alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

Michael L. Rimschneider, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 3:16-CV-415 JVB

Kathy Griffin, et al., 

Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER

 Plaintiff Michael L. Rimschneider, a pro se prisoner, filed this lawsuit alleging that he 

was incorrectly found guilty of possessing a controlled substance after he was found with factory 

sealed jars of spices that he bought from commissary. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally 

construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) 

(quotation marks and citations omitted). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court 

must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or 

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief 

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

 Rimschneider is asking for monetary damages and to have his spices tested. Though he is 

not asking to overturn the prison disciplinary proceeding where he lost 90 days earned credit 

time, prevailing in this case would undermine the validity of that finding of guilt. Therefore, he 

cannot proceed with these claims until after the prison disciplinary proceeding is otherwise 

overturned or set aside. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643 (1997). That cannot happen 

in this case because “habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges 
2

the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release . . ..” Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). 

 Therefore this case must be dismissed without prejudice. If Rimschneider wants to file a 

habeas corpus petition challenging that prison disciplinary proceeding, he can obtain a copy of 

this court’s approved form for filing such a case from the prison law library. If he is able to have 

that case overturned, then he can refile these claims. Until then, these claims are not yet ripe. 

 For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 SO ORDERED on July 14, 2016. 

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

 JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ex10-2.htm


Exhibit 10.2

 

  

FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

ANADIGICS, INC.

EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

AMENDED AND RESTATED

(updated 5/15/2008 & 5/13/2010 by shareholder vote)

(updated 7/26/2012 by compensation committee)

(the “Plan”)

 

Effective as of January 1, 2015

 

WHEREAS, on October 23, 2014, the Board of Directors of ANADIGICS, Inc. (the “Company”) authorized and approved amendments to the Company’s Plan;

 

The Plan is hereby amended as follows:

 

Section 5 (ii) is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety as follows:

 

(ii) elect and authorize the purchase by him for each Purchase Period of a number of shares of Common Stock on the Exercise Date (as defined in Section 7) with respect to the applicable Purchase Period which shall not exceed the number of shares which may be purchased at a price equal to 85% of the lesser of the Fair Market Value (determined in accordance with Section 7) of the Common Stock on the first day or the last day of such Purchase Period with the maximum aggregate amount of payroll deductions for the Purchase Period (based on the participant’s Compensation in the effect on the first day of the Purchase Period);

 

Sections 7 (a) and (b) are hereby deleted and replaced in their entirety as follows:

 

	 	
(a)
	
an amount equal to 85% of the Fair Market Value of the Common Stock at the time such option is granted (i.e., the first day of the Purchase Period), or



 

	 	
(b)
	
an amount equal to 85% of the Fair Market Value of the Common Stock at the time such option is exercised (i.e., the Exercise Date).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; Exploratory Clinical Trials of Mind and Body Interventions (MB).                    

*Date:*                         July 29, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Center for Complementary and Integrative, Democracy II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         SUSHMITA Purkayastha, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, Division of Extramural Activities, NCCIH/NIH, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892-5475                         *sushmita.purkayastha@nih.gov*.                    

                        (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, Research and Training                               ( print page 35522)                            in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, HHS)                    

Dated: June 29, 2021.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-14282 Filed 7-2-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of CEO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AMCORE Financial, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), William R. McManaman, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ William R. McManaman
|William R. McManaman    
|Chief Executive Officer 
|August 10, 2009         

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 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, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AMCORE Financial, Inc. and will be retained by AMCORE Financial, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

Calendar No. 41 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 498 

[Report No. 112–16] 

To ensure objective, independent review of task and delivery orders. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2011 

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Mrs. MCCASKILL, and Mr. 

PORTMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

MAY 9, 2011 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, with an amendment 

[Insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To ensure objective, independent review of task and delivery 

orders. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Independent Task and 

5 Delivery Order Review Extension Act of 2011’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 498 RS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF SUNSET DATE FOR CERTAIN PRO2 TESTS OF TASK AND DELIVERY ORDER CON3 TRACTS. 

4 Section 4106(f)(3) of title 41, United States Code, 

5 is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(3) EFFECTIVE PERIOD.—Paragraph 1(B) 

7 and paragraph (2) of this subsection shall not be in 

8 effect after September 30, 2016.’’. 

9 SEC. 3. USE OF EXISTING RESOURCES TO PROCESS TASK 

10 AND DELIVERY ORDER PROTESTS. 

11 No amounts are authorized to be appropriated for the 

12 specific purpose of processing protests authorized under sec13 tion 4106(f) of title 41, United States Code, as amended 

14 by section 2, and all such protests shall be processed using 

15 the existing resources of the Government Accountability Of16 fice and executive agencies. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 41 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 498 

[Report No. 112–16] 

A BILL 

To ensure objective, independent review of task and 

delivery orders. 

MAY 9, 2011 

Reported with an amendment 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Equitex, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Henry Fong, President,
Treasurer and Chief Executive Officer, 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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.



                                       /s/ Henry Fong
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Henry Fong
                                       President, Treasurer and
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       May 20, 2003


A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO EQUITEX, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AND WILL BE RETAINED BY EQUITEX, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS
STAFF UPON REQUEST.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Carl F. Fahrenkrug, Chief Executive Officer of Microwave Filter Company,
Inc. (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 quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June
30, 2006 (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.

Dated: August 10, 2006                      /s/ Carl F. Fahrenkrug
                                                Carl F. Fahrenkrug
                                                Chief Executive Officer

<page>
                                                                    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

I, Richard L. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of Microwave Filter Company, Inc.
(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 quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June
30, 2006 (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.

Dated: August 10, 2006                      /s/ Richard L. Jones
                                                Richard L. Jones
                                                Chief Financial Officer
#### Walter Weston et al., Respondents, *v.*James R. Watts, Appellant.

(Argued April 28, 1890;

decided May 9, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made January 24,1890, which affirmed an order at Special Term denying a motion by defendant for an order directing the plaintiff Walter Weston to pay defendant a certain sum of money,

*I). O. Briggs*for appellant.

*Gh. Frcmois Stone*for respondents.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED  BALANCE  SHEET  AS OF  SEPTEMBER  30,  1997,  AND  THE  STATEMENT  OF
OPERATIONS  FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30,  1997,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         60
<SECURITIES>                                   2,652
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,712
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,712
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,043
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,712
<SALES>                                        8
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               98
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                26
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            26
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   26
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6904
CARL GRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BEDFORD COUNTY JAIL DOCTOR; J. WATSON, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-603-R) Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: January 16, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Gray, App ellant Pro Se. Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Phillip Richard Lingafelt, GLENN, FLIPPIN, FELDMANN & DARBY, R oanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gray v. Bedford County Jail Doctor , No. CA-94-603-R (W.D. Va. June 5, 1995). 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
##### 



Alion Science and Technology
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Amounts in thousands)
 Years Ended September 30,ACTUAL DATA
    
    2003
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2007Fixed ChargesCash interest expense
    
    $
    3,774
    
    
    $
    7,563
    
    
    $
    9,328
    
    
    $
    19,349
    
    
    $
    33,695Amortization of capitalized
expenses related to
indebtedness
    
    
    353
    
    
    
    2,791
    
    
    
    3,897
    
    
    
    2,591
    
    
    
    3,145Total fixed charges
    
    $
    4,127
    
    
    $
    10,354
    
    
    $
    13,225
    
    
    $
    21,940
    
    
    $
    36,840EarningsPre-tax earnings (loss)
    
    $
    (12,616
    )
    
    $
    (15,094
    )
    
    $
    (40,172
    )
    
    $
    (31,089
    )
    
    $
    (42,780
    )Fixed charges
    
    
    4,127
    
    
    
    10,354
    
    
    
    13,225
    
    
    
    21,940
    
    
    
    36,840Earnings before fixed charges
    
    $
    (8,489
    )
    
    $
    (4,740
    )
    
    $
    (26,947
    )
    
    $
    (9,149
    )
    
    $
    (5,940
    )Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    (1
    )
    
    
    (1
    )
    
    
    (1
    )
    
    
    (1
    )
    
    
    (1
    )
 
 (1)
    
    Earnings for fiscal 2003 to 2007 were inadequate to cover fixed charges in those periods by
$8.5 million, $4.7 million, $26.9 million, $9.1 million, and $5.9 million, respectively.
#### Michael A. BLACKMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary H. HAMBLIN and Rick Raemisch, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-2029.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 17, 2011.*

Decided Aug. 17, 2011.

*633Michael A. Blackmon, Portage, WI, pro se.

Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge, DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.

*

 The defendants-appellees were not served with process in the district court and are not participating in this appeal. After examining the *633plaintiff-appellant's brief and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the plaintiff-appellant’s brief and the record. *See*Fed. R.App P. 34(a)(2)(C).

ORDER

In this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Wisconsin prisoner Michael Blackmon challenges as unconstitutional the conditions of his parole, which has since been revoked. Blackmon was ordered back to prison because he refused to obtain a psychological evaluation. Blackmon concedes this fact but insists that he is “of sound mind” and that forcing him to seek a psychological evaluation amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. He demands unspecified injunctive relief plus $6 million in damages. The district court dismissed his suit at screening. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l).

We agree with the district court that Blackmon has selected the wrong vehicle to pursue his grievances. A person convicted of a crime may not use § 1983 to attack the fact of his confinement or the conditions of his parole. *Preiser v. Rodriguez,*411 U.S. 475, 490, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); *Savory v. Lyons,*469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir.2006); *Williams v. Wisconsin,*336 F.3d 576, 579-80 (7th Cir. 2003); *Drollinger v. Milligan,*552 F.2d 1220, 1224-25 (7th Cir.1977). Nor may a prisoner use § 1983 to obtain damages if success on the merits necessarily would imply the invalidity of the revocation of his parole. *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); *Williams v. Consovoy,*453 F.3d 173, 177 (3d Cir.2006); *Coleman v. Dretke,*395 F.3d 216, 219 n. 2 (5th Cir.2004); *Knowlin v. Thompson,*207 F.3d 907, 909 (7th Cir.2000). If Blackmon wanted to challenge the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s requiring him to obtain a psychological evaluation, then he should have filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

AFFIRMED.