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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1524 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1524

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 12433 Antioch Road in Overland Park, Kansas, as the ``Ed Eilert Post 
                           Office Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1524

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 12433 Antioch Road in Overland Park, Kansas, as the ``Ed Eilert Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12433 
Antioch Road in Overland Park, Kansas, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Ed Eilert Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ed Eilert Post Office 
Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AXCESS Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Report***”), I, Allan L. Frank, VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Principal Accounting andFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the datesand for the periods indicated.

 

 
| /S/ ALLAN L. FRANK                                                                                |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Allan L. Frank                                                                               |
| Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Principal Accounting and Financial Officer |
|                                                                                              |
| Dated:  August 12, 2004                                                                 |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7397

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

PAUL A. LEE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:89-cr-00273-FPS-1)

Submitted: January 13, 2014 Decided: January 17, 2014

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul A. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; 

Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul A. Lee appeals the district court’s order denying 

his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Lee, No. 5:89-cr-00273-FPS-1 (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 28, 2013). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE of Louisiana v. Linda Kate PASSANITI

NO. 2018-KP-1741

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant in part.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(A) AND
15D-14(A), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Adriel G. Lares, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of 3PAR Inc.; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                                   
|------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Date: July 29, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    ADRIEL G. LARES                            
|                    |  |  |  | Adriel G. Lares                                   
|                    |  |  |  | Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer
|                    |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1172]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

RIN 3150-AE97


Shutdown and Low-Power Operations for Nuclear Power Reactors

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule: Extension of the public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On October 19, 1994 (59 FR 52707-52714), the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission published for public comment a proposed rule 
regarding Shutdown and Low-Power Operations for Nuclear Power Reactors. 
The comment period for this proposed rule was to have expired on 
January 3, 1995. On December 2, 1994, Yankee Atomic Electric Company 
requested a sixty-day extension of the comment period on the basis that 
the technical issues associated with the proposed rule are complex in 
nature and may warrant additional time to address the comments 
adequately. In view of the importance of the proposed rule and the 
desirability of developing a final rule with adequate consideration of 
all comments to the extent practicable, the NRC has decided to extend 
the comment period by thirty days. The extended comment period now 
expires on February 3, 1995. To facilitate NRC responses to comments it 
would be appreciated if commenters could provide their comments 
electronically on a diskette, as well as by hard copy.

DATES: The comment period has been extended and now expires on February 
3, 1995. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is 
practical to do so but the Commission is able to assure consideration 
only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments or suggestions to the Secretary of the 
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of comments 
received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street 
NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary M. Holahan, Director, Division of 
Systems Safety and Analysis, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 
(301) 504-2884.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of January, 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-1172 Filed 1-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

Ralph E. Smith, as Personal Representative of the ) 

Estate of Delano Smith, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

VS. ) CASE NO.: 3:12-cv-00059 

 ) 

City of Elkhart, Officer Bruce Anglemyer, ) 

Corporal Norm Friend, Sergeant James ) 

Buchmann and Officer Michael Price, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO 

FRCP 41(b)

 Defendants, by counsel, respectfully move the Court for an order dismissing the 

above cause of action, with prejudice, pursuant to FRCP 41(b) and for reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs for the following reasons: 

 1. On March 21, 2013, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s counsels’ 

motion to withdraw their appearances for Plaintiff in the above cause, and subsequent to 

the hearing granted Plaintiff’s counsels’ motion to withdraw. (Dkt. entry 32.) 

 2. The Court further ordered on March 21, 2013 that Plaintiff had until April 

22, 2013 to file a written statement with the Court indicating whether he wishes to 

proceed pro se or whether he intends to hire new counsel. (Id.) 

 3. The Court included in its order an admonition to the Plaintiff that if he 

failed to file a statement of his intention, the Court may recommend that the above 

lawsuit be dismissed for his failure to appear at the March 21, 2013 hearing as ordered. 

(Id.) 
 4. The Court’s deadline of April 22, 2013 has passed and Plaintiff has failed 

to file a statement with the Court indicating his intentions as ordered by the Court. 

 5. Because Plaintiff has taken no action to prosecute this cause of action and 

has failed to obey the Court’s order of March 21, 2013, dismissal is appropriate pursuant 

to FRCP 41(b), which provides that “if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with 

these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim 

against it.” FRCP 41(b). 

 WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully move the Court for an order dismissing 

the above cause of action with prejudice, for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and for 

all other just and proper relief. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 TRAVELERS STAFF COUNSEL OFFICE

 

 By: /s/ Julie J. Havenith

 Julie J. Havenith, #17898-53-A 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I certify that on the 24th day of April, 2013, I served a copy of the foregoing 

document via U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, to the following party: 

Ralph E. Smith 

2104 Lincolnway West 

South Bend, IN 46628 

 

 /s/ Julie J. Havenith____ 

 Julie J. Havenith
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, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 November 20, 2013

p1113

Order 

Clerk

November 20, 2013

147335 & (45)

HAROLD HUNTER, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant/

Cross-Appellee,

v SC: 147335

COA: 306018

Genesee CC: 10-094081-NI

DAVID SISCO and AUTO CLUB INSURANCE

ASSOCIATION,

Defendants,

and 

CITY OF FLINT TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 2, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,563,428
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,621,933
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,563,428
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,621,933
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,622,319
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,578,753
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF TREASURER PURSUANT TO SECURITIES
ACT RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report (report) on Form 10-Q of Del Taco Restaurant
Properties I;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 officers 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; andc)
    
    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 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
function):
 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; andb)
    
    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 13, 2007
    /s/ Steven L. BrakeSteven L. BrakeTreasurer
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1524 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 12433 Antioch Road in Overland Park, Kansas, as the ‘‘Ed Eilert Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 1524 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 12433 Antioch Road in Overland Park, Kansas, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ed Eilert Post Of5 fice Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Ed Eilert Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 2005. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 1:13-CR-8-TLS

)

LUTHER W. VANHOOSIER )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 28] filed on May 3, 2013. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 28] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in the single-count Indictment is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

Further, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a),

that the Defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the

community if he continues on pretrial release under the terms imposed by the Order Setting

Conditions of Release [ECF No. 15] issued by the Magistrate Judge on February 5, 2013. At the

February 5 hearing concerning arraignment and detention, the Magistrate Judge found that the

Defendant was not likely to flee or pose a danger to others or to the community if the Court imposed

proper conditions of pretrial release. The parties report no change in circumstances since February 5.

Therefore, the Court finds that continued pretrial release pending sentencing is appropriate under

§ 3143(a). 

Any request for a sentence involving a departure under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines, or for a variance above or below a Guidelines sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

with the exception of matters raised pursuant to §5K1.1 of the Guidelines, shall be communicated to
the probation officer and opposing counsel, in writing, within fourteen (14) days following initial

disclosure of the pre-sentence report. Any sentencing memorandum addressing these or any other

issues, including requests for a departure based on § 5K1.1, shall be filed with the Court no later than

seven (7) days prior to the sentencing hearing. The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling

deadlines will be issued by separate order.

SO ORDERED on May 28, 2013. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE COSIO,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

A. P. KANE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-15474

D.C. No. CV-05-01966-CRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner George Cosio appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

jurisdiction

FILED

JUN 04 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 2004 1

decision of the California Board of Prison Terms (“the Board”) to deny parole

violated due process.

2 07-15474

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. 1

Cosio contends that the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was not

supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. 

Following an independent review of the record, see Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d

848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003), we conclude that the state court’s conclusion that some

evidence supports the Board’s decision was not objectively unreasonable. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL

1664977, at *11, *17 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010).

AFFIRMED.