alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GEORGE W. SWEPSON v. JOSIAH TURNER.

*Officers of State*— *Salaries exempt from attachment.*

The salaries of the officers and the pay of the employees of the State are not subject to any judicial process at the instance of creditors.

Civil ActioN, tried at June Term, 1876, of Wake Superior Court, before Watts, *J.*

The plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant for $1,368. An execution was issued and returned *nulla bona.*Thereupon a Supplemental Proceeding was instituted and the judgment debtor ordered to appear before E. R. *116Stamps, Esq., who had been appointed Referee by the Court-On the 25th of November, 1876, the Referee reported that the amount due the defendant by the State for services rendered. as .Public Printer was about-$500-and that several hundred dollars additional would be due on the 17th day of December, 1876, at which time the conti set, entered into between the State and defendant, would'expire. Upon the-return of the report, Ilis Honor made an order appointing-G. Rosenthal, Receiver of the funds mentioned therein, and. on the 9th of January, 1877, the defendant moved to vacate; said order, which motion was overruled and the defendant appealed to this Court

*Messrs. Merrimon, Fuller*Ashe, for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Moore ¿j- Gatling*and *■Badger jDevereux,*for defendant.

Read®, J.-

The salaries of the officers and the pay of the; employees of the government, are to enable them to serve; the government. And their expectations pr their rights-, against the government for payment for services rendered orto be rendered, are not subject to any judicial process at the instance of their creditors. This is so from public policy,, else it might be in the power of creditors to embarrass the; government. This is so manifest and so well supported by-authorities that it is unnecessary to elaborate it. *Buchanan*v. *Alexander,*4 How. U. S. R. 20. *Bliss*v. *Lawrence,*58 N. Y. 445. *Bank of Tennessee*v. *Debrell,*3 Sneed, 379. *Buckly*v. Eckert, 3 Penn. 368.

There is error. This -will be certified.

Pee, Cueiam. Judgment reversed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 194 (Saturday, January 3, 2009)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D1340]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
(Committees not listed did not meet)
  No committee meetings were held.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE, WHICH HAS BEEN RESTATED FOR SFAS 128, CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN PART I, ITEM 1
OF 1997 QUARTERLY REPORTS ON FORM 10-Q, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             240                     265
<SECURITIES>                                       134                     122
<RECEIVABLES>                                      115                     138
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1                       1
<INVENTORY>                                         39                      37
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   557                     587
<PP&E>                                             412                     420
<DEPRECIATION>                                     106                     112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,639                   1,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               65                      52
<BONDS>                                            887                     892
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             1                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                         612                     647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,639                   1,666
<SALES>                                             28                      64
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   106                     224
<CGS>                                               20                      43
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       55                     118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14                      28
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     42                      85
<INCOME-TAX>                                        16                      32
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 26                      53
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                        26                      53
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31                     .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30                     .60


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Polymer Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended July 3, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Willis C. Moore III,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 16, 2004 | /s/ Willis C. Moore, III                           |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Willis C. Moore, III*Chief Financial Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7596

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MICHELLE M. HOLT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 4:18

- cr - 00093

- RAJ

- RJK

- 1 )

Submitted : May 27, 2021 Decided: June 3, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

. Michelle M. Holt, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM : Michelle Marie Holt filed a motion for compassionate release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), in the district court. The court denied her motion on July 7, 2020. On October 5, Holt filed an “expedited motion for compassionate release.” The court construed her motion as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for rec onsideration of its July 7 order, and, after the court denied the motion, Holt appealed. For the reasons that follow,

we affirm

. On appeal, Holt asserts that the district court erred in construing her motion as a motion for reconsideration of its July 7 o rder rather than a renewed motion for compassionate release. We agree. “ [T] he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to motions under § 3582,” because § 3582 motions are “criminal in nature.” United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233, 235 n.* (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the court erred in construing Holt’s motion under a rule of civil procedure. And there is no prohibition against successive § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions, so the district court could properly have considered the October 5 motion as a new request for compassionate release. However, we conclude that th e error did not prejudice Holt. Hol t’s October 5 motion failed to demonstrate any change in Holt’s situation that could have altered the court’s reasons for denying her initial motion.3 We therefore affirm the district court’s order and deny Holt’s motions for default judgment and miscellaneous relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIR MED
TS-AMID30

Attachment #5

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 2 

Worker/Occupational Exposure Information on the New Chemical Substances at 

Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter – Manufacture and Processing
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 42 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 42

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted 
   the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. 
                                 Valeo.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2017

Ms. Kaptur (for herself, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Ms. Norton, Mr. Sean 
Patrick Maloney of New York, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Higgins of New York, Ms. 
 Schakowsky, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Soto, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Slaughter, and 
 Mr. Raskin) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted 
   the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. 
                                 Valeo.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted 
the First Amendment to the Constitution in its decision in the 1976 
case of Buckley v. Valeo because--
            (1) the decision failed to recognize that the unlimited 
        spending of large amounts of money on elections has a corrosive 
        effect on the electoral process not simply because of direct 
        transactions between those who give large amounts of money and 
        candidates and elected officials but because the presence of 
        unlimited amounts of money corrupts the process on a more 
        fundamental level; and
            (2) the decision failed to recognize other legitimate State 
        interests which justify limiting money in campaigns, including 
        the need to preserve the integrity of our republican form of 
        government, restore public confidence in government, and ensure 
        all citizens a more equal opportunity to participate in the 
        political process.
                                 <all>
```
#### Grover, Executor, Respondent, vs. Flug, imp., Appellant.

*April 29*

June *4, 1929.*

*114For the appellant Flug there was a brief by *Dean & Dean*of Glenwood City, and oral argument by *H. H. Dean.*

For the respondent Woodbury F. Grover the cause was submitted on the brief of *Chas. A. Taylor*of Barron.

For the respondent M. Grover the cause was submitted on the brief of *Coe Brothers*of Barron.

Rosenberry, C. J.

We shall not incumber the record by a long recital of the facts in this case nor a detailed statement of the arguments made in support of them. The position of the parties is indicated in the statement of facts already made, and we shall do no more than to say in reference thereto that the findings are sustained by the evidence in the case.

With reference to the contention made by the defendant Flug that it was the duty of the executor to offset the claim in this case against the share of M. Grover in the estate of his father and that such offset would amount to a discharge, there are two sufficient answers. In the first place, the matter of offset is a matter between the legatee and the executor and one in which the defendant Flug has no interest under the facts in this case. The liability of M. Grover to the plaintiff is that of an indorser, and if the executor can collect this note from those originally liable thereon, it may well be, as between>Ium and M. Grover, it is his duty to do so. Second, it further appears that the amount which M. Grover has received by way of advancements and with which he is chargeable under the will of his father is considerably in excess of any amount which he may be entitled to receive as legatee. Under such circumstances there can be no question that Flug cannot compel an offset for his own rather *115than for the advantage of the estate of the person who became a purchaser for value of the instrument in question.

This matter was before us in *Will of Grover,*197 Wis. 347, 222 N. W. 228, but the considerations here urged were not brought to the attention of the court. It is considered that the court was guilty of no abuse of discretion in reviving the action in the name of the executor.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2327

___________ John J. Kenny; Nicholson Kenny * Capital Management, * * Petitioners, * Petition for Review From * an Order of the Securities v. * and Exchange Commission. * Securities and Exchange Commission, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: January 12, 2004 Filed: January 23, 2004

___________ Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) found John J. Kenny, an account representative for a brokerage firm, violated antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by misrepresenting material facts to two individual investors and by aiding and abetting schemes to defraud two insurance companies. The SEC also found Kenny and his registered investment advisory firm, Nicholson Kenny Capital Management (NKCM), breached their fiduciary duty to one of the insurance companies by failing to disclose a conflict of interest. Based on the findings, the SEC imposed sanctions on Kenny and NKCM. Kenny and NKCM petition for review.-2- Kenny and NKCM first argue the SEC committed error in finding that they committed fraud, aiding and abetting, and breach of fiduciary duty violations of the securities laws. We reject these contentions because we are satisfied the agency’s findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence on the administrative record as a whole. Kenny and NKCM next challenge the SEC’s decision to bar Kenny from association with any broker, dealer, or investment adviser and to revoke NKCM’s registration as an investment adviser. Applying the factors articulated in Steadman v. SEC , 603 F.2d 1126, 1140 (5th Cir. 1979), aff’d on other grounds , 450 U.S. 91 (1981), the SEC concluded these sanctions are in the public interest because the multiple violations were “egregious,” because Kenny by his conduct “shows no appreciation of the responsibilities of a securities professional,” and because “Kenny’s continued involvement in the securities business presents opportunities for future violations.” The sanctions are harsh. But after careful review of the record, we conclude the SEC articulated compelling reasons for imposing them and therefore did not abuse its substantial discretion to choose appropriate sanctions. See Lowry v. SEC , 340 F.3d 501, 504-07 (8th Cir. 2003); Rizek v. SEC , 215 F.3d 157, 160-63 (1st Cir. 2000). We reject petitioners’ additional arguments for the reasons stated in the SEC’s opinion and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
United States of America 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

 1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor 

 Washington, DC 20036-3457 

SECRETARY OF LABOR, 

Complainant, 

v. OSHRC Docket No. 09-0035 

ALLSTATE SERVICES, LTD., d/b/a A&R 

DEMOLITION, 

Respondent. 

BRIEFING NOTICE 

The Commission requests that the parties brief the following issue with respect to 

Citation 1, Item 2: 

Did the judge err in affirming Respondent’s alleged failure to provide interim 

protection under the Lead in Construction standard in violation of 

29 C.F.R. § 1926.62(d)(2)(v)? In briefing this issue, the parties are asked to 

discuss the meaning of the term “cutting” in 29 C.F.R. § 1926.62(d)(2)(iv) in light 

of (1) the preamble to the Lead in Construction standard; (2) the document 

entitled “Protective Work Practices for Lead-Based Paint Abatement” in the 

standard’s rulemaking docket; and (3) the OSHA technical manual, TED 

01-00-015. Cf. Bianchi Trison Corp., 409 F.3d 196, 202 (3d Cir. 2005), aff’g, 

20 BNA OSHC 1801 (No. 01-1367, 2004) (consolidated) (ALJ) (noting 

difference between torch cutting and mechanical shearing). 

The parties are advised that when the merits or characterization of an item are before the 

Commission for review, the appropriateness of the penalty is also subject to review. 

Accordingly, the parties may address the amount of the penalty if they so choose. 

 All briefs are to be filed in accordance with Commission Rule 93.1

 The first brief is to be 

filed within 40 days of this notice. A party who does not intend to file a brief must notify the 

Commission in writing setting forth the reason therefore within the applicable time for filing 

 

1

 The Commission requests that all briefs include an alphabetical table of authorities with 

references to the pages on which they are cited, and that an asterisk be placed in the left-hand 

margin of the table to indicate those authorities on which the brief principally relies. The 

Commission also requests that copies of cited authority, other than statutes, case law, law journal 

articles and legal treatises, be provided to the Commission and to the opposing party. Parties 

should be cautioned that these materials will be considered only if appropriate. 
briefs, and shall serve a copy on all other parties. The time for filing briefs (or similar notices of 

intent) of opposing parties shall commence on the date of service. 

 

BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION 

Dated: January 6, 2010 /s/ 

Ray H. Darling, Jr. 

 Executive Secretary
# Official Journal L 263/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 263 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5929 September 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 263

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5929 September 2016

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1702 of 18 August 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 as regards templates and instructions (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1702 of 18 August 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 as regards templates and instructions (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**ALLIED
      SECURITY INNOVATIONS, INC.**





**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 Quarterly Report of Allied Security Innovations, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
      Pellegrino, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:




(1)
      The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company 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
      Allied Security Innovations, Inc. and will be retained by Allied Security
      Innovations, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its
      staff upon request.




Date:
                August 13, 2007/s/ Michael
                PellegrinoMichael
                PellegrinoChief Financial
                Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF INCOME AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,054
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,130
<INVENTORY>                                     46,665
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               161,475
<PP&E>                                          90,709
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,023
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 256,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          204,907
<BONDS>                                            378
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,930
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   256,611
<SALES>                                        143,775
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               143,775
<CGS>                                          147,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  147,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,154
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,367
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,205
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,340)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,340)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   7,575
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,765)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.26)


</TABLE>