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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 441 Referred in House (RFH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 441

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 1995

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To reauthorize appropriations for certain programs under the Indian 
  Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAMS.

    Sections 409(e), 410(h), and 411(i) of the Indian Child Protection 
and Family Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3208(e), 3209(h), and 
3210(i), respectively) are each amended by striking ``and 1995'' and 
inserting ``1995, 1996, and 1997''.

            Passed the Senate April 26 (legislative day, April 24), 
      1995.

            Attest:

                                               SHEILA P. BURKE,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

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.

March 25, 2015

t0318 

# Order

Clerk March 25, 2015

150093

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150093

COA: 322172

Isabella CC: 2013

- 001436

- FH

RICHARD JAMES WEISHUHN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 23, 2014 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
National Advisory Council for

Environmental Policy & Technology 

FINAL 

Agenda 

September 27 - 28, 2010 

The Madison, Loews Hotel 

1177 15th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 862-1600 

Montpelier Room 

Monday, September 27, 2010

8:30 am Registration 

9:00 am Welcoming Remarks and Introductions 

Nancy New 

NACEPT Acting Designated Federal Officer 

Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Acting Director 

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr. 

NACEPT Chair 

9:30 am Discussion of Emerging Technologies and Vulnerable Populations Charge 

Paul Anastas 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development 

Science Advisor to the EPA 

Fred Hauchman 

Director, Office of Science Policy 

Office of Research and Development 

Charles Lee 

Director 

Office of Environmental Justice 

11:15 am Break 
11:30 am Discussion of NACEPT Reports on Commercializing Environmental 

Technologies and EPA’s Response 

Barbara J. Bennett 

Chief Financial Officer

12:30 pm Public Comments 

1:00 pm Lunch 

2:30 pm Overview of Discussion with the Science Advisory Board 

 Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr. 

 NACEPT Chair 

3:45 pm Discussion of Workforce Issues Charge

Nanci Gelb 

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator 

Office of Administration and Resources Management 

 

Raul Soto 

Associate Assistant Administrator 

Outreach, Diversity and Collaboration 

Office of Administration and Resources Management 

 

5:15 pm Public Comments 

5:30 pm Chair’s Summary 

 

 Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr. 

 NACEPT Chair 

5:45 pm ADJOURN 
Tuesday, September 28, 2010

8:30 am Workforce Issues and Vulnerable Populations Workgroups meet in separate, 

concurrent sessions. (Montpelier and Hamilton Rooms) 

9:30 am Remarks by Administrator Lisa P. Jackson (Montpelier Room) 

10:00 am Break 

10:15 am Workforce Issues and Vulnerable Populations Workgroups meet in separate, 

concurrent sessions. (Montpelier and Hamilton Rooms)

12:00 pm NACEPT Plenary Session to discuss Workgroup Charges

1:00 pm Public Comments 

1:15 pm Wrap Up and Next Steps

 

2:00 pm ADJOURN
**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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cytogen Corporation (the
        "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2006 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:
                  March 16, 2007
              /s/
                    Michael D. BeckerMichael
                  D. BeckerPresident
                  and Chief Executive Officer
#### Joe HILLARD, Administrator of the Estate of Beulah Hillard, Deceased, Appellant, v. GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, a Corporation, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 12, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 29, 1961.

Robert F. Stephens, Miller, Griffin, Marks & Stephens, Sturgill, Moreland & Turner, Lexington, for appellant.

Julian Knippenberg, Lexington, for ap-pellee.

*940BIRD, Chief Justice.

It is charged in this action that Beulah Hillard, a patient, died as a result of the negligence of the Good Samaritan Hospital, its agents, servants and employees.

The hospital pleaded what we generally call “charitable immunity.”

The trial court entered the following judgment:

> “This cause coming on for hearing on defendant’s motion for a summary judgment on the basis of charitable immunity and the court having considered the affidavits and depositions filed herein and being advised, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged that said motion be, and the same hereby is, sustained and plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed at plaintiff’s cost to which ruling plaintiff objects.”

The learned trial judge followed the case law of this State as it was written at the time of trial. However, in the case of Ruby Mullikin v. Jewish Hospital Association, Ky., 348 S.W.2d 930, rendered May 5, 1961, we overruled the law upon which he relied and declared that the charitable nature of an institution was not of itself sufficient to clothe it with immunity. See also Gillum v. Good Samaritan Hospital, Ky., 348 S.W.2d 924, rendered May 12, 1961.

We must reverse this case for the same reasons set forth in the Mullikin and Gillum cases.

The judgment is reversed for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

STEWART, J., dissents.
#### The WILLIAM BUCHANAN FOUNDATION (The University of Texas), et al., Petitioners, v. John Ben SHEPPERD, Respondent.

No. A-5568.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 11, 1956.

Black & Stayton, Scott Gaines and Rupert P. Harkrider, Austin, for petitioners.

John Ben Shepperd, Atty. Gen., and W. V. Geppert, Marietta McGregor Payne and William H. Holloway, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

On agreed motion of the parties the judgments of the District Court and Court of Civil Appeals, 283 S.W.2d 325, in the above cause are reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter such orders and decrees and to take such further action as may be required to effectuate the agreement of the parties.

Costs of appeal are assessed against petitioner The William Buchanan Foundation.
#### Vickie BUMPUS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28280.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 25, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The sale of beer in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
# REC .VLL.:

Message Information 2012IUL 1 9I\M 8: 28 Date 07/17/2012 08:31 PM
From KATHY MAULDIN <ckm312@speednet.com > To LisaP Jackson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA kmccomis@cityofbridgeport.net ; bemmons@cityofbridgeport.net ; wmyers@bridgeportedc.com Docket ID No. EPA-HO OAR-2008-0476 OFFICE OF'iHE 

### EXECUTNESECFiEi ARIAT



## Charles & Kathy Mauldin Mauldin Pharmacy, Inc. dba Valu-Rite Pharmacy 709 Woodrow Wilson Ray Circle Bridgeport, TX 76426 (940) 683-2950 Delivery Via E-Mail Jackson.lisa@Epa.gov

Ms. Lisa Jackson Administrator of USEPA USEPA Headquarters 12000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Code: I1OIA Washington, DC 20460

RE: ATTENTION DOCKET ID NO. EPA-HQ_OAR-2008-0476.

RESOLUTION OPPOSITION WITH REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CALL FOR CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION IN THE MATTER OF WISE COUNTY, TEXAS BEING DESIGNATED AS MEMBER OF DALLAS-FORT WORTH (DFW) AREA NAAQS 2012 EIGHT HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA.

Director Jackson:

On behalf of Charles & Kathy Mauldin, Mauldin Pharmacy, Inc. dba Valu-Rite Pharmacy, 709 Woodrow Wilson Ray Circle, Bridgeport, Wise County, Texas, please accept this letter supporting Wise County's request for re-review and reconsideration of your Conclusion Decision to add Wise County to the DFW Area nonattainment designation.Charles & Kathy Mauldin

Mauldin Pharmacy, dba Valu-Rite Pharmacy Bridgeport, Wise Count y , Texas
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-50671 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ALEJANDRO SOSA, JR., Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:10-CR-722-1
Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alejandro Sosa, Jr., pleaded guilty to one c o u n t o f conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana and one count of possession w ith i nt ent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. The district court imposed concurrent 108-month prison terms for these two offenses and ordered the terms to run consecutively to the sentence not yet imposed in Sosa’s pending state case. Sosa now raises arguments that he U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 2 6, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursuant to 5 T H C I R
. 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 T H C I R
. R. 47.5.4. Case: 11-50671 Document: 00512000384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2012No. 11-50671

concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Brown , 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia , 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that a district court has the discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3584 to order a federal sentence to run consecutivel y to a yet-to-be-imposed state sentence. See Setser v. United States , 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1466-73 (2012). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-50671 Document: 00512000384 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2012
#### Phillip GANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28020.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 1, 1956.

No appearance for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for violation of the liquor law, with a prior conviction for a like offense; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $400.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
### The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 96-2463

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Carl Richard McCammon, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

__________ Submitted: October 24, 1996 Filed: October 31, 1996

__________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Carl Richard McCammon challenges his 30-month sentence of imprisonment imposed by the district court afte r 1 McC ammonpleaded guilty to a drug charge. McCammon argues that he i s entitled to a downwar d departure based on his substantial assistance. He als o argues that statements he made to an investigating customs office r should not have been used against him in calculating the amount of drugs attributable to him. The district court properly declined to grant McCammon a substa ntialassistance downward departure absent a motion fr om the government pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. See United States v.

### -2-

Johnigan , 90 F.3d 1332, 1338 (8th Cir. 1996). We conclude the distric t court did not clearly err in determining that, at the time McCammon made the self-incriminating statements to the investigating officer, n o cooperation agreement existed precluding the use of such statements agains t McCammon. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(a), (b)(1); United States v. Sheets , 6 5 F.3d 752, 753 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review); cf. White v. Unite d Sta tes , 998 F.2d 572, 574 (8th Cir. 1993) (no error in using dru g quant ities disclosed eighteen months prior to plea agreement absen t cooperation agreement). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6686
CARL PETER ANTONI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR SAATHOFF, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-649-R) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 21, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Peter Antoni, Appellant Pro Se. Gene Rodney Young, II, WHARTON, ALDHIZER & WEAVER, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Antoni v. Saathoff , No. CA-96-649-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 13, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Bertha Richmond RAWLINGS v. E. C. PORTER, Etc., et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 6, 1959.

Cleon K. Calvert, Pineville, for appellant.

Calvert C. Little, William J. Weaver, London, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves the validity of an attachment obtained by the appellees against property of the nonresident husband of the appellant. We find the attachment proceedings adequately conform to the statutory requirements.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Appellant, v. Ralph Boots RATLIFF et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 18, 1965.

Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., William A. Lamkin, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Edmond H. Tackett, Pikeville, for appellant.

J. Ervin Sanders, Pikeville, for appellees.

PALMORE, Judge.

On February 25, 1958, a truck owned by appellee Ratliff and being driven by his employe, appellee Coleman, struck and damaged a highway bridge. Five years and one day later the state highway department filed this suit against them to recover the cost of repairs occasioned by the accident. It appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered pursuant to a plea of the 5-year statute of limitation, KRS 413.120 (4), which reads as follows:

> “The following actions shall be commenced within five years after the cause of action accrued: * * * (4) An action for trespass on real or personal property.”

The theory on which the state bases this appeal is that subsection (4) of the statute applies only to a technical trespass and not to a negligent wrong. Otherwise, it says, there would be no legislative purpose in subsection (6) of KRS 413.120, which applies the same limitation to an action for “taking, detaining or injuring personal property, including an action for specific recovery.” If this position is correct, the period of limitation on an action for negligent damage to real estate would be ten years, under KRS 413.160, the catch-all statute.

To make a long story short, we do not agree. We are not disposed to haggle over whether one who in using a public highway carelessly but unintentionally drives a vehicle onto a bridge railing commits a common law trespass against the *914state.1 Perhaps the reason for KRS 413.-120(6) is that there is a greater variety in species of personal property, and of ways in which one’s rights can be violated, than is the case with respect to real property. In any event, it is unlikely that there ever was a legislative intent to omit from the statute suits for damages to real estate not sounding strictly in “trespass.” So it is, for example, that the statute has been applied to actions for waste committed by a life tenant, Fisher’s Ex’r v. Haney, 180 Ky. 257, 202 S.W. 495 (1918), and suits for damages resulting from permanent nuisance, Kentucky West Virginia Gas Company v. Matny, Ky., 279 S.W.2d 805 (1955). We now hold categorically that it applies to actions for damages to real property resulting from negligence.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. It is interesting to note, however, that from time immemorial KRS 454.040, which provides that in “actions of trespass the jury may assess joint or several damages against the defendants,” has been held applicable to personal injury actions based on negligence. See Brown Hotel Co. v. Pittsburgh Fuel Co., 311 Ky. 396, 224 S.W.2d 165 (1949).
EXHIBIT 31.4

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael J. Bufano, certify
that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2016 of Panera Bread Company; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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: April 25, 2017 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ MICHAEL J. BUFANO                         
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Michael J. Bufano                             
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT  4.1.  Specimen  Stock  Certificate



              SPECIMEN CERTIFICATE OF COMMON STOCK PAR VALUE $.001

CERTIFICATE NUMBER  __________________        NUMBER OF SHARES  ____________


                              H-NET.NET, INC., INC.
              INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

CUSIP NUMBER


     This  certifies  that  ____________________________  is  the  owner  of
___________________  Fully  Paid  and  Non-Assessable Shares of Common Stock Par
Value  $.001 Per Share, of H-Net.Net, Inc., Inc., Transferable only on the books
of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney
upon  surrender  of  this certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not
valid  unless  countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar.

Witness  the  facsimile  seal of the corporation and the facsimile Signatures of
its  duly  authorized  officers.

Date:


                                [CORPORATE SEAL]



-------------------------                           ----------------------------
       President                                         Secretary


                              COUNTERSIGNED:


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

Transfer Agent and Registrar

Attest:  ___________________
Authorized Signature




                          [REVERSE SIDE OF CERTIFICATE]


                              H-NET.NET, INC., INC.

The Corporation will furnish to any shareholder upon request and Without charge,
a  full  statement  of  the designations, preferences, limitations, and relative
rights  of  the  shares  of  each  class  authorized  to  be  issued and, if the
Corporation is authorized to issue any preferred or special class in series, the
variations  in  the  relative  rights and preferences between the shares or each
such  series  so  far  as  the  same  have  been  fixed and  determined, and the
authority of the board of directors to fix and determine the relative rights and
preferences  of  other  series.


                            [STANDARD TRANSFER FORM]
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-K Annual Report of Mandalay Resort Group (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2002 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, as amended by Amendment #1 on Form 10-K/A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: March 28, 2003 |  | /s/MICHAEL S. ENSIGNMichael S. Ensign
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Operating Officer
of Mandalay Resort Group
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks