alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES CO URT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-99V Filed: May 20, 2015 (Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SUZANNE HACKETT, *
* Petitioner, * v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; Stipulation
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
* Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana Stadelnikas Sedar

, Esq., Maglio, Christopher and Toal e, Pa (FL) for petitioner. Alexis Babcock, Esq., U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, Wa shington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 1

Gowen , Special Master:

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 2 I issued a Decision on April 6, 2015, awarding compensat ion pursuant to the parties’ stipulation filed that same day. On May 20, 2015, the parties filed a St ipulation of Fact concerning attorneys’ fees and costs. Pursuant to G eneral Order #9, petiti oner’s counsel also represented that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses in this matter.

The parties’ stipulation indicates that respondent does not object to the amended amount of $15,750.00 t hat petitioner is requesting for attorneys’ fees and costs.

I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Va ccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will delete such material from public access.

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq

. (2006).reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the pr oposed amount seems reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award:

 a lump sum of $15,750.00 in the fo rm of a check payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s attorney , Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar, Esq., for petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

The clerk of the court shall ent er judgment in accordance herewith. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen Special Master

3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s fili ng of a notice renouncing the right to seek review.

See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
**Exhibit
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      OF CORPORATE CONTROLLER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form 10-KSB
      for the period ending July 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada, Corporate Controller and
      Principal 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,





1)
            the
                Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
                the
                Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2)
            the
                information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
                the
                financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.





By
      /s/
      Antonio Estrada


Antonio
      Estrada


Corporate
      Controller and


Principal
      Financial Officer


October
      17, 2007
-TOP-SEGREF

4St-NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C. stmligilPilg

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 4 April 1973

MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, CIA RECONNAISSANCE PROGRAMS

SUBJECT: System 17B (Heavyweight)

REFERENCE: Your memo, subject as above, dated 13 March 1973

The REWSON Project's request for two of the subject

IDEALIST systems should be honored. It is well that systems

no longer of anticipated use to our activities should be

utilized by others to meet their requirements. Such uses

should be encouraged.

It is as that appropriate security protection of

the system's association will be provided.

CLASSIFIED WfAIIIIIV

ORM FROM GE. ?!ON

SCHEDULE OF VIECUTIVE OtDrt IUD VC.

VAFTION CATEGORY sa PI of 10

AUTOMATICALLY =LAS 'ED ON

ItypesqitIa H Csea"a'ns 

Idledwis daft cr avant. if arty)

IDEALIST

G NOTICE — SENSITIVE

. It•ITELLIGE ICES AND

BIETBODS INVOL'

--TOP-SECREF

IMP W10111111111110 a 14ants =13

EICLOSES POWs OPTOmATIC NICINIOusS

tee OoSCoolli else Is SOU On soots
#### THOS. L. JOHNSTON v. M. L. DAVIS, Adm’r., &c.

Tie Superior Courts, in term time, have, under the Act of 187S-73, chap. 175, jurisdiction of actions *by*creditors against Administrators.

*(Bell v. King, ante*330, cited and approved.)

Civil ACTION, for the recovery of a Justice’s judgment, tried upon a demurrer to the' complaint, before his Honor, *Judge*Moore, at the Special (July) Term, 1873, of MeceleNbubg Superior Court.

The facts pertinent to the point decided are fully set forth in the opinion of the Court.

His Honor overruled the demurrer, and defendant appealed.

*Wilson <& Son,*for appellant.

*Jones &*Johnston, contra.

RodMAN, J.

The facts, so far as they are necessary for an understanding of the questions presented, are as follows :

The action was brought in the Superior Court before the Judge at Fall Term, 1872, on a summons dated August 9th, 1872, by the plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others, creditors of one Harris., alleging, that Harris died intestate in 1865, and chat the defendant became his administrator in 1865; that the defendant received personal property, and sold the land and received the proceeds; that plaintiff is a creditor by virtue of a judgment obtained against the administrator before a Justice in 1872. Plaintiff asks an account and payment. Defendant demurs for want of jurisdiction in the Court, and contends that the action should have begun before the Probate Judge.

It will be seen that this action was begun before the passage of the act of 1872-’3, chap. 175, ratified March, 3, 1873, (not to be found in Battle’s revisal.)

Several eases decided at this term, *Bell*v. *King,*ante 330, hold. *582that however the law might have been independent of that act, it cures any defect of jurisdiction, and allows it to the Superior Court in term time.

Peb CubiaM. Demurrer overruled and case remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1193 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1193

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent and expand 
the temporary minimum credit rate for the low-income housing tax credit 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 5, 2015

  Ms. Cantwell (for herself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Franken, Ms. 
 Warren, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. 
  Hirono, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. 
    Boxer, Mr. King, Mr. Booker, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. 
  Feinstein, Mr. Sanders, and Ms. Stabenow) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent and expand 
the temporary minimum credit rate for the low-income housing tax credit 
                                program.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY MINIMUM CREDIT RATE FOR THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX 
              CREDIT PROGRAM MADE PERMANENT AND EXPANDED.

    (a) Minimum Credit Amount for New Buildings Made Permanent.--
Subparagraph (A) of section 42(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``with respect to housing credit dollar 
amount allocations made before January 1, 2015''.
    (b) Minimum Credit for Existing Buildings.--Subsection (b) of 
section 42 of such Code is amended by redesignating paragraph (3) as 
paragraph (4) and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(3) Minimum credit for existing buildings.--In the case 
        of any existing building--
                    ``(A) which is placed in service by the taxpayer 
                after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, and
                    ``(B) which is not federally subsidized for the 
                taxable year,
        the applicable percentage shall not be less than 4 percent.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 42(b)(2) of such Code is amended 
by striking ``Temporary minimum'' and inserting ``Minimum''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to buildings placed in service after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2004300EN.01000302.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 October 2004

in Case C36/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn (1)

1

(Freedom to provide services - Free movement of goods - Restrictions - Public policy - Human dignity - Protection of fundamental values laid down in the national constitution - ‘Playing at killing’)

(2004/C 300/05)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-36/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), made by decision of 24 October 2001, received at the Court on 12 February 2002, in the proceedings between Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH and Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

Community law does not preclude an economic activity consisting of the commercial exploitation of games simulating acts of homicide from being made subject to a national prohibition measure adopted on grounds of protecting public policy by reason of the fact that that activity is an affront to human dignity.

---

(1)   OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

1

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

No. 17
- 4192

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. GERALD LAMONTE STEELE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 1:16

- cr - 00338

- NCT

- 1 )

Submitted : September 21, 2017 Decided: October 3, 2017

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Louis C. Allen , Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender , Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J

. Hairston, Acting U nited S tates Attorney , Terry M

. Meinecke, Assistant U nited States Attorney , Winston

Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gerald Lamonte Steele pleaded guilty to maintaining a premises for distributing heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 (2012). The district court sentenced Steele above the advisory Guidelines range to 41 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. On appeal, Steele challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. We

r eview a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see also United States v . White , 810 F.3d 212, 229 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 136 S. Ct. 1833 (2016). In so doing, we examine the sentence for

“ significant procedural error, ” including “ failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mand atory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence b ased on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequat ely explain the chosen sentence.” Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. We then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. United States v. Evans , 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir 2008). If a district court i mposes a sentence outside of the advisory Guidelines range, we do not impose a presumption of reasonableness, but give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors justified the extent of the variance. United States v. Pauley , 511 F.3d 468, 473

- 74 (4th Cir. 2007). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, responded to the parties’ sentencing arguments, and thoroughly explained the3 chosen sentence. In addition, based on the factors identified by the district court, the sentence is also substantively reasonable. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument be cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
• • ,••

.17.444;.•

•

1

•

•

•

•

•••

•

•

a

I

•

• •

•

•

n•1•111011 • ••nn•• •a• •

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM

/0 See73

•

•

•

Thi,, teller wat

tzhed

11:4s, 4. eIt; .1"1 114

;wen hsfiel e/kyof eksei>

61 AAA afinhek

vietd cre At delay

.1 kreeit# 4•111

4y a triehtsive ream% iut‘ .

toorgiikedini ttine re mire, -

lecre

.

p keel LIFA: ;tut sir: : b•A•.. • :

&r e tet-V3AF •". f•••• •

0••• ••••• •

•

Jig ert kertoveOttice cf Space Systo:ns

•

•••

.. • •

•

8
I

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

MEMORANDIN

/0 se.er 7.7.

A0PA/..sj

49A. A•f eLe/c.fi otsies.9 Airdi► r

TAE 4r0e.r7mAies 4641/$042 /111 reV/2,

sernr.d ,wszs .04M/+e/Ale„ Totra•040

cog. .80/0.6ey rd dr•31"344 11IE 4rOesr/0011-1,

Sar o►/rovs•er dreAve Ab3., AO o.c ,it► j

' ter70",7-00.(E•edr.f4ro 011erefeIT ?WAIT

• AE6Ail yee3s •A 4,40o As 7,ffeterp or.,00g

rAe Ate.0,00A/Ae, cod. ifro/dey .110

•

. eive,a/ AA/ 44460 covey.

Executive Assistant •
SE

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

WASHINGTON. CA C. 20301

31 August 1973

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

SUBJECT: Special Reconnaissance Activities (U)

In line with our conversation at breakfast this morning, I believe it would

be helpful to look in some detail at consolidation alternatives for Air

Force and CIA special reconnaissance aircraft with the object of obtaining management efficiencies and other cost savings.

Accordingly, I would appreciate it if you could have some alternatives

developed which might offer economies in the management of such programs. It would be particularly interesting to review alternatives for

the consolidation of all SR-71, OXCART, and U-2 activities, and alternatives which compare contract and "blue suit" maintenance options. It may

also be useful to explore the notion of consolidating drone operations with

these manned assets.

It would be helpful if a preliminary report of the analysis and tentative

alternatives were available by 15 November and a final report, to include

recommendations, by 15 December.

If you wish, I would be happy to provide an individual from my staff to

participate in the analysis effort.

1111111111111111.

Classified by....

=OM FRU CATION SCHOD1411,11a2

EXECUTIVE ORDER lieu. !memos CATTACITrara B(2)1k(3) Dgcussin ON_Im2asi.12p2tolistermine

oy

1111/ 6356-73

11ietrat iD31111

CONTROC irventm ONLY
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 28, 2009 

p0420 

Order 

 

April 28, 2009 

138016 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138016 

 COA: 281195 

Wayne CC: 07-009615-01 

ALLEN PURIFY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 13, 2008 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      13,406,216
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,170,829
<ALLOWANCES>                                   853,631
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,015,250
<PP&E>                                      19,198,125
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,439,722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             104,400,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,565,309
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,977
<OTHER-SE>                                  98,812,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               104,400,708
<SALES>                                      5,099,528
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,991,548
<CGS>                                        3,059,681
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,059,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,264,598
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (14,200,529)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (14,200,529)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (14,200,529)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.65)


</TABLE>
# North Dakota Engineering Directory

220 East Rosser AvenuePO Box 1458BismarckND58502-1458

701-530-2000

220 East Rosser AvenuePO Box 1458BismarckND58502-1458

North Dakota

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Contact 
-  State Office Contacts 
-  North Dakota 
-  North Dakota Engineering Directory 

North Dakota NRCS Engineering Team Directory

### *Find Your Local Service Center*

##   Engineering Directory
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 99.1
                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Incitations,
Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Dominique Bellemare, Principal Executive and Principal Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to section 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.


By: /s/ Dominique Bellemare
    -----------------------
Name:  Dominique Bellemare
     ---------------------
Principal Executive and Principal Accounting Officer
November 22, 2002
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.65

February 20, 2004

Dr. Michael R. Knapp
949 Addison Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301

Dear Mike:

This letter sets forth the agreement that you and Caliper Life Sciences, Inc.
(f/k/a Caliper Technologies Corp ("Caliper") have reached regarding a
modification of the terms of the letter agreement dated July 8. 2003 between you
and Caliper (the "Separation Agreement") relating to the terms of the
termination of your employment by Caliper.

         1.       Paragraph 2(h)(i) of the Separation Agreement is hereby
amended and restated in full to read as follows:

                  "(i) SALARY CONTINUATION. The Company will pay you severance
         in form of salary continuation of your base salary in effect on the
         Separation Date ($29,167) per month) for a period of six months
         following the Separation Date (the "Salary Continuation"). The Salary
         Continuation will be paid on the Company's ordinary payroll dates and
         will be subject to standard payroll deductions and withholdings. The
         Salary Continuation will continue for six months until a total of
         $175,002 has been paid to you, even if you commence full-time
         employment with another business entity"

         2.       The first sentence of paragraph 3(c) of the Separation
Agreement is hereby amended and restated in full to read as follows:

         "During the Consulting Period, the Company will pay you $400 per hour
         "Consulting Fees for your services; provided, however, that the first
         five (5) days of consulting services provided by you hereunder shall be
         at a rate of $100 per day."

         3.       Except as expressly modified pursuant to this letter
amendment, the Separation Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

<PAGE>

Dr. Michael R. Knapp
Page 2

If this letter amendment is acceptable to you, please sign below and return the
original to me.

Sincerely,

CALIPER LIFE SCIENCES, INC.

By: /s/Stephen Creager
    ------------------------------------
     Stephen E. Creager
     Vice President and General Counsel

AGREED:

/s/ Michael Knapp
------------------------------
MICHAEL R. KNAPP

Dated:  March 2, 2004