alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:2
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:3
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:4
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:5
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:6
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:7
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:8
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:9
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:10
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:11
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:12
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:13
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:14
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:15
Case: 1:03-cv-07787 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/03/03 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:16
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 302 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Peter Maloney, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Keynote Systems, Inc.; 

 

2. Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly 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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting. 

 

Date: February 9, 2005
* 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. 07-50780

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARISELA BARRERA DE ZACARIAS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-447-1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Marisela Barrera

De Zacarias raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is

a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v.

Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug.

28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 5, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
EXHIBIT 11The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share:                           (Expressed in U.S. Currency)      Three months ended September 30,  Nine months ended September 30,   2005  2004  2005  2004 Numerator:                Net Income (loss) $(86,071) $(173,324) $137,646  $(609,226)Dividends on Series A preferred stock  (780)  (778)  (2,315)  (2,318)                              Numerator for basic and diluted loss pershare loss available to common shareholders $(86,851) $(174,102) $135,331  $(611,544)                              Denominator:                Denominator for basic loss per share-weighted average shares outstanding  13,820,396   12,812,438   13,817,578   12,157,730 Effect of dilutive securities  —   —   11,053   — Warrants  —   —   43,758   —                               Dilutive potential common shares denominatorfor diluted earnings (loss) per share adjustedweighter-average shares and assumed conversion  13,820,396   12,812,438   13,872,389   12,157,730                               Basic income (loss) per share $(0.01) $(0.01) $0.01  $(0.05)                              Diluted income (loss) per share $(0.01) $(0.01) $0.01  $(0.05)
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1206

To provide for an enumeration of family caregivers as part of the 2000

decennial census of population.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 23, 1997

Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. JEFFORDS, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. ALLARD, Mr.

HARKIN, and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; which was

read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To provide for an enumeration of family caregivers as part

of the 2000 decennial census of population.

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 ‘‘Family Caregiver Enu5 meration Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. ENUMERATION OF FAMILY CAREGIVERS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Commerce shall

8 take appropriate measures to ensure that an enumeration

9 of family caregivers is taken as part of the 2000 decennial

10 census of population.
2

•S 1206 IS

1 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

2 (1) ACTIVITY OF DAILY LIVING.—The term ‘‘ac3 tivity of daily living’’ includes breathing, bathing,

4 dressing, eating, transferring, and toileting.

5 (2) CARE RECIPIENT.—The term ‘‘care recipi6 ent’’ means an individual (of any age) who requires

7 substantial assistance from another individual in

8 carrying out 1 or more activities of daily living or in9 strumental activities of daily living due to—

10 (A) a physical or mental condition or im11 pairment that has lasted, or is expected to last,

12 for a period longer than 3 months; or

13 (B) a terminal condition.

14 (3) CAREGIVER.—The term ‘‘caregiver’’ means

15 an individual who, without financial compensation,

16 regularly assists a care recipient in carrying out 1

17 or more activities of daily living or instrumental ac18 tivities of daily living.

19 (4) CENSUS OF POPULATION.—The term ‘‘cen20 sus of population’’ has the meaning given that term

21 in section 141(g) of title 13, United States Code.

22 (5) FAMILY CAREGIVER.—The term ‘‘family

23 caregiver’’ means a caregiver who is the spouse of a

24 care recipient or whose relationship to a care recipi25 ent is described in any of paragraphs (1) through
3

•S 1206 IS

1 (9) of section 152(a) of the Internal Revenue Code

2 of 1986 (applied, for purposes of this paragraph, by

3 substituting ‘‘care recipient’’ for ‘‘taxpayer’’ each

4 place it appears).

5 (6) INSTRUMENTAL ACTIVITY OF DAILY LIV6 ING.—The term ‘‘instrumental activity of daily liv7 ing’’ means shopping for personal items, obtaining

8 and taking medication, managing money, preparing

9 meals, using the telephone, performing housework,

10 and any other measure of living independently or

11 functioning at a level commensurate with an individ12 ual’s age.

Æ
#### Joseph Lombardo, Appellant, v Coder Service, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Blue Giant Equipment Corp., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

(Appeal No. 4.)

—Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Same memorandum as in *Lombardo v Coder Serv.*([Appeal No. 1], 117 AD2d 1003). (Appeals from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sprague, J.— negligence, products liability.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
(On LaRoche Petroleum Consultants, Ltd. Letterhead)

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

 

As independent oil and gas consultants, LaRoche Petroleum Consultants, Ltd. hereby consents to (a) the use of our report setting forth our estimates of proved reserves and future revenue, as of December 31, 2007, to the interest of Tengasco, Inc. (“Tengasco”) in certain oil and gas properties; and (b) all references to our firm included in or made a part of Tengasco’s Annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

|   | S/Stephen W. Daniel |
|--------|---------------------|

|   | LaRoche Petroleum Consultants, Ltd. |
|--------|-------------------------------------|

 

|   | Stephen W. Daniel |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | Partner |
|--------|---------|

 

Dallas, Texas

March 26, 2008
‘Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Milton I. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 332 DATE 10/30/2003
CASE USA vs. Jeffrey Goldberg
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
ion being ted.
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.] _
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
GB) oO Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) ia Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for].on set for at
(6) ao Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .
(?) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on. at a
(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 CUFRCP41(a)(1) [J FRCP41(a)(2).

(do) «x= [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. As a result of the sentencing hearing, this Court

reconfirms all of the analysis set out in the memorandum as to the Sentencing Guidelines calculation:

an offense level; of 23 and a criminal history category of I, producing a Guideline range of 46 to 57

months.
(dl) @f {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

No notices required, advised in open court.

CI

umber of notices

NOV 63 2803

courtroom be
SN deputy’s
initials sw |
£ » Date/time received ii
central Clerk’s Office. mailing deputy ints

V


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Vv. ) No. 03 CR 332
)
JEFFREY GOLDBERG, )
) Lb pr.
Defendant. ) (EPe,
Noy 7)
MEMORANDUM ORDER 2 2h 3
O03

As this Court's extended October 30, 2003 memorandum
reflected, the preliminary views stated there were voiced subject
to possible modification if the sentencing proceeding later that
day were to call for any changes. As a result of the sentencing
hearing, this Court reconfirms all of the-analysis set out in the
memorandum as to the Sentencing Guidelines calculation: an
offense level of 23 and a criminal history category of I,
producing a Guideline range of 46 to 57 months.

But based on the aggravating and mitigating factors
identified by counsel for the parties during the hearing,
defendant Jeffrey Goldberg has been committed to the custody of
the Bureau of Prisons for a period of 52 (and not 57) months.
That and all other aspects of the sentence are included in the

October 30, 2003 judgment and commitment order.

hla ) Senda’

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: October 30, 2003
# Official Journal C 134/1 Ju

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 134 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 481 June 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 134

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 481 June 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 134/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 134/2 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 2 |
| 2005/C 134/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3789 — Johnson Controls/Robert Bosch/Delphi SLI) (1) | 4 |
| 2005/C 134/4 | Information procedure — Technical rules (1) | 5 |
| 2005/C 134/5 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3809 — Siemens/Flender) (1) | 11 |
| 2005/C 134/6 | Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB/Moulinex (pursuant to Article 15 of Commission decision 2001/462/3C, ECSC of 23 may 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21) | 12 |
| 2005/C 134/7 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at its 120th meeting held on 3 november 2003 concerning a preliminary draft Decision relating to Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB/Moulinex (II) | 13 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 134/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 134/2

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

2

2005/C 134/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3789 — Johnson Controls/Robert Bosch/Delphi SLI) (1)

4

2005/C 134/4

Information procedure — Technical rules (1)

5

2005/C 134/5

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3809 — Siemens/Flender) (1)

11

2005/C 134/6

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB/Moulinex (pursuant to Article 15 of Commission decision 2001/462/3C, ECSC of 23 may 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

12

2005/C 134/7

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at its 120th meeting held on 3 november 2003 concerning a preliminary draft Decision relating to Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB/Moulinex (II)

th

13

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 134/8 | 2005 Call for proposals in the field of the Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protection assistance interventions — Major emergency simulation exercises | 14 |

III   Notices

Commission

2005/C 134/8

2005 Call for proposals in the field of the Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protection assistance interventions — Major emergency simulation exercises

14

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
# C_2022347EN.01000101.xml

| 9.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2021-2022 SESSION

Sittings of 8 to 11 March 2022

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
#### Kyle Tinney et al., Respondents-Appellants, v City of New York et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[941 NYS2d 571]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), entered December 28, 2009, which denied the motion by defendants the City of New York, New York City Folice Department, New York City Department of Health, New York City Medical Examiner’s Office of the Department of Health (collectively, the City) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied the cross motion by plaintiffs for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and remand the case to the IAS court for further proceedings, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiffs’ action is not time-barred by General Municipal Law § 50-i (1) (c). As we have previously held, a cause of action for the right of sepulcher “does not accrue until interference with the right directly impacts on the ‘solace and comfort’ of the next of kin — that is, until interference causes mental anguish for the next of kin” *(Melfi v Mount Sinai Hosp.,*64 *418AD3d 26, 32 [2009]). The next of kin’s mental anguish cannot arise until he or she became aware of defendant’s actions — in this case, in February 2006 when plaintiffs first discovered the facts underlying this action including learning for the first time that their father was dead *(id.; see also Johnson v State of New York,*37 NY2d 378 [1975]).

In addition, under the circumstances presented in this case, where defendant had all the necessary identifying documents, the act claimed to be omitted is a ministerial, as opposed to a discretionary, function. Therefore, the City is not shielded from liability on the ground that the allegedly tortious acts were discretionary *(see McLean v City of New York,*12 NY3d 194, 202 [2009]; *see also Garrett v Holiday Inns,*58 NY2d 253, 263 [1983]; *cf. Valdez v City of New York,*18 NY3d 69 [2011]). We further find that the City’s omissions give rise in this action to liability for loss of the right to sepulcher *(Shipley v City of New York,*80 AD3d 171 [2010]). Moreover, no further factual development would shed any light on this case, at least not with respect to liability, and therefore, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted on the issue of liability. Concur— Friedman, J.E, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert E. Mead, 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:

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

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated: August 13, 2003                              /s/ ROBERT E. MEAD
                                                 -------------------------
                                                  Robert E. Mead

                                       32
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1214 Referral Instructions Senate (RIS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1214

 To amend the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to eliminate the requirement 
that a Federal budget deficit must exist in order for the President to 
                   use the line-item veto authority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 1997

  Mr. Allard introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
 referred jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, as modified 
  by the order of April 11, 1986, to the Committees on the Budget and 
Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one Committee reports, 
    the other Committee have thirty days to report or be discharged

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to eliminate the requirement 
that a Federal budget deficit must exist in order for the President to 
                   use the line-item veto authority.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That section 1021(a)(3)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
amended by striking clause (i) and by redesignating clauses (ii) and 
(iii) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6845

OLANDO RAVI BHARAT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICK CONROY; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE

OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge.

(CA-02-142-S)

Submitted: October 9, 2002 Decided: October 25, 2002

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Allen Nathans, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Ann Norman

Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Olando Ravi Bharat seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the

district court that Bharat has not made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right. See Bharat v. Conroy, No. CA02-142-S (D. Md. May 1, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)

(2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED