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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 298 

Designating July 15, 2021, as ‘‘National Leiomyosarcoma Awareness Day’’ 

and the month of July 2021 as ‘‘National Sarcoma Awareness Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 13, 2021 

Ms. STABENOW submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating July 15, 2021, as ‘‘National Leiomyosarcoma 

Awareness Day’’ and the month of July 2021 as ‘‘National Sarcoma Awareness Month’’. 

Whereas sarcoma is a rare type of cancer that— 

(1) arises in the connective tissue of the body; and 

(2) accounts for approximately 1 percent of all newly 

diagnosed cancers; 

Whereas the National Institutes of Health designates sarcoma, which contains approximately 70 different 

subtypes, as a rare form of cancer; 

Whereas sarcomas are largely resistant to current chemotherapy agents, immunotherapy agents, and radiation 

therapies, posing a formidable challenge for researchers 

and specialists; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 298 IS 

Whereas sarcoma subtypes largely have not benefitted from 

immunotherapies because of the complexity of the DNA, 

genomes, and mutations associated with the many variations in the sarcoma subtype landscape; 

Whereas leiomyosarcoma (referred to in this preamble as 

‘‘LMS’’) is a malignant, aggressive subtype of sarcoma 

derived from smooth muscle cells typically of uterine, gastrointestinal, or soft tissue origin that can metastasize to 

the bone, spine, brain, and liver; 

Whereas the National Institutes of Health classifies LMS, 

which encompasses at least 4 different LMS subtypes, as 

a rare disease, accounting for approximately 15 percent 

of all sarcomas; 

Whereas LMS primarily affects adults without regard to gender; 

Whereas, with respect to LMS— 

(1) research and clinical trials remain complicated; 

and 

(2) survival and longevity remain difficult; 

Whereas multidisciplinary care coordination teams, because 

of their expertise and experience, are critical to the 

health of sarcoma and LMS patients; 

Whereas sarcoma and LMS research will— 

(1) allow medical professionals to improve the quality of care for affected patients; 

(2) lead to better clinical outcomes; and 

(3) promote longer survival for patients; and 

Whereas increased education and awareness about sarcoma 

and LMS will contribute to the well-being of the communities of the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 298 IS 

1 (1) designates July 15, 2021, as ‘‘National 

2 Leiomyosarcoma Awareness Day’’; 

3 (2) designates the month of July 2021 as ‘‘Na4 tional Sarcoma Awareness Month’’; 

5 (3) recognizes the challenges faced by sarcoma 

6 and leiomyosarcoma patients; and 

7 (4) commends the dedication of organizations, 

8 volunteers, researchers, and caregivers across the 

9 United States working to improve the quality of life 

10 of sarcoma and leiomyosarcoma patients and their 

11 families. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Derick A. GEIGER, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lorenzo Maurice Venson, a/k/a C. C., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-4434, 03-4622.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 14, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

*864Donald L. Stennett, Charleston, West Virginia; Herbert L. Hively, II, Hurricane, West Virginia, for Appellants. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Monica K. Schwartz, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Derick A. Geiger and Lorenzo Maurice Venson appeal their sentences imposed following guilty plea convictions for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base and more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000).

Venson and Geiger contend that the district court erroneously calculated their relevant conduct because the coconspirator testimony upon which the calculation was based was unreliable.

The district court’s determination of the drug quantity attributable to a defendant is a factual finding reviewed for clear error. *United States v. Randall,*171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir.1999). In determining drug quantity, a district court must consider whether the government has established the amount by a preponderance of the evidence. *United States v. Cook,*76 F.3d 596, 604 (4th Cir.1996). “In reviewing sentences imposed under the [United States Sentencing] Guidelines, [this court] must give due regard to the opportunity of the district court to judge the- credibility of the witnesses.” *United States v. Sampson,*140 F.3d 585, 591 (4th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Giving due deference to the district court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses, we reject Appellants’ related claim that the district court erred in finding coconspirator testimony to be credible. *Sampson,*140 F.3d at 591. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in calculating the amount of narcotics attributed to both Venson and Geiger. *Cook,*76 F.3d at 604; *Randall,*171 F.3d at 210.

We affirm both Venson’s and Geiger’s convictions and sentences. We reject Appellants’ request for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATION


I, Thomas E, Walker, Jr., certify that:


1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tableau Software, Inc.;


2.     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;


3.     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;


4.     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


5.     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 auditors 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:       August 8, 2014








By:__/s/ Thomas E. Walker______Thomas E. Walker, Jr.Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial andAccounting Officer)
Allison JUGE v. SPRINGFIELD WELLNESS, L.L.C. d/b/a Springfield Wellness Center/Therapia Associates And Dr. Richard Mestayer, III

NO. 2019-C-0513

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00191-CR

Kevin Lee Farris

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

329th District Court of Wharton County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 19404

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 1, 2016.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RENATO HERRERA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EQUIFAX, INC., and CITIBANK, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 17-cv-00351-JSW 

FINAL ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO 

SHOW CAUSE REGARDING SERVICE 

ON CITIBANK 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 19 

 On May 1, 2017, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff, directing him to 

show cause why it should not dismiss this case as to Citibank National Association (“Citibank”) 

based on the failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff’s response to 

the Order to Show Cause was due by no later than May 15, 2017. Plaintiff has not responded to 

the Order to Show Cause. 

 In light of the large number of cases filed by Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court shall not 

penalize Plaintiff, and it shall afford Plaintiff one final opportunity to respond to the Order to 

Show Cause. Plaintiff’s response to this Final Order to Show Cause shall be due by May 22, 

2017. If Plaintiff has not filed a response by that date, the Court shall dismiss Citibank without 

prejudice, for failure to comply with Rule 4(m). 

 Finally, the Court issues this admonishment to Plaintiff’s counsel. The Sagaria Law Firm 

chose to file hundreds of these cases within this District. It is not the Court’s responsibility to 

keep track of deadlines and filing requirements. 

Going forward, Plaintiff’s counsel is admonished that failure to comply with Court 

imposed deadlines may result in orders to show cause as to why monetary sanctions should not be 
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

imp

Da

osed for fai

IT IS S

ated: May 17

ilure to comp

SO ORDER

7, 2017 

ply with tho

RED. 

2

se deadlines

___

JEF

Un

s. 

__________

FFREY S. W

nited States D

___________

WHITE 

District Judg

__________

e 

_______
Case 3:05-cv-01805-L Document 24-12 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 8 PageID 232
Case 3:05-cv-01805-L Document 24-12 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 8 PageID 233
Case 3:05-cv-01805-L Document 24-12 Filed 08/04/06 Page 3 of 8 PageID 234
Case 3:05-cv-01805-L Document 24-12 Filed 08/04/06 Page 4 of 8 PageID 235
Case 3:05-cv-01805-L Document 24-12 Filed 08/04/06 Page 5 of 8 PageID 236
Case 3:05-cv-01805-L Document 24-12 Filed 08/04/06 Page 6 of 8 PageID 237
Case 3:05-cv-01805-L Document 24-12 Filed 08/04/06 Page 7 of 8 PageID 238
Case 3:05-cv-01805-L Document 24-12 Filed 08/04/06 Page 8 of 8 PageID 239
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I, Nicholas V. Chater, Chief Financial Officer of Tri-S Security Corporation (the
Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 14, 2009



/s/ Nicolas V. ChaterNicolas V. ChaterChief Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF OAKLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00206-JD 

ORDER CONDITIONALLY 

DISMISSING CASE

The Court is advised that the parties have settled. Dkt. No. 37. Consequently, the Court 

vacates all pretrial deadlines and dismisses this case without prejudice. If any party certifies to the 

Court within 45 days from the date of this order that the agreed consideration for the settlement of 

this action has not been delivered, this order will be vacated and the case will be set for a case 

management conference. If no certification is filed, the dismissal will be deemed to be with 

prejudice after 45 days. 

The parties are directed not to ask the Court for a “dismissal with prejudice” at any 

time after this order, or to ask for an order confirming dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1). No Court order is necessary for dismissal under that rule.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2018

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:17-cv-00206-JD Document 38 Filed 03/30/18 Page 1 of 1
Khonesavanh KAKHANKHAM, DOC #C09650, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1820

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHIRON CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

    v.

SOURCECF INC., SOURCECF CLINICALRESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.,MAXOR NATIONAL PHARMACYSERVICES CORPORATION d/b/a IVSOLUTIONS, FOUNDATION CARE L.L.C.,and PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALTIES,INC.,

Defendant.                                                                           /

No. C 05-01938 WHA

ORDER RESCHEDULINGHEARINGS

The hearings on defendants’ motion for voluntary entry of a permanent injunction and

plaintiff’s cross-motion for judgment, currently noticed for November 10, 2005 and

December 8, 2005, are RESCHEDULED so both motions may be heard simultaneously on

NOVEMBER 30, 2005 AT 2:00 P.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  October 25, 2005                                                               WILLIAM ALSUPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01938-WHA   Document 44   Filed 10/25/05   Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 24.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We have issued our report datedJune 22, 2007, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Pharsight Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by referenceof said report in the Registration Statements of Pharsight Corporation on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-118983, effective September 14, 2004, File No. 333-60138, effective May 3, 2001, File No. 333-60136, effective May 3, 2001, FileNo. 333-44756, effective August 29, 2000 and File No. 333-44462, effective August 25, 2000). 

/s/ GRANT THORNTONLLP 

San Jose, CA 

June 22, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 405 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 405

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 
 Shawn Musgrave v. Mark Warner and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on 
                             Intelligence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 2021

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 
 Shawn Musgrave v. Mark Warner and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on 
                             Intelligence.

Whereas, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Senator Mark 
        Warner, Chairman of the Committee, have been named as defendants in the 
        case of Shawn Musgrave v. Mark Warner and the U.S. Senate Select 
        Committee on Intelligence, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-02198, pending in 
        the United State District Court for the District of Columbia;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to defend Committees and Members of the Senate in 
        civil actions relating to their official responsibilities: Now 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
the Select Committee on Intelligence and Senator Warner in the case of 
Shawn Musgrave v. Mark Warner and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
                                 <all>
```
Christian QUINTERO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3643

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Eric DAROSA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2027

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance





Exhibit 10.1




SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Second Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Addendum”) amends the First Amendment To
Employment Agreement between A. Schulman, Inc. (“Employer”) and Joseph M. Gingo (“Employee”) dated
December 17, 2007 (the “Agreement”), and is made and entered into as of the Effective Date. The
effective date (“Effective Date”) of this Addendum shall be the date upon which the last of the
Parties shall execute this Addendum.



WHEREAS, Employee has voluntarily offered to waive under his Agreement the minimum restricted
stock award provisions for the fiscal year 2009 only (“FY09”);



WHEREAS, Employer recognizes the voluntary nature of Employee’s offer, and desires to accept
this waiver on a one-time basis;



NOW THEREFORE, In exchange for the mutual promises set forth below, the parties hereby agree
to the following amendment of the Agreement:



1. Effect of Addendum. The parties agree that this Addendum shall amend Paragraph 13
of the Agreement for FY09.



2. 2009 Grant of Restricted Stock Awards. For FY09, Employee expressly waives his
right to a minimum amount of award of performance-based restricted shares of common stock or
restricted stock units, as the case may be, based on a target grant value of 200% of Employee’s
Base Salary (“LTIP RS Award”) as long-term incentive compensation under the 2006 Incentive Plan and
as set forth in Paragraph 13 of the Agreement. The Parties agree that, for FY09, the amount of
Employee’s LTIP RS Award shall be 66,667 (determined on the same relative basis as the awards
granted to other executive officers of the Company in FY09).



3. Other Terms of The Agreement. In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain
unchanged, enforceable and in full effect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Addendum has been duly executed by Joseph M. Gingo and an authorized
officer of A. Schulman, Inc. as of the date written below their names. In the event of an
inconsistency between the terms and conditions of the Agreement and this Addendum, the terms and
conditions of this Addendum shall prevail.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	JOSEPH M. GINGO	 	A. SCHULMAN, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Joseph M. Gingo
	 	By:
	 	/s/ David Mine	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Its:
	 	Chief Legal Counsel and Secretary	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:

	 	01/09/2009
	 	Date:
	 	01/09/2009