Amendment is amended by inserting the
words, "and the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2000." after the words,
"ending June 30, 2000".

         2.       Section 1 of the Third Amendment is amended by replacing the
date "March 31, 2000" with the date "September 30, 2000."

         3.       Any provisions of the Agreement not amended herein shall
remain in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this amendment to be
         executed by their duly authorized representatives.


PREMIER PURCHASING PARTNERS, L.P.                QUORUM HEALTH GROUP, INC.
("Purchasing Partners")

By: PREMIER PLANS, L.L.C.
    Its General Partner

    By:                                          By:
       -------------------------------              ---------------------------
    Printed Name:                                Printed Name:
                ----------------------                        -----------------
    Title:                                       Title:
          ----------------------------                 ------------------------
IV 

House Calendar No. 43 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 321 

[Report No. 114–167] 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2146) 

to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Federal law 

enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic controllers to make 

penalty-free withdrawals from governmental plans after age 50, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 17, 2015 

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the 

bill (H.R. 2146) to amend the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986 to allow Federal law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic controllers to make penalty-free 

withdrawals from governmental plans after age 50, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill 

3 (H.R. 2146) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 321 RH 

1 to allow Federal law enforcement officers, firefighters, and 

2 air traffic controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals 

3 from governmental plans after age 50, and for other pur4 poses, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to con5 sider in the House, without intervention of any point of 

6 order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on 

7 Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur 

8 in the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in 

9 the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 

10 resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion shall 

11 be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for 

12 one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 

13 ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 

14 Means. The previous question shall be considered as or15 dered on the motion to its adoption without intervening 

16 motion or demand for division of the question. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 43 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 321 

[Report No. 114–167] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendother purposes. from governmental plans after age 50, and for controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic nal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Federal law ment to the bill (H.R. 2146) to amend the InterJUNE 17, 2015 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA - 2013 - 0686 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM006AD

747 - 53A2610 --- 5/10 / 07

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
#### Queen's Medical Center v. Tokiyo Kagawa

21034

10/28/98

Granted

88 Hawai'i 489, 967 P.2d 686
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2903

___________ GLP, as next friend to S.G., a Minor, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Barry Lynn Nutt, Individually and in * his Official Capacity as a Miller * County Juvenile Detention Center * Appeal from the United States Supervising Guard, * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Defendant, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Helen Andrews, Individually and in her * Official Capacity as Miller County * Juvenile Detention Center * Administrator; Hubert Easley, * Individually and in his Official * Capacity as Miller County Judge, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 27, 2006 Filed: August 4, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

2 GLP has waived her claim under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. See Watson v. O’Neill , 365 F.3d 609, 614 n.4 (8th Cir. 2004) (where appellant offered no argument on appeal related to one claim, it was deemed waived). Her Fourth Amendment claim against Nutt was non-suited and is not before us. Finally, we do not consider GLP’s newly raised subs tantive due process arguments. See Cross v. Monett R-I Bd. of Educ. , 431 F.3d 606, 611 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005).
-2- GLP, as next friend to S.G., a minor, appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment, and its denial of her motion for reconsideration, in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. GLP sued Miller County Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) officials Helen Andrews and Judge HubertEasley, and JDC supervising guard Barry Nutt, after Nutt sexually assaulted SG while she was a JDC detainee. The district court granted summary judgment to Andrews and Judge Easley on GLP’s claims that they violated SG’s Eighth Amendment rights by failing properly to train and supervise Nutt. 2
Having carefully reviewed the record and considered the parties’ arguments, we agree with the district court that Andrews and Judge Easley were entitled to qualified immunity on the individual-capacity claims against them. See Janis v. Biesheuvel , 428 F.3d 795, 798-99 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review; qualifiedimmunity analysis); Spruce v. Sargent , 149 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir. 1998) (failure-toprotect claim); Andrews v. Fowler , 98 F.3d 1069, 1078 (8th Cir. 1996) (supervisory liability under § 1983). We also agree with the district court that there were no trialworthy issues on the offi cial-capacity claims. See Larkin v. St. Louis Housing Authority Dev’p Corp. , 355 F.3d 1114, 1117 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing elements of failure-to-train claim against local government entity); Liebe v. Norton , 157 F.3d 574, 578 (8th Cir. 1998) (suit against county sheri ff in his official capacity must be treated as suit against county). Finally, we find no clear abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of GLP’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. SeeU.S.-3- Xpress Enters., Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc. , 320 F.3d 809, 815-16 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1998
<CASH>                                         849
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                   198
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               18,801
<PP&E>                                         398,253
<DEPRECIATION>                                 108,622
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 308,432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          41,864
<BONDS>                                        153,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,388
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   308,432
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,812
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  70,609
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,304
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                44,084
<INCOME-TAX>                                   418
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            43,666
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   43,666
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  2.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  2.67
        



</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2011

h0620 

# Order

June 28, 2011

142636

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142636 COA: 301379 Jackson CC: 09-006021-FH ROBERT LEE-ROY COFFEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 26, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Calvin Harden, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.), rendered June 20, 1989, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the provisions of the sentence concerning restitution; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and a new determination concerning the proper amount of restitution and the manner of payment thereof.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. A review of the *692record reveals that the defendant’s fingerprints were found on a tin wine canister in a storage area used by County Line Wine and Liquor Store and on a cash register in a "courtesy booth” at a Key Food Supermarket, both areas which are inaccessible to the public. In the absence of evidence that the fingerprints were not those of the defendant, or that the prints were placed on those surfaces innocently, the jury justifiably found that the defendant was guilty of burglary *(see, People v Spruill,*155 AD2d 706; *People v Mininni,*152 AD2d 754).

Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court adequately informed the jury of its responsibility in a case based wholly on circumstantial evidence. The use of the words "moral certainty” is not required, so long as the jury is instructed in substance that "the inference of guilt is the only one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts, and that the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence” *(People v Sanchez,*61 NY2d 1022, 1024). In this case, the court’s charge was sufficient in this regard.

However, we agree with the defendant that the sentencing court erred by not conducting a hearing on the issue of restitution. The record does not contain sufficient evidence to allow for an accurate determination of the proper amount of restitution and the proper manner of payment *(see,*Penal Law § 60.27 [2]). Moreover, there was no showing as to how the amount of restitution was determined. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, to conduct a hearing on these issues with "due consideration * * * given to whether the defendant has the ability to pay” *(People v Barnes,*135 AD2d 825, 826). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.