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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1031

To protect Federal law enforcement officers who intervene in certain

situations to protect life or prevent bodily injury.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 17, 1997

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. D’AMATO) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To protect Federal law enforcement officers who intervene

in certain situations to protect life or prevent bodily injury.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Law Enforce5 ment Officers’ Good Samaritan Act of 1997’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OF7 FICERS WHO INTERVENE IN CERTAIN SITUA8 TIONS TO PROTECT LIFE OR TO PREVENT

9 BODILY INJURY.

10 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—
2

•S 1031 IS

1 (1) the term ‘‘bodily injury’’ has the meaning

2 given that term in section 1365(g) of title 18, Unit3 ed States Code;

4 (2) the term ‘‘crime of violence’’ has the mean5 ing given that term in section 16 of title 18, United

6 States Code;

7 (3) the term ‘‘law enforcement officer’’ has the

8 meaning given that term in section 8401 of title 5,

9 United States Code; and

10 (4) the term ‘‘serious bodily injury’’ has the

11 meaning given that term in section 1365(g) of title

12 18, United States Code.

13 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Notwithstanding any

14 other provision of law, for purposes of chapter 171 of title

15 28, United States Code, a law enforcement officer shall

16 be construed to be acting within the scope of his or her

17 office or employment, if the officer takes any action, in18 cluding the use of force, that is determined by the officer

19 to be necessary to—

20 (1) protect an individual in the presence of the

21 officer from the imminent infliction of serious bodily

22 injury;

23 (2) provide immediate assistance to an individ24 ual who has suffered or who is threatened with seri25 ous bodily injury; or
3

•S 1031 IS

1 (3) prevent the escape of any individual whom

2 the officer reasonably believes to have committed in

3 the presence of the officer a crime of violence.

Æ
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40346 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. G A B R I E L A M AYA
- A R C E , al soknow n as E sq uivelB oc anegr a D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 07- C R
- 1143- 1 B e fo r e H IG G IN B O T H A M , D E N N IS , a n dP R A D O , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * T h e F ederalP u bl i c D efen derapp oi n t ed to represent G abri elA m aya - A rce has m o ve d f

o rl e av e t o w i t hdr aw and has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n ac c o r da nc e w i t h A n d ers v. Calif orn ia , 3 86 U . S. 7 38 ( 19 67 ) . Am ay a- Arc e ha s no tr e s po nde d. Our i nde pe nde ntr e vi e w o f t he r e c o r d a nd c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f di s c l o s e s no no nf

r ivo l o us is s u e fo ra p p e a l. A c c o r d in g ly , co u n s e l ’s m o tio n fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w is G RA N TE D , cou n seli s e xc us e d f r o m f ur t he rr e s po ns ibil i t i e s he r e i n, a nd t he A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 33 Filed: 07/21/04 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:235

Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 33 Filed: 07/21/04 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:236
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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 30, 2013

h0722

Order 

Clerk

July 30, 2013

146316

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146316

COA: 309639

Wayne CC: 10-007048-FH

THOMAS EARL SANDERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 24, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I hereby certify that:





I have reviewed the Annual Report on
Form 10-K;





to the best of my knowledge, this
Annual Report on Form 10-K (i) fully complies with the requirements of section
13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
78o(d); and (ii) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
Tengasco, Inc. and its subsidiaries during the period covered by this
Report.





Dated:
March 31, 2010








S/Jeffrey R.
Bailey


Jeffrey R. Bailey,


Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned officers of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. hereby certifies that,
to the best of their knowledge:




(a)    the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the year 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; and




(b)    information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.




Dated:
      March 31, 2009
                  /s/
      Douglas AbelDouglas
      AbelPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerDated:
      March 31, 2009
                  /s/
      Michael G. McGuinnessMichael
      G. McGuinnessChief
      Operating and Financial
Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99-1


(1)  Lauriello v. MedPartners, Inc., et al., No. CV98-98 (Cir. Ct. of Jefferson
     County, Ala., filed January 9, 1998);

(2)  Rubino v. MedPartners, Inc., et al., No. CV98-B-0067-S (U.S.D.C. Northern
     District, Alabama, filed January 13, 1998);

(3)  Loomis v. MedPartners, Inc., et al., No. CV98-G-0086-S (U.S.D.C. Northern
     District, Alabama, filed January 14, 1998);

(4)  Marsh v. MedPartners, Inc., et al., No. CV98-TMP-0096-S (U.S.D.C. Northern
     District, Alabama, filed January 15, 1998);

(5)  Smith v. House, et al., No. CV98-B-0095-S (U.S.D.C. Northern
     District, Alabama, filed January 15, 1998);

(6)  Buettler v. MedPartners, Inc., et al., No. CV98-AR-0119-S (U.S.D.C.
     Northern District, Alabama, filed January 20, 1998);

(7)  Schacter v. MedPartners, Inc., et al., No. CV98-00297, (Cir. Ct. of
     Jefferson County, Ala., filed January 16, 1998);

(8)  Susser v. MedPartners, Inc., et al., No. CV98-N-0177-S, (U.S.D.C. Northern
     District, Alabama, filed January 26, 1998);

(9)  ZSA Asset Allocation Fund v. MedPartners, Inc., et al., No. CV98-B-0274-S
     (U.S.D.C. Northern District, Alabama, filed February 6, 1998);

(10) Bishop v. House, et al., No. CV98-P-0316-S ((U.S.D.C. Northern
     District, Alabama, filed February 10, 1998);

(11) Mizraji v. MedPartners, Inc., et al., No. CV98-P-0351-S (U.S.D.C. Northern
     District, Alabama, filed February 13, 1998);

(12) Rudolf v. MedPartners, Inc., et al., No. CV98-B-0409-S (U.S.D.C. Northern
     District, Alabama, filed February 20, 1998);

(13) Sorrentino v. MedPartners, Inc., et al., No. CV98-N-0358-S (U.S.D.C.
     Northern District, Alabama, filed February 13, 1998);

(14) Steiner v. MedPartners, Inc., et al., No. CV98-P-0317-S (U.S.D.C. Northern
     District, Alabama, filed February 10, 1998);

(15) Kosseff v. MedPartners, Inc., et al., No. CV98-G-0558-S (U.S.D.C. Northern
     District, Alabama, filed March 10, 1998);

(16) Wisinski v. MedPartners, Inc., et al., No. CV98-P-0528-S (U.S.D.C. Northern
     District, Alabama, filed March 5, 1998);
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Blount International, Inc. (the “ Company ”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”), I, Joshua L. Collins, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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


(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the report.


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


Date: May 2, 2014





/s/ Joshua L. CollinsJoshua L. CollinsChairman andChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Case: 1:02-cv-07921 Document #: 128 Filed: 10/08/04 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:844
Case: 1:02-cv-07921 Document #: 128 Filed: 10/08/04 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:845
Case: 1:02-cv-07921 Document #: 128 Filed: 10/08/04 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:846
Case: 1:02-cv-07921 Document #: 128 Filed: 10/08/04 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:847
Case: 1:02-cv-07921 Document #: 128 Filed: 10/08/04 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:848
Case: 1:02-cv-07921 Document #: 128 Filed: 10/08/04 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:849
Case: 1:02-cv-07921 Document #: 128 Filed: 10/08/04 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:850
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40269

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

JAMIE A. CORMIER,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-77-2

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Jamie A. Cormier, federal prisoner # 11887-078, appeals the denial of his

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on the United

States Sentencing Commission’s retroactive amendment to the base offense

levels for crack cocaine offenses in 2007. He contends that the district court

erred in determining that he was ineligible for a reduction of sentence because

he was not serving his original term of imprisonment. The Government moves

for summary affirmance.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 1, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-40269 Document: 00511367805 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2011
No. 10-40269

Section 3582(c)(2) “permits a district court to reduce a term of

imprisonment when it is based upon a sentencing range that has subsequently

been lowered by an amendment to the Guidelines, if such a reduction is

consistent with the policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”

United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir. 1997) (per

curiam). The applicable policy statement prohibits a district court from reducing

a term of imprisonment below the term of imprisonment the defendant has

already served. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(C), policy statement. In addition, the

commentary states that a defendant may not obtain “a reduction in [any] term

of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release.” Id. at

§ 1B1.10, cmt. n.4(A).

As Cormier has served his original custodial sentence, the Guidelines

prohibit any reduction in that sentence or the sentence Cormier received upon

revocation of his supervised release. In addition, he has no remaining

supervised release term that may be modified or terminated. Accordingly,

Cormier can obtain no meaningful relief from the court, and his appeal is

DISMISSED as moot. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

DENIED as moot.

2

Case: 10-40269 Document: 00511367805 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2011
#### Kathleen Neary, as Executrix of Raymond H. Neary and Another, Deceased, Respondent, v Tower Insurance et al., *724Defendants, and Lincoln Brokerage Corporation, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 277]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for failure to procure insurance coverage, the defendant Lincoln Brokerage Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated July 9, 2010, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to restore this action to active status.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff moved, inter alia, to restore this action to active status after the Supreme Court, sua sponte, dismissed it pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to timely file a note of issue pursuant to a so-ordered stipulation dated May 20, 2008.

“[W]hile the failure to comply with a court order directing the filing of a note of issue can, in the proper circumstances, provide the basis for the dismissal of a complaint under CPLR 3216, courts are prohibited from dismissing an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met” *(Banik v Evy*Realty, *LLC,*84 AD3d 994, 996 [2011], citing *Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co.,*89 NY2d 499, 502-503 [1997]; *see Murray v Smith Corp.,*296 AD2d 445, 446-447 [2002]; *Delgado v New York City Hous. Auth.,*21 AD3d 522, 522 [2005]). A 90-day demand to file a note of issue is one of the statutory preconditions *(see*CPLR 3216 [b] [3]; *Maharaj v LaRoche,*69 AD3d 684 [2010]).

Contrary to the contention of the defendant Lincoln Brokerage Corporation (hereinafter Lincoln), a compliance conference order dated December 5, 2007, which set a date for the filing of a note of issue, did not constitute a valid 90-day demand since it specifically stated that it was not an order constituting a CPLR 3216 notice and, in any event, did not contain language warning that failure to file the note of issue by the deadline date of April 14, 2008, would serve as a basis for dismissal under CPLR 3216 *(see Banik v Evy Realty, LLC,*84 AD3d at 996; *cf. Sapir v Krause, Inc.,*8 AD3d 356, 356 [2004]). Moreover, the so-ordered stipulation dated May 20, 2008, which superseded the order dated December 5, 2007, extended the plaintiffs time to file a note of issue until September 17, 2008. This stipulation cannot be deemed a 90-day demand since it failed to advise the plaintiff that the failure to comply with that deadline would serve as the basis for a motion to dismiss the action *(see Banik v Evy Realty, LLC,*84 AD3d at 996; *Wasifv Khan,*82 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2011]; *725
      *O’Connell v City Wide Auto Leasing,*6 AD3d 682, 683 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to restore this action to active status *(see Banik v Evy Realty, LLC,*84 AD3d at 996; *Ratway v Donnenfeld,*43 AD3d 465, 466 [2007]).

In view of our determination, we need not reach Lincoln’s remaining contentions. Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Chambers and Austin, JJ, concur.
#### In the Matter of Irwin Hall, a Disbarred Attorney, Petitioner. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Respondent.

—Motion by petitioner for reargument and renewal of his application for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law to the Bar of the State of New York.

The matter is referred to the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts for the investigation and report on certain outstanding complaints against the petitioner.

The motion for reargument and renewal will be held in abeyance pending the Committee’s report. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Brown, JJ., concur.
# In th e United States Court of Federal Cl aims

No. 13-1025C (F iled: J anuary

3, 2014)

************************************* J ANI E W EEKS, * * Plaintiff, *

* v. * * THE UNI TED STATES, * * Defendant. * ************************************* ORDER On December 30, 2013, plaintiff in the above-captioned case filed a complaint, which was accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, courts of the United States are permitted to waive filing fees and security under certain circumstances. 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (2012); see also Hay es v. United States, 71 F ed. Cl. 366, 366-67 (2006) (concluding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) applies to both prisoners and nonprisoners alike). Plaintiffs wishing to proceed in forma pauperis must submit an affidavit that lists all of their assets, declares that they are unable to pay the fees or g ive the security , and states the nature of the action and their belief that they are entitled to redress. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Upon a review of her application, and without awaiting a response from defendant, the court concludes that plaintiff has satisfied all three requirements set forth in § 1915(a)(1). According ly , the court G RANTS plaintiff’s application and waives her filing fee.

1 W hile the Court of F ederal Claims is not g enerally considered to be a “court of the United States” within the meaning of title twenty -eig ht of the United States Code, the court has jurisdiction to g rant or deny applications to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 2503(d) (deeming the Court of F e deral Claims to be “a court of the United States” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915); see also Matthews v. United States, 72 F e d. Cl. 274, 277-78 (2006) (recog niz ing that Cong ress enacted the Court of F ederal Claims Technical and Procedural I mprovements Act of 1992, authoriz ing the court to, among other thing s, adjudicate applications to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915).

Case 1:13-cv-01025-MMS Document 6 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 2IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Marg aret M. Sweeney MARGARET M. SW EENEY J udg e Case 1:13-cv-01025-MMS Document 6 Filed 01/03/14 Page 2 of 2
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Subtropical Insects and Horticulture Research: Fort Pierce, FL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Invasive Pests
                        Mealybugs
                                    Scale Insects
                                    WhiteflySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Fort Pierce, Florida U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory Subtropical Insects and Horticulture Research People & Locations







Emily A Domagtoy
                        Subtropical Insects and Horticulture Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (772) 462-5924
                        
                        
                        Fax: (772) 462-5986(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EXHIBIT 99.1



BEA SYSTEMS, INC.



Certification 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 periodic report of BEA Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I,
Alfred S. Chuang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|Date: June 13, 2003 | /s/    ALFRED S. CHUANG
|------------------- | -----------------------

| | 
| | 

Alfred S. Chuang

Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.41
 
[LETTERHEAD OF ICON INTERNATIONAL INC. APPEARS HERE]



                                                               December 10, 1996




Mr. Steven Brown
American Artists Film Corporation
1245 Fowler Street N.W.
Atlanta, Ga. 30318

Dear Steve;

Bob Aus and I spoke to Eric Van Atta yesterday. We are in agreement to extend 
the expiration date of your $500,000 in Trade Credits to 12/31/97, and this 
letter so extends them.

I hope you are prospering, and we look forward to continuing our relationship.

                                                                   Sincerely,

                                                                   

                                                                   LANCE


c.c. B. Aus
     R. Lellio
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-56765 and 333-61727) and in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-10697, 333-38871, and 333-62275) of Hyperion
Solutions Corporation of our report dated July 28, 2000 relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this
Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


San Jose, California
September 28, 2000