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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1572 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1572

  To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating certain 
           regulations relating to Indian gaming activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 27, 1998

     Mr. Bryan (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Sessions) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating certain 
           regulations relating to Indian gaming activities.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.

    Notwithstanding section 11(d)(7)(B)(vii) of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii)), the Secretary of the 
Interior may not promulgate--
            (1) as final regulations, the proposed regulations 
        published on January 22, 1998, at 63 Fed. Reg. 3289; or
            (2) any similar regulations to provide for procedures for 
        gaming activities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 
        U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) in any case in which a State asserts a 
        defense of sovereign immunity to a lawsuit brought by an Indian 
        tribe in a Federal court under section 11(d)(7) of that Act (25 
        U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)) to compel the State to participate in 
        compact negotiations for class III gaming (as that term is 
        defined in section 4(8) of that Act (25 U.S.C. 2703(8))).
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 on Form 10-Q of Blue Rhino
Corporation (the "Company") for the three months ending January 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Mark Castaneda, 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 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 results of operations of the
Company.

                                                 /s/ Mark Castaneda
                                                 ------------------

                                                 Mark Castaneda
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 March 11, 2004
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 10.7

Draft

March 16, 1998


                              AGREEMENT
                         TRANSITION SERVICES

                    EAST TENNESSEE TECHNOLOGY PARK
            COMMUNITY REUSE ORGANIZATION OF EAST TENNESSEE

This AGREEMENT is made on this    day of     , 1998, between Operations
Management International, Inc. (OMI), and                 ( ).

Whereas on          , 1998, OMI entered into an agreement (Contract)
with the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET) for the
management, operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of utilities and
infrastructure at the East Tennessee Technology Park (Project); and,

Whereas on             , 1998, OMI entered into an agreement with
CROET for t ransition services for the Project as set forth in the
approved Transition Plan (Plan), Exhibit 1; and,

Whereas, OMI intends to enter into an agreement (Subcontract) with
Tengasco for services related to the Project as follows:

                   1. Stream Plant
                   2. Stream Distribution
                   3. Natural Gas Distribution

and,

Whereas OMI desires that Tengasco provide certain transition services
related to the Subcontract;

OMI and Tengasco agree:

1. Tengasco will submit for OMI's approval a detailed scope, budget and
   schedule for transition services to be provided.

2. The budget for transition services, when aproved by OMI constitutes a
   not-to-exceed amount for this AGREEMENT. Compensation by OMI to Tngo
   will be for actual services performed.

3. Compensation rates will be in accordance with rates previously
   provided to OMI by Tngo and incorporated into the approved Plan.

4. Tngo will document all transition activities performed under this
   AGREEMENT in accordance with documentation procedures established by OMI

   for the Plan.

<PAGE>


5. Tngo will submit to OMI a monthly invoice for actual transition
   services performed under this AGREEMENT for the previous month,
   including supporting documentation.

6. OMI will submit a monthly invoice to CROET for all transition
   services performed under the Plan, including services performed under
   this AGREEMENT.

7. OMI will pay Tngo within Fifteen (15) days of receipt of payment by
   CROET for services performed under this AGREEMENT.

8. Services not specified in the approved scope, budget and schedule are
   out-of-scope services and require the prior approval of OMI.

9. Tngo will comply with the Plan, including Section 6.0 TERMS AND
   CONDITIONS  as it relates to this AGREEMENT, and specifically 6.4
   Indemnity, Liability, and Insurance.

10. Tngo will comply with the terms and conditions of the Contract as it
    relates to this AGREEMENT.

Both parties indicate their approval of this AGREEMENT by their
signatures below.

Authorized signature:                 Authorized signature:

                                      /s/ Robert M. Carter
______________________                _______________________
Bernard A. Miller
Chief Operating Officer


OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
INTERNATIONAL, INC.
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 Luminex Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick J. Balthrop, Sr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Patrick J. Balthrop, Sr.


Patrick J. Balthrop, Sr.


President and Chief Executive Officer


July 31, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          23,111
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,741)
<INVENTORY>                                        506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,957
<PP&E>                                          30,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                (16,523)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 208,350
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        (100,000)
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         (353)
<OTHER-SE>                                    (96,953)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (208,350)
<SALES>                                        119,204
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               119,204
<CGS>                                         (69,155)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (69,155)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (60,505)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 608
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,848)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,848)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,848)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)


</TABLE>
#### ROBERSON V. THE STATE.

(Decided April 12th, 1910.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. S. L. Weaver.

No counsel marked for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Errors confessed. Reversed and remanded.
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-02850 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/28/03 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:1
fN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

SUSAN DIANE HULTS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

MCSHANE, Judge: 

Civ. No. 3:14-cv-01234-TC 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin issued a Findings and Recoillll1endation (F & R) on 

December 8, 2014, in which he recommended that this Court dismiss plaintiffs complaint for 

failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. The matter is now before this Court. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Because no objections to the F & R were timely filed, this Court reviews only the legal 

principles de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane); 

see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F .2d 1441, 1444-45 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). 

Upon review, this Court finds no error in Judge Coffin's F & R, ECF No.9. As indicated by· 

Judge Coffin, plaintiff failed to provide original summons to the Clerk of Court, or in the 

alternative, provide proof of service upon defendant. 

CONCLUSION 

This Court ADOPTS Judge Coffin's F & R, ECFNo. 9, in full. Accordingly, this matter 

is dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01234-TC Document 12 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 2
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 20th day of February, 2015. 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

l" LMichael J. McShane 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-01234-TC Document 12 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 2
# C_2005314EN.01000901.xml

| 10.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/9

---

Infringement procedure 2003/4497 — Civitavecchia

(2005/C 314/05)

Further to the supplementary reasoned opinion which the Commission sent Italy in pursuance of the abovementioned procedure, in which the Commission found that, by not measuring correctly ambient concentrations of PM10 particles in the area of Civitavecchia and consequently failing to inform the public of these concentrations regularly, Italy had failed to fulfil its obligations under Directives 96/62/EC on ambient air quality assessment and management (1) and 1999/30/EC relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (2), the Italian authorities have informed the Commission that, since 3 April 2005, an air-quality monitoring station has been operating in Civitavecchia (via Palmiro Togliatti) capable of measuring PM10 concentrations and the relevant information is available on the Agenzia Regionale Protezione Ambientale del Lazio (Lazio Region Environmental Protection Agency — Arpalazio) website http://www.arpalazio.it/aria/centraline/dettaglio_provincia.php.

1

2

Therefore, in light of the foregoing, the Commission's departments take the view that the Italian Republic has complied with the abovementioned supplementary reasoned opinion and that infringement proceedings 2003/4497 should be closed. They will therefore propose that the Commission should close the procedure.

Any new information submitted to the Commission which might lead it to reconsider its decision to close the case must be communicated within a month of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. In the absence of any such new information, the Commission will close the procedure.

Official Journal of the European Union

This does not preclude that, should the Commission come into possession, even after the procedure is closed, of new facts justifying the opening of a new procedure regarding the same subject-matter, the case would be reopened and proceedings initiated once again.

---

(1)  OJ L 296, 21.11.1996, p. 55-63.

1

(2)  OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41-60.

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
 Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center: Stuttgart, AR
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stuttgart, Arkansas Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center People & Locations







Jacqueline  Hughes
                        Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center

                        




                        
                        Office Automation Clerk
                        Phone: (870) 672-6102
                        
                        
                        Fax: (870) 673-7581(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
1 –ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JARED DALE GILLESPIE,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. 2:14-cv-00950-TC

v. ORDER

DR. GARTH GULICK, et al.,,

Defendants.

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 

59), and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

Although neither party filed objections, I reviewed the legal principles de novo. United States v. 

Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 1998). I find no error and conclude the report is correct. 

Magistrate Judge Coffin’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No.59) is adopted. Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 29th day of March, 2016.

_______/s/ Michael J. McShane ________

Michael McShane

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00950-TC Document 61 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 1
#### Andrea Sheryll et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiffs, v United General Construction et al., Defendants, and City of New York, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 291]—

*781Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered January 24, 2011, which denied plaintiffs-appellants’ motion to strike defendant-respondent City of New York’s answer, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to grant the motion to the extent of directing that the City’s answer be stricken, unless the City pays plaintiffs-appellants’ attorney costs in the sum of $10,000, within 30 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, and otherwise affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered December 2, 2011, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike the City’s answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The nature of the sanction for disobedience regarding court-ordered disclosure generally lies within the discretion of the IAS court *(see Emmitt v City of New York,*66 AD3d 504 [2009]). Moreover, since there is a strong preference that matters be decided on their merits *(see Catarine v Beth Israel Med. Ctr.,*290 AD2d 213 [2002]), we agree with the motion court that the “ultimate penalty” of striking the answer was unwarranted, at least up to this point *(cf. Elias v City of New York,*87 AD3d 513, 517 [2011]). However, the court improvidently exercised that discretion in declining to impose a stronger sanction on defendant City for its dilatory conduct.

In the instant case, the City’s unexcused conduct and pattern of delay in timely serving discovery warrants a monetary sanction as noted above *(see Figdor v City of New York,*33 AD3d 560 [2006]; *Anonymous v High School for Envtl. Studies,*32 AD3d 353 [2006]). This sanction should deter the City from “continuing its cavalier noncompliance with court-ordered discovery” *(Elias,*87 AD3d at 517). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

JASON SERVO, 

No. 3:13-cv-00702-PK

Plaintiff, 

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

CHIEF CRAIG JUNGINGER, CAPT. DALE

CUMMINS, and CITY OF GRESHAM, 

 Defendants. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On June 25, 2014, Magistrate Judge Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation 

(“F&R”) [67] in the above-captioned case, recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment be granted. Neither party objected. 

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. I am not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge; instead,

I retain responsibility for making the final determination. I am required to review de novo those 

portions of the report or any specified findings or recommendations within it to which an 

objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, I am not required to review, de novo or 

under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those 

portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:13-cv-00702-PK Document 70 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 2
149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level 

of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether objections have 

been filed, in either case I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff Mr. Servo alleges in part that Defendants violated his due process rights by 

harboring or expressing bias towards him in the course of the proceedings resulting in his 

termination of employment. Due process requires a hearing before an impartial tribunal, and a 

“biased proceeding is not a procedurally adequate one.” Clements v. Airport Auth., 69 F.3d 321, 

333 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 59–60 (1972)). To 

clarify Judge Papak’s F&R, I do not hold Plaintiff’s allegation of bias to be legally deficient but 

rather hold that the allegation fails on evidentiary grounds. Summary judgment is appropriate 

when the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party. Anderson 

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). There is no evidence in the record of this case 

that bias infected the proceedings surrounding Mr. Servo’s termination. 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak’s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [67] 

as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 6th day of August, 2014. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:13-cv-00702-PK Document 70 Filed 08/06/14 Page 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 2, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00609

- CV

Marta ARREDONDO,

Appellant s

v.

TECHSERV CONSULTING and Training, Ltd., T&D Solutions, LLC, and AEP Texas Central

Company,

Appellee s

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 08

- 16922

- CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee Techserv ’ s Second Motion for Extension of Time to file brief is GRANTED.

The appellees ’ brief is due on February 20, 2018.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 2nd day of February, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court