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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 67 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit former members of the 

Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability rated as total 

to travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same 

extent as retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to travel 

on such aircraft. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit former 

members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability rated as total to travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent as 

retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to 

travel on such aircraft. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 67 IS

1 SECTION 1. TRAVEL ON MILITARY AIRCRAFT OF CERTAIN 

2 DISABLED FORMER MEMBERS OF THE 

3 ARMED FORCES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 53 of title 10, United 

5 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1060b 

6 the following new section: 

7 ‘‘§ 1060c. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled 

8 former members of the armed forces 

9 ‘‘The Secretary of Defense shall permit any former 

10 member of the armed forces who is entitled to compensa11 tion under the laws administered by the Secretary of Vet12 erans Affairs for a service-connected disability rated as 

13 total to travel, in the same manner and to the same extent 

14 as retired members of the armed forces, on unscheduled 

15 military flights within the continental United States and 

16 on scheduled overseas flights operated by the Air Mobility 

17 Command. The Secretary of Defense shall permit such 

18 travel on a space-available basis.’’. 

19 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

20 at the beginning of chapter 53 of such title is amended 

21 by inserting after the item relating to section 1060b the 

22 following new item: 

‘‘1060c. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled former members of the 

armed forces.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM DARWIN THOMPSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 93 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-6467 LESTER DAVID GOODE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-12, CA-97-53-1) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 28, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Lester David Goode, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from a district court order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), as barred by the one-year limitations period. Because Appellant's conviction became final on June 18, 1988, Appellant had until April 23, 1997, to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown v. Angelone , ___ F.3d ___, 1998WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998) (Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208). Appellant filed this habeas motion on March 12, 1997. Therefore, his motion was not time barred. Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings. 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. VACATED AND REMANDED 2
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3715 

To extend the limited antitrust exemption contained in the Pandemic and 

All-Hazards Preparedness Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 30, 2012 

Mr. HARKIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, 

read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To extend the limited antitrust exemption contained in the 

Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LIMITED ANTITRUST EXEMP4 TION. 

5 Section 405(b) of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Pre6 paredness Act (42 U.S.C. 247d–6a note) is amended by 

7 striking ‘‘6-year’’ and inserting ‘‘7-year’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with
#### SHATTUCK, Respondent, v. GUARDIAN TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Edwin P. Shattuck, as receiver, etc., against the Guardian Trust Company of New York. D. J. Fackenthal, for appellant. H. Barry, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 125 App. Div. 431. 109 N. Y. Supp. 862; 145 App. Div. 734, 130 N. Y. Supp. 658.
Exhibit 32


CERTIFICATIONS OF


PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Annual Report of LipoScience, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard O. Brajer, President and 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 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 of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.





Date: March 27, 2013


/S/    RICHARD O. BRAJERRichard O. BrajerPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)





This certification accompanies the Report and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.


________________________________________





In connection with the Annual Report of LipoScience, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lucy G. Martindale, Executive Vice President and 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 of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.





Date: March 27, 2013


/S/    LUCY G. MARTINDALE.Lucy G. MartindaleExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)





This certification accompanies the Report and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
# L_2009088EN.01016601.xml

| 31.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 88/166 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 88/166

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

of 22 April 2008

on the closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2006

(2009/214/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2006 (1),

having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2006, together with the Agency's replies (2),

having regard to the Council's recommendation of 12 February 2008 (5843/2008 — C6-0084/2008),

having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network (4), and in particular Article 13 thereof,

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0122/2008),

| 1. | Notes that the final annual accounts of the European Environment Agency are as annexed to the Court of Auditors' report; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2006; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series). |
| --- | --- |

3.

The President

Hans-Gert PÖTTERING

The Secretary-General

Harald RØMER

---

(1)  
  OJ C 261, 31.10.2007, p. 4.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 24.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 120, 11.5.1990, p. 1.

4

(5)  
  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

5

---
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 1 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 2 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 3 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 4 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 5 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 6 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 7 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 8 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 9 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 10 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 11 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 12 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 13 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 14 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 15 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 16 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 17 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 18 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 19 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 20 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 21 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 22 of 23
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00384-JVB document 10 filed 12/05/16 page 23 of 23
##### 



Exhibit 12
  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.
#### WEAGANT v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 20, 1912.)

Action by Minerva J. Weagant, as administratrix, etc., against the New York Central & Hudson Eiver Eailroad Company.

PEE CUEIAM.

Plaintiff’s exceptions overruled, motion for new trial denied, with costs, and judgment directed for the defendant upon the nonsuit, with costs.

FOOTE, J., not sitting.
[No. 21716-3-II.

Division Two.

October 24, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Lori Graham, *Respondent,*and Richard J. Graham, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grays Harbor County, No. 95-3-00584-5, Gordon Godfrey, J., entered January 9, 1997. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, C.J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Armstrong, JJ.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00245

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021

- 00 2973

- 1

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion



### D EJA 

### M C 

### K NIGHT 

### , Appellant

V



### .
B ELL 

### F UND 

### V L ANCASTER 

### , LLC A 

### / K 

### / A 

### B ELL 

### L ANCASTER 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT On December 14, 2021, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38 .6(a). We stated that we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless , within ten days, appellant filed with

the court a n appellant ’ s brief and a n accompanying motion reasonably explaining the brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was ne eded. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response. Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T ex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered : Januar y 27, 2022
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Richard Lombardo

*Robert M. Casale,*in support of the petition.

*James M. Ralls,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided November 29, 1989

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 19 Conn. App. 631, is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2385 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2385

To make permanent the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to conduct 
                the quarterly financial report program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2005

Mr. Turner (for himself, Mr. Shays, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, and Mr. 
    Dent) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make permanent the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to conduct 
                the quarterly financial report program.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO CONDUCT THE 
              QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT PROGRAM.

    Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act to amend title 13, United 
States Code, to transfer responsibility for the quarterly financial 
report from the Federal Trade Commission to the Secretary of Commerce, 
and for other purposes'', approved January 12, 1983 (Public Law 97-454; 
13 U.S.C. 91 note), is amended by striking subsection (b).
                                 <all>
```
#### Evah Brothers, Respondent, *v.*The California Insurance Company, Appellant.

(Argued March. 19, 1890;

decided April 15, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the G-eneral Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order *660made December 13, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict.

*George B. Wellington,*for appellant.

*Edwin A. King*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment Affirmed
#### Charles David WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORTERVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT and Dominic Barteau, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-15748.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 6, 2011.

*539Charles David Williams, Jr, lone, CA, pro se.

Jeffery Scott Nelson, Esquire, Nelson & Rozier, Visalia, CA, Suzanne Foley Foley, McNamara Dodge Ney Beatty LLP, Fair-field, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Charles David Williams, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging unlawful entry and false arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Morrison v. Hall,*261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Officer Barteau because Williams did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Officer Barteau had consent to enter his residence. *See Espinosa v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco,*598 F.3d 528, 533 (9th Cir.2010) (consent is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement); *United States v. Enslin,*327 F.3d 788, 793-94 (9th Cir.2003) (in order to give valid consent, a third party must have either actual or apparent authority); *see also United States v. Ruiz,*428 F.3d 877, 881 (9th Cir.2005) (setting forth the requirements for establishing apparent authority). Nor did Williams raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Officer Barteau had probable cause to arrest him. *See United States v. Lopez,*482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir.2007) (“Probable cause to arrest exists when officers have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person being arrested.”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the City of Porterville Police Department because Williams did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a constitutional violation had occurred. *See Jackson v. City of Bremerton,*268 F.3d 646, 653-54 (9th Cir.2001) (“Neither a municipality nor a supervisor ... can be held liable under § 1983 where no injury or constitutional violation has occurred.”).

Williams’s remaining contentions, including those concerning the admissibility and credibility of the Melissa Williams declaration, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### MINCH, Respondent, v. NEW YORK EVENING JOURNAL et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Margaret Minch against the New York Evening Journal and another. M. De Witt, for appellants. J. G. Pheil, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendants to withdraw demurrer and to answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below. Order filed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 8, 2019

No. 04-19-00069-CV

IN RE ESTATE OF JOHN WILLIAM MUELLER, Deceased,

From the County Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7702

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is 

GRANTED. The Appellee’s brief is due on August 8, 2019.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of July, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>



                                          


<ARTICLE>                              5                               
<MULTIPLIER>                           1
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                 MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                           710,988 
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                 14,404,753
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                   10,311,766
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              29,037,934
<PP&E>                         4,769,962
<DEPRECIATION>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                40,353,096
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          8,346,939
<BONDS>                                0
<COMMON>                      10,938,175                              
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                     7,469,486
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  40,353,096
<SALES>                       23,319,188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              23,319,188
<CGS>                         21,444,053
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              (157,505)
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (2,109,672)
<INCOME-TAX>                    (609,943)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (2,109,672)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                  (1,499,729)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (0.34) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.34)


</TABLE>