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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1359

To amend title 38, United States Code, to limit the amount of recoupment

from veterans’ disability compensation that is required in the case of

veterans who have received certain separation payments from the Department of Defense.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 4, 1997

Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. CONRAD, Mr.

REID, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. MURKOWSKI and

Ms. SNOWE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to limit the amount

of recoupment from veterans’ disability compensation

that is required in the case of veterans who have received

certain separation payments from the Department of Defense.

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

•S 1359 IS

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON INCENTIVE RECOUPMENT

2 FROM VETERANS COMPENSATION BENEFITS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Chapter 53 of title 38, United

4 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 5304

5 the following new section:

6 ‘‘§ 5304A. Recoupment of military incentive payments

7 from compensation: limitation

8 ‘‘(a) In the case of a veteran with a service-connected

9 disability who is entitled to compensation and who is paid

10 an incentive described in subsection (b), the amount of

11 compensation otherwise payable to that veteran that is de12 ducted pursuant to section 1174a(g) of title 10 by reason

13 of the payment to that veteran of the benefit described

14 in subsection (b)(1), or pursuant to section 1175(e)(4) of

15 title 10 by reason of the payment to that veteran of the

16 benefit described in subsection (b)(2), may not exceed 75

17 percent of the total amount of the benefit paid to the vet18 eran.

19 ‘‘(b) Subsection (a) applies to the following:

20 ‘‘(1) Special separation benefits under section

21 1174a of title 10.

22 ‘‘(2) Voluntary separation incentive benefits

23 under section 1175 of title 10.’’.

24 (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such

25 chapter is amended by adding at the end the following

26 new item:
3

•S 1359 IS

‘‘5304A. Recoupment of military separation payments from compensation: limitation.’’.

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section 5304A of title 38,

2 United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall

3 apply with respect to payment of compensation by the Sec4 retary of Veterans Affairs for months beginning after De5 cember 5, 1991.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
OF VARI-LITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS SET FORTH IN THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETRY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,262
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,512
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (483)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,531
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,323
<PP&E>                                         127,886
<DEPRECIATION>                                (58,375)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,094
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,230
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,492
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,094
<SALES>                                          3,349
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,519
<CGS>                                            2,314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,881
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,830
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   483
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,079
<INCOME-TAX>                                       821
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    737
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       521
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
Case: 1:03-cv-01455 Document #: 60 Filed: 11/16/05 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:518
Case: 1:03-cv-01455 Document #: 60 Filed: 11/16/05 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:519
Case: 1:03-cv-01455 Document #: 60 Filed: 11/16/05 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:520
Case: 1:03-cv-01455 Document #: 60 Filed: 11/16/05 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:521
Case: 1:03-cv-01455 Document #: 60 Filed: 11/16/05 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:522
Case: 1:03-cv-01455 Document #: 60 Filed: 11/16/05 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:523
Case: 1:03-cv-01455 Document #: 60 Filed: 11/16/05 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:524
Case: 1:03-cv-01455 Document #: 60 Filed: 11/16/05 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:525
Case: 1:03-cv-01455 Document #: 60 Filed: 11/16/05 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:526
Case: 1:03-cv-01455 Document #: 60 Filed: 11/16/05 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:527
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

I, Alicia Secor, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Juniper Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

|                                                                      |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                 |
| /s/ Alicia Secor                                                |
| Alicia Secor                                                         |
| President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) |
| DATE: April 27, 2018                                                 |
Case 1:04-cv-01051 Document 413 Filed 11/03/08 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 11496]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Underground Modernist: E. McKnight Kauffer” at the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.                

Matthew R. Lussenhop,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-17249 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### HARVIE, Respondent, v. SUMMIT FOUNDRY CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Colin Harvie against the Summit Foundry Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed,'with costs.
# Official Journal C 246A/5 Oc

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 246A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 475 October 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 246A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 475 October 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 246A/1 | Publication of a notice of vacancy for a Head of Delegation (Article 29(1a) and (b) and 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) COM/229/04 | 1 |
| | European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia |
| 2004/C 246A/2 | Ref.: ACER-B-2004 Administrative Assistant — Communication and External Relations (B*4) | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

Commission

2004/C 246A/1

Publication of a notice of vacancy for a Head of Delegation (Article 29(1a) and (b) and 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) COM/229/04

1

European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia

2004/C 246A/2

Ref.: ACER-B-2004 Administrative Assistant — Communication and External Relations (B*4)

5

---

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

EN
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

                In connection with the QuarterlyReport of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H.G. Carrington, Jr., Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

2.             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ H.G. Carrington, Jr. |
|--------------------------|
| H.G. Carrington, Jr.     |
| Chief Financial Officer  |
| August 14, 2002          |

 

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel McNear, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 713]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Scudder, PJ., Fahey, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30601

TYRONE YOUNG, 

Petitioner-Appellant 

v. 

DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, 

Respondent-Appellee 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 2:14-CV-708

Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Tyrone Young, Louisiana prisoner # 110405, appeals following the 

district court’s transfer of his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application to this 

court, and its subsequent denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) 

motion wherein he challenged the court’s transfer order. Because the district 

court did not enter a final order disposing of the merits of Young’s request for 

habeas relief in this case, a certificate of appealability (COA) is not required 

for his appeal. See United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015). 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 2, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30601 Document: 00514018212 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2017
No. 16-30601

2 

We review the denial of Young’s motion for an abuse of discretion. See Rocha 

v. Thaler, 619 F.3d 387, 400 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Young argues that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 

(AEDPA), which established requirements for habeas corpus proceedings as 

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244, applies only in capital habeas proceedings, and 

thus is inapplicable in his non-capital case. It is well established that the 

AEDPA applies to “all habeas corpus proceedings in the federal courts” filed 

after its enactment, even those submitted by individuals convicted of 

noncapital offenses. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326 (1997) (applying the 

AEDPA to noncapital case). Accordingly, no abuse of discretion has been 

shown. IT IS ORDERED that a COA is DENIED as unnecessary and that the 

transfer order of the district court is AFFIRMED. See Fulton, 780 F.3d at 689. 

Young’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

 Case: 16-30601 Document: 00514018212 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2017
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 2 of 15
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 3 of 15
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 4 of 15
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 5 of 15
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 6 of 15
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 7 of 15
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 8 of 15
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 9 of 15
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 10 of 15
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 11 of 15
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 12 of 15
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 13 of 15
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 14 of 15
Case 1:02-cv-03747 Document 45 Filed 06/04/03 Page 15 of 15
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-20092

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EVANS LEE JONES, 

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CR-404-1

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

February 13, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Evans Lee Jones appeals the upward-departure sentence

imposed by the district court following his guilty-plea

convictions for bank robbery by intimidation and unlawful

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He contends that

the district court failed to follow the proper methodology for

departures under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 and erroneously relied in part

on a juvenile conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle

as a reason for upward departure.
No. 00-20092

-2-

Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities

convinces us that no reversible error was committed. The

district court’s explanation why criminal history criminal

history category VI inadequately reflected the seriousness of

Jones’s criminal background and the likelihood of recidivism

“struck a satisfactory balance between ritualistic formalism and

arbitrariness.” See United States v. Daughenbaugh, 49 F.3d 171,

175 (5th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, the district court was

entitled to rely upon the presentence report in examining the

facts underlying Jones’s juvenile unauthorized use of a motor

vehicle conviction. See United States v. Millsaps, 157 F.3d 989,

995 (5th Cir. 1998). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Rodgers *v.*McCune *et al.*

Hill, J.

Where an equitable petition was brought by one who purchased a lot of land, during the existence of a homestead thereon, at a sheriff’s sale under the levy of a fl. fa. against the surviving beneficiaries of the homestead estate, alleging that the legal title was in the plaintiff, that the homestead estate had terminated by reason of the fact that the head of the family was dead, that his alleged widow (who in reality was never his legal wife) had abandoned the property, that the children were of legal age, that the homestead property was unoccupied and the houses thereon were falling into decay, and that the defendants were attempting to sell the property, — and praying that the homestead be declared at an end, that the title to the land and the right of possession be decreed to. be in the plaintiff, that he be put in possession, and that the defendants be enjoined from taking possession of or selling or attempting to sell the land in controversy; and where the petition showed that in a former suit against him a decree had been rendered, enjoining *658the plaintiff from taking possession of the property in question until the termination of the homestead, “and then the injunction be dissolved,” and where the recitals in the petition were not sufficient to show that the homestead had terminated, and only collaterally sought to attack its validity, it was not error to dismiss such petition on motion.

July 3, 1915.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Pendleton. Eulton superior court. April 29, 1914.

*Robert L. Rodgers,*for plaintiff.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Harden *v.*Sutton.

July 17, 1915.

Hill, J.

1. The order of the ordinary granting the administrator'leave to sell the land of his intestate is the same which was construed by this court in *Davis v. Harden,*143 *Ga.*98 (84 S. E. 426), and, as there ruled, such order was admissible in evidence, in a collateral proceeding, over the objection that it did not sufficiently describe the land ordered to be sold.

2. The deed excluded by the court on the ground of insufficiency of description is the same as that construed by this court in *Davis*v. *Harden,*supra, and it was there held that the “descriptive averments of the deed, especially those relating to the original grants to Samuel Kitchens and Nathaniel Lang, contained data from which the land intended to be conveyed can be definitely located.” In that case the grant to Samuel Kitchens was introduced in evidence and there was aliunde evidence to the effect that one of the original grants designated in the deed embraced the land in controversy; and under such proof it was held that it was not error to admit the deed over objection that it did not sufficiently describe the land. However, in the instant case the parol testimony of the plaintiff was to the effect that the land in controversy was embraced in neither grant; and the court accordingly did not err in rejecting the deed from evidence.

3. The deed was not admissible in evidence as color of title; for the rule is that the same certainty of description which is requisite to constitute an instrument a conveyance of title is required in an instrument which is relied on as color of title. *Luttrell*v. *Whitehead,*121 *Ga.*699 (49 S. E. 691) ; *Crawford*v. *Verner,*122 *Ga.*814 (50 S. E. 958).

4. An amendment alleging that one claiming to be the owner in fee of the land had sold it to the intestate and it was in his possession at the time of the sale and purchase of the land described in her deed as being part of the Kitchens and Lang grants, and that she sold the same to the plaintiff and put him in possession as a purchaser, was properly rejected on the ground that it affirmatively appeared that the land described in „ the deed by the administrator did not embrace the premises in dispute.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*728Complaint for land. Before Judge Rawlings. Toombs superior court. May 26, 1914.

*Way & Burkhalter,'*for plaintiff.

*G. W. Lankford*and *Hines & Jordan,*for defendant.
Exhibit 32.1

 

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, as amended by this Form 10-K/A |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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:September 13, 2005
|   | s/Jeffrey R. BaileyJeffrey R. Bailey,President |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|

 

----
#### Beckworth *v.*Bank of Colbert.

January 16, 1915.

Complaint. Before Judge Beid. Newton superior court.. November 12, 1913.

*A. D. Meador,*for plaintiff in error. *Rogers & Knox,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

Under the pleadings and evidence, this case is controlled by the ruling announced in *Franklin*v. *Bank of Colbert,*ante, 51 (84 S. E. 131).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, C. J., absent..*