alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4536 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1332 Sharon Copley Road in Wadsworth, Ohio, as the ‘‘Emil Bolas 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2010 

Mr. BOCCIERI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1332 Sharon Copley Road in Wadsworth, 

Ohio, as the ‘‘Emil Bolas Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EMIL BOLAS POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 1332 Sharon Copley Road in 

6 Wadsworth, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Emil Bolas Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4536 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Emil Bolas Post Of3 fice’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
----

EXHIBIT 31.2

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Jeffrey Simon, certify that:

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of WiFiMed Holdings Company, Inc.;

1.                  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

2.                  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

3.                  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)        Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)        Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)        Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

4.         The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditor and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)        All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)        Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 19, 2006/s/ Jeffrey Simon                      Jeffrey Simon    Principal Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-21073

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRADFORD EARL YOUNG,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CR-85-2

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Bradford Earl Young has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-4

Judge Marbley

Hugo Caudillo-Cuellar 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 21) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The Court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Counts 1 of the Information, and he

is hereby adjudged guilty on this count. The Court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: February 23, 2018 s\Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley

 United States District Judge
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated February 12, 1998,
included in the 1997 Annual Report to Shareholders of Millennium
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-15355), pertaining to the 1993 Incentive Stock Option Plan,
(Forms S-8 Nos. 333-15353 and 333-29321), pertaining to the 1996 Equity
Incentive Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-15349), pertaining to the 1996 Director Option
Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-15357), pertaining to the 1996 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-29319), pertaining to the 1997 Equity Incentive Plan,
and (Form S-3 No. 333-28239) of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report
dated February 12, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. incorporated herein by reference in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP




Boston, Massachusetts
April 1, 1998
EX-10.1


 Exhibit 10.1 
  





 
 October 22, 2015 

Jeanine Lemmens 
 [Redacted] 

[Redacted] 
 Dear Jeanine, 

Reference is made in this letter agreement to the (i) Statement of Principal Terms and Conditions of Employment, dated June 5, 2013, by and between
Weight Watchers (UK) Limited (“WWUK”) and you (the “Terms and Conditions”); (ii) Offer Letter, dated as of July 4, 2013, by and between WWUK and you (the “Offer Letter” and together with the Terms and
Conditions, the “Employment Agreements”); and (iii) Amended and Restated Continuity Agreement, dated as of October 22, 2015, by and between Weight Watchers International, Inc. (“WWI” and together with WWUK, the
“Company”) and you (the “Continuity Agreement”). 
 As we recently discussed, in connection with your entering into the Continuity
Agreement, and notwithstanding any terms and conditions of the Continuity Agreement or any Other Arrangement (as defined below), you hereby agree that any consideration payable to you, or obligation to provide benefits to you, pursuant to the
Continuity Agreement shall be offset in full by any amounts payable or benefits provided to you pursuant to the Employment Agreements (except with respect to any reimbursement of repatriation expenses pursuant to the Offer Letter) or any other
agreement between you and the Company or any of its affiliates, any plan, program or arrangement of the Company or any of its affiliates, or as provided for by statute, regulation or local law in any applicable jurisdiction (collectively, the
“Other Arrangements”). In the event any such payment or benefit is first paid or provided to you pursuant to (i) an Other Arrangement, such payment or benefit shall offset in full any payment or benefit to be provided under the
Continuity Agreement, and (ii) the Continuity Agreement, such obligations under the Other Arrangements will be deemed to have been satisfied in full by the corresponding amount paid or benefit provided under the Continuity Agreement. 

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 







					
		 		 	Kind regards,
			
		 		 	 /s/ James Chambers

		 		 	James Chambers
		 		 	Chief Executive Officer

  

					
	AGREED AND ACCEPTED:	 		 	
			
	 /s/ Jeanine Lemmens
	 		 	 October 22, 2015

	Jeanine Lemmens	 		 	Date
#### People v Reid,

No. 90927;

Court of Appeals No. 118021.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,401,446
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,454,232
<ALLOWANCES>                                   194,684
<INVENTORY>                                    487,542
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,876,301
<PP&E>                                       4,649,321
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,100,483
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,024,988
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,895,583
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,485
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,979,775
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,024,988
<SALES>                                     17,399,955
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,399,955
<CGS>                                       13,901,859
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,410,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             177,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,115,433)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,115,433)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,115,433)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.01)
        

</TABLE>
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 the Interior

###### National Indian Gaming Commission

          - 25 CFR Part 537
          - RIN 3141-AA58

# AGENCY:

National Indian Gaming Commission, Department of the Interior.

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects the preamble to a proposed rule published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 2, 2021, regarding Background Investigations for Persons or Entities with a Financial Interest in or Having a Management Responsibility for a Management Contract. The document contained incorrect dates for submitting comments. This correction clarifies that comments are due January 31, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Hoenig, 202-632-7003.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of December 2, 2021, in proposed rule FR Doc. 2021-25844, on page 68446, in the second column, change the                     **Dates**                     caption to read:                

# DATES:

Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before January 31, 2022.

Dated: January 6, 2022.

Michael Hoenig,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2022-00631 Filed 1-13-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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 1, 2013

h0325

Order 

April 1, 2013

145799-802

KARTER LANDON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 145799-802

COA: 301802, 301832,

301905, 301919

CITY OF FLINT, MTT: 00-339811, 00-339812,

Respondent-Appellee. 00-339813, 00-339814

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 24, 2012 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Order filed December 11, 2012, Withdrawn, Appeal Reinstated and Order 

filed December 18, 2012 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00135-CR

NO. 14-12-00136-CR

NO. 14-12-00137-CR

____________

DON GRIJALVA-LEWIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1146588, 1223212, and 1224946

ORDER

This Court issued an order abating these appeals because a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing the presentence investigation reporter, requested August 

10, 2012, had not been filed. The supplemental clerk’s records have now been 

filed. Accordingly, our order of December 11, 2012, is withdrawn and the appeal 

is reinstated. 
PER CURIAM
**~/**



### SERVED: SEPTEMER24, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON; DC
IN THE MAITER OF NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION 

### FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0620
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION 

### National Power Corporation (hereinafter "National") has filed a Motion for More Definite Statement, to Strike and Production ofDocuments. The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA")previously amended its complaint. WHEREFORE, National's Motion having beenread and considered itbe and is hereby ORDERED that Respondent's Motion is DENIED.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List

1 ( i r-.**~~.,** '·\ j {;**_:~ {~** ! ' 

# .

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1

Kate Barber, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Great Lakes Region Federal Aviation Administration 2300 EastDevon Avenue, AGL-7 Des Plaines, IL 60018 TEL: 847-294-7862 FAX: 847-294-7498 ONE COPY

Martin A. Blumenthal, 

### Respondent's Counsel Attorney One NorthfieldPlaza, Suite 300 Northfield, IL 60093 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0620 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.2
#### Shields *v.*Shields.

Opinion delivered March 11, 1929.

*168
      *Sidney S. Taylor,*for appellant.

*Martin, Wooton*i& *Martin,*for appellee.

Humphreys, J.

This case is here on appeal from the chancery court of Garland County, and the sole question involved is whether appellee took a fee simple or a life estate in lot 13, block 77, in the city of Hot Springs, Arkansas, under the fourth clause of the last will and testament of her deceased father, John J. Horner. The fourth clause of the will is as follows:

> “I give, devise and bequeath to my beloved daughter, Louise Elizabeth Horner, for her use during her natural life, and the remainder after her death to her heirs at law, lot No. 13 of block No. 77 of the city of Hot Springs, Arkansas, with all the improvements and appurtenances thereto belonging.”

The language employed in the devise has a technical meaning in the law, hence the clause must be interpreted in accordance with the technical meaning of the language used. The legal technical meaning of the language used is a limitation of the estate to the heirs in general of the devisee, according to the K-ule in Shelley’s Case, which rule is in full force -and effect in Arkansas, and vested a fee simple title to said real estate in appellee, the first taker. In the case of *Wilmans*v. *Robinson,*67 Ark. 517, 55 S. W. 960, this court said:

> “The Rule in Shelley’s Case is a rule of construction and not of law, simply providing that, where an estate of freehold is limited to a person, and the same instrument contains a limitation, either mediate or immediate, to his heirs or the heirs of his body, the word ‘heirs’ is a word of limitation; that is, the ancestor takes the whole estate comprised in the term. If the limitation he to the heirs of his body, he takes a fee tail. If to his heirs generally, he takes a fee simple.”

It was also said by this court, in the case of *Eversmeyer*v. *McCollum,*171 Ark. 117, 283 S. W. 379, that *169“the Rule in Shelley’s Case is applicable only when the language used in the conveyance creates a limitation to the heirs of the grantee in general.”

The instant case is governed by the rule as declared in *Hardage*v. *Stroope,*58 Ark. 303, 24 S. W. 490, and *Ryan*v. *Ryan,*138 Ark. 362, 211 S. W. 183.

No error appearing, the decree is affirmed.

Chief Justice Hart and Justices Smith and Mehaeey dissent.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8(Nos. 333-127354, 333-107988, 333-101828, 333-74610, 333-59843, 333-37111,333-49350, 333-52598) of Zoran Corporation of our report dated March 14, 2006relating to the financial statements, and management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears inthis Form 10-K.

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California

 

March 14, 2006

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Wendella Lambert,
Plaintiff(s),
Case Number: 1:18cev116
VS.
Judge Susan J, Dlott
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant(s).
ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate
Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings
and filed with this Court on January 28, 2019 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21).
Subsequently, the defendant filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) and the
plaintiff filed a response to the objections (Doc. 24).

The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered
de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that such Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant

to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g) consistent with this Order for an award of benefits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Letau, 9. Didt)

Judge Susan J. Dioi!
United States District Court