alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:02-cv-08562 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/25/02 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1

Case: 1:02-cv-08562 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/25/02 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:2

Case: 1:02-cv-08562 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/25/02 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:3

Case: 1:02-cv-08562 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/25/02 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:4

Case: 1:02-cv-08562 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/25/02 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:5

Case: 1:02-cv-08562 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/25/02 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:6

Case: 1:02-cv-08562 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/25/02 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:7

Case: 1:02-cv-08562 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/25/02 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:8

Case: 1:02-cv-08562 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/25/02 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:9

Case: 1:02-cv-08562 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/25/02 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:10

Case: 1:02-cv-08562 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/25/02 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:11
#### POWELL, Appellant, v. ROACH, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by John K. Powell, Jr., against John J. Roach.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Israel Ramon, Also Known as Israel Rodriguez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.), rendered on March 5, 1984, 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 *496agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which would be raised on this appeal. Concur&emdash;Sandler, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 13 (A)

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 on Form 20-F, as amended by this Form
20-F/A, of Lihir Gold Limited (the "Company") for the annual period ended
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Companies.


/s/ Arthur Hood
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer

Dated: December 26, 2007

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the report or as a separate
disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 846 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 846

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate the United States courthouse located at 80 Lafayette 
 Street in Jefferson City, Missouri, as the Christopher S. Bond United 
                           States Courthouse.

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

SECTION 1. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse located at 80 
Lafayette Street in Jefferson City, Missouri, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Christopher S. Bond United States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Christopher S. Bond United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the Senate July 26, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 846

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the United States courthouse located at 80 Lafayette 
 Street in Jefferson City, Missouri, as the Christopher S. Bond United 
                           States Courthouse.
```
#### STEPHAN, Appellant, v. KATZ, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by John Stephan against Samuel Katz.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 123 Filed: 07/17/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:410
# C_2019372EN.01003501.xml

| 4.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/35

---

Action brought on 6 September 2019 — Veronese Design Company v EUIPO — Veronese (VERONESE)

(Case T-608/19)

(2019/C 372/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Veronese Design Company Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: B. Lafont, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Veronese SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark VERONESE — European Union trade mark No 8 831 844

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 June 2019 in Case R 2434/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find that the application and the annexes thereto are admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the application and the annexes thereto are admissible;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 60(1), read in conjunction with Article 8(1) and (2), of Regulation No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael David HOWER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-2548.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 9, 2011.

*214Before: MARTIN and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; STEEH, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable George Caram Steeh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge.

Michael David Hower, appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to charges of sexual exploitation of a child and receipt of child pornography.

Hower entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to the above two charges in exchange for having two other charges dismissed. The district court accepted Hower’s plea, and a presen-tence report was prepared. Hower’s guidelines sentence was calculated at life imprisonment, but the statutory máxi-mums for the two charges were thirty and twenty years, respectively. The district court sentenced Hower to the maximum on both counts, but with only sixty months of the second sentence to run consecutive to the first sentence, for a total of 420 months of imprisonment.

On appeal, Hower argues that the district court erred in finding that he engaged in a pattern of sexual abuse, which resulted in a five-level enhancement under USSG §§ 2G2.2(b)(5) and 4B1.5(b). He also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The government moves to dismiss the appeal because How-er’s plea agreement waived his right to appeal his sentence. Hower responds that the sentence is illegal and can therefore be appealed notwithstanding the waiver.

We review de novo the question of whether a criminal defendant waived his right to appeal. *United States v. Swanberg,*370 F.3d 622, 626 (6th Cir.2004). Where a defendant has knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, this court is bound by the plea agreement and will not review a sentence except in limited circumstances. *United States v. Smith,*344 F.3d 479, 483 (6th Cir.2003).

In his plea agreement, Hower stated that he waived his right to appeal the sentence and the manner in which the sentence was determined “on any ground whatever.” The district court explained to Hower that appeal was waived as long as the sentence was within the statutory maximum and was not otherwise illegal. How-er and his counsel agreed with this description of the agreement. Hower’s *215knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to appeal is enforceable. *See, e.g., United States v. Coker,*514 F.3d 562, 573-74 (6th Cir.2008).

Hower’s argument that his sentence is illegal is without merit, as the sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum and is not based on any constitutionally prohibited factor, nor will any miscarriage of justice occur if the sentence is not reviewed. *See United States v. Gwinnett,*483 F.3d 200, 203 (3d Cir.2007).

Because Hower waived his right to appeal his sentence, we need not address the merits of the issues raised in his appellate brief. The government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.
Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No.333-98765, 333-62868, 333-38072, 333-33946,
333-91451, 333-88719, 333-85031, 333-53153, 333-52349, 333-52347, 333-52345) and
Form S-3 (No.333-85628) of Visual Networks, Inc. of our report dated March 21,
2003 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report
dated March 21, 2003 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears
in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP


McLean, Virginia
March 21, 2003
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 5/29/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

GORDON E. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) and ) ) VERNA K. JOHNSON, IVAN J. NEWMAN, ) BARBARA NEWMAN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 95-4031 ) (D.C. No. 94-NC-101-G) THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ) (D. Utah) SECURITIES DEALERS, INC., ) ) Defendant-Appellee, ) ) and ) ) KENNETH THOMAS ADAMS, FIRST ) EQUITIES CORP., REO CUTLER, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *2

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiffs filed this action to compel arbitration, naming The National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and other defendants. The district court dismissed the complaint, citing both the lack of a federal question and that the amount in controversy did not meet the $50,000 jurisdictional minimum contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1332 to support jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship. The only issue on appeal is whether the district court correctly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the briefs and the record and are satisfied that the district court accurately summarized the facts and correctly applied the law. Plaintiffs initiated arbitration proceedings in November 1987, alleging defendants sold them unsuitable securities in May 1981. The NASD dismissed because the arbitration was filed more than six years after the securities purchases. Thereafter, plaintiffs twice unsuccessfully resorted to Utah state courts. The instant action was filed under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 through 14 (FAA), to compel the NASD to arbitrate plaintiffs’3

complaints against the other named defendants. However, the FAA does not create a federal cause of action. It provides a vehicle for enforcing a written arbitration agreement when an independent federal cause of action exists. Moses H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. , 460 U.S. 1, 25 n.32 (1983). Likewise, plaintiffs’ claims fall below the required amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. We therefore AFFIRM. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition is denied as moot. For the reason that we find this a frivolous appeal pursuant to defendant NASD’s request under 28 U.S.C. § 1912, we award it double costs but no other damages. In limiting this award we considered the fact plaintiff is a pro se litigant; if he had counsel who would represent him in pursuing such an appeal the sanctions would be greater. Entered for the Court James K. Logan Circuit Judge
Case 1:03-cv-01768 Document 244 Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:03-cv-01768 Document 244 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:03-cv-01768 Document 244 Filed 04/12/10 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification

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)

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), the
undersigned officer of Entrust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|----------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 7, 2008 |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ David J. Wagner    
|                  |  |  |  | Name:  |  | David J. Wagner        
|                  |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1830

DORIS NEILL MOZLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 00-4865) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Doris Neill Mozley, Appellant Pro Se. David English Carmack, Janet A. Bradley, Tamara Wenda Ashford, Paula Marie Junghans, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Stuart L. Brown, Richard W. Skillman, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Doris Mozley appeals from the tax court’s order determining deficiencies with respect to her 1995 and 1996 federal income tax liability. Our review of the record and the tax court’s opiniondiscloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. Mozley v. Commissioner , No. 00-4865 (U.S. Tax Ct. May 31, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 12 (a)****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Arthur Hood, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Lihir Gold Limited;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e)) for the company and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annualreport that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Dated: April 13, 2007
# Official Journal C 331/31 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 331 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6531 August 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 331

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6531 August 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 331/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 July 2022 to 31 July 2022(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council or Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |
| 2022/C 331/02 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 July 2022 to 31 July 2022(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC, Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC or Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 13 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 331/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 July 2022 to 31 July 2022(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council or Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council or Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

2022/C 331/02

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 July 2022 to 31 July 2022(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC, Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC or Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC, Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC or Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

13

---

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

EN
S. J. Res. 9 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven 

Joint Resolution 

Providing for the reappointment of Robert P. Kogod as a citizen regent of the 

Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), 

the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 

in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by reason 

of the expiration of the term of Robert P. Kogod of the District 

of Columbia, is filled by reappointment of the incumbent for a 

term of 6 years, effective May 6, 2011. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,797
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  229,332
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,146
<INVENTORY>                                    159,031
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               534,656
<PP&E>                                         108,168
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 770,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          563,406
<BONDS>                                      1,230,025
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    200,000
<COMMON>                                           200
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,281,675)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   770,846
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,307,806
<CGS>                                        3,005,918
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,498
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,255
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             115,292
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 60,843
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,952
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             55,891
<DISCONTINUED>                                (199,310)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (143,419)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.74)


</TABLE>