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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 449 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 449

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 13, 2018

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service to submit 
    to Congress a report on the health effects of new psychoactive 
              substances (including synthetic drugs) use.

    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 ``Synthetic Drug Awareness Act of 
2018''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH OF SYNTHETIC DRUG USE.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service 
shall submit to Congress a report on the health effects of new 
psychoactive substances (including synthetic drugs) used since January 
2010 by persons who are at least 12 years of age but no more than 18 
years of age.
    (b) New Psychoactive Substance Defined.--For purposes of subsection 
(a), the term ``new psychoactive substance'' means a controlled 
substance analogue (as defined in section 102(32) of the Controlled 
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(32)).

            Passed the House of Representatives June 12, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# C_2008107EN.01002701.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/27

---

Action brought on 24 January 2008 — Shetland Islands Council v Commission

(Case T-44/08)

(2008/C 107/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shetland Islands Council (Lerwick, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Whiteford, Barrister, R. Murray, Solicitor, and R. Thompson QC)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of Articles 1(2), 3, 4 and 5 of the decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of Articles 1(2), 3, 4 and 5 of the decision; and

| — | the costs of this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

the costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a public authority that made payments to the fisheries sector under the scope of two general aid measures, named ‘Aid to the Fish Catching and Processing Industry’ and ‘Aid to the Fish Farming Industry’, consisting of different types of aid schemes. One of these schemes was the First Time Shareholders Scheme. The Commission found that the aid which the United Kingdom implemented on the basis of this scheme was incompatible with the common market, in so far as it concerned aid granted for the first time acquisition of a share in a second-hand fishing vessel.

By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C 39/2006 (ex NN 94/2005) of 13 November 2007 concerning the First Time Shareholders Scheme implemented in the United Kingdom. In particular, the applicant seeks annulment of Article 1(2), 3, 4, and 5 of the contested decision on the following grounds:

| (1) | The Commission erred in law in finding that all payments made for the first time acquisition of a share in a second-hand fishing vessel were incompatible with the common market and had to be paid back; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Commission erred in law in finding that all payments made for the first time acquisition of a share in a second-hand fishing vessel were incompatible with the common market and had to be paid back;

all

| (2) | The Commission erred in law in finding that recovery of these payments would be compatible with:






  (a) | Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1); and |
| --- | --- | --- |

(2)

The Commission erred in law in finding that recovery of these payments would be compatible with:

(a)

Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1); and

1

| (b) | the general principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and of equality of treatment. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the general principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and of equality of treatment.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

1

---
|EXHIBIT 32.1
|------------

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

In connection with the quarterly report of SIN Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ Steve S. SinohuiSteve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|November 12, 2007
|-----------------

---
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Hana
Biosciences, Inc. does hereby certify that to the best of his
knowledge:





(a) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hana Biosciences, Inc. for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Hana Biosciences,
Inc.





Dated:
      November 12, 2010
                      /s/
      Steven R. Deitcher, MDSteven
      R. Deitcher, MDPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerDated:
      November 12, 2010
                      /s/ Craig
      W. CarlsonCraig
      W. Carlson
                        Vice
      President, Chief Financial
Officer
#### T. L. MARTIN, Petitioner, v. R. R. RAINES, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-13151.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 13, 1961.

*514T. L. Martin, petitioner, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BRETT, Judge.

This is a petition by T. L. Martin, an inmate of the State Penitentiary, for writ of certiorari, for which there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure in Oklahoma.

Petitioner admits that he is presently serving a valid judgment and sentence rendered against him in the district court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma on a plea of guilty to a charge of burglary in the second degree, and wherein he was sentenced to serve a term of six years in the penitentiary; and states that he has no complaint relative thereto.

Petitioner does complain relative to what he denominates “supplemental restraint” by virtue of a detainer or hold order filed by the authorities of Sherman, Texas with the Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, and the prayer of his petition is to require the Warden of the Penitentiary to dismiss the detainer or hold order so placed against him.

It has been the practice of this Court to determine the nature of a cause by the allegations in the body of the petition and the prayer, rather than the heading, and particularly where the petitioner is not trained in the law, and files without the aid of counsel. Hence, we have treated the prisoner’s petition as one for writ of mandamus. Cane v. Berry, Okl.Cr., 356 P.2d 374.

This Court is without authority to grant the relief prayed. We know of no such holding to support such a theory. We can think of no better way to destroy comity of enforcement of the law between the states than to so hold. A sister state may file a valid detainer or hold order against one serving a valid sentence in the penitentiary at any time. This we cannot prevent under the law. However, if it were not well founded in the law, the question might be raised at the time extradition is attempted.

The action is, accordingly, dismissed.

NIX, P. J., and BUSSEY, J., concur.
Exh 10.11 - Form 10K - 12/31/04



EXHIBIT 10.11

COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS.

 

Each of our named executive officers (as that term is defined in Item 402 of Regulation S-K) is employed on an at will basis. The annualized salaries to be paid to the Corporation's named executive officers for 2005 is set forth in the chart below.

	Named Executive Officer

	
Salary

	Robert E. Matthiessen

	
$253,794

	Alyn R. Holt

	
$188,829

	Hugh T. Regan, Jr.

	
$181,264

	Dale E. Christman

	
$176,000

	Daniel J. Graham

	
$164,570




Each of foregoing officers receive the Corporation's standard benefits package.

For 2005, Directors who are not also officers of the Corporation (each a "non-employee director") will receive an annual retainer of $20,000. Members of the Executive Committee are paid an additional annual retainer of $12,000. The chairmen of the committees of the Board are paid an additional annual fee as follows: the Chairman of the Audit Committee is paid an additional annual fee of $12,000; the Chairman of the Compensation Committee is paid an additional annual fee of $8,000; the Chairman of the IP Committee is paid an additional annual fee of $60,000; and the Chairman of the Nominating Committee is paid an additional annual fee of $8,000. 

In addition, Directors and Officers are also eligible for awards of stock options or shares of stock pursuant to the inTEST Corporation Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Plan, however, such awards are made at the discretion of the Compensation Committee or the Board of Directors, as the case may be.
Order filed, January 09, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-01043-CR

____________

TONY MERLOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 155th District Court

Austin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011R-0105

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due December 09, 2013. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Vicki L. Brown, the substitute court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 1416 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 156 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STA I E OF MONTANA 

OP 24-0307 

MIKEL LETHERMAN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JACKIE KEERY, 

GALLATIN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, 

Respondent. 

ORD,ER 

Self-represented Petitioner Mikel Letherman has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus, indicating illegal incarceration due to a lack of credit for tirne served upon 

resentencing and alleged invalidity of his bail-jumping conviction. Upon review of his 

Petition, we deern it appropriate to require a response. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Attorney General or counsel for the Departrnent of 

Correction is GRANTED thirty days from the date of this Order in which to prepare, file, 

and serve a written response together with appropriate documentary exhibits. 

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

Keery, Jail Commander, Gallatin County Detention Center; and to Mikel S. Letherrnan 

personally. 

DATED this n 41d a y of May, 2024. 

cas—

Justice 

05/24/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0307
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51325

Conference Calendar

MACIEL M. ROMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EL PASO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CV-399

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Maciel M. Roman, federal prisoner # 33878-180, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against

the El Paso County Detention Center as well as the district

court’s dismissal of his motion seeking an order of protection

with respect to Bureau of Prison (BOP) officials. The district

court dismissed the § 1983 suit on the basis that Roman had

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court denied

the motion regarding the BOP officials for lack of jurisdiction. 

Roman’s brief does not address either the district court’s
No. 05-51325

-2-

conclusion that Roman did not exhaust his administrative remedies

or that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion for an

order of protection. Roman addresses only the underlying merits

of his claims. Accordingly, he has abandoned the only issues on

appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1993); see also Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although we construe a pro se

litigant’s pleadings liberally, even pro se litigants must

identify errors and brief the relevant issues. See Yohey, 985

F.2d at 224-25.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. See Howard

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The

dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Roman that if he

accumulates three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not

be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or

appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility

unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT JUNE 30, 1998 FOR
THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>               0000909116
<NAME>              ROSEWOOD CARE CENTER OF PEORIA
<MULTIPLIER>        1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,866
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                       168
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,689
<PP&E>                                          25,264
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,966
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            65
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,421
<SALES>                                         31,498
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,153
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,456
<INCOME-TAX>                                       265
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,191
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
            Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. and Subsidiaries
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share
          (Dollars and Share Data in Thousands, Except Per Share Data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              As of and For the Years Ended December 31,
                                                                       ------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        1998                     1997                 1996(1)
                                                                       -------                 -------                -------
<S>                                                                    <C>                     <C>                    <C>
Weighted-Average Common Shares Outstanding                              12,249                  12,194                 11,880

Weighted-Average Share Equivalents Outstanding                           2,680                   2,736                  2,373
                                                                       -------                 -------                -------
Weighted-Average Shares and Share Equivalents Outstanding
                                                                        14,929                  14,930                 14,253
                                                                       =======                 =======                =======
Net Income                                                             $20,028                 $16,870                $13,374
                                                                       =======                 =======                =======
Basic Earnings Per Share                                                 $1.63                   $1.38                  $1.13
                                                                       =======                 =======                =======
Diluted Earnings Per Share                                               $1.34                   $1.13                  $0.94
                                                                       =======                 =======                =======
</TABLE>



(1)      1996 share information restated to reflect a two for one split of the
         Company's common stock distributed in November 1997.