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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1466 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pimientos (capsicum anuum), 

prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2005 

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pimientos (capsicum anuum), prepared or preserved otherwise than by 

vinegar or acetic acid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PIMIENTOS, PREPARED OR PRE4 SERVED BY VINEGAR OR ACETIC ACID. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 
2 

•HR 1466 IH 

‘‘ 9902.20.03 Pimientos (capsicum 

anuum), prepared or preserved otherwise than by 

vinegar or acetic acid, not 

frozen, in containers holding 

not more than 227 g. (provided for in subheading 

2005.90.50) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
Exhibit 32.2  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 of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric T. Jones, Secretary/Treasurer, Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Eric T. Jones By  ____________________________________ Eric T. Jones Secretary/Treasurer and Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer Date:  May 14, 2008
**[Virchow Krause & Company Logo]****Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We  have examined WestLake Settlement Services, LLC's compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB applicable to WestLake (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007: 1122(d)(4)(xi) Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or insurance payments) are made on or before the related penalty or expiration dates, as indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for such payments, provided that such support has been received by the servicer at least 30 calendar days prior to these dates, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.; 1122(d)(4)(xii) Any late payment penalties in connection with any payment to be made on behalf of an obligor are paid from the servicer's funds and not charged to the obligor, unless the late payment was due to the obligor's error or omission; Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with these servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria ba sed on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. In our opinion, WestLake Settlement Services, LLC complied with, in all material respects, the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. /s/ Virchow Krause & Company LLP****Virchow Krause & Company, LLP March 3, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<CIK>                         0000710507
<NAME>                        First Banks, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                         157,883
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,897
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                17,900
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    396,892
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          21,579
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            21,744
<LOANS>                                      4,359,586
<ALLOWANCE>                                     80,311
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,234,629
<DEPOSITS>                                   4,531,048
<SHORT-TERM>                                   103,508
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            134,432
<LONG-TERM>                                    127,714
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     13,063
<COMMON>                                         5,915
<OTHER-SE>                                     318,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               5,234,629
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                285,584
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               21,104
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,772
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               309,460
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             128,311
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             136,198
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          173,262
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   11,067
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 199
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                122,486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 71,494
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      71,494
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,317
<EPS-BASIC>                                   1,808.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1,750.62
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.79
<LOANS-NON>                                     53,843
<LOANS-PAST>                                     5,275
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                115,292
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                68,611
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    8,667
<RECOVERIES>                                     7,954
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               80,311
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            75,781
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          4,530



</TABLE>
Robert Paul STEVENS, petitioner, v. VALLEY VIEW MEDICAL CENTER, et al.

No. 12-8494.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, denied.
Carlos Alberto SOLERNORONA, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 12-8862.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 694   Filed 06/22/17   Page 1 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 694   Filed 06/22/17   Page 2 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 694   Filed 06/22/17   Page 3 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 694   Filed 06/22/17   Page 4 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 694   Filed 06/22/17   Page 5 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 694   Filed 06/22/17   Page 6 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 694   Filed 06/22/17   Page 7 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 694   Filed 06/22/17   Page 8 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 694   Filed 06/22/17   Page 9 of 9
case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 1 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 2 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 3 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 4 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 5 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 6 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 7 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 8 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 9 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 10 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 11 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 12 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 13 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 14 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 15 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 16 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 17 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 18 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 19 of 20

case 2:13-cv-00453-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 12/09/13   page 20 of 20
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12242]



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



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Unique Surveillance 
Technologies

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Unique Surveillance 
Technologies will meet in closed session on May 24-25, 1995, at the 
Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia. In order for the Task Force to obtain 
time sensitive classified briefings, critical to the understanding of 
the issues, this meeting is scheduled on short notice. In order for the 
Task Force to obtain time sensitive classified briefings, critical to 
the understanding of the issues, this meeting is scheduled on short 
notice.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will review and evaluate Have Gaze and related surveillance 
technologies and to assess overall technological maturity, technical 
and operational issues, potential military utility, and appropriate 
technology investment.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting, concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c) (1) (1988), and that accordingly this 
meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: May 5, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Office, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-12242 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.20

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 7
                             TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         AGREEMENT dated as of May 19, 2003 between Spencer S. Lee ("Employee")
and Chemed Corporation (the "Company").

         WHEREAS, Employee and the Company have entered into an Employment
Agreement dated as of May 19, 1997 and amended May 18, 1998, May 17, 1999, May
15, 2000, May 21, 2001, January 2, 2002 and August 7, 2002 ("Employment
Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, Employee and the Company desire to amend the Employment
Agreement in certain respects.

         NOW, THEREFORE, Employee and the Company mutually agree that the
Employment Agreement shall be amended, effective as of May 19, 2003, as follows:

         A.       The date, amended as of August 7, 2002, set forth in Section
                  1.2 of the Employment Agreement, is hereby deleted and the
                  date of May 21, 2006 is hereby substituted therefore.

         B.       The base salary amount set forth in the first sentence of
                  Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and
                  the base salary amount of $238,921 per annum is hereby
                  substituted.

         C.       The amount of unrestricted stock award recognized in lieu of
                  incentive compensation in 2002 is $47,390.

         Except as specifically amended in this Amendment No. 7 to

<PAGE>

                  Employment Agreement, the Employment Agreement, as amended,
                  shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its
                  terms, conditions and provisions.

                           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed
                  this amendatory agreement as of the date first above written.

                                             EMPLOYEE

                                             /s/ Spencer S. Lee
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Spencer S. Lee

                                             CHEMED CORPORATION

                                             /s/ Kevin J. McNamara
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Kevin J. McNamara
                                             President & Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

##### **AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

##### **OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

##### ** **

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”),Robert J. Currey and Steven L. Childers, President and Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Consolidated CommunicationsHoldings, Inc., each certify that to his knowledge (i) the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and (ii) the informationcontained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Consolidated CommunicationsHoldings, Inc.

 
|   | /s/ Robert J. Currey                  |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Robert J. Currey                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |
|   | May 7, 2010                      |

 
|   | /s/ Steven L. Childers                                     |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Steven L. Childers                                         |
|   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer          |
|   | (Principal Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer) |
|   | May 7, 2010                                           |

 

----
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

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC)

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 545

Plaintiff Waymo LLC has filed an Administrative Motion to File under Seal Portions of its 

Letter Brief requesting production of an unredacted version of a letter sent from John Gardner to 

Stroz Friedberg, LLC (Dkt. No. 545-3) and Exhibit 3 thereto. (Dkt. No. 545-8.) Waymo seeks to 

seal these documents “only because Defendants have designated the information confidential.” 

(Dkt. No 545 at 2.1)

Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), Uber was therefore required within “4 days of the filing 

of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal . . . [to file] a declaration as required by 

subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” However, 

Uber did not file a declaration in support of sealing; it had until June 9th to do so. Accordingly, 

the administrative motion to file under seal is DENIED. Waymo shall file public versions of its briefs 

and exhibits consistent with this Order by no later than June 30, 2017. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-

5(f)(3).

This Order disposes of Docket No. 545. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 691 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 2
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

Dated: June 22, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 691 Filed 06/22/17 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7061 PATRICK WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN LAMBERT; FLORENCE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 97-7312 PATRICK WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES C. GREGG, Sheriff of Florence County, "solely in his individual capacity," Defendant - Appellee.2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-96-662-4-18BE, CA-97-611-4-18BE) Submitted: January 6, 1998 Decided: January 22, 1998 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Thomas King, WILCOX, MCLEOD, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court found that Wilson failed to timely object to the magistrate judge’s report in the action against Lambert, we do not rely on waiver as a ground for our affirmance. 3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewedthe records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Wilson v. Lambert , No. CA-96-662-4-18BE (D.S.C. July 15, 1997); Wilson v. Gregg , No. CA-97-611-4-18BE (D.S.C. Aug. 29, 1997). * 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.1
 Form of 2008B Stock Purchase Agreement
AXCESS INTERNATIONAL INC.
3208 Commander Drive
Carrollton, Texas 75006
  Re: Stock Purchase Agreement
  the Preferred) the Warrants)
 Type of Security and Purchase Price     Effective Date
 Conversion Option.
 Purchase Dates and Delivery of Shares
 Securities Act Legend; Registration Rights
 Securities Act
   Representations and Warranties by the Company




---



##### 



Representations and Warranties of the Purchaser




---



##### 



Reaffirmation of Representations and Warranties
 Miscellaneous




---



##### 



Very truly yours,
AXCESS INTERNATIONAL INC.By:Allan Griebenow, Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ROBERT HOLLAND, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. 2:13-cv-00491

)

CERBERUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Correct

Errors and Set Aside, filed by pro se Plaintiff, Robert Holland, on

March 5, 2015 (DE #134). For the reasons set forth below, the

motion (DE #134) is DENIED. 

Holland states that the current motion is made pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. Rule 59(e) requires

that a motion to alter or amend a judgment “must be filed no later

than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e). In this case, the judgment was entered on November 19, 2014

(DE #104), therefore, the motion is untimely. 

To the extent Holland moves for reconsideration under Rule 60,

Holland previously filed a motion to reconsider on November 26,

2014 (DE #112) and a motion to correct errors and set aside the

judgment on November 26, 2014 (DE #113). This Court denied those

motions, finding Holland was merely rehashing arguments previously

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 135 filed 03/17/15 page 1 of 2
presented to the Court. (DE #115.) Again, reconsideration is not

warranted. Holland has pointed to no manifest error, newly

discovered evidence, or change in law, and merely rehashes

arguments. As such, the motion (DE #134) is DENIED. 

DATED: March 17, 2015 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

2

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 135 filed 03/17/15 page 2 of 2
Lamar Jermaine ROUNDTREE, petitioner, v. Robert KIRKPATRICK, Superintendent, Wende Correctional Facility.

No. 12-9642.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT A

FILED UNDER SEAL  

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 265-1 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 1
Brett A. STALLINGS, petitioner, v. James CROSS, Jr., Warden.

No. 12-9647.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Michael W. BRYANT, petitioner, v. James E. DONALD, et al.

No. 12-9720.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.