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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 645

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to prohibit the Secretary of

Agriculture from basing minimum prices for Class I milk on the distance

or transportation costs from any location that is not within a marketing

area, except under certain circumstances, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 29 (legislative day, MARCH 27), 1995

Mr. FEINGOLD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to prohibit the

Secretary of Agriculture from basing minimum prices

for Class I milk on the distance or transportation costs

from any location that is not within a marketing area,

except under certain circumstances, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 645 IS

1 SECTION 1. LOCATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR MINIMUM

2 PRICES FOR CLASS I MILK.

3 Section 8c(5) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7

4 U.S.C. 608c(5)), reenacted with amendments by the Agri5 cultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended—

6 (1) in paragraph (A)—

7 (A) in clause (3) of the second sentence, by

8 inserting after ‘‘the locations’’ the following:

9 ‘‘within a marketing area subject to the order’’;

10 and

11 (B) by striking the last 2 sentences and in12 serting the following: ‘‘Notwithstanding para13 graph (18) or any other provision of law, when

14 fixing minimum prices for milk of the highest

15 use classification in a marketing area subject to

16 an order under this subsection, the Secretary

17 may not, directly or indirectly, base the prices

18 on the distance from, or all or part of the costs

19 incurred to transport milk to or from, any loca20 tion that is not within the marketing area sub21 ject to the order, unless milk from the location

22 constitutes at least 50 percent of the total sup23 ply of milk of the highest use classification in

24 the marketing area. The Secretary shall report

25 to the Committee on Agriculture of the House

26 of Representatives and the Committee on Agri-
3

S 645 IS

1 culture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate

2 on the criteria that are used as the basis for the

3 minimum prices referred to in the preceding

4 sentence, including a certification that the mini5 mum prices are made in accordance with the

6 preceding sentence.’’; and

7 (2) in paragraph (B)(c), by inserting after ‘‘the

8 locations’’ the following: ‘‘within a marketing area

9 subject to the order’’.

Æ
* 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. 08-60405

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; Plaintiff-Appellant; v. RODNEY CASE, KEVIN CLARK, MIKE FULTON, DOUGLAS MURPHY, and JAMES WARD; Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:06-CR-00210
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant United States ofAmerica asserts that the district court erred when it dismissed counts one, nine, and twelve of the second superceding indictment. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, heard oral argument, and considered the record, we disagree. First, count one, which charged all the abovenamed Defendants-Appel lees with conspiring to commit wire fraud in violation o

f 18 U.S.C. § 371 was properly dismissed because the count is United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 13, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-60405

2 unconstitutionally vague since it fails to allege any materially false statements
or representations by Defendants-Appellees. See Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 25 (1999) (“[M]ateriality of falsehood is an element of the federal mail fraud, wirefraud, and bank fraud statutes.”). Second, count nine, which charged Defendants-Appellees Mike Fulton, Douglas Murphy, and James Ward with stealing and copying trade secrets in violation of various provisions of the Economic Espionage Act (“EEA”) was properly dismissed because it is barred by the statute of limitations. Finally, count twelve, which charged DefendantAppellee Ward with violating various provisions of the EEA was also properly dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Cytogen Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Michael D. Becker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
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 results of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                      |  |  |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated: April 28, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael D. Becker                
|                      |  |  |  | Michael D. Becker                    
|                      |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1348 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

extend public safety officers’ death benefits to fire police officers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 4, 2011 

Mr. COURTNEY (for himself, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Ms. SUTTON, and 

Mr. GERLACH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to extend public safety officers’ death benefits to fire police officers. 

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 ‘‘Fire Police Fairness 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENDING PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DEATH BENE7 FITS TO FIRE POLICE. 

8 Section 1204 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

9 Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b) is amended— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1348 IH

1 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through 

2 (9) as paragraphs (6) through (10), respectively; 

3 (2) in paragraph (10)(A) (as so redesignated by 

4 paragraph (1) of this section), by inserting ‘‘as a 

5 fire police officer,’’ after ‘‘firefighter,’’; and 

6 (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the fol7 lowing new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(5) ‘fire police officer’ includes an individual 

9 who— 

10 ‘‘(A) is serving in accordance with State or 

11 local law as an officially recognized or des12 ignated member of a legally organized public 

13 safety agency but is not a law enforcement offi14 cer, a firefighter, a chaplain, or a member of a 

15 rescue squad or ambulance crew described in 

16 paragraph (10)(A); and 

17 ‘‘(B) provides scene security or directs 

18 traffic— 

19 ‘‘(i) in response to any fire drill, fire 

20 call, or other fire, rescue, or police emer21 gency; or 

22 ‘‘(ii) at a planned special event;’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (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 results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
 Date: November 14, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Albert AngrisaniAlbert AngrisaniPresident and
Chief Executive Officer
|   | 1. | I      have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of      Merisel, Inc.; |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 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;  |
|--------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3.  | [Intentionally      omitted];  |
|--------|----------|-------------------------------------|

|   | 4.  | [Intentionally      omitted]; |
|--------|----------|-------------------------------|

|   | 5.  | [Intentionally      omitted].  |
|--------|----------|-------------------------------------|

|                    |   |                                                        |   |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:      May 14, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Donald      R. Uzzi                                |   |
|                    |   | Name:      Donald R. Uzzi                                   |   |
|                    |   | Title:      Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President |   |
|                    |   |                                                        |   |
#### Thurman Odell TRUSSELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 36421.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 15, 1964.

Rebearing Denied Feb. 19,1964.

*899Rex Emerson, Houston, for appellant.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally and James C. Brough, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is for robbery by assault; the punishment, life imprisonment, enhanced under Art. 62, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., by reason of a prior conviction for an offense of like character.

The indictment alleged the primary offense of robbery by assault and two prior convictions for the offenses of robbery.

In his charge the court submitted to the jury the issue of appellant’s guilt of the primary offense and whether he had been previously convicted of one of the prior alleged offenses.

No statement of facts of the evidence adduced upon the trial accompanies the record.

Appellant predicates his appeal upon three claimed errors.

He first contends that the court erred in permitting the state to use the prior conviction for robbery to enhance the punishment, because it could not be determined from the allegations of the indictment whether the conviction was for a capital or an ordinary felony. The indictment, to which appellant filed no exception, after alleging the date of the primary offense charged that appellant “was then and there a person who had theretofore been convicted of two felonies less than capital * and then alleged the two prior convictions for robbery by date, number, style of the case, and the court in which the convictions were had. The contention is without merit.

The other two claimed errors urged by appellant pertain to the court’s charge. In the absence of a statement of facts, the alleged errors in the charge cannot be considered. Snyder v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 482, 329 S.W.2d 292, and Fields v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 353 S.W.2d 470.

We do observe, however, that there is no merit in appellant’s contention that the court’s instruction to the jury to acquit him if they did not believe him guilty of the primary offense constituted a denial of' trial by jury on the issue of whether he had been previously convicted of the offenses alleged for enhancement. Under the court’s instruction, a finding by the jury that appellant was not guilty of the primary offense would have eliminated from the case any issue as to whether he had been previously convicted of the felonies alleged.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
EXHIBIT 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.333-122223 and No. 333-148263); and on Form S-8 (No. 333-15947, No. 333-62039, No. 333-92169, No.333-43152, No. 333-63116, No. 333-85244, No. 333-107157, No. 333-128525, No. 333-135122 and No.333-148226) and in the related prospectuses, as applicable, of Aradigm Corporation of our reportdated March 24, 2008, with respect to the financial statements of Aradigm Corporation included inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007./s/ Odenberg Ullakko Muranishi & Co LLPSan Francisco, California
Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-60975) and Form S-8 (File
Nos. 2-91950, 2-93578, 33-18278, 33-29014, 33-39215, 33-56420, 33-53303, 333-51073,
333-93803, 333-93805, 333-47268, and 333-102321) of Mandalay Resort Group of our report dated March 6, 2003 (except for Note 18, as to
which the date is April 2, 2003) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 133,Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, No. 138,Accounting for Certain
Derivative Instruments and Certain Hedging Activitiesan Amendment of FASB Statement No. 133, and No. 142,Goodwill and Other
Intangible Assets), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mandalay Resort Group for the year ended January 31, 2003.

DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP

Las
Vegas, Nevada
April 25, 2003

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit 10.4**

WAIVER AGREEMENT 

WAIVER AGREEMENT dated as of August 27, 2010 (the “Waiver Agreement”), by and among MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation (“MasterCard”) andHEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation (“HPS”). Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meanings as in the Settlement Agreement dated as of May 19, 2010, as amended by amendments datedJuly 2, 2010, July 13, 2010, and August 6, 2010 (the “Settlement Agreement”) by and between MasterCard and HPS. 

WHEREAS, to settle potential claims and resolve other disputes among HPS and its acquiring banks, on the one hand, and MasterCard and certain MasterCard issuers, on the other hand with respect to the HPSIntrusion, HPS and MasterCard entered into the Settlement Agreement; 

WHEREAS, MasterCard has provided HPS with a copy of theNon-Accepting Issuer Awards Report called for by Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement, which demonstrates that the Non-Accepting Issuer Awards Amount is greater than 50% of the Non-Accepting Issuer ARA Amount and that therefore the RulingCondition has not been satisfied; 

WHEREAS, MasterCard and HPS desire to proceed with consummation of the Settlementcontemplated by the Settlement Agreement; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the representations, warranties and covenantsset forth in this Waiver Agreement, and subject to all the terms and conditions of this Waiver Agreement, MasterCard and HPS agree as follows: 

1. RULING CONDITION. MasterCard and HPS hereby waive the Ruling Condition in accordance with Section 10.3 of the Settlement Agreement. 

2. FINANCING CONDITION. MasterCard and HPS hereby waive the Financing Condition in accordance with Section 10.3 of theSettlement Agreement. 

3. MISCELLANEOUS. 

3.1. This Waiver Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute but one and the same instrument. This WaiverAgreement will become effective when this Waiver Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by each party hereto. 

3.2.Except to the extent specifically waived by this Waiver Agreement, the Settlement Agreement shall remain unmodified, and the Settlement Agreement is hereby confirmed as being in full force and effect. 

**[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]**

 
-1-

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,each of the undersigned has executed this Waiver Agreement as an agreement as of August 27, 2010. 

 
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED.
/s/ Wendy Murdock
Wendy MurdockChief Franchise OfficerHEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC.
/s/ Charles H.N. Kallenbach
Charles H.N. KallenbachGeneral Counsel & Chief Legal Officer
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0087 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-SW-029-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. 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 same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. 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 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 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 with 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, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **4 -**  **7594**

ALEXANDER J. HARDNETT , P etitioner

- Appellant ,
v. ED WILSON, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. James R. Spencer , Senior District Judge. ( 3: 13

- cv - 00497

- JRS)

Submitted : March 5, 2015 Decided: March 12, 2015

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Alexander J
. Hardnett, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Alexander J
. Hardnett, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Hardnett leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion for appointment of counsel, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ha rdnett v. Wilson , No. 3:13

- cv - 00497

- JRS (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 6, 2014 ; entered Oct. 7, 2014 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
A FFIRMED
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (1)
    
    the Registrants Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 the Registrant.
  /s/ Michael V. Shustek
  /s/ John Alderfer
 
 41
----

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR**

**RULE      15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                             |                                                                                                                                                          |                                  |
|--------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                        |                                                                                                                                                     |                             |
| Date: May              11, 2007   | By:                                                                                                                                                 | /s/ *Kenneth              Brown* |
|                                             | Kenneth              Brown                                                                                                                                    |
|                                             | Chief                Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial                Officer of Renewable Energy                Resources,                Inc |