alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:02-cr-00224 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/11/03 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:39

Case: 1:02-cr-00224 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/11/03 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:40

Case: 1:02-cr-00224 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/11/03 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:41

Case: 1:02-cr-00224 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/11/03 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:42

Case: 1:02-cr-00224 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/11/03 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:43

Case: 1:02-cr-00224 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/11/03 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:44

Case: 1:02-cr-00224 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/11/03 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:45

Case: 1:02-cr-00224 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/11/03 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:46

Case: 1:02-cr-00224 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/11/03 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:47

Case: 1:02-cr-00224 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/11/03 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:48

Case: 1:02-cr-00224 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/11/03 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:49

Case: 1:02-cr-00224 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/11/03 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:50

Case: 1:02-cr-00224 Document #: 22 Filed: 03/11/03 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:51
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (FIle Nos. 333-96277 and 333-95313) and on Form S-8 (File
Nos. 333-60699, 333-60703, 333-00864, 3333-06779 and 333-08535) of Geltex
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated February 22, 2000 relating to the
financial statements of RenaGel LLC, as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and for
the years then ended, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.





                                                  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 2000
and

‘Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Jud} Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge James B. Zagel than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 4534 DATE 12/2/2003
CASE PIETRYLA vs. CITY OF CHICAGO
TITLE .
[In the followingbox (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature |
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oO Brief in support of motion due
@) a Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) q Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .
(C) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
Q) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) O Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(aX(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).
ao {Other docket entry] Motion (46-1) to compel and motion (46-2) for reconsideration is
granted/denied in part.
al) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.
No notices required, advised in open court. Document
No notices required. i Namber, i
snumber of notices: EE .
Notices mailed by judge's staff.
Notified counsel by telephone.
oa | Docketing to mail notices,
Mail AO 450 form.
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. Lund LaiyLsia sn
wuato
tro. .
bw deputy's 11s€ Wd 6- 030 e0
initials T
in
OT GaN GET dee cig dpa



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
Pietryla,
Plaintiffs,
v. No. 02 ¢ 4534
Judge James B. Zagel
City of Chicago,
Defendants. D Ec 9 2 003

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER |
1. With respect to the telephone records, I deny defendant Blackwood’s motion to compel
production of home and cellular telephone records for the years 1997-2000. Records with
respect to year 2001 have been produced. I also quash any subpoena for phone records from any

of plaintiff's employers except for the year 2001. In the context of this case, there is no viable

evidentiary value for the phone calls made before 2001.

2. The prescription records subpoenaed by plaintiff do not infringe on any issue of medical
confidentiality since they appear to establish that there are no prescriptions on file for defendant

Blackwood at any of the stores listed in the subpoena.

ENTER:

7 6 A
(ke B. Zagel pha
(Sites States Distpict Jud; a4

pate: _ DEC 0 2 2003
I

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1016

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 5, 1998

Referred to the Committee on Resources

AN ACT

To authorize appropriations for the Coastal Heritage Trail

Route in New Jersey, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

4 Section 6 of Public Law 100–515 (16 U.S.C. 1244

5 note) is amended—

6 (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking

7 ‘‘$1,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$4,000,000’’; and

8 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘five’’ and in9 serting ‘‘10’’.

Passed the Senate October 2, 1998.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
mrln101






 
 
 
 
FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
MARLIN BUSINESS SERVICES CORP. 
2019 EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN 
 
This First Amendment 
(this “
Amendment
”) to the 
Marlin Business Services 
Corp. 2019 Equity 
Compensation Plan (as 
in 
effect from time 
to time, the 
“
Plan
”), shall be 
effective on June 
2, 2021, subject 
to approval by 
the Company’s shareholders. 

Capitalized terms used herein, but not otherwise defined 
herein, have the respective meanings ascribed 
to them in the Plan. 
WHEREAS, 
pursuant 
to 
Section 19 
of 
the 
Plan, 
the 
Board 
desires 
to 
amend 
Section 3(a) 
of 
the 
Plan 
to 
increase 
the 
maximum number of shares of Company Stock that may be issued pursuant 
to Grants under the Plan. 
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby acknowledged and agreed that: 
1.
 
Shares 
Authorized
. 
The 
first 
sentence 
of 
Section 
3(a) of 
the 
Plan 
is 
hereby 
amended and 
restated 
in 
its 
entirety 
as 
follows: 
Subject 
to 
adjustment 
as 
described 
below, 
a 
total 
of 
867,331 
shares 
of 
common stock 
of 
the 
Company (“Company 
Stock”) shall be authorized for Grants under the Plan, less one (1) share for every one (1) share granted under the Plan 
after April 1, 2021 and prior to June 2, 2021 (the “Plan Limit”). 
2.
 
Limits on Incentive Stock 
Options. 
The last sentence of 
Section 5(h) of the 
Plan is hereby 
amended and restated in 
its 
entirety as follows: 
The aggregate 
number of 
shares of 
Company Stock 
that may 
be issued 
under the 
Plan as 
Incentive Stock 
Options is 
867,331 shares, and all shares issued under the Plan as Incentive Stock Options 
shall count against the Plan Limit. 
3.
 
Reference 
to and 
Effect on 
the Plan
. Except 
as specifically 
amended hereby, 
the Plan 
shall remain 
in full 
force and 
effect and otherwise unmodified. All references in the Plan to the “Plan” shall mean 
the Plan as amended hereby.
# CA2004257EN.01000101.xml

| 19.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 257/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 257/1

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Image

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

** **

In connection with theAnnual Report of Blount International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James S. Osterman,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)            The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periodsexpressed in the report.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BlountInternational, Inc. and will be retained by Blount International, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

 

Date: March 10, 2009

 

 
| /s/James S. Osterman                               |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| James S. Osterman                                  |   |
| Chairman of the Board  and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
----

(2004/C 78 E/0362)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3711/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject:   New trade agreement with the USA

In spring 1998, plans for a new trade agreement between the European Union and the USA were put on ice, partly owing to protests by France.

Is the Commission currently taking soundings with a view to drawing up a new trade agreement, or have the negotiations on a new trade agreement stopped completely?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

It is assumed that the Honourable Member's written question refers to a possible Free Trade Agreement between the Community and the United States. In such a case, it should be noted that while this is an idea that periodically comes up, no mandate for such negotiations with the United States has ever been sought, nor (of course) have any such negotiations taken place. The Commission, moreover, has no plans to seek any mandate. However, it should be noted that in 1998, the Community and the United States launched the Transatlantic Economic Partnership to give a further impetus to the Community-United States trade and investment relationship. Since then bilateral co-operation has increased to currently cover virtually all trade and investment areas and thereby reinforce the largest bilateral trading relationship world-wide.

Both administrations have made some important progress, such as on the guidelines for regulatory co-operation. The Community and the United States have virtually completed a Mutual Recognition Agreement on marine equipment. However, such progress has often lacked political visibility. Some thought should be given as to what more can be done: how the Union and the United States can constructively address their differences and develop their co-operation, as long as it is compatible with the Doha Development Agenda negotiations, and both side's other trade partnerships, notably with developing countries.

----
#### In the Matter of David A. Burr, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 920]—

Spain, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

The misbehavior report and testimony at the disciplinary hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination finding petitioner guilty of harassment, refusing a direct order and making threats *(see Matter of Harrington v Prack,*91 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2012]; *Matter of Sweet v Woods,*60 AD3d 1183 [2009]). Petitioner’s contention that there is no evidence regarding any threats is belied by the detailed misbehavior report, which sets forth the language that petitioner directed toward the correction officer involved in the incident.

Turning to petitioner’s procedural challenges, the record reflects that the hearing was timely commenced in view of petitioner’s keeplock status at the time the misbehavior report was issued *(see*7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]; *Matter of Serrano v Goord,*28 AD3d 838 [2006]) and, subsequently, a valid extension to complete the hearing was obtained *(see*7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [b]; *Matter of Thompson v Votraw,*65 AD3d 1403, 1404 [2009]). Furthermore, there is no merit to petitioner’s assertion that he was improperly denied the right to call certain witnesses, as the record establishes that their proffered testimony would be either redundant or irrelevant to the charges *(see Matter of Vega v*
      *1539
      *New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*92 AD3d 991 [2012]). Moreover, at the conclusion of the hearing, petitioner explicitly waived his right to call any other witnesses.

Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that the Hearing Officer should have recused himself and his challenge to the punishment imposed, are either unpreserved for our review or without merit.

Peters, RJ., Lahtinen, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1157 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 170
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. 1157

 Disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President on August 
                 11, 1997, regarding Public Law 105-34.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 9, 1997

  Mr. Craig  introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Finance for seven days of session pursuant 
                  to section 1023 of Public Law 93-344

                           September 18, 1997

            Committee discharged and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 Disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President on August 
                 11, 1997, regarding Public Law 105-34.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
disapproves of cancellations 97-1 and 97-2 as transmitted by the 
President in a special message on August 11, 1997, regarding Public Law 
105-34.
                                 <all>
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 170

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1157

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 Disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President on August 
                 11, 1997, regarding Public Law 105-34.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 18, 1997

            Committee discharged and placed on the calendar
```
#### CHARLES C. DEUBEL, Jr., *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. JOHN A. KERVICK, TREASURER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

June 2, 1960.

*Messrs. Deubel & Fstrin*for the petitioners.

*Mr. David D. Furman*and *Mr. Joseph A. Jansen*for the respondent.

Granted.
Case 1:01-cv-05292 Document 85 Filed 07/01/03 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:01-cv-05292 Document 85 Filed 07/01/03 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:01-cv-05292 Document 85 Filed 07/01/03 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:01-cv-05292 Document 85 Filed 07/01/03 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:01-cv-05292 Document 85 Filed 07/01/03 Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 3(i)
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF
ECHO THERAPEUTICS, INC.
      FIRST:
 SECOND:
 THIRD:
 FOURTH:
 Common Stock .
 General.
 Dividends.
 Dissolution, Liquidation or Winding Up.




---



##### 



Voting Rights.
 Preferred Stock .
   FIFTH:
 SIXTH:




---



##### 



SEVENTH:
 EIGHTH:
 NINTH:
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF th
 ECHO THERAPEUTICS, INC.By:
    /s/ Harry G. MitchellName:
    

    Harry G. MitchellTitle:
    

    Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer
Case: 1:02-cv-06305 Document #: 20 Filed: 08/28/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:63
Exhibit 32.1



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 September 30, 2003 (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: November 13, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/ F. William Conner
|                        |  |  |  |
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1205

To amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility

Act of 1996 to clarify that records of arrival or departure are not

required to be collected for purposes of the automated entry-exit control

system developed under section 110 of such Act for Canadians who

are not otherwise required to possess a visa, passport, or border crossing

identification card.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 23, 1997

Mrs. MURRAY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act of 1996 to clarify that records of

arrival or departure are not required to be collected

for purposes of the automated entry-exit control system

developed under section 110 of such Act for Canadians

who are not otherwise required to possess a visa, passport, or border crossing identification card.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1205 IS

1 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ALIENS FROM

2 ENTRY-EXIT CONTROL SYSTEM.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 110(a) of the Illegal Im4 migration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of

5 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note) is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(a) SYSTEM.—

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),

8 not later than 2 years after the date of enactment

9 of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop an

10 automated entry and exit control system that will—

11 ‘‘(A) collect a record of departure for every

12 alien departing the United States and match

13 the records of departure with the record of the

14 alien’s arrival in the United States; and

15 ‘‘(B) enable the Attorney General to iden16 tify, through on-line searching procedures, law17 fully admitted nonimmigrants who remain in

18 the United States beyond the period authorized

19 by the Attorney General.

20 ‘‘(2) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ALIENS.—The

21 system under paragraph (1) shall not collect a

22 record of arrival or departure for an alien—

23 ‘‘(A) who is—

24 ‘‘(i) a Canadian national; or
3

•S 1205 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) an alien having a common na2 tionality with Canadian nationals and who

3 has his or her residence in Canada; and

4 ‘‘(B) who is not otherwise required by law

5 to be in possession, for purposes of establishing

6 eligibility for admission into the United States,

7 of—

8 ‘‘(i) a visa;

9 ‘‘(ii) a passport; or

10 ‘‘(iii) a border crossing identification

11 card.’’.

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

13 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact14 ment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

15 Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–208; 110

16 Stat. 3009–546).

Æ
#### In the Matter of Gerald J. Murphy, Jr., Appellant, v Kevin M. Wells, as Sheriff of St. Lawrence County, et al., Respondents.

[944 NYS2d 685]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), *1576entered August 19, 2011 in St. Lawrence County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Sheriff of St. Lawrence County calculating petitioner’s jail time credit.

Petitioner was convicted of burglary in the third degree in November 1998 and sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 3x/2 to 7 years to be served consecutively to previously imposed sentences. He was thereafter released to parole supervision in March 2007, but was arrested in September 2007 on new charges. A notice of parole violation and warrant were issued but the warrant was canceled when, on June 2, 2008, petitioner reached the maximum expiration date on his 1998 conviction. Petitioner remained in local custody in connection with the 2007 charges.

Thereafter, following his conviction on the 2007 charges, petitioner was sentenced in October 2008 to two consecutive prison terms of 3 to 6 years. Petitioner was credited with 139 days of jail time by respondent Sheriff of St. Lawrence County, representing the period of incarceration between the maximum expiration of his 1998 sentence and his commitment to the Department of Corrections and Community Services for his 2008 sentence. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge that calculation. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. Petitioner contends that, inasmuch as his parole delinquency was canceled when he reached his maximum expiration date on the 1998 sentence, the entire time of his incarceration between September 2007 and his remand to prison in October 2008 should have been credited toward his 2008 sentence. We disagree. Although petitioner’s parole was not revoked, any jail time prior to petitioner’s maximum expiration date on June 3, 2008 was credited toward his 1998 sentence until that sentence expired on its own terms and, therefore, that time could not be credited toward his 2008 sentences (see Penal Law § 70.30 [3]; *Matter of Mena v Fischer,*84 AD3d 1611, 1611 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 710 [2011]; *Matter of Du Bois v Goord,*271 AD2d 874, 875-876 [2000]).

To the extent not specifically addressed, petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Peters, BJ., Mercure, Spain, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
**Exhibit 13 (b)****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the Annual Report of Lihir Gold Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for theyear ended December 31, 2006 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or aboutApril 16, 2007 (the “Report”), I , Phil Baker, 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 of2002, that, to my knowledge: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.