alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

A LBERT LEE GREER, SR. , ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21-2193 (UNA) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff , a federal prisoner appearing pro se , sues the United States under the Privacy
Act , 5 U.S.C. § 552a, to compel (1) the U.S. Probation Department in Detroit, Michigan, to correct his presentence investigation report , and (2) the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to “remove all references to ‘Arson Fires’” from his central inmate file . Mot. t o Correct Erron eous Info

. Contained Within Presentence Investigation Report Pursuant to the Provisions o f the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552) (“ Compl aint” ) at 2, ECF No. 1. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis , ECF No. 2, and dismiss this ac tion under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring immediate dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). It is established that “ United States Probation Offices are units of the fede ral courts and therefore are not subject to the Privacy Act.” Ramirez v. Dep ’t of Just ., 594 F. Supp. 2d 58, 62 (D.D.C. 2009), aff'd sub nom. Ramirez v. U.S. Dep't of Just ., No. 10-5016, 2010 WL 4340408 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 19, 2010) (citing cases)). And although the Privacy Act generally “ gives an individual the right to request amendment of his records” maintained by an Executive branch2 agency, BOP has properly exempted its “ inmate records systems ,” including those containing
prese ntence reports , “ from the amendment provisions of the Act. ” White v. U.S. Prob. Off ., 148 F.3d 1124, 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d) ; 28 C.F.R. § 16.97(a) (other citations omitted))

. Consequently , Plaintiff “ is barred from seeking amendment of his presentence report ” via the Privacy Act. Id

. ; see accord Lane v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 442 F. App ’ x 578 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“ The Bureau of Prisons has exempted its inmate records systems from the Privacy Act ’ s accuracy and amendment provisions. ”) (citations omitted)). A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

_________/s/___________ EMMET G. SULLIVAN Date: August 24 , 202 1 United States District Judge
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

THE COAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC. 

 

Annual Report on Form 10-K 

for the Year endedDecember 31, 2002 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 

 

The undersigned, who is the ChiefFinancial Officer of The Coast Distribution System, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Annual Report”), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: March 28, 2003
Exhibit 31.2

            PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Linda L. Perry, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Wings & Things,
Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.


                                /s/ Linda L. Perry
Dated: August 4, 2004           ____________________________________________
                                Linda L. Perry, Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 32(ii)

                               COMM BANCORP, INC.

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Comm Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Scott A. Seasock, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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
      at the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

Date: March 16, 2005                            /s/ Scott A. Seasock
                                                ----------------------------
                                                Scott A. Seasock
                                                Executive Vice President and
                                                Chief Financial Officer

A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

                                      193
EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
First Financial Bancorp:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-40954 and 333-29201) on Form S-8 of First Financial Bancorp of our report
dated February 21, 2004, except for Note 25 which is as of March 25, 2004,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of First Financial Bancorp and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003,
which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of
First Financial Bancorp. Such report reflects the adoption of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,
under the prospective method of adoption as of January 1, 2003.


                                            /s/ KPMG LLP


Sacramento, California
April 12, 2004




                                       86
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1702 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1702

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the mortgage 
 interest deduction with respect to boats only if the boat is used as 
                the principal residence of the taxpayer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2011

   Mr. Quigley (for himself, Mr. Walz of Minnesota, and Mr. Peters) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the mortgage 
 interest deduction with respect to boats only if the boat is used as 
                the principal residence of the taxpayer.

    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 ``Ending Taxpayer Subsidies for Yachts 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION ALLOWED WITH RESPECT TO BOATS ONLY 
              IF BOAT IS USED AS THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE OF THE 
              TAXPAYER.

    (a) In General.--Subclause (ii) of section 163(h)(4)(A) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``(other than a 
boat)'' after ``1 other residence of the taxpayer''.
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The amendment made by this section shall 
        apply to indebtedness incurred after the date of the enactment 
        of this Act.
            (2) Special rule for refinancings.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, indebtedness resulting from the refinancing of 
        indebtedness shall be treated as incurred on the date the 
        refinanced indebtedness was incurred (taking into account the 
        application of this paragraph in the case of multiple 
        refinancings) but only to the extent the indebtedness resulting 
        from such refinancing does not exceed the refinanced 
        indebtedness.
                                 <all>
```
#### MATTIE BELL *v.*U.S. HOMECARE CORPORATION OF CONNECTICUT ET AL.

(14753)

Foti, Heiman and Schaller, Js.

Submitted on briefs February 13

decision released March 5, 1996

*Joelle C. Newton*filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Jason M. Dodge*filed a brief for the appellees (defendants).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### ANNETTE THOMAS *v.*WALKER S. THOMAS

(14369)

Dupont, C. J., and Lavery and Hennessy, Js.

Argued February 22

decision released March 26, 1996

*943
      *WalkerS. Thomas,*pro se, the appellant (defendant).

*Sean Orion LeBas,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12827-12828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03503]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11:30 a.m. EST, Wednesday, February 28, 2024.

PLACE: CFTC headquarters office, Washington, DC.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Matters relating to the selection of a 
candidate to serve as the Inspector General of the Commission. In the 
event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an 
announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,

[[Page 12828]]

and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website 
at https://www.cftc.gov/.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-
5964.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: February 15, 2024.
Robert Sidman,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-03503 Filed 2-15-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7093

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

OTIS SALLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-96-17, CA-98-3612-5)

Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Otis Salley, Appellant Pro Se. Cameron Glenn Chandler, Assistant

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Otis Salley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Salley, Nos. CR-97-17; CA-98-3612-5

(D.S.C. July 22, 1999). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 4.3


 


Summary of Lease Agreement by and
among Tefen Yazamut Ltd. and Medigus Ltd.


 


Note: this summary does not contain
a full or direct translation of the terms of the original Hebrew-language lease agreement, and is designated solely for the purpose
of providing a general presentation of such agreement.


 


On January 6, 2004, Tefen Yazamut Ltd. (the
“Lessor”) and Medigus Ltd. (the “Company”) entered into a lease agreement, as amended from
time to time, as further elaborated below.


 


		1.	Leased Premises:


 


Certain areas in building
number 7A located in the Omer Industrial Park.


 


Total square meters
of leased premises: approximately 807.


 


		2.	Term of Lease:


 


The premises are currently leased
until December 31, 2019.


 


		3.	Purpose of the Lease:


 


The premises are to be used
by the Company for the purpose of offices, laboratories and clean rooms.


 


		4.	Consideration:


 


In consideration for the leased
premises the Company will pay Lessor a total amount of NIS 24,670 + VAT, per month, linked to the Israeli consumer price index.
The consideration shall be paid by the Company on a monthly basis.


 


The Company has provided the
Lessor a deposit in the amount of NIS 45,000 for the purpose of guaranteeing its financial obligations under the lease agreement.


 


		5.	Termination of the
Lease Agreement:


 


The Lessor may immediately terminate
the lease agreement upon: (i) the transfer or assignment of the Company’s rights in the premises to a third party contrary
to the terms and conditions stipulated in the lease agreement; or (ii) the Company’s failure to pay any due amount to the
Lessor within thirty (30) days of its due date; or (iii) use of the premises for purposes others than those stipulated in the agreement;
or (iv) the Company creates a nuisance that may disturb the surrounding businesses.


 


		6.	Liability for Injury,
Damage or Loss:


 


		(a)	The Company shall be
liable for any injury, damage or loss caused by its act or omission in, or in connection with, the premises, to the body or property
of any person or corporation, including to the Company or its employees or the Lessor or any other party.


 


		(b)	The Company shall be
liable and indemnify its employees or any other party for the damages, losses or expenses incurred by them due to injuries caused
in relation with the Company’s activities in the premises and the Lessor shall not be liable for any such damages losses
or expenses.


 


		7.	Insurance and Indemnity:


 


The Company shall maintain such
standard practice insurance policies as required by any applicable law and as customary with respect to the Company’s operations.
MORRIS AERIAL IMAGERY, LLC

PRE-FLIGHT CHECKLIST* 

HULL AND PROPELLORS 

All hull screws are securely fastened to the body of the UAS.

All propellers are securely fastened to the motors.

Transmitters and accompanying wires are securely fastened to the hull.

Camera(s), gimbal(s), and accompanying wires are securely fastened to the hull.

There are no loose parts, wires, screws, or extremities that can fall from the UAS.

Operators Notes: 

SAFETY CHECK 

The operator performed a visual review of the area of operation.

The operator is aware of aerial obstructions (i.e., poles, structures, utility wires, trees).

The operator is not within 3-miles of an airport.

The operator clearly marked a take-off/landing zone with 4 orange caution cones.

The operator has clearly announced that a UAS is preparing for flight.

The operator has ensured no persons or animals are near the caution zone.

Weather permits the safe operation of the UAS (i.e., little to no wind, no precipitation,

If working in pairs, the second operator has a pair of binoculars to maintain line of sight 

Operators Notes: 

POWER TO SYSTEM

The battery being placed into the UAS has a full capacity charge.

The batteries inside the RC controller have a sufficient charge.

There is a spare UAS battery with a full charge.

There are spare batteries for the RC controller with a full charge.

The UAS battery is securely fastened within the UAS hull

The UAS powers up completely indicating a normal audible chime of operability.

All lights on the UAS are operating normally.

Operators Notes: 

RC/WIFI/FPV CONNECTIVITY 

There is a steady connection between the RC controller and the UAS.

There is a steady connection between the video transmitter and the FPV receiver.

The UAS is responding accurately and efficiently to RC commands.

Video equipment is responding accurately and efficiently to FPV commands.

FPV OSD is operational.

RC Controller is set to GPS and HL and CL modes are both turned off. 

Operators Notes:

SATELLITE CONNECTIVITY 

UAS is indicating full satellite/GPS connectivity.

UAS has set the “home” location.

Following take-off, UAS successfully completes a 10-second unassisted hover. 

Operators Notes:

UAS

Operator’s Signature: ___________________________ Date: ____________________

* All UAS Operators must perform this pre-flight checklist prior to every respective flight.
**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**

| Date: November              14, 2007                                                                                                                                                                                      |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |   |   |   |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |   |   |   |
| By: /s/              David A. Gestetner                                                                                                                                                                                        |   |   |        |
| Name: David                A. Gestetner                                                                                                                                                                                        |   |   |        |
| Title: President,                Chief Executive Officer, Secretary,                  and Chairman of the Board                 (Principal Executive, Financial,                  and Accounting Officer)  |   |        |

----
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 31, 2013 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00613-CV
CARL LOCKRIDGE, Appellant V. SHARON LARKIN, Appellee
On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-00017a

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis Opinion by Chief Justice Wright By notice dated May 1, 2013, the Court directed appellant to pay the $175 filing fee for
the appeal within ten days. We warned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of
the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c). To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided
documentation showing he is entitled to proceed without payment of th e fee, or communicated
with the Court regarding the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

130613F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

CARL LOCKRIDGE, Appellant

No. 05-13-00613-CV V.

SHARON LARKIN, Appellee On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-00017a. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, Justices Lang-Miers a nd Lewis participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We ORDER that appellee Sharon Larkin recover her costs of this appeal, if any, from appellant Carl Lockridge.

Judgment entered July 31, 2013

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE