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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1990

To suspend temporarily the duty on MKH 6561 Isocyanate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2005

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on MKH 6561 Isocyanate.

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

3 SECTION 1. MKH 6561 ISOCYANATE. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following:

‘‘ 9902.06.21 2-

(Carbomethoxy)benzenesulfonyl isocyanate 

(CAS No. 74222–95–0) 

(provided for in subheading 

3824.90.28) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

8 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 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

•HR 1990 IH 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1999       JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1999       MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                        6,603           54,479
<SECURITIES>                                      0           13,246
<RECEIVABLES>                                 2,957            6,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (57)            (100)
<INVENTORY>                                   7,101           13,524
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             18,728           88,452
<PP&E>                                       15,921           19,397
<DEPRECIATION>                                9,477           10,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               25,297           97,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         9,540           13,469
<BONDS>                                           0                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        47,793                0
<PREFERRED>                                       0                0
<COMMON>                                          8              162
<OTHER-SE>                                 (34,429)           82,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 25,297           97,865
<SALES>                                       1,177            6,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1,177            6,316
<CGS>                                         1,650            6,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 1,650            6,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              1,624            3,809
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               68              187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,148)          (3,583)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,148)          (3,583)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  358          (2,848)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0                0
<CHANGES>                                         0                0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,790)          (6,431)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (3.62)           (0.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (3.62)           (0.66)


</TABLE>
#### KOHN, Appellant, v. MEYER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by Eva Kohn against David Meyer.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Section 906
Certification of Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers
  1.
    
    This Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 November 6, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Norman L. LoweryNorman L. Lowery, Vice Chairman & CEO November 6, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Michael A. CartyMichael A. Carty, Treasurer & CFO
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I,Ronald A. Sultemeier, Chief Executive Officer of Wheeling Island Gaming, Inc.,a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify, to the best of myknowledge and belief that:

 

(1) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2002 (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Dated:  March  27, 2003 |   |   | /s/ Ronald A. Sultemeier |   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                         |   |   | Ronald A. Sultemeier     |   |
|                         |   |   | Chief Executive Officer  |   |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL BOSTON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 57 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of August, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 10.61

BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC.

 

2014 Inducement Plan (the “Plan”)

 

Agreement Regarding Restricted Share Units

 

 

Unless otherwise defined herein, the terms defined in the Plan shall have the same defined meanings in this Agreement Regarding Restricted Share Units.

 

 


	
I.
	
NOTICE OF RESTRICTED SHARE UNITS




 

You have been granted Restricted Share Units related to the Shares of the Company, subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan and this Agreement, as follows:

 


		
	
Grant Number:
	
 

	
Grant Date:
	
 

	
Total Number of Units Granted:
	
 




 

 

Vesting Schedule:

The Restricted Share Units granted under this award shall vest, conditioned on your Continuous Service to the Company, on each Vesting Date (as defined below) according to the following schedule:

25% of the Restricted Stock Units shall vest upon each of the first four anniversaries of the Grant Date (each such anniversary date, a “Vesting Date”)

Upon vesting, the units will automatically be converted into Shares of the Company on a 1:1 basis, subject to adjustment as provided in the Plan.

 

 

Tax Implications:

Upon the vesting of your Restricted Share Units, the applicable employment tax and withholding requirements (if any) will be satisfied on a “net settlement” basis, meaning that the number of Shares that you receive due to vesting will represent the difference between the total number of Shares in which you vest and a number of Shares having a fair market value sufficient to pay the minimum required statutory withholding due for such taxes.

 

 

 

1

BMRN/36815.v2
EXHIBIT 32.1
 WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (i)
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: May 7, 2010
    
    /s/ Alan H. Lund

ALAN H. LUNDDated: May 7, 2010
    
    /s/ Frederick S. Cromer

FREDERICK S. CROMER
 -60-
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: January 19, 2017 D-2-17 

___________________________________

In the Matter of MARGARET

ALICE BOMBA, an Attorney. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 ON MOTION

(Attorney Registration No. 4797411)

___________________________________

Calendar Date: January 11, 2017

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Margaret Alice Bomba, Boston, Massachusetts, pro se.

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third

Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for

the Third Judicial Department.

__________

Per Curiam.

Margaret Alice Bomba was admitted to practice by this Court

in 2010 and lists a business address in Boston, Massachusetts

with the Office of Court Administration. By affidavit sworn to

August 4, 2016, Bomba now seeks leave to resign from the New York

bar for nondisciplinary reasons (see Uniform Rules for Attorney

Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [a]). The Attorney

Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department

(hereinafter AGC) opposes Bomba's application by correspondence

from its Chief Attorney.

Bomba's application must be denied. Judiciary Law § 468-a

and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR)

§ 118.1 each require that attorneys admitted to practice in New

York file a biennial registration statement, and attendant fee,

with the Office of Court Administration. Judiciary Law § 468-a

(5) directly states that the failure to duly register "shall
-2- D-2-17 

constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice

and shall be referred to the appropriate appellate division . . .

for disciplinary action" (see Benjamin v Koeppel, 85 NY2d 549,

556 [1995]; see also Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR]

§ 118.1 [h]). Further, the Rules of Professional Conduct

explicitly define conduct that is prejudicial to the

administration of justice as attorney misconduct (see Rules of

Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]), and this

Court has repeatedly and consistently held that failure to comply

with the registration requirements is professional misconduct

warranting discipline (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of

Judiciary Law § 468-a, 113 AD3d 1020, 1021 [2014]; Matter of

Arms, 251 AD2d 743, 743-744 [1998]; Matter of Ryan, 238 AD2d 713,

713-714 [1997]; Matter of Farley, 205 AD2d 874, 874-875 [1994]).

As noted by AGC, Bomba has failed to abide by the attorney

registration requirements for three consecutive biennial periods

beginning in 2012. Accordingly, we find that she is ineligible

for nondisciplinary resignation and deny her application. We

further hold that any future application by Bomba for leave to

resign for nondisciplinary reasons must be supported by proof of

her full satisfaction of the requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-

a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR)

§ 118.1.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that Margaret Alice Bomba's application to resign

is denied.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

THOMAS J. VOLK, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-698-TLS-MGG

)

WELLS FARGO BANK NA, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Thomas J. Volk and Janet A. Volk filed their complaint against Defendant in

the LaPorte Circuit Court on September 12, 2016. In October 12, 2016, Defendant filed its

Notice of Removal to this Court, alleging that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1332. Doc. No. 1 at 3, ¶ 5. In its Notice of Removal, Defendant alleges that “[u]pon

information and belief, each of the plaintiffs is a citizen of Indiana,” citing Plaintiffs’ assertion in

their amended complaint that “they reside in Michigan City, Indiana.” Id. at 2, ¶ 3. Defendant

further alleges that it “is chartered as a national banking association in the State of South Dakota

with its principal place of business in the State of California.” Id. at ¶ 4.

These jurisdictional allegations are inadequate with respect to both Plaintiffs. To begin,

“[a]llegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be made on the basis of information

and belief, only personal knowledge.” Yount v. Shashek, 472 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1057 n.1 (S.D.

Ill. 2006) (citing Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir.

1992)); Ferolie Corp. v. Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114, at

*1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2004); Hayes v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, No. 02 C 9106, 2003 WL

187411, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2003). Furthermore, residency of an individual is meaningless
for purposes of diversity jurisdiction because an individual’s citizenship is determined by his or

her domicile. Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002); see Heinen v. Northrop

Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (“But residence may or may not demonstrate

citizenship, which depends on domicile–that is to say, the state in which a person intends to live

over the long run.”); Guar. Nat’l Title Co., 101 F.3d at 58–59 (explaining that statements

concerning a party’s “residency” are not proper allegations of citizenship as required by 28

U.S.C. § 1332). 

As the party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, Defendant bears the burden

of demonstrating that the requirement of complete diversity has been met. Chase v. Shop’n Save

Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). Therefore, Defendant is ORDERED

to supplement the record on or before October 27, 2016, by filing an amended notice of removal

that adequately alleges the citizenship of each Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.

Dated this 13th day of October, 2016.

 S/Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

United States Magistrate Judge

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

FORTINO ELENES, Jr.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-50156

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03962-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 21, 2015**

Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Fortino Elenes, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation 

of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

*

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).

FILED

JAN 28 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-50156

Elenes contends that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard in 

denying his request for a minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 and 

improperly concluded that he was not entitled to the adjustment. We review de 

novo the district court’s interpretation of the guidelines and for clear error the district 

court’s factual determination that a defendant is not a minor participant. See United

States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). Contrary to Elenes’s

contention, the record reflects that the court properly considered his culpability

relative to that of the average participant. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). 

Further, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not clearly 

err in determining that Elenes failed to prove that he was entitled to the adjustment. 

See id. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1069.

AFFIRMED.
---

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AND RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)
OF THE U.S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 In connection with the annual report of Altus Explorations, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2010 (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 his knowledge: 1.
     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: April 15, 2010
     /s/ Greg ThompsonGreg ThompsonPrincipal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1853 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1853

To ensure that the total amount of funds awarded to a State under part 
A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for 
each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006 is not less than the total amount of 
    funds awarded to the State under such part for fiscal year 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2005

   Mr. Ramstad (for himself and Mr. Moore of Kansas) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure that the total amount of funds awarded to a State under part 
A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for 
each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006 is not less than the total amount of 
    funds awarded to the State under such part for fiscal year 2003.

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

SECTION 1. HOLD HARMLESS PROVISIONS.

    (a) Fiscal Year 2005.--
            (1) Payments.--The Secretary of Education shall make a 
        payment to each State that received less funds under part A of 
        title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
        (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for fiscal year 2005 than such State 
        received under such part for fiscal year 2003.
            (2) Amount of payments.--The amount of a payment to a State 
        under paragraph (1) shall be equal to the amount of the 
        difference between the total amount of funds awarded to a State 
        under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) for fiscal year 
        2005 and the total amount of funds awarded to the State under 
        such part for fiscal year 2003.
            (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
        to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
        this section.
    (b) Fiscal Year 2006.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the total amount of funds awarded to a State under part A of title I of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et 
seq.) for fiscal year 2006 shall not be less than the total amount of 
funds awarded to the State under such part for fiscal year 2003.
                                 <all>
```
**Certification      of Chief Financial Officer Regarding Periodic Report Containing**

**Financial      Statements Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of      2002**

|   | · |   | fully                complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities                Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   |   |   |                                   |                                                                                                  |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | /s/              C. Troy Woodbury, Jr. |
|   |   |   |                                        |
|   |   |   | **Name:**                              | **C.                Troy Woodbury, Jr.**                                                              |
|   |   |   | **Title:**                             | **Treasurer                and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial                Officer)** |
|   |   |   | **Date:**                              | **January                16, 2007**                                                                   |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000714634
<NAME> BIOMUNE SYSTEMS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       5,374,516
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  168,963
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    503,491
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,431,970
<PP&E>                                         441,893
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,337,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          206,620
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,269,357
<COMMON>                                         2,127
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,590,249
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,337,317
<SALES>                                        431,520
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               431,520
<CGS>                                          231,854
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  231,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,374,665
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,029,513)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,029,513)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,968,816)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>