alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/14/04 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:312
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/14/04 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:313
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/14/04 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:314
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/14/04 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:315
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/14/04 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:316
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/14/04 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:317
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/14/04 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:318
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/14/04 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:319
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/14/04 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:320
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/14/04 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:321
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/14/04 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:322
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/14/04 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:323
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/14/04 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:324
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/14/04 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:325
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The
following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the foregoing Report on Form 10-K/A pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.

The
undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
Section 78) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broadway Financial
Corporation as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013.

Date: July 8, 2014

By:

/s/ Brenda J. Battey Brenda J. Battey
Chief Financial Officer
Broadway Financial Corporation


---
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 262 

Designating the week beginning on September 12, 2011, and ending on 

September 16, 2011, as ‘‘National Health Information Technology Week’’ 

to recognize the value of health information technology in improving 

health quality. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Ms. SNOWE) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week beginning on September 12, 2011, 

and ending on September 16, 2011, as ‘‘National Health 

Information Technology Week’’ to recognize the value 

of health information technology in improving health 

quality. 

Whereas healthcare information technology and management 

systems have been recognized as essential tools for improving patient care, ensuring patient safety, stopping 

duplicative tests and paperwork, and reducing health care 

costs; 

Whereas the Center for Information Technology Leadership 

has estimated that the implementation of national standards for interoperability and the exchange of health information would save the United States approximately 


ebenthall on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 262 ATS 

$77,000,000,000 in expenses relating to healthcare each 

year; 

Whereas Congress has made a commitment to leveraging the 

benefits of healthcare information technology and management systems, including supporting the adoption of 

electronic health records that will help to reduce costs 

and improve quality while ensuring the privacy of patients; 

Whereas Congress has emphasized improving the quality and 

safety of delivery of healthcare in the United States; and 

Whereas since 2006, organizations across the United States 

have united to support National Health Information 

Technology Week to improve public awareness of the benefits of improved quality and cost efficiency of the 

healthcare system that the implementation of health information technology could achieve: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week beginning on Sep3 tember 12, 2011, and ending on September 16, 

4 2011, as ‘‘National Health Information Technology 

5 Week’’; 

6 (2) recognizes the value of information tech7 nology and management systems in transforming 

8 healthcare for the people of the United States; and 

9 (3) calls on all interested parties to promote the 

10 use of information technology and management sysVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:15 Sep 13, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR262.ATS SR262

ebenthall on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 262 ATS 

1 tems to transform the healthcare system of the 

2 United States. 

Æ 


ebenthall on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





Our
report on our audits of the financial statements of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for the years then ended and on the
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity (deficiency) and cash
flows for the period from August 6, 2001 (date of inception) to December 31,
2008, which contains an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s ability
to continue as a going concern, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2008, is dated March 30, 2009. We consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report in the following registration
statements previously filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933: the registration statements
on Forms S-3 with SEC File Nos. 333-131814 and 333-142788 and the registration
statements on Forms S-8 with SEC file Nos. 333-15807, 333-112888, 333-112889,
333-143838 and 333-48531.





/s/ J.H.
Cohn LLP





Roseland,
New Jersey


March 30,
2009
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1245/2006

of 17 August 2006         

amending Regulation (EC) No 1143/2006 fixing the export refunds on syrup and certain other sugar products exported without further processing

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the market in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1143/2006 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 August 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 August 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 207, 28.7.2006, p. 5. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1218/2006 (OJ L 220, 11.8.2006, p. 11).

----

ANNEX

Export refunds on syrups and certain other sugar products exported without further processing applicable from 18 August 2006 (1)

----

(1)  The amounts set out in this Annex are not applicable with effect from 1 February 2005 pursuant to Council Decision 2005/45/EC of 22 December 2004 concerning the conclusion and application of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972 as regards the provisions applicable to processed agricultural products (OJ L 23, 26.1.2005, p. 17).

(1)  The basic amount is not applicable to the product defined under point 2 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3513/92 (OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 12).

----
#### Norman Dean *v.*Alex Filipowich et al.

Decided March 28, 1990

*Margaret G. Dean,*in support of the petition.

*John W. Colleran,*in opposition.

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 20 Conn. App. 825, is denied.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SAB IL M . M U JAHID, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. DEB B IE M ILLER , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-36014 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00186-TM B
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska Tim othy M . B urge ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Submitte d

August 11, 2015 Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : SC HR OEDER , R A W LINSON, a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Sa bil M . M uja

hid (Muja hid), a ppe a ls thedistric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of his pe tition for issua

nc e of a writ of ha

be a s c orpus pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2241. In the p e tition, M

uja hid c h a lle nge d a

disc iplina

ry proc e e ding finding him

guilty of disobe y ing a

dire c t orde r to c e a se ta lking with a nothe r inm ate . 

# FIL ED SEP 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.M uja

hid is c ha lle n ging c onditions of his c onfine m e nt tha t oc c urre d som e tim e in thefa irly

dista nt pa st, in a

fa c ility whe re he is no longer house d. In
a ddition, M

uja hid c onc e de s tha

t he lost no good-tim

e c re dits be c a

u se of his disc iplina ry se gre gation. Ac c ordingly , be c a u se M u ja hid doe s not c h a lle nge the duration of his c onfine m e nt or a n ongoing incre a s e d re stric tion on the c onditions of his c onfine m e nt, ha

b e a s re l i e f is not a

va ila ble to a d dre ss Muja

hid’ s c ha l le nge . Se eN e ttle s v . Grounds , 788 F.3d 992, 999-1000 (9th C i r. 2015) (“ [H] a be a s jurisdic tion is a

va ila ble only for c la im s tha

t, if suc c e ssful, would ha

ve som e shorte ning e ffe c t on thele n gth of a pe rson’ s c ustody . . . .” ); id . at 1004 (sa m e for
c la im s involving “ gre at e r re stric tions of . . . libe rty ” ); se ealso Sk

inne r v . Sw itze r , 562 U.S. 521, 535 n.13 (2011) (“ [W ] he n a prisone r’ s c la im would not ne c e s sa rily spe l l spe e die r re l e a se , tha t c la im doe s not lieat thec ore of ha be a s c orpus, a

nd m ay be brought, if a

t a ll, under § 1983 . . . .” ) (c ita tions omitte d). AFFIRM E D.

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RONALD PORTIS AND MARDRIC E. LANCE, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITY OF CHICAGO, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 02 C 3139 

Judge Thomas M. Durkin 

THE CITY OF CHICAGO’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

 The City of Chicago respectfully moves this Court for judgment as a matter of law under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) because: (1) plaintiffs have failed to put forth evidence sufficient to show 

that the length of their detentions from arrest to release were unreasonable in violation of the 

Fourth Amendment; and (2) plaintiffs have not established that a City official policy or custom 

caused any deprivation of plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights through its deliberate indifference 

to the known and obvious consequences of its official policy. For these reasons, and those set 

forth in the attached Memorandum in Support of this motion, plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of 

law, and judgment should be entered in favor of the City. 

 
2 

CONCLUSION 

 WHEREFORE, for the reasons explained above, and in the attached Memorandum in 

Support of this motion, and based on the evidence set forth in the record, the City of Chicago 

respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion for judgment as a matter of law and enter 

judgment in its favor. 

Dated: October 16, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Matthew C. Singer

June K. Ghezzi, Bar No. 6185506 

 jkghezzi@jonesday.com

Brian J. Murray, Bar No. 6272767 

 bjmurray@jonesday.com

Morgan R. Hirst, Bar No. 6275128 

 mhirst@jonesday.com

Mark W. DeMonte, Bar No. 6282734 

mdemonte@jonesday.com 

Matthew C. Singer, Bar No. 6297632 

mcsinger@jonesday.com 

JONES DAY 

77 West Wacker Drive 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692 

(312) 782-3939 

ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANT 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 16, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system that will send notification of such filing to the 

following at their e-mail address on file with the Court:

Thomas G. Morrissey 

10249 S. Western Avenue 

Chicago, Illinois 60643 

(773) 239-0387 

Mark G. Weinberg 

3612 N. Tripp Avenue 

Chicago, Illinois 60641 

(773) 283-4878 

Robert H. Farley, Jr. 

1155 S. Washington Street 

Naperville, Illinois 60540 

(630) 369-0195 

Judson H. Miner

Miner, Barnhill & Galland 

14 West Erie Street 

Chicago, IL 60610 

(312) 751-0438 

Michael Kanovitz 

Loevy & Loevy 

312 N. May St., Suite 100 

Chicago, IL 60607 

(312) 243-5902 

 s/ Matthew C. Singer

 Matthew C. Singer
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-089-CV

IN RE LAIBE CORPORATION	RELATOR

	------------

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  GARDNER, LIVINGSTON, and DAUPHINOT, JJ. 

DELIVERED:  April 24, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul DePond, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Notify Technology Corporation on Form 10-QSB
for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Notify Technology Corporation.



By:

/s/ Paul F. DePondName:

Paul F. DePondTitle:

Chief Executive Officer


Date: May 15, 2006

I, Gerald W. Rice, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Notify Technology Corporation on Form 10-QSB
for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Notify Technology Corporation.



By:

/s/ Gerald W. RiceName:

Gerald W. RiceTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


Date: May 15, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Notify Technology Corporation and will be retained by Notify Technology Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7490

RUDY VILLANUEVA, a/k/a Bird Road Rudy, a/k/a King Rudy,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MILDRED L. RIVERA, Warden FCI Estill; CHAPLAIN NEAL, 

Supervisor of Religious Services,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY’S COMMITTEE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

PRISONS,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(5:12-cv-00399-MGL)

Submitted: January 3, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rudy Villanueva, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Rudy Villanueva, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal 

the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Appellees on 

Villanueva’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was 

not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a 

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty 

days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or 

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 

214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on March 4, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed, at the 

earliest, on September 13, 2013. Because Villanueva failed to 

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or 

reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.∗

 We 

 ∗ Although Villanueva filed a Rule 4(a)(6) motion to reopen, 

the motion was not filed within the time period set forth in 

that rule.
4

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
S. 1161

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

An Act

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize appropriations for

refugee and entrant assistance for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR REFUGEE AND

ENTRANT ASSISTANCE.

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 414(a) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1524(a)) is amended

by striking ‘‘fiscal year 1995, fiscal year 1996, and fiscal year

1997’’ and inserting ‘‘each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a)

shall take effect October 1, 1997.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Order filed October 2 4 , 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 1 3

- 00 711

- CV

____________ IN RE ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL. , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 23rd District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 60307



### O R D E R

On August 9 , 2013 , relator s , Ullico Casualty Company
, Contego Recovery LLC, Contego Services Group, LLC, Patriot Underwriters, Inc., Patriot National Insurance Group, Inc., Steven M. Mariano, Linda Webb, Richard Wersinger, Patriot Risk Services, Inc., and Patricia Kelty
, filed a petition 

### for writ of mandamus in this

court

. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221. Relator s ask this c ourt to ord er t he
Honorable Ben Hardin , Judge of 23rd District C ourt , in Brazoria County, Texas, to
set aside his August 5, 2013 orders (1) granting partial summary judgment in favor of real parties interest a nd (2) denying relators’ opposed motion for entry of an order confirming the stay of all proceedings , entered in t rial court cause number 60307
,styled Charlene Hembree , et al. v. Thermal Polymer System, LC, et al.

Relator s filed con currently with their petition for writ of mandamus a motion

to stay the trial court proceedings , pending a decision on the petition for writ of
mandamus

. See T ex. R. App. P. 52.10. On August 12, 2013, we granted relators’ motion to stay the trial court proceedings.

We ORD ER the STAY of all trial court proceedings LIFTED

. Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus remains pending in this court.

We further ORDER this proceeding set for oral argument on Thursday,
December 5 , 2013 , at 1:30 p.m. in accordance with this court’s notice of
submission.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Busby and Donovan

.

2
#### Dewberry *v.*Johnson.

July 21, 1915.

Action for damages. Before Judge Bawlings. Emanuel superioi; court. January 13, 1914.

*Saffold & Jordan,*for plaintiff in error.

*T. N. Brown,*contra.

This case being for decision by a full bench of six Justices, who are evenly divided in opinion (Chief Justice Eish and Justices Lumpkin and Atkinson favoring a reversal, and Presiding Justice Evans and Justices Beck and Hill favoring an affirmance),, the judgment of the court below stands affirmed by operation of law.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mauro Frascella, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J.), both rendered March 30, 1983, the first convicting him under indictment No. 4980/82 of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and the second convicting him under indictment No. 4353/82 of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment pursuant to indictment No. 4980/82 modified, on the law, by reducing the minimum term of the sentence on the manslaughter conviction from *12Vi*to *8Vs*years. As so modified, judgment affirmed.

Judgment pursuant to indictment No. 4353/82 affirmed.

Defendant failed to raise his objections to the adequacy of his plea allocutions in the court of first instance and accordingly has not preserved his claims for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Rodriguez,*114 AD2d 475). In any event, we find that the allocutions established the requisite elements of manslaughter in the first degree and robbery in the first degree and that defendant knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty thereto *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9).

Although defendant’s counsel has failed to raise the issue, the District Attorney concedes that defendant’s sentence of *12V2*to 25 years in prison on his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, a class B violent felony offense, was illegal.

The minimum period of imprisonment that may be imposed for a violent felony offense (if a defendant is not a predicate felony offender) cannot exceed one third of the maximum, unless the sentence is for a conviction of a class B armed felony offense (Penal Law § 70.02 [4]). Manslaughter in the first degree is not an armed felony offense since neither the possession nor display of a gun is an element of the crime *(People v Hooper,*112 AD2d 317; *People v Gonzalez,*99 AD2d 1001). We have reduced the minimum term accordingly. Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.