alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Billy T. KRUGLAK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E. Wilson PURDY et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 77-1847

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 18, 1978.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 5, 1978.

Louis M. Jepeway, Jr., Miami, Fla., for petitioner-appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, Fla., for respondents-appellees.

*575Before BROWN, Chief Judge, COLEMAN and VANCE, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir., see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant Kruglak seeks review of his claim that his state trial was rendered unfair by false and inflammatory remarks in the prosecutor’s closing argument.

Appellant was tried with three co-defendants on charges of possession of and conspiracy to sell marijuana. The testimony at trial presented conflicting versions of his involvement in the alleged sale, the government narcotics agent describing appellant as an active participant, the co-defendants alleging that he had nothing to do with the transaction. Apparently believing the agent’s story, the jury convicted Kruglak on both counts.

During closing argument, defense counsel blasted the narcotics agent, accusing him of lying and of conspiring to frame appellant. He also argued that marijuana, though illegal, is not really a drug and is widely used without harmful effects. The prosecutor responded to each of these attacks, uninterrupted by an objection from defense counsel; he praised the narcotics agent’s performance record, suggested that appellant’s co-defendants were covering up for him,1 and attributed social disorder and decay to drug use.

Since defense counsel failed to object to these portions of the prosecutor’s argument, appellant’s conviction will stand unless the remarks were so prejudicial that they constituted fundamental error. *United States*v. *Blakey,*5 Cir., 1974, 491 F.2d 120, 122 n. 2; *United States v. Washburn,*5 Cir., 1973, 488 F.2d 139. Upon consideration of the entire record on appeal — especially the state trial judge’s careful jury instruction regarding the non-evidentiary nature of closing argument — we find that the District Judge had a fair basis for his ruling that the challenged comments were fair response to defense arguments.

AFFIRMED.

1

. In conjunction with his challenge of these remarks, appellant cites a question the prosecutor asked him on cross-examination:

> Tell me this, did you bankroll this marijuana buy? You are the only one that comes from money among this group. Defense counsel did object to this question; appellant, however, answered the question before the Court had ruled.
# CE2004084EN.01031902.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/319 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/319

---

(2004/C 84 E/0367)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0153/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject:   Use of the term ‘Chechen network’ without any proven involvement of Chechens

Subject:

In an increasingly conspicuous manner, judges from EU Member States are using terms which appear to back up the idea that Chechens are involved in terrorist networks active in the European Union. In particular, Judge Bruguière has created the term ‘Chechen networks’, which he uses to define any cases which may have a remote connection with international terrorist networks, although such use is unjustified. In actual fact, the adjective ‘Chechen’ serves only to specify a place — generally hypothetical — where apprentice terrorists and European citizens might have chosen to go, or a place — also generally hypothetical — where humanitarian aid might have been sent.

What is the Commission's view of the use of the term ‘Chechen network’ by judges from EU Member States? In particular, what is its view of the French judge Bruguière's use of the term to refer to a criminal case in which Chechens only appear to be involved because the EU citizens (not Chechens) accused in these cases cited Chechens as possible recipients of financial aid, or Chechnya as a place where they could carry out their plan for a holy war? Does the Commission not believe that by acting in this way judges contribute, whether intentionally or not, to the dissemination of false information and to the undermining of the image and the reputation of a whole people, and that they could therefore be responsible for growing feelings among EU citizens of racial hatred and intolerance, and even of violence towards Chechen refugees living in the European Union? Could the Commission ask the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna to carry out a thorough investigation into how widespread the above practices are, with regard to both the Chechen people and to other peoples, and into the political, legal and judicial implications that such practices could have?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

(10 March 2004)

The Commission has no knowledge of the matters raised by the Honourable Member and, in any case, it is not in a position to comment on the assessments and decisions made by judges in the Member States in the course of their duties.

Nevertheless, the Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that it is not appropriate to identify the criminal conduct of individuals with a whole nation.

The Commission takes the view that the investigation requested does not fall within the areas of activity laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 establishing a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ L 151, 10.6.1997.

1

---
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1651 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government 

pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 23, 2015 

Mr. BROWN (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. WARREN, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL, Mr. VITTER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. 

REED, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. UDALL, and Mr. HELLER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the 

Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security Fair5 ness Act of 2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1651 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET PROVI2 SION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 202(k) of the Social Secu4 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 402(k)) is amended by striking para5 graph (5). 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

7 (1) Section 202(b)(2) of the Social Security Act 

8 (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘sub9 sections (k)(5) and (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection 

10 (q)’’. 

11 (2) Section 202(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

12 402(c)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsections 

13 (k)(5) and (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (q)’’. 

14 (3) Section 202(e)(2)(A) of such Act (42 

15 U.S.C. 402(e)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘sub16 section (k)(5), subsection (q),’’ and inserting ‘‘sub17 section (q)’’. 

18 (4) Section 202(f)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

19 402(f)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsection 

20 (k)(5), subsection (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection 

21 (q)’’. 

22 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISIONS. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 215 of the Social Security 

24 Act (42 U.S.C. 415) is amended— 

25 (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (7); 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1651 IS

1 (2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3); 

2 and 

3 (3) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (9). 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Subsections (e)(2) 

5 and (f)(2) of section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402) are 

6 each amended by striking ‘‘section 215(f)(5), 215(f)(6), 

7 or 215(f)(9)(B)’’ in subparagraphs (C) and (D)(i) and in8 serting ‘‘paragraph (5) or (6) of section 215(f)’’. 

9 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

10 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

11 respect to monthly insurance benefits payable under title 

12 II of the Social Security Act for months after December 

13 2015. Notwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social Secu14 rity Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall adjust 

15 primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary to take 

16 into account the amendments made by section 3. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Jeffrey S. Mathiesen, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of DelphaxTechnologies Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to my knowledge:
(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) the information contained in the accompanying Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.     Date August 11, 2004 /s/ Jeffrey S. MathiesenJeffrey S. MathiesenVice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Krueger, Appellant, vs. Krueger, Administrator, Respondent.

*January 10*

January *30, 1906.*

*'Wills: Prolate: Contest: Mental competency: Appeal: Findings, when disturbed.*

Where the only questions argued in the supreme court are the mental competency of the testator and the legality of execution of a will, and there is no clear preponderance of evidence against the findings thereon made hy the trial court, the judgment will be affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Oconto county: S. D. HASTINGS, Circuit Judge.

*A'ffirmed.*

Mary S. Erueger, a widow, having five children, and possessing about $3,500 worth of property, all personal, on March 15,1904, the day before her death, executed a will, as follows:

“First. I give and bequeath to my son *Albert W. Krueger*three hundred dollars.

“Second. *Christian*and Mary and Frederick and Annie to receive the balance of the money and mortgages belonging to me in equal shares.

“Third. My horse and buggy, cutter, and cow, and harness, and all my household furniture and piano and pictures, I give to my daughter Annie J. W. Erueger.” ■

This will was drawn by a neighboring justice of the peace, D. E. "Whiting, and claimed to have been signed by testatrix in presence of himself and Mary L. Whiting, who subscribed as witnesses. The will was contested by *Albert*W. *Krueger*on three grounds: (1) Want of testamentary capacity; (2) indefiniteness and uncertainty; and (3) absence of statutory execution. There was evidence offered and contradicted as to existence and degree of diabetic coma and of diabetic blindness and as to the subscription by the two witnesses mentioned in the presence of the testatrix, and by D. E. Whiting in the presence of Mary L. Whiting"; also, generally, as to the mental condition and capacity of the testatrix at and *104about tbe moment of execution. Tbe court filed a careful opinion analyzing tbe evidence on these various subjects and made finding that testatrix was conrpetent, tbat by tbe surrounding facts proved tbe will was definite and certain, and tbat it was executed in all respects as required by law. Whereupon'tbe judgment of tbe county court admitting said will to probate was affirmed, witb costs against tbe contestant, from wbicb judgment said contestant appeals to tbis court.

Tbe cause was submitted for tbe appellant on tbe brief of *Francis X.*Morrow, attorney, and *Sheridan &*Evans, of counsel, and for tbe respondent on tbat of *Olasson & Glasson.*

Dodge, J.

Tbe only questions argued in tbis court are mental competency and tbe legality of execution. These are pure questions of fact, and we find no clear preponderance of evidence against tbe findings tbereon made by tbe trial court. Indeed, not enough to so reasonably justify appellant in expectation of a favorable result upon tbe appeal tbat we should order his costs paid out-of tbe estate. Sucb being the case, we cannot overturn those findings, which fully support the judgment.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements pertaining to the ZOLL Medical Corporation 1992 Stock Option Plan(Form S-8 Nos. 333-68403, 33-90764, 33-56244, and 333-101839), the 1996 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-101839 and 333-68401) the 401(k) Saving Plan (Form S-8 Nos. 333-38048 and 333-137245), the 2001 StockIncentive Plan (Form S-8 Nos. 333-101839, 333-120310 and 333-132804), the 2006 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan (No. 333-132804), and the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-120454) of our reports dated December 11, 2006, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of ZOLL Medical Corporation, ZOLL Medical Corporation’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting of ZOLL Medical Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended October 1, 2006. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

December 11, 2006 

Boston, Massachusetts
# CE2004078EN.01083201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/832 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/832

---

(2004/C 78 E/0885)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3593/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Cost of passports across the European Union Member States

Subject:

The cost of an adult passport in the United Kingdom has increased greatly since 1997, and today costs over GBP 40 to purchase.

Can the Commission detail the cost of an adult passport in the 14 other Member States, given that a passport serves as both a national and an EU document?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

(29 January 2004)

Fixing the cost of passports is a competence which belongs to Member States.

The cost of obtaining a passport within each Member State may vary according to several factors, notably the duration of its validity.

A comparative analysis shows that the cost of the British passport is very close to the average of the other Member States, which is around EUR 50.

The Commission will provide the Honourable Member and the Parliament's Secretariat with a table detailing the cost of passports in all Member States.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM UNITED
INTERNATIONAL  HOLDINGS,  INC.'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED  FEBRUARY 28, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                         303,441
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,311
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               410,999
<PP&E>                                         525,368
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,679,835
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          291,390
<BONDS>                                      1,702,771
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           32,564
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           392
<OTHER-SE>                                    (293,832)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,679,835
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                98,622
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                91,656
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                14,793
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             124,288
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (263,441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (263,441)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (79,091)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (342,532)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (8.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
• ~9383 

USCIB: lJ.5/76 

2!} June 1954 

-s~ 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIBEC: 

Subject: Security of CCMINT Transmitted by Electrical Means-. 

Reference: (a) USCIB 5.4/12 dated 15 June 1954. ,. (b) USCIB 13.5/42 dated S March 1954. 

1. At its Sixteenth Meeting on 25 June 1954, USCIBEC agreed that: 

a. Establishment of minimum. standards required by Section III, 

paragraph 1 of USCIB Directive Number 9 (Revised), should be expedited. 

b. Each member department and agency would notify the 

Executive Secretary, USCIB, by Friday, 2 July 1954, of acceptance (or 

non-acceptance with appropriate recommendations) of reference (b) above, 

less the footnote indicated by asterisk, as the minimum standards goveming communication security systems, procedures, practices and training 

programs to be followed by all USCIB member organizations in the transmission of CCMINT by electrical means. 

2. THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS COMMUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION 

AND SHALL BE HANDLED ONLY IN CHANNELS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR CCMINT. 

USCIB 

USClB: 13.5/76 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 09-05-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

SECRET 

24
2006 Equity Incentive Plan Non-Qualified Stock Option Award Terms



 Exhibit 10.4 
 AMENDMENT TO THE 
 BANKFINANCIAL CORPORATION 
 2006 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AWARD TERMS 
 WHEREAS, BANKFINANCIAL
Corporation (the “Company”) has granted non-qualified stock options to ROBERT J. O’SHAUGHNESSY (the “Participant”) pursuant to the certain Non-Qualified Stock
Option Award Terms dated as of              involving              Covered Shares (the “Option”);
and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Participant desire to amend certain provisions of the Option in order to provide that the
Expiration Date be based on Termination of Employment following Participant’s attainment of age 70 rather than Participant’s Retirement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, effective as of the 20th day of October, 2008, the Option is hereby amended in the following particulars: 
 1. Paragraph 4(a) of the Option is amended by deleting the existing language and replacing it with the following new Paragraph 4(a): 
 “(a) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 3, the Option shall become fully exercisable upon the earliest of the following events to occur: (i) a Change in Control that occurs on or
before the Participant’s Termination of Service; (ii) the Participant’s Termination of Service as a result of the Participant’s Death or Disability; (iii) the Participant’s attainment of age 70; (iv) the
Participant’s employment or consulting arrangement is terminated by the Company other than for Cause, or (v) the Participant terminates his employment for Good Reason (for purposes of this Agreement, the terms “Cause” and
“Good Reason” shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the applicable employment agreement between the Participant and the Company or its Subsidiary.” 
 2. Paragraphs 5(c) and 5(d) of the Option are amended by deleting the existing language and replacing it with the following new Paragraphs 5(c),
5(d) and 5(e): 
 “(c) the twelve (12) month anniversary of the Participant’s Termination of Service if the Termination of
Service occurs due to Death or Disability;” 
 (d) the twelve (12) month anniversary of the Participant’s Termination of
Service if the Termination of Service occurs after the Participant’s attainment of age 70; or 
 (e) the three (3) month anniversary
of the Participant’s Termination of Service if the Termination of Service occurs prior to the Participant’s attainment of age 70 for reasons other than 








 
Death, Disability, or Cause; provided, however, that if the Participant returns to employment with, or as a director or consultant to, the Company,
within three (3) months after the Termination of Service, such termination shall have no effect on the Option and the Participant shall have the same number of shares and the same vesting schedule as set forth in this Agreement.”

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as of the date first above written. 
  

							
	BANKFINANCIAL CORPORATION	 		  	
			
	  
	 		  	  

	By:	 	  
	 		  	ROBERT J. O’SHAUGHNESSY
	Its:	 	  
	 		  	

  

 2
# CE2004088EN.01065501.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/655 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/655

---

(2004/C 88 E/0672)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3920/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   ECHO

Subject:

In the light of representations from journalists, will the Commission consider changing its policy so that it would allow journalists to fly on ECHO flights to Mogadishu, Somalia?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

(30 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the arguments put forward by Mr Alberizzi, a correspondent of Corrierre della Sera, who requested that ECHO Flight should be made available to provide transport to journalists wishing to travel to Somalia.

As already expressed in its reply to Mr Alberizzi's open letter (1), the Commission is not in a position to revise its policy on the use of ECHO Flight. ECHO Flight is a humanitarian service supporting humanitarian and rehabilitation projects in Somalia, Northern Kenya and the Democratic Republic of Congo by transporting staff and cargo required for the implementation of these projects. Given its humanitarian character, and in order to maintain access to conflict zones, it is of outmost importance that ECHO Flight demonstrates at all times neutrality and impartiality. Any association with political messages the missions of politicians, political officials and also journalists may produce, risks putting these basic principles in jeopardy.

1

For these reasons, a restrictive policy on the use of ECHO Flight needs to be adhered to.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/echo/pdf_files/letter_echo_flight.pdf

1

---
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: November 22, 2010 | By:    |  /s/ Joe Noto                                     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Joe Noto                                               |   |
|                    |   | Chief Financial Officer (principal accounting officer) |   |