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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1784 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1784

           To suspend temporarily the duty on Biphenyl flake.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 1998

   Mr. Bond introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on Biphenyl flake.

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

SECTION 1. BIPHENYL IN FLAKE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``     9902.31.16      Biphenyl                                                                                 
                        (Diphenyl), in                                                                          
                        flakes (CAS No.                                                                         
                        92-52-4)                                                                                
                        (provided for in                                                                        
                        subheading                                                                              
                        2902.90.60)......  Free         No change         No change         On or before 12/    
                                                                                             31/2001            
                                                                                                                

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Alan Stuart Graf, OSB # 92317 

alangraf@aracnet. com 

208 Pine St 

Floyd, VA 24091 

Telephone: 540-745-2519 

Fax: 931-964-3127 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHRISTY GILMARTIN 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

6:14-CV-01417-AA 

ORDER FOR EAJA 

ATTORNEY FEES 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded 

attorney fees in the amount of $5, 161.86. Subject to any offset allowed under the Treasury 

Offset Program, as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 139 S. Ct. 2521 (2010), payment of this award 

shall be made payable to Plaintiff's attorney: 

Alan Stuart Graf, PC, 208 Pine St., Floyd VA 24091. 

It is so ORDERED 

Dated this 4 day of_Septemb~20 15 

Unite 

Prepared as to form 

Is/ Alan Graf 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

- --

ORDERFe>R EAJA FEES-1 

Case 6:14-cv-01417-AA Document 29 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                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 on Form 10-Q of Blue Rhino
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ending January 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Billy D. Prim, 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:

         (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/ Billy D. Prim

                                           Billy D. Prim
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                           March 13, 2003
EXHIBIT 23.4

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

            We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-80065, 333-06563 and 333-114151)
pertaining to the Secure Computing Corporation Amended and Restated Omnibus
Stock Plan and the Secure Computing Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan and
in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-16767) of our report dated
October 2, 1995, relating to the financial statements of Border Network
Technologies Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1994, appearing in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Secure Computing Corporation.

/s/ McClurkin Ahier & Company
Chartered Accountants

Mississauga, Ontario
March 26, 1997
WILBORN LAW OFFICE, P.C. 

TIM WILBORN, Attorney at Law - OSB # 944644 

tim@wilbornlaw.com 

P.O. Box 370578 

Las Vegas, NV 89137 

Voice: (702) 240-0184 

Fax: (503) 926-9133 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

REBECCA JEAN PETERSON, Case No. 6: l 3-cv-00766-MC 

Plaintiff, 

VS. 

COMMISSIONER of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

Attorneys' fees in the amount of $18,707.25 are hereby awarded to Plaintiffs attorney 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b ). The court finds this is a reasonable fee. Previously, this court 

awarded fees pursuant to the Equal Access To Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. When issuing 

the§ 406(b) check, the agency is directed to subtract the amount of the EAJA fee previously received 

by the attorney and to send to Plaintiffs attorney, Tim Wilborn, at the address above, the balance 

of$11,672.90, minus any user fee. Any amount withheld after all administrative and court attorneys 

fees are paid should be released to the claimant. 

DATED this '2.k day of Se..p } 

Presented by: 

sf Tim Wilborn, OSB # 944644 

(702) 240-0184 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ORDER - Page 1 

'2017. 

United States District Court Judge
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: May 19, 2016 106907 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK, 

Respondent, 

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MITZI C. DUNKELBERGER, 

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: April 22, 2016

Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.

__________

Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.

James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Hannah

Rose Prall of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Garry, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan

County (McGuire, J.), rendered June 11, 2014, convicting

defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the

second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree

and was sentenced, in accordance with the terms of the plea

agreement, to a prison term of five years followed by five years

of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

 

We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the

waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. The record reflects

that in the course of a detailed and thorough allocution, County

Court adequately explained that the right to appeal was separate
-2- 106907 

and distinct from those rights forfeited by her guilty plea (see

People v Richey, 134 AD3d 1254, 1254 [2015]; People v Rubio, 133

AD3d 1041, 1042 [2015]). The court also confirmed that defendant

had sufficient time to discuss her waiver with defense counsel

and that she understood its ramifications; defendant also

executed a detailed written waiver in open court (see People v

Mayo, 130 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2015]; People v Jackson, 129 AD3d

1342, 1342 [2015]). As such, the record establishes that

defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived her

right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). 

Accordingly, defendant's challenge to the severity of the

sentence imposed is precluded by the valid appeal waiver (see id.

at 255-256; People v Rubio, 133 AD3d at 1042). 

Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. 

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 165 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 165

                   For the relief of Donald C. Pence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 21, 1997

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Donald C. Pence.

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

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF DONALD C. PENCE.

    (a) Relief.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any 
moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Donald C. Pence, 
of Sanford, North Carolina, the sum of $31,128 in compensation for the 
failure of the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay dependency and 
indemnity compensation to Kathryn E. Box, the now-deceased mother of 
Donald C. Pence, for the period beginning on July 1, 1990, and ending 
on March 31, 1993.
    (b) Limitation on Fees.--Not more than a total of 10 percent of the 
payment authorized by subsection (a) shall be paid to or received by 
agents or attorneys for services rendered in connection with obtaining 
such payment, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person 
who violates this subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000.
                                 <all>
```
----

Exhibit 32.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, John L. Threshie Jr., CEO of The TirexCorporation (the "Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to my knowledge: 

1. This Annual Reporton Form 10-KSB of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report"), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and 

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

/s/ John L. Threshie Jr.John L. Threshie Jr., CEO 

Date: October 14, 2004 

----
1 – OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW Case No. 3:14-cv-00975-MO

YORK, a New York corporation,

Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER 

 

v. 

 

ROSE CITY AUTO GROUP, LLC, an Oregon 

limited liability company; LEONARD M. 

SHILEY, an individual; TERESA BYLE, an 

individual; LOGAN DRIEDRIC, an individual; 

JOANNA STONER, an individual; STEPHEN 

STONER, an individual; LOVE MARTINO, an 

individual; ANAN SRIVILAI, an individual; 

CAMERON JOHNSON, an individual; 

JONATHAN GILBERT, an individual; TINA 

HARRAL, an individual; ROY WIEGAND, an 

individual; NATHAN LANGER, an individual; 

KAREN BERSINE, an individual; MELISSA 

STEVENS, an individual; TONY EDWARDS, 

an individual; DEBBIE RECKTANGLE, an 

individual; RODNEY JENKINS, an individual; 

STEPHEN SCHANTIN, an individual; 

BRITTANY LAWRENCE, an individual; MATT 

REED, an individual; SHERIAL REED, an 

individual; RACHEL SCHANTIN, an individual; 

EZEKIAL HUNT, an individual; BOBBY 

HEAGLE, an individual; LANEY 

BLANKENSHIP, an individual; LONNEY 

FRANCIS, an individual; OREGON 

COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, an Oregon 

non-profit entity; TWINSTAR CREDIT UNION,

Defendants.

// 

Case 3:14-cv-00975-MO Document 91 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 2
2 – OPINION AND ORDER 

MOSMAN, J., 

On April 19, 2015, Westlake Flooring Company (“Westlake”) filed a Motion for 

Reconsideration [90]. I am persuaded that, based on Westlake’s prior cross-claims against 

Defendants Leonard M. Shiley and Rose City Auto Group, LLC, Weslake is entitled to their 

requested default judgment [84] in the amount of $2,524.52 and attorney fees [88] in the amount 

of $7,321.00. It is important to note that the default judgment this court is issuing can only be 

collected against Defendants Leonard M. Shiley and Rose City Auto Group, LLC, based on the 

default motion [72] this court granted in Westlake’s favor, which is separate from the 

interpleader action. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I GRANT Westlake’s Motion for 

Reconsideration [90] and revise my prior rulings by GRANTING Westlake’s motions for 

attorney fees [88] and default judgment [84]. IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 20th day of August, 2015. 

 /s/ Michael W. Mosman 

 MICHAEL W. MOSMAN 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-00975-MO Document 91 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. (the Company) hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

(i) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|      |  |                |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|----- |  | -------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: |  | March 25, 2008 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ C. Kirk Peacock    
|      |  |                |  |  |  | Name:  |  | C. Kirk Peacock        
|      |  |                |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
10.3

     

    Note Discharge
Agreement

     

    October
30, 2008

     

    ATSI
Communications, Inc. (“ATSI) executed a Settlement Agreement and Release
(“Settlement Agreement”) with various parties along with a Promissory Note in
the Principal Amount of $450,000 payable to The Shaar Fund, Ltd. (“Note”) on or
about December 10, 2007.  Said Settlement Agreement provided for
discount provisions with regard to prepayment on the Note.   ATSI
is not and has not been in default of the payment terms of the
Note.

     

    Now comes
The Shaar Fund, Ltd. (“Shaar”) and represents it remains the holder of such Note
and agrees that it will further discount and fully discharge the Note (and will
promptly return the original of the Note marked “paid” or “discharged” to ATSI)
if and only if ATSI pays $290,000.00 to the Shaar Fund, Ltd. by wire transfer on
or before November 4, 2008.   If ATSI does not pay $290,000 on or
before November 4, 2008, this Agreement is a nullity.

     

    The
effective date of this Note Discharge Agreement is October 30,
2008.

     

    Signed
this 4th day of November, 2008.

     

    The Shaar
Fund, Ltd.

     

    By:
SS&C Fund Services N.V.

     

    (Attorney-in-fact
for the director of the The Shaar Fund Ltd.)

    


    
      
        
          
            
              	
                      By:
      /S/ Andy Senior

                    	 	
                      By:
      /S/ Mai
Liem
[No. 10866.

Department Two.

November 22, 1912.]

#### The State of Washington, *on the Relation of Jacob Furth et al., Plaintiff,*v. The Superior Court for Skagit County, *Respondent.*
      *1*

Mandamus — To Courts — When Lies — Change of Venue — Remedy by Appeal. After the granting of a motion changing the venue to another county, mandamus does not lie to compel a modification of the order, changing the venue to another county; since error, if any, in the order can be reviewed on appeal from the final judgment, even if the orders were made by several judges or in several counties.

Application filed in the supreme court November *IS,*1912, for a writ of mandamus to compel the superior court for Skagit county, Joiner, J., to modify an order for a change of venue.

Denied.

*Otto B. Rupp, E. C. Hughes,*and *Harold Preston,*for relators.

*Augustus Brwwley,*for respondent.

Reported, in 127 Pac. 1107.

Per Curiam.

Application for a writ of mandamus. Relators were charged with an offense in Skagit county. They filed a motion for a change of venue. This motion was granted, and the venue was ordered changed to Whatcom county. Thereupon relators filed a motion requesting the court to modify said order so that the venue might be changed to Snohomish county. This motion was denied, and relators now seek this writ.

We are of the opinion that the writ should not issue, for the reason that, if. the court erred in refusing to send the case to Snohomish county, that error may be reviewed upon appeal from a final judgment in the case. The fact that this order was made by the court in Skagit county while final judgment may be rendered by the court in Whatcom county *148is of no importance, because an appeal from a final judgment searches the whole record of the case, whether made by more than one judge or in more than one county.

The writ is therefore denied.
<PAGE>



                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1











                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS











We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-2 and S-8 (No. 333-65364 and No. 333-42153) of our reports
dated October 19, 2001 relating to (i) the consolidated financial statements of
Cenex Harvest States Cooperatives; (ii) the financial statements of the Oilseed
Processing and Refining Defined Business Unit; and (iii) the financial
statements of the Wheat Milling Defined Business Unit, each of which appear in
this Form 10-K.





PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
November 14, 2001
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1731 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1731

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
              coastwise trade for the vessel FALLS POINT.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 1998

   Ms. Snowe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
              coastwise trade for the vessel FALLS POINT.

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

SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, 
chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and section 12106 of title 46, United 
States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
coastwise trade for the vessel FALLS POINT, United States official 
number 346217.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ramon Gutierrez, Petitioner, v Ada Perez, Superintendent, Downstate Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[941 NYS2d 673]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70 for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated August 25, 2010, which, without a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner was convicted in 2002 in the Supreme Court, Albany County, of various drug-related crimes. He was out on bail during his trial when he absconded to his native country, the Dominican Republic. Consequently, he was sentenced in absentia to concurrent indeterminate terms of 22 years to life in prison. Seven years later, United States authorities located the petitioner in the Dominican Republic, which thereafter agreed to extradite him back to New York to fulfill his sentence. The petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding, claiming that he was entitled to be released without serving his sentence because its maximum term of life imprisonment violated either the extradition treaty between the Dominican Republic and the United States or Dominican Republic law, or, alternatively, because he was illegally abducted to the United States.

There is no merit to the petitioner’s contentions that New York lacked jurisdiction over him, that he should be immediately released from prison because, inter alia, he was allegedly abducted from the Dominican Republic under threat of violence *782by United States officials, and that his sentence was not reformulated to ensure that he served no more than 30 years in prison in accordance with Dominican Republic law *(see United States v Reed,*639 F2d 896, 901 [1981]; *United States ex rel. Lujan v Gengler,*510 F2d 62 [1975], *cert denied*421 US 1001 [1975]; *United States v Cuevas,*496 F3d 256 [2007], *cert denied*552 US 1052 [2007]). Florio, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.