alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State, ex rel. Raines, Appellant, *v.*Tobin et al., Board of Elections of Summit County, Appellees.

(No. 28753

Decided July 12, 1941.)

*Messrs. Werner & Lengyel*and *Messrs. Weick S Mason,*for appellant.

*Mr. William A. Spencer,*for appellees.

By the Court.

Appellant filed with the Board of Elections of Summit county his declaration of candidacy for nomination as member of the council of Akron at the primary election to be held on August 12, 1941. He accompanied his declaration with the requisite fee and a petition signed by the required number of electors.

The board of elections rejected the declaration of candidacy for the sole reason that appellant had not signed and subscribed his name in the blank space at the end of the declaration in substantial conformity with the requirements of Section 4785-71, General Code. The appellant had signed his name when sub*469scribing to and acknowledging tbe declaration before a notary public.

Appellant sought a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals to compel the board of elections to print his name on the primary ballot. The cause was heard upon a petition, an answer and a stipulation of facts which recited that the sole question for determination was the sufficiency of the declaration of candidacy and that there had been a compliance with all other requisite matters. The Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, denied a writ of mandamus, holding that the defect in the declaration was not merely technical.

No duty being specially enjoined by law upon the board of elections to place the name of appellant upon the ballot in the absence of a proper declaration of candidacy, the judgment of the Court of Appeals, denying a writ of mandamus, is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Tuertee, Williams, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettmart, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Medivation, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: August 14, 2006



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|/s/ C. Patrick Machado                                  
|Name: C. Patrick Machado                                
|Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
#### Robotis, Appellant, *v.*Both, d. b. a. Alpine Village, Appellee.

(No. 28537

Decided March 19, 1941.)

*Mr. William P. Heyne,*for appellant.

*Mr. H. A. Walts*and *Mr. James Olds,*for appellee.

*174It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1675 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1675

  To promote quality student loan servicing by improving the borrower 
           experience for borrowers of Federal Direct Loans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2017

  Mr. Blunt (for himself, Ms. Warren, Mr. Lankford, and Mrs. Shaheen) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To promote quality student loan servicing by improving the borrower 
           experience for borrowers of Federal Direct Loans.

    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 ``Student Loan Servicer Performance 
Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPETITION IN STUDENT LOAN SERVICING.

    (a) Cancellation of Solicitations.--The Secretary of Education 
shall cancel the Department of Education solicitations for the Federal 
Aid Servicing Solution dated April 4, 2016 and October 26, 2016, 
including any amendments to those solicitations (Solicitation No. ED-
FSA-17-R-0001 et seq).
    (b) Competition in Student Loan Servicing.--Section 456 of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087f) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
    ``(c) Competition in Student Loan Servicing.--
            ``(1) Competition.--As of the date of enactment of the 
        Student Loan Servicer Performance Accountability Act, in order 
        to promote accountability and high-quality services to 
        borrowers, the Secretary shall not issue any contract 
        solicitation for a new Federal student loan servicing solution 
        unless such a solution--
                    ``(A) provides for the participation of multiple 
                student loan servicers that contract directly with the 
                Department of Education; and
                    ``(B) allocates student loan borrower accounts to 
                eligible student loan servicers based on performance.
            ``(2) Prohibition.--The Secretary shall not award a 
        contract to a single servicer to service all Federal Direct 
        Loans.''.
                                 <all>
```
exv10w7



 






EXHIBIT 10.7




Swiss Re








ADDENDUM NO. 2




to the




PROPERTY EXCESS OF LOSS

AGREEMENT OF REINSURANCE

NO. TP1600E,F

(hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”)




between




PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY COMPANY

PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE COMPANY

One Bala Plaza, Suite 100

Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004

(hereinafter referred to as the “Company”)




and




SWISS REINSURANCE AMERICA CORPORATION

Armonk, New York

(hereinafter referred to as the “Reinsurer”)




It is understood and agreed that as respects policies in force at 12:01 a.m., Eastern Standard
Time, January 1, 2005, and new and renewal policies becoming effective on and after said date,
Paragraph A. of Article VIII – Reinsurance Premium is revised to read as follows:





	A.  	The Company shall pay to the Reinsurer a premium for the reinsurance provided under the First
and Second Excess of Loss Layers at a rate set forth below. Such rates shall be applied to
the Company’s Subject Earned Premium for the calendar year under calculation.





	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Rate	 
	First Excess (Accounting Code No. TP1600E)
	 	 	.80	%
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Second Excess (Accounting code No. TP1600F)
	 	 	.84	%






 No. TP1600E, F

Addendum No. 2




 









 








Swiss Re








ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed in duplicate, by
their duly authorized representatives as of the following dates:




In Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, this 21st day of March, 2005




	 	 	 
	Attest:

	 	PHILADELPHIA CONSOLIDATED HOLDING CORPORATION’S
	 
	 	 
	

	 	Following member Companies:
	 
	 	 
	

	 	PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY
	 
	 	 
	

	 	PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE COMPANY






	 	 	 
	Thomas R. Herendeen

	 	Christopher J. Maguire
	 
	 	 
	Vice President

	 	Exec. VP & Chief U/W Officer






And in Armonk, New York, this 9th day of February, 2005.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Attest:	 	SWISS REINSURANCE AMERICA CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Pete Thompson

	 	 	 	Matt Weber
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Vice President

	 	 	 	Senior Vice President






 No. TP1600E, F

Addendum No. 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-119-000]

Take notice that on November 28, 2000, Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 7 and Sixth Revised Sheet No. 48, proposed to be effective January 1, 2001.

Great Lakes states that the tariff sheets described above reflect the revised funding surcharges for the Gas Research Institute (GRI) for the year 2001. These surcharges were approved by the Commission in its letter order issued September 19, 2000, in Docket No. RP00-313-000, in which it also approved GRI's funding for its year 2001 research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) program and its 2001-2005 five-year RD&D plan.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-31425  Filed 12-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00213-CV

BRIAN DAMON WARD,

Appellant

v.

JUDGE DONALD L. KRAEMER, 

12TH DISTRICT COURT AND TDCJ-ID,

Appellees

From the 12th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1728292

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Brian Damon Ward, appeals from a judgment signed by the trial court 

on June 11, 2018. By letter dated July 24, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant 

that the appeal was subject to dismissal because the original filing fee had not been paid 

and warned appellant that the Court would dismiss the appeal unless, within ten days 

from the date of the letter, appellant paid the filing fee or obtained indigent status for the 

purpose of the appeal. Ten days have passed, and appellant has not paid the filing fee 
Ward v. Kraemer, et al. Page 2

for this appeal or obtained indigent status. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss this appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 15, 2018

[CV06]
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 78

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the weeks beginning May 23, 1993,

ices Week’’.and May 15, 1994, as ‘‘Emergency Medical Serv-
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 78

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the weeks beginning May 23, 1993, and May

15, 1994, as ‘‘Emergency Medical Services Week’’.

Whereas emergency medical services is a vital public service;

Whereas access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury;

Whereas efforts to establish emergency medicine as a medical

specialty began 25 years ago with the founding of the

American College of Emergency Physicians in 1968;
2

•HJ 78 EH

Whereas the members of emergency medical services teams

are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in need 24

hours a day, 7 days a week;

Whereas emergency medical services teams consist of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, emergency medical

technicians, paramedics, firefighters, educators, administrators, and others;

Whereas approximately 2⁄3 of all emergency medical services

providers are volunteers;

Whereas the members of emergency medical services teams,

whether career or volunteer, engage in thousands of

hours of specialized training and continuing education to

enhance their lifesaving skills;

Whereas Americans benefit daily from the knowledge and

skills of these highly trained individuals;

Whereas it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical services providers

by designating Emergency Medical Services Week; and

Whereas the designation of Emergency Medical Services

Week will serve to educate all Americans about injury

prevention and how to respond to a medical emergency:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the weeks beginning May 23, 1993, and May 15,

4 1994, are designated as ‘‘Emergency Medical Services

5 Week’’ and the President is authorized and requested to

6 issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United
3

•HJ 78 EH

1 States to observe such weeks with appropriate ceremonies

2 and activities.

Passed the House of Representatives May 25, 1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10602 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JESUS SANCHEZ

- CHACON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 3

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus Sanchez

- Chacon appeals his sentence for illegal re entry following deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). He was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He contends that the enhancement of his sentence pu rsuant to § 1326(b)(1) based on a prior felony conviction, which increased the statutory maximum term s of imprisonment and supervision , is unconstitutional because his prior conviction is treated as

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 5, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10602 Document: 00515404544 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2020No. 19

- 10602

2 a sentencing factor rather than an element of the offense that must be alleged in the indictment and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by him following a proper admonishment

. Sanchez

- Chacon concedes that th is issue is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998) , but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because he asserts there is reason to believe the Court may revisit Almendarez

- Torres

. The Government moves for summary affirmance based on Almendarez

- Torres or, alternatively, f or an extension of time to file a merits brief. The parties are correct that Sanchez

- Chacon ’s argument is clearly foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007)

. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969)

. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED. The judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-10602 Document: 00515404544 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>          0001011888
<NAME>         DIATIDE, INC.
<CURRENCY>     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,246,475
<SECURITIES>                                 7,620,107
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,042,120
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,453,627
<PP&E>                                       3,282,065
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,964,834
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,856,641
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,736,904
<BONDS>                                          7,840
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     12,103
<COMMON>                                        10,573
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,089,221
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,111,897
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,129,801
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,603,511
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 628
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,046,622)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,046,622)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,046,622)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.48)
        

</TABLE>
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 1413 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 062 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

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

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

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

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

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

### Page 2 of 3

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

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

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
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 of Cygnus, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Craig W. Carlson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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. /s/ Craig W. Carlson 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to Cygnus, Inc. and will be retained by Cygnus, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.