alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA
Tilmon Rufus P artin, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 12-0829 ( UNA) ) Eric Holde r, U.S. Attorney Gene ral, )

) Def endant. )

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON This matter is befor e the Court on re view of pla intiff’s pro se complaint and application to proce ed in forma pauperis . The a pplication will be g rante d and the c omplaint will be dismiss ed pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1915A (re quiring dismiss al of a prisoner’ s complaint upon a deter mination that the complaint fails to state a c laim upon which re lief may be g rante d). Plaintiff is an inmate at the United States Penitentiar y Hazelton in Bruc eton Mills, W est Virg inia, suing unde r Bivens v . Six Unknown Named A gents of Federal Bure au of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), to cha lleng e the c onstitut ionality of the statutes unde r which he was c onvicted. The g rava men of the c omplaint is t hat the sente ncingcourt, the United States District Court for the Easter n District of Ke ntucky , lacke d jurisdiction over plaintiff’s c riminal prosec ution. Be cause the succ ess of plaintiff’ s claim would nec essar ily void his conviction, plaintiff cannot r ecove r monetar

y damag es, which is the only available reme dy

under Bivens , without first showing that he has inva lidated the convic tion by “re vers[al] on direct appe al, expunge [m ent] by executive orde r, dec lar[ation of invalidity ] by a state tribuna l authorized to make such deter mination, or . . . a fe dera l court’s issuanc e of a writ of habe as cor

pus.” Hec k v. H

umphrey ,512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); see, e .g., Taylor v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 ( D.C.

Cir. 1952) (statingthat a motion to vacate under 28 U .S.C. § 2255 i s the proper vehicle f or challeng ing the constitutionalit y of a statute unde r which a defe ndant is convicted) ; Ojo v. I.N.S. , 106 F.3d 680, 683 ( 5 Cir. 1997) (explaining that the se ntencingcourt is the only court with t h jurisdiction to hear a

defe ndant’s complaint re g ardingerr ors that occ urre d befor e or dur ing sentenc ing)
. Plaintiff has not shown the invalidation of his conviction and, thus, has f ailed to state a claim upon which r elief c an be grante d under Bivens . A sepa rate Orde r of dismissal acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
SI GNED: EL L EN S. HUVEL L E United States District J udg e Date: June 18, 2012

.

2
# AGENCY:

 Department of Transportation, FAA.

# ACTION:

 Notice of submission deadline.

# SUMMARY:

 On October 1, 1999, the FAA amended the regulations governing takeoff and landing slots and slot allocation procedures at certain High Density Traffic Airports as a result of the “Open Transborder” Agreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada. One element of this final rule established that the deadline for submission of requests for international slots will be published in a Federal Register notice for each scheduling season. The purpose of the amendment is for the FAA deadline for international slots requests to coincide with the International Air Transport Association deadline for submission of international requests. In accordance with this amendment, the FAA announces in this notice that the deadline for submitting requests for international slots for allocation under 14 CFR 93.217 is May 10, 2000.

# DATES:

 Requests for international slots must be submitted no later than May 10, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

 Requests may be submitted by mail to Slot Administration Office, AGC-230, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile: 202-267-7668; ARING: DCAYAXD; email address: 9-A WA-slotadmin@faa.gov.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Lorelei D. Peter, Airspace and Air Traffic Law Branch, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone number: 202-267-3073.

Issued in Washington, DC on February 3, 2000.

James W. Whitlow,

Deputy Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00-2957 Filed 2-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated September 24, 2015, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-206334) of Smart Trust,
NASDAQ International Dividend Achievers Index Trust, Series 6.


 


	 	/s/
    Grant Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


September 24, 2015
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Brown, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered February 1, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

To sustain a conviction for robbery in the second degree based upon accessorial liability, the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted with the mental culpability necessary to commit the crime charged and that, in furtherance thereof, he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided the principal to commit such crime *(see,*Penal Law § 20.00; *People v La Belle,*18 NY2d 405; *People v Taylor,*141 AD2d 581; *Matter of John G.,*118 AD2d 646; *People v Hayes,*117 AD2d 621).

The evidence adduced at trial through the victim’s testimony was that the defendant grabbed the victim and dragged him around the corner and beat him about the face resulting in a broken jaw. While hitting the victim, the defendant unzipped the victim’s jacket, while a second unapprehended man held a gun to the victim’s back and stripped him of his belongings. Because a rational trier of fact would have been warranted in crediting the testimony of the victim and because the testimony adduced at trial was more than sufficient to establish the elements of robbery in the second degree, there is no basis for disturbing the verdict *(see, People v Mustafa,*132 AD2d 628, 629; *People v Molina,*127 AD2d 796, 797).

Furthermore, defendant’s contention that he did not share in the other man’s intent to commit a robbery, but intended only to assault the victim was discredited by the jury *(see,*
      *565
      *People v Raphael,*134 AD2d 535). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,490
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,661
<PP&E>                                       1,020,948
<DEPRECIATION>                               (222,706)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 960,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,664,376
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,803
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,716,840)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   960,339
<SALES>                                          6,271
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,271
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,452,321
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   162
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             340,716
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,774,827)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,774,827)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,774,827)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
#### LINDEN LUMBER CO. v. JOHNSTON.

Nos. 13880, 13939.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

April 5, 1940.

Newland, Cornett & Whitworth, of Linden, and Mayo W. Neyland, of Greenville, for appellant.

Herbert Marshall, of Dallas, for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

This appellee has filed a motion before us in general statutory language, saying that he is a pauper and unable to pay the costs or any part thereof, or to give security therefor.

The motion is contested and our attention called to the sworn testimony of this litigant, on the trial of the'cause, in which he testified that he is agent for the “Sante Fe” Railroad at Farmersville, Texas, and has been such for 21 years, and that his salary is $248 per month.

We do not think the litigant is a pauper and are of opinion that he cannot take advantage of any statute enuring to the benefit of a pauper.

The' motion is overruled.
# Official Journal C 379/19 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 379 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6119 October 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 379

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6119 October 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 379/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2018/C 379/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  ) | 7 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 379/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

2018/C 379/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  )

2

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty.

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 136 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 136

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS TO CELEBRATE CITIZENSHIP DAY.

    (a) In General.--The National Korean American Service and Education 
Consortium (in this resolution referred to as the ``sponsor'') shall be 
permitted to 

              

sponsor a public event (in this resolution referred to as the 
``event'') on the Capitol Grounds to celebrate Citizenship Day.
    (b) Date of Event.--The event shall be held on September 17, 2009, 
or on such other day as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate jointly 
designate.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--Under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, the event shall be--
            (1) free of admission charge and open to the public; and
            (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress.
    (b) Expenses and Liabilities.--The sponsor shall assume full 
responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all 
activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

     Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the 
sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, 
sound amplification devices, and other related structures and equipment 
as may be required for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

     The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 9, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 136

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for a celebration of 
                            Citizenship Day.
```
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 20

- 00064

- CV

IN RE MISTY STUTSMAN

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### ME MORANDU M OP IN ION In this original proceeding, Misty Stutsman has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting th is Court to compel the trial court to vacate its order granting real party in interest Cameron J. Peoples’ s motion to sever. We conclude that St utsm an ’s petition is not authenticated as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. As a result, we deny Stutsman’s request
for relief. Rule 52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides , “ The person filing the petition must cert ify tha t he or she has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent eviden ce included in the appendix or record. ”
T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.3(j). Counsel’s certification attached to Stutsman’s petitio n pr o vi des , “I hereby certify that all factual statements made by me in the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are true and correct.” Because Stutsman has failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure by certif ying that the factual statements contained in the petition are supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record, the certification is defecti ve . See In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding); see also In re Jimenez , N o . 14

- 20

- 00387

- CV , 2020 WL 3 527550 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] June 30, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Williams , No. 05

- 20

- 00403

- CV , 2020 WL 2510 192, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas May 15, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re N orman , No. 01

- 10

- 00915

- CV , 2011 WL 286159 , at * 1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 27, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).3

Because we conclude that Stutsman’s petition is not authenticated as required by Rule 52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appella te P roc edure, we deny the petition for writ of manda mus.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: September 17 , 2020 Date Decided: September 18 , 2020
**Department of the Treasury**

**Mentor-Protégé Program**

**Protégé Post Completion Report**

The Department of the Treasury Mentor-Protégé Program (MPP) Post Completion Report is designed to follow up with Protégé firms to assess the progress of Protégé firms 12 months after exiting the MPP.  In accordance with the Mentor-Protégé reporting requirement, it is our intent to assess the success/growth of the Protégé firm after completing developmental and/or contracts resulting from the Mentor-Protégé Agreement. We would also like to identify “Lessons Learned” that benefited participating Protégé firms. This is also an opportunity for Protégé firms to provide suggestions for future implementation.  Please complete this report and return it to the Mentor-Protégé Program Manager via e-mail  at Brian.watson@treasury.gov within 30 business days upon receipt.  Please reference Protégé Post Completion Report in the subject line.of the Email.

MENTOR-PROTÉGÉ INFORMATION

Mentor-Protégé Agreement Term:

Mentor Firm:		Protégé Firm:	

Contact Person:	Contact Person:

Telephone Number:	Telephone Number:

Address:	Address:

E-Mail Address	E-Mail Address:

1.	Overall, how would you rate the relationship with the Mentor Firm?  (5 considered the highest):  

5	4	3	2	1:  Please provide comments:

2.	**Developmental Assistance****Received (**check all that apply and describe benefit received):

· Technical

· Managerial

· Financial

· Business Development

· Temporary Assignment of Personnel

· Use of Space/Equipment

· Other____________________

        Overall, describe how your company’s capabilities have enhanced as a result of the MMP:

   3.  **Outreach and Communications:**

· Jointly participated in outreach programs or tradeshows with Mentor (list major events)

· Did your Mentor hold progress meetings?  

Frequency: ___Monthly   ___Quarterly   ___Annual

· Did you have a point of contact at the Mentor firm that you communicated with on a regular basis?

**4.  Contract Awards** – Please check all that apply (list Treasury Bureau, contract number, month/year     of award, brief description, and contract value):

· List any sub-contracts awarded by the Mentor firm under  this MPP:

Did you have an opportunity to participate in proposal preparations and/or negotiations?

___Yes   ___No

Did you participate in Treasury meetings with the Mentor?  ___Yes   ___No

· List any prime contracts awarded to the Protégé firm under this MPP:

· Did the Mentor award any sub-contracts to you at another Federal Agency? 

___Yes   ___No

**5.  Protégé Firm Growth** – Please indicate the number of employees and annual revenue:

6.   Was this a meaningful Mentor-Protégé Agreement?  Yes	No   (Please elaborate below):

7.	Provide any suggestions you believe will benefit current/future Protégé firms:

8.  **LESSONS LEARNED**:  Please provide a brief comment.

**www.treasury.gov/osdbu**

May 2022

# image1.png

# image2.png
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1227 

To waive the time limitations specified by law for the award of certain 

military decorations in order to allow the posthumous award of the 

Medal of Honor to Doris Miller for actions while a member of the 

Navy during World War II. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2009 

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Mr. MEEK of Florida, 

Mr. RUSH, Mr. SESTAK, Mr. WATT, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mrs. 

CHRISTENSEN, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. EDWARDS of 

Texas, Mr. FILNER, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. 

KAPTUR, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. SUTTON, and Ms. WATSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To waive the time limitations specified by law for the award 

of certain military decorations in order to allow the posthumous award of the Medal of Honor to Doris Miller 

for actions while a member of the Navy during World 

War II. 

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


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1227 IH

1 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS ON AWARD OF 

2 MEDAL OF HONOR TO DORIS MILLER FOR 

3 VALOR AS A MEMBER OF THE NAVY DURING 

4 WORLD WAR II. 

5 The time limitations specified in sections 6248(a) and 

6 6250 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply with 

7 respect to the posthumous award of the Medal of Honor 

8 under section 6241 of such title to Doris Miller (service 

9 number 356–12–35) for acts of heroism during World 

10 War II while a member of the United States Navy. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 of HIDALGO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 5th day of

February, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Elsa Housing Authority, Appellant,

v.

Rosa Saenz Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00519-CV (Tr.Ct.No. CL-12-0253-E)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal,

concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in

accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are taxed against the party incurring same.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 25th day of March, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY
Exhibit 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT
                        --------------------------------

I,  Mair  Faibish,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  Synergy  Brands,  Inc.  ("the
Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         1.   The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended
              December  31,  2005  ("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 or 78o(d)); and

         2.   The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
              material  respects,   the  financial   condition  and  results  of
              operations of the Company.

Dated: March 30, 2006

                                             /s/ Mair Faibish
                                             --------------------
                                                 Mair Faibish
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
Compensation Committee - T. Herring





Exhibit
10.11.2 

 

 



BASE
SALARY INCREASE - TERRELL G. HERRING




 

 

As
determined by the Compensation Committee, Terrell G. Herring's salary, effective
March 9, 2005, was increased to $350,000 for his promotion to President and COO,
Ventiv Commercial Services.
#### Homer ASHLEY v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 2132.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

July 8, 1940.

Shuteran & Robinson, of Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Thomas J. Morrissey, U. S. Atty., of Denver, Colo., for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed, on motion of appellant
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Manly DILLARD, Appellee.

No. 4559.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 2, 1940.

Sterling Hutcheson, U. S. Atty., of Richmond, Va., for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Case docketed and dismissed on motion of appellant. Order filed.