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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 642 

Expressing support for the designation of May 17, 2022, as ‘‘DIPG Pediatric 

Brain Cancer Awareness Day’’ to raise awareness of, and encourage 

research on, diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma tumors and pediatric cancers 

in general. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2022 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. REED, Mr. BRAUN, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. MARSHALL, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. CASEY, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) submitted 

the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of May 17, 2022, 

as ‘‘DIPG Pediatric Brain Cancer Awareness Day’’ to 

raise awareness of, and encourage research on, diffuse 

intrinsic pontine glioma tumors and pediatric cancers 

in general. 

Whereas diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (referred to in this 

preamble as ‘‘DIPG’’) tumors regularly affect 150 to 300 

children in the United States each year; 

Whereas brain tumors are the leading cause of cancer-related 

death among children; 

Whereas DIPG tumors are the leading cause of pediatric 

brain cancer deaths; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 642 ATS 

Whereas, with respect to a child who is diagnosed with a 

DIPG tumor and receives treatment for a DIPG tumor, 

the median amount of time that the child survives after 

diagnosis is approximately 8 to 11 months; 

Whereas, with respect to an individual who is diagnosed with 

a DIPG tumor, the rate of survival 5 years after diagnosis is approximately 2 percent; 

Whereas the average age at which a child is diagnosed with 

a DIPG tumor is between 5 and 10 years, resulting in 

a life expectancy approximately 70 years shorter than the 

average life expectancy in the United States; and 

Whereas the prognosis for children diagnosed with DIPG tumors has not improved during the past 50 years: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports— 

3 (A) designating May 17, 2022, as ‘‘DIPG 

4 Pediatric Brain Cancer Awareness Day’’; and 

5 (B) efforts to— 

6 (i) better understand diffuse intrinsic 

7 pontine glioma tumors; 

8 (ii) develop effective treatments for 

9 diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma tumors; 

10 and 

11 (iii) provide comprehensive care for 

12 children with diffuse intrinsic pontine 

13 glioma tumors and their families; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•SRES 642 ATS 

1 (2) encourages all individuals in the United 

2 States to become more informed about— 

3 (A) diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma tu4 mors; 

5 (B) pediatric brain cancer in general; and 

6 (C) challenges relating to research on pedi7 atric cancers and ways to advance such re8 search. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
STATE of Louisiana v. James CHATMAN

NO. 2019-KK-0537

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 2019

Denied.
Radcliffe B. LEWIS, petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.

No. 12-7695.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 24656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11408]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,592]


Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    Santa Fe Minerals, Inc. a/k/a Santa Fe International Dallas, 
Texas.
    Santa Fe Minerals, Inc. a/k/a Santa Fe International Operating 
in the Gulf of Mexico and at Various Locations in the Following 
States:

Arkansas TA-W-30,592A
Louisiana TA-W-30,592B
Oklahoma TA-W-30,592C
California TA-W-30,592D
Texas exc Dallas TA-W-30,592E

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance applicable to all workers of the 
subject firm on February 17, 1995. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on March 10, 1995 (60 FR 13177).
    The Certification was amended on March 27, 1995 to include workers 
in the states of California and Texas.
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New findings show that 
Santa Fe Minerals, Inc., is a subsidiary of Santa Fe International and 
that unemployment isssurance (UI) taxes were paid under the name of 
Santa Fe International.
    Accordingly, the Department is amended the certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-30,592 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Santa Fe Minerals, Inc., also known as Santa Fe 
International, Dallas, Texas and operating in the Gulf of Mexico and 
at various locations in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, 
California and Texas, except Dallas who had become totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after December 13, 1993 
are eligible at apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of 
the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 27th day of April, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-11408 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Tony Eugene SAFFOLD, petitioner, v. Anthony C. NEWLAND, Warden.

No. 12-8854.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
I, Craig A. McCollam, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dionex Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 9, 2005
/s/ Craig A. McCollam
Nathaneal K. NIGHTINGALE, petitioner, v. MAINE.

No. 12-9076.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 21243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10791]





Department of Justice

United States Parole Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Announcement
Pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act
(Public Law 94-409) [5 U.S.C. Section 552b]
date and time: Friday, May 12, 1995, 11:00 a.m., by telephone 
conference call.

place: 5550 Friendship Boulevard, Chevy Chase, Maryland, 20815.

status: Open--Meeting.

matters considered: The following matters will be considered during the 
open meeting:

    (1) The transfer of three states from the Commission's North 
Central Region to the Commission's Eastern Region; and
    (2) Clarification of the jurisdiction of the Regional 
Commissioner for the Eastern Region over parole violators held at 
the Federal Transportation Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The 
proposal is to continue the jurisdiction of a Regional Commissioner 
until the completion of revocation proceedings, if that 
Commissioner, issued the warrant that commenced such proceedings.

agency contact:  Tom Kowalski, Case Operations, United States Parole 
Commission, (301) 492-5962.

    Dated: April 26, 1995.
Michael A. Stover,
General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-10791 Filed 4-27-95; 3:04 p.m.]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Juan Jose HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-720

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Raymond T. DAWSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-665

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

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 on Form 10-Q of Universal American Corp. (the "Registrant") for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Richard A. Barasch, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Robert A.
Waegelein, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of his knowledge:



Date: May 7, 2010

/s/ RICHARD A. BARASCHRichard A. Barasch Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 7, 2010

/s/ ROBERT A. WAEGELEINRobert A. Waegelein Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. This certification is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.

---



QuickLinks
Charles RAWLINGS, petitioner, v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, et al.

No. 12M105.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
In re Samuel H. WILLIAMS, petitioner.

No. 12-7741.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

SANDRA RHODES, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Cause No. 3:12-cv-841-JVB-CAN 

 ) 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING ) 

PHARMACY, INC. a/k/a NEW ) 

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER; ) 

AMERIDOSE, LLC; ALAUNUS ) 

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; BARRY ) 

CADDEN; LISA CADDEN; ) 

and GREGORY CONIGLIARO, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Pursuant to L.R. 6.1., Defendants Barry Cadden, Lisa Cadden and Greg Conigliaro 

(“Defendants”), by counsel, hereby move this Court for an extension of time to respond to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, up to and including March 25, 2013. Defendants’ Answer is currently due 

February 22, 2013. Plaintiff’s counsel has been consulted and has no objection to the requested 

extension. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants, by counsel, pray for an Order allowing Defendants up to and 

including March 25, 2013 to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and for all other relief just and 

proper in the premises. 

case 3:12-cv-00841-JVB-CAN document 18 filed 02/14/13 page 1 of 2
2 

LEWIS WAGNER LLP 

By: /s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo 

DINA M. COX, #18590-49 

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO, #28058-49 

ROBERT M. BAKER IV, #25471-49 

JANELLE M. KILIES, #30708-49 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on February 14, 2013 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Douglas A. Mulvaney 

Stutsman & Mulvaney 

1300 Cassopolis Street 

P.O. Box 1337 

Elkhart, Indiana 46515 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

 /s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo 

 KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO 

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP 

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 

Indianapolis, IN 46202-6150 

Telephone: (317) 237-0500 

Facsimile: (317) 630-2790 

kshaheed-diallo@lewiswagner.com \\lwfilesrv\DOCS\NECC\18 - Rhodes\Federal Court Action\2nd_MET.doc

case 3:12-cv-00841-JVB-CAN document 18 filed 02/14/13 page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1270 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1270

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 2005

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the Leaking 
          Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund financing rate.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND 
              FINANCING RATE.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 4081(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
Trust Fund financing rate) is amended by striking ``April 1, 2005'' and 
inserting ``October 1, 2005''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 16, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### In re: Floyd Junior “Dick” POWELL, Petitioner.

No. 04-6624.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2004.

Decided May 20, 2004.

Floyd Junior “Dick” Powell, Petitioner pro se.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Floyd Junior “Dick” Powell petitions for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court compel the district court to act on his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Because the district court has acted in Powell’s § 2255 action as recently as November 2003, we find no undue delay. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
J.C.B., petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE.

No. 12-8217.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Office, denied.
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AK SCIENTIFIC INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cr-00091-JD-2 

ORDER RE MOTION TO RESTRICT 

ACCESS TO DEFERRED 

PROSECUTION AGREEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 27

The indictment in this case charges defendant AK Scientific, Inc., and its founder, Peiwen 

Zhou, with shipping hazardous and toxic materials under false labels over a period of several 

years. Dkt. No. 1. AK Scientific and the government signed a deferred prosecution agreement 

(“DPA”) that will result in the dismissal with prejudice of the charges if AK Scientific satisfies a 

number of conditions. AK Scientific asks that the DPA be filed in the docket as “restricted,” 

which means it would be available to the public only in-person at the Clerk’s Office and not online 

through PACER/ECF. Dkt. No. 27. 

The Court approved the DPA but expressed concern about any restriction on the public’s 

access to it. Dkt. No. 24. In response, AK Scientific contends that “easy access” to the DPA 

could hurt its business. It says that DPAs should be treated like plea agreements, which are 

routinely filed as restricted in this district. Dkt. No. 27 at 3. The government took no position on 

the request but noted that the case has already “garnered significant attention” and that making the 

DPA available electronically consequently “may have little additional impact.” Dkt. No. 28.

AK Scientific’s request is declined. The public’s right of access to criminal proceedings is 

a hallmark of our criminal justice system. That includes access to the documents filed in a 

criminal case. See United States v. Guerrero, 693 F.3d 990, 1001 (9th Cir. 2012). To be sure, 
2

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

some restrictions may be appropriate to ensure a fair trial or serve other ends of justice, id. at 

1001-02, but those considerations are not present here. AK Scientific’s concern about potential 

business impacts is mainly speculative, and the government’s skepticism about further effects in 

an already publicized prosecution is well taken. The analogy to a plea agreement is not apt. A 

major reason those agreements are not available electronically is to reduce risk to inmates housed 

in correctional facilities, who may be victimized by other prisoners on the basis of information in 

the agreements. That factor is not in play with this corporate defendant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2018

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge
#### Zachary WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Fred MENIFEE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-7904.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 29, 2004.

Decided: May 4, 2004.

Zachary Williams, Appellant pro se. Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Zachary Williams, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williams’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 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.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  MTX
INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT DECEMBER 31, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           9,436
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     65,396
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,587
<PP&E>                                         211,920
<DEPRECIATION>                                 198,038
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 356,837
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          298,704
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       107,744
<OTHER-SE>                                     (39,998)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   356,837
<SALES>                                         55,609
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,495
<CGS>                                           15,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,187
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,338
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (55,310)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (55,310)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Gabriel RIVERA, petitioner, v. Michael VENDITTO, Jr.

No. 12-10014.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until July 1, 2013, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.