alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SPECTRUM SCAN, LLC, petitioner, v. VALLEY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, et al.

No. 12-1071.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
S/M REAL ESTATE FUND VII, LTD.

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.7



                            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 S/M Real Estate Fund VII, Ltd. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, as filed
with Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard E. Hoffmann, Chief Executive Officer of the general partner of the
Partnership, 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 Partnership.


                                      S/M REAL ESTATE FUND VII, LTD.

                                BY:   SM7 APARTMENT INVESTORS INC.
                                      General Partner


Date:  November 12, 2002              BY:     /s/ Richard E. Hoffmann
                                              ---------------------------
                                      Name:   Richard E. Hoffmann
                                      Title:  Chief Executive Officer,
                                              Director, President and Treasurer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ACR Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended May 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alex Trevino, Jr., the Chief Executive 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, to my knowledge: 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ACR Group, Inc. and will be retained by ACRGroup, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

This certification accompanies the Reportpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:14-CR-24-TLS 

)

LAURENCE ROTHSCHILD )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 22], filed on November 24, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection

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

Recommendation [ECF No. 22] 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 Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on December 10, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
E. Broshy Amendment to EE Agrmt. 1/04






January 1, 2004 




Eran Broshy




Re:     Amendment to Employment Agreement 




Dear Eran: 




This letter confirms our agreement and shall serve to amend the June 14, 1999 Employment Agreement between you and the Company in accordance with the following: 




7 (d)         Car Allowance 

The paragraph shall be amended to read as follows: 




      During the period of Executive’s employment by the Company, the Company shall pay to the Executive as a travel allowance the net amount of $500.00 per month. 







Very truly yours, 




VENTIV HEALTH, INC. 

 

By: 

	
/s/    Fred Drasner         

	
   Fred Drasner 

      Director 






 

Accepted and agreed to by: 

	
/s/    ERAN BROSHY         

	
        Eran Broshy 

Chief Executive Officer
George A. STROLL, petitioner, v. Philip L. JOHNSON, et al.

No. 13-6433.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
case 3:14-cr-00055-JD-CAN document 27 filed 06/23/14 page 1 of 4
case 3:14-cr-00055-JD-CAN document 27 filed 06/23/14 page 2 of 4
case 3:14-cr-00055-JD-CAN document 27 filed 06/23/14 page 3 of 4
case 3:14-cr-00055-JD-CAN document 27 filed 06/23/14 page 4 of 4
Kenneth M. SOBCZAK, petitioner, v. WISCONSIN.

No. 13-6549.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied.
Beau C. VAUGHAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10409.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12640]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,688]


Union Camp Corp.; Retail Packaging of the Flexible Packaging 
Division Savannah, GA; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    On April 24, 1995, the union requested administrative 
reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance for workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was 
signed on March 30, 1995 and published in the Federal Register on April 
27, 1995 (60 FR 20763).
    The issue is whether plastic bags are like and directly competitive 
with paper bags.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 11th day of May, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-12640 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,157,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,212,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,157,528
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,807
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,212,335
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,176,721
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,157,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,193
<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>                                       0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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 that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  (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.
 /s/ Robert G. GargusRobert G. Gargus,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Theron Resource Group
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I,
Jerry R. Satchwell, Chief Executive 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Dated: August 31, 2010

/s/ Jerry R. Satchwell

Jerry R. SatchwellChief Executive
Officer

---
Jason JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6741.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Interim Decision #1362

MATTER OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY In VISA PETITION Proceedings

DET—N-1605


### Decided by 

### Acting Regional Commissioner June 14,1963 A distinguished scholar coining to a university to teach (70% of time) and do research in mathematics for an academic year is eligible for nonimmigrant status under section 101(a) (15) (H) (1), Immigration and Nationality Act, since the position is not permanent in nature ; the courses to be taught, although listed in the university catalogue under an open number for credit purposes, are special seminars which are taught only by distinguished visiting professors or other qualified personnel and are not a permanent part of the curriculum.

This is a petition to import for a temporary period under section101(a) (15) (H) (i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a distinguished scholar to teach and do research in mathematics for the 1963- 1964 school year. The petition was denied by the District Director on the grounds that the beneficiary will be teaching a full load of coursesthat are listed in the University Catalogue, and the position is therefore permanent in nature.' The petition is before this office on appeal from that decision. The beneficiary, according to the petition, is to teach and do research in mathematics for the 1963-1964 school term. The courses to be taught by the beneficiary are listed in the catalogue of the institution under an open number, for credit purposes, and are given when there is a demand or when a visiting professor is available. The beneficiary will teach for about seventy per cent of his time, the remainder will be on research. The petitioner stated in his brief on appeal that the beneficiary would teach courses which are special and temporary in nature, which could legitimately be called Special Seminars; that the courses are listed under open number in the catalogue in order that the student may benefit creditwise. Only distinguished visiting professors or staff members with special ability give courses under this number.

1 Matter of 11— S — 8 I. & N. Dec. 400.
640Interim Decision #1362 It is concluded that the petitioner seeks the 'Services of the beneficiary to do research and to teach a special seminar in mathematics. This is
a course that is not a permanent part of the curricula. It is given occasionally by visiting professors or other qualified personnel to advanced students in mathematics. The appeal will be sustained. ORDER! It is ordered that the appeal in the above cited case be and the same is hereby sustained.

641 703-45G-C1---42
Neil GRENNING, petitioner, v. WASHINGTON.

No. 12-10740.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6429

CHRIS A. JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

T. MCKOY, Superintendent; MR. JOHNSON, Superintendent; CAPTAIN 

SOUTHHALL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:16-ct-03199-D)

Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chris A. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Dale McInnes, NORTH CAROLINA 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chris A. Jones appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that 

relief be denied and advised Jones that failure to file timely, specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 

F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Jones has 

waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

NANCY ISLAS, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Cause No. 3:12-CV-845-WCL-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. ) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

The Court, having reviewed Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to 

Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and being duly advised in the premises, hereby GRANTS 

Defendants’ Motion. Defendants are hereby granted an extension up to an including March 25, 

2013 to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

SO ORDERED this 21st day of February, 2013. 

 s/Christopher A. Nuechterlein 

 Magistrate Judge, Christopher A. Nuechterlein 

U.S. Northern District Court 

Distribution: 

Douglas A. Mulvaney 

Stutsman & Mulvaney 

1300 Cassopolis Street 

P.O. Box 1337 

Elkhart, Indiana 46515 

case 3:12-cv-00845-WCL-CAN document 20 filed 02/21/13 page 1 of 2
Dina M. Cox / Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo 

Robert M. Baker IV / Janelle P. Kilies 

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP 

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 

Indianapolis, IN 46202 

case 3:12-cv-00845-WCL-CAN document 20 filed 02/21/13 page 2 of 2
----

----

|                                                | PhotoMedex, Inc. |                                                        |
|-----------------------------------------------------|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |             |                                                        |   |
| Date:  August 16, 2010     | By:              | /s/ Christina L. Allgeier                              |   |
|                                                |             | Name:  Christina L. Allgeier                      |   |
|                                                |             | Title:    Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|                                                |             |                                                        |   |

----

----
In the Senate of the United States,

December 22 (legislative day, December 21), 2005.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 1400) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend title 18, United

States Code, to provide penalties for aiming laser pointers at

airplanes, and for other purposes.’’, do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST INTERFERING WITH

2 FLIGHT CREWS THROUGH USE OF LASER

3 POINTERS OR SIMILAR DEVICES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 465 of title 49, United

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

6 ‘‘§ 46508. Interference with flight crew vision

7 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—An individual who interferes

8 with, or attempts to interfere with, the ability of the flight

9 crew of an aircraft in flight to see, or otherwise to impair

10 the safe operation of an aircraft in flight, by illuminating
 †

2

HR 1400 EAS

1 the aircraft with a laser pointer or similar device shall be

2 fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 5 years,

3 or both.

4 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subsection (a) does not apply to

5 the illumination of aircraft by laser or other devices by—

6 ‘‘(1) an authorized individual in the conduct of

7 research and development or flight test operations

8 conducted by an aircraft manufacturer, the Federal

9 Aviation Administration, or any other person author10 ized by the Federal Aviation Administration to con11 duct such research and development or flight test op12 erations;

13 ‘‘(2) members or elements of the Department of

14 Defense acting in an official capacity for the purpose

15 of research, development, operations, testing or train16 ing; or

17 ‘‘(3) by an individual using a laser emergency

18 signaling device to send an emergency distress sig19 nal.’’.
†

3

HR 1400 EAS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The chapter analysis

2 for chapter 465 of title 49, United States Code, is amended

3 by adding at the end the following:

‘‘46508. Interference with flight crew vision’’.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1400

AMENDMENT
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER





PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the annual report of CorMedix Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Cook, Chief
Financial 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, to my knowledge:





(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.








July 10,
2018
By:
/s/
Robert
CookRobert
CookChief
Financial Officer
(Principal
Financial Officer)