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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 1 

Informing the President of the United States that a quorum of each House 

is assembled. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Informing the President of the United States that a quorum 

of each House is assembled. 

1 Resolved, That a committee consisting of two Sen2 ators be appointed to join such committee as may be ap3 pointed by the House of Representatives to wait upon the 

4 President of the United States and inform him that a 

5 quorum of each House is assembled and that the Congress 

6 is ready to receive any communication he may be pleased 

7 to make. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Barry Tate, Appellant.

Judgement Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered on September 14, 1983, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerrell Allen, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 712]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered January 7, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Present — Centra, J.E, Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
#### VILLAGE OF RIDGEFIELD PARK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BERGEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

June 2, 1960.

*Mr. Milton T. Lasher, Mr. David D. Furman, Mr. Theodore I. Botter, Mr. Everett I. Smith*and *Mr. James A. Major*for the petitioners.

Granted.
#### In re Richard Edward BRILLHART, Petitioner.

No. 10-2192.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 29, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 11, 2011.

Richard Edward Brillhart, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*815PER CURIAM:

Richard Edward Brillhart petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is deducting more than twenty percent of his trust account balance for payment of filing fees, in violation of *Torres v. O’Quinn,*612 F.3d 287 (4th Cir.2010). He seeks an order from this court directing the BOP to comply with *Torres.*Our review of district court records confirms that the BOP is now in compliance with *Torres.*Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Exhibit 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, James V. Mazzo and Michael J. Lambert,
the Chief Executive Officer and the Principal Financial Officer, respectively, of Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. (the Company), pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certify to the
best of their knowledge that:

(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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: February 20, 2009



/s/ JAMES.V.MAZZOJames V. Mazzo,Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer/s/ MICHAEL J. LAMBERTMichael J. LambertExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Advanced
Medical Optics, Inc. and will be retained by Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fausto ALDAY-ARVIZO, a.k.a. Fausto Alday, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 10-10252, 10-10253.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

*441Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

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 **

Fausto Alday-Arvizo appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 6-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release in connection with a 2003 drug-trafficking conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Alday-Arvizo contends that his due process rights under *Brady v. Maryland,*373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), were violated by the government’s failure to disclose information relating to his work with the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) as a confidential informant (“Cl”). The record reflects that the issue was discussed with the district court and that the government represented to the court that the DEA ordinarily will neither confirm nor deny an individual’s work as a Cl. Although “the DEA cannot undermine *Brady*by keeping exculpatory evidence out of the prosecutor’s hands,” *United States v. Blanco,*392 F.3d 382, 394 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotations omitted), the claim fails because Alday-Arvizo “possessed the salient facts regarding the existence of the records that he claims were withheld” but never invoked court process by subpoenaing the DEA materials, *see Raley v. Ylst,*470 F.3d 792, 804 (9th Cir.2006).

Alday-Arvizo also contends that the district court could have relied upon the statements in the uncontroverted presen-tence report regarding his alleged cooperation with the DEA to mitigate his sentence. The record reflects that the district court did consider Alday-Arvizo’s contentions of cooperation. Nothing in either Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 or *United States v. Romero-Rendon,*220 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir.2000), required the court to do more.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 11

               Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings


Earnings per share
The  Company  follows Statement of Financial Accounting  Standards  No.  128.
"Earnings  Per  Share"   ("SFAS No. 128").  Basic earning  per  common  share
("EPS")  calculations are determined by dividing net income by  the  weighted
average  number  of  shares  of  common stock outstanding  during  the  year.
Diluted earning per common share calculations are determined by dividing  net
income  by  the weighted average number of common shares and dilutive  common
share  equivalents outstanding. During periods when common stock equivalents,
if any, are anti- dilutive they are not considered in the computation.
# C_2019155EN.01005501.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/55

---

Action brought on 14 March 2019 — Tempus Energy Germany and T Energy Sweden/Commission

(Case T-167/19)

(2019/C 155/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Tempus Energy Germany GmbH (Berlin, Germany), T Energy Sweden AB (Göteborg, Sweden) (represented by: D. Fouquet and J. Derenne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision dated 7 February 2018 relating to the planned Polish Capacity Mechanism (SA.46100, C(2018) 601 final) (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision dated 7 February 2018 relating to the planned Polish Capacity Mechanism (SA.46100, C(2018) 601 final) (1);

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that, by failing to initiate the formal investigation procedure following the notification of the planned Polish capacity mechanism, the Commission violated Article 108(2) TFEU, Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Regulation 2015/1589 (2), together with the principles of non-discrimination, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations and made a wrong assessment of the facts. The Commission had not succeeded in overcoming the doubts that it must have encountered during the preliminary examination phase and this affected the applicants’ procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that, by failing to initiate the formal investigation procedure following the notification of the planned Polish capacity mechanism, the Commission violated Article 108(2) TFEU, Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Regulation 2015/1589 (2), together with the principles of non-discrimination, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations and made a wrong assessment of the facts. The Commission had not succeeded in overcoming the doubts that it must have encountered during the preliminary examination phase and this affected the applicants’ procedural rights.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasoning in the contested decision, in breach of Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasoning in the contested decision, in breach of Article 296 TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ 2018, C 462, p. 1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (codification), OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p.9.

---
#### Keith E. WIGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.F. SALAZAR, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-16091.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

Keith E. Wiggins, Blythe, CA, pro se.

Kasey E. Jones, Office of the California Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

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 **

California state prisoner Keith E. Wiggins appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Wiggins contends that the 2006 decision of the Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) denying his parole was not supported by “some evidence” of current dangerousness and, therefore, violated his due process rights. The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. *See Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Wiggins raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

Wiggins’s motions for judicial notice, received on November 23, 2009, and February 22, 2010, respectively, are deemed filed and are denied as moot. His suggestion for supplemental briefing on the impact of *Cooke*is also denied. *See Pearson v. Muntz,*639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir.2011).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of TB Woods Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statements of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the periods presented in this annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant, as of, and for the
periods presented in this annual report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and
15d-14) for the registrant and we have:a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in the report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based upon our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants Board of Directors (or persons
fulfilling the equivalent function):a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ William T. Fejes, Jr.President and CEO(Principal Executive Officer)
 65
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 181 

Designating May 15, 2011, as ‘‘National MPS Awareness Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2011 

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. BURR, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. 

BEGICH, Mr. KERRY, and Ms. MURKOWSKI) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating May 15, 2011, as ‘‘National MPS Awareness 

Day’’. 

Whereas mucopolysaccharidosis (referred to in this resolution 

as ‘‘MPS’’) are a group of genetically determined 

lysosomal storage diseases that render the human body 

incapable of producing certain enzymes needed to break 

down complex carbohydrates; 

Whereas MPS diseases cause complex carbohydrates to be 

stored in almost every cell in the body and progressively 

cause cellular damage; 

Whereas the cellular damage caused by MPS— 

(1) adversely affects the human body by damaging 

the heart, respiratory system, bones, internal organs, and 

central nervous system; and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•SRES 181 ATS 

(2) often results in intellectual disabilities, short 

stature, corneal damage, joint stiffness, loss of mobility, 

speech and hearing impairment, heart disease, hyperactivity, chronic respiratory problems, and, most importantly, a drastically shortened life span; 

Whereas symptoms of MPS are usually not apparent at birth; 

Whereas, without treatment, the life expectancy of an individual afflicted with MPS begins to decrease at a very 

early stage in the life of the individual; 

Whereas research has resulted in the development of limited 

treatments for some MPS diseases; 

Whereas promising advancements in the pursuit of treatments for additional MPS diseases are underway as of 

the date of agreement to this resolution; 

Whereas, despite the creation of new remedies, the bloodbrain barrier continues to be a significant impediment to 

effectively treating the brain, which prevents the treatment of many of the symptoms of MPS; 

Whereas the quality of life of the individuals afflicted with 

MPS, and the treatments available to those individuals, 

will be enhanced through the development of early detection techniques and early intervention; 

Whereas treatments and research advancements for MPS are 

limited by a lack of awareness about MPS diseases; 

Whereas the lack of awareness about MPS diseases extends 

to individuals within the medical community; 

Whereas the cellular damage that is caused by MPS makes 

MPS a model for the study of many other degenerative 

genetic diseases; and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

3 

•SRES 181 ATS 

Whereas the development of effective therapies and a potential cure for MPS diseases can be accomplished by increased awareness, research, data collection, and information distribution: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates May 15, 2011, as ‘‘National 

3 MPS Awareness Day’’; and 

4 (2) supports the goals and ideals of ‘‘National 

5 MPS Awareness Day’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2019295EN.01003901.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/39

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Lombardo v Parliament

(Case T-411/19)

(2019/C 295/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Raffaele Lombardo (Catania, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
# Official Journal C 240/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.240.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 240 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 537 September 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.240.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 240

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 537 September 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 240/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2010/C 240/02 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 240/01

Euro exchange rates

1

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2010/C 240/02

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

2

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 29, 2016

t0726 

# Order

Clerk July 2 9 , 2016

153522 & (56)

In re SCHWEIN Estate

_________________________________________

SANDY MEAD, Personal Representative for the

Estate of DAVID SCHWEIN

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v SC: 153522

COA: 324305

Ingham Probate Ct: 13

- 002609

- DE

KEVIN BARTON, TERRI ANDERSON and

MEREDITH BARTON,

Respondents

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 12, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the motion to confirm and/or order stay of the

Ingham Probate Court p roceedings are considered. The motion to stay is GRANTED

pursuant to MCL 600.867(1).

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.