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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2419 

To amend the Public Health Services Act to reauthorize funding for the 

National Institutes of Health. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2015 

Mr. BARTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Services Act to reauthorize 

funding for the National Institutes of Health. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REAUTHOR4 IZATION. 

5 Section 402A(a)(1) of the Public Health Service Act 

6 (42 U.S.C. 282a(a)(1)) is amended— 

7 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking at the end 

8 ‘‘and’’; 

9 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking at the end 

10 the period and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2419 IH

1 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub2 paragraphs: 

3 ‘‘(D) $31,811,000,000 for fiscal year 

4 2016; 

5 ‘‘(E) $33,331,000,000 for fiscal year 2017; 

6 and 

7 ‘‘(F) $34,851,000,000 for fiscal year 

8 2018.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000445

26-FEB-2015

08:19 AM
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Billy D. SMITH, Airman, U. S. Navy, Appellant.

No. 29,289.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

July 25, 1975.

*Lieutenant Walter A. Smith, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused.

*First Lieutenant Ronald J. Waicukauski,*USMCR, argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel P. N. Kress,*USMC.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In accordance with his pleas, the appellant stands convicted by general court-martial of 12 specifications involving the sale, transfer, use and possession of marihuana and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and 2 specifications of subornation of perjury in violation of Articles 92 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 892 and 934. We granted review to determine whether the convening authority was disqualified from reviewing and acting upon this case under our decisions in *United States v. Chavez-Rey,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 412, 50 C.M.R. 294, 1 M.J. 34 (1975); *United States v. Sierra-Albino,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 63, 48 C.M.R. 534 (1974); *United States v. Dickerson,*22 U.S.C.M.A. 489, 47 C.M.R. 790 (1973); and *United States v. White,*10 U.S.C.M.A. 63, 27 C.M.R. 137 (1958).

The facts giving rise to the granted issue are not in dispute. Prior to trial the convening authority granted two prosecution witnesses testimonial immunity pursuant to the advice of the acting staff judge advocate. In view of the appellant’s pleas of guilty these witnesses did not testify prior to findings. However, during the presentencing portion of the trial, pretrial statements of the two witnesses were admitted in evidence. These statements were executed prior to the grant of immunity, and were used by the Government to aggravate the offenses involving the subornation of perjury.

In *United States v. White, supra,*and its progeny, we noted that a convening authority is precluded from impartially reviewing a case where he has granted immunity to a witness. Whether the evidence relates to findings or an appropriate sentence is of no consequence since the conven*84ing authority is charged with the responsibility of acting on both. Article 64, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 864. Although the appellant was convicted pursuant to his pleas of guilty, statements from witnesses who had been granted immunity were used in a manner detrimental to him. Because the convening authority’s grant of immunity rendered his impartiality suspect with reference to weighing the statements of these witnesses,1 he was disqualified from reviewing this case.

The decision of the U. S. Navy Court of Military Review is reversed and the action of the convening authority is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for assignment to a different convening authority and staff judge advocate for a new review and action.

Chief Judge FLETCHER did not participate in the decision of this case.

1

. While the grant of immunity postdated the execution of the pretrial statements, such a grant still reflects a prejudgment of the convening authority as to the weight of these statements.
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Annual Report of Paid, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in their respective capacities as capacity as President and CEO of the Company
and as CFO of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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/ Gregory Rotman

----------------------------
Gregory Rotman
President and CEO
April 3, 2007


/s/ Richard Rotman

-----------------------------
Richard Rotman
Chief Financial Officer
April 3, 2007
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2




                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated September 23, 1998 for the year ended June 30,
1998 (which includes an explanatory paragraph that describes the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern as discussed in Note 1 to the
consolidated financial statements) included in this Form 10-KSB, into the
Company's previously filed Form S-8 registration statement File No. 333-80753.



                                      /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                                          ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Los Angeles, California
October 12, 1998
1 

No. 01-15-001610-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

HOUSTON, TEXAS

CAMILLO MARTINEZ O/B/O DECEASED, YOLANDA MARTINEZ,

APPELLANT

V.

NABELL “BILL” ARAFAT D/B/A TEXAS CAR STEREO,

APPELLEE

Appealed from the 270th Judicial District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-44754-A 

APPELLANT’S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF 

FIRM ASSOCIATION AND ADDRESS

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, Appellant, Camillo Martinez o/b/o Deceased, Yolanda 

Martinez, and pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 6.1(c), files his Notice of Change of 

Counsel’s Firm Association and Address and would respectfully show as follows:

Counsel for Respondent has changed his firm association and contact 

information. Henceforth, notices and correspondence to Mr. Joshua R. Leske, 

Appellant’s attorney of record should be directed as follows: 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00161-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

8/12/2015 10:18:55 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/12/2015 10:18:55 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

Husain Law + Associates, P.C

Mr. Joshua R. Leske

5858 Westheimer Rd., Suite 400

Houston, Texas 77057

Phone: (713) 621-8900

Fax: (713) 621-8909

Email: jleske@hlalawfirm.com

Respectfully submitted,

 HUSAIN LAW + ASSOCIATES, P.C.

 By:

Joshua R. Leske

/s/ Joshua R. Leske 

State Bar No. 24060162

5858 Westheimer Rd., Suite 400

Houston, Texas 77057

(713) 621-8900 telephone

(713) 621-8909 facsimile 

jleske@hlalawfirm.com

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
3

CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE

I certify that on August 12, 2015, at approximately 10:20 a.m., I served a 

copy of Appellant’s Notice of Change of Counsel’s Firm Association and Address

on the party(s) listed below by electronic service concurrently with the electronic 

filing of the document. The electronic transmission was reported as complete. My 

e-mail address is jleske@hlalawfirm.com.

Via E-Filing & E-Service

Mr. Troy Williams 

Ms. Robin Blanchette

Germer PLLC 

333 Clay Street, Suite 4930 

Houston, Texas 77002

Via E-Filing & E-Service

Mr. Joseph Heard 

Heard & Medack, PC

9494 Southwest Freeway, Suite 700

Houston, Texas 77074

/s/ Joshua R. Leske

Joshua R. Leske
|   | 1. | The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |    /s/  Robert C. Bateman |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Robert C. Bateman                                  |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                            |
|   | August 9, 2010                                     |
<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 of Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Martin Kelly, 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.

/s/ R. MARTIN KELLY

R. Martin Kelly
Chief Executive Officer
May 15, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pyramid Breweries Inc. and will be retained by Pyramid Breweries
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
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 Annual Report of Q.E.P. Co., Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending
February 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart F. Fleischer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |  |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | 
|/s/ Stuart F. Fleischer |  |  |  |  |  | 
|Stuart F. Fleischer     |  |  |  |  |  | 
|Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|May 29, 2007            |  |  |  |  |  |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Str,CURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

Docket Number 2023-0071

Enforcement Activity Number 7616690

Bv Chief Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Walter J, Brudzinski

Appearances:

CWO MICHAEL MICUCCI

USCG Sector Miami

For the Coast Guard

MARTHA LENOIR BEACHEM, Pro se

For the Respondent

UNITED STATES COAST GUAR-D

Complainant

YS.

MARTHA LENOIR BEACHEM,

Respondent.

ADMISSION ORDER

Issued: March 23. 2023
ADMISSION ORDER

On February 21, 2023, the United States Coast Guard Sector Miami (Coast Guard) issued

a Complaint against MARTHA LENOIR BEACHEM (Respondent) alleging Respondent

committed an act of negligence while acting under the authority of her Merchant Mariner

Credential (MMC or credential). Specifically, the Coast Guard alleges, on October 21,2022,

Respondent had direction and control ofthe Small Passenger Vessel (SPV) LADY GO DIVER

(O.N. 1259389), with passengers for hire. While underway upon the Hillsboro Inlet, Respondent

put the SPV LADY GO DIVER in gear, striking a recreational diver, who hadjust entered the

water from the stem, causing multiple injuries to the diver's leg. Respondent putting the SPV

LADY GO DIVER in gear while passengers were entering the water and striking a diver raises

the presumption ofnegligence, as described by 46 U.S.C. $ 7703(lXB) and defined by 46 C.F.R.

$ 5.29. The Coast Guard proposes a sanction of six (6) months outright suspension of

Respondent's MMC.

In Respondent's Answer, dated March 13, 2023, she admits to all jurisdictional

and factual allegations, and agrees with the proposed sanction.

WHEREFORE.
ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERI,D that Respondent's violation of negligence under 46 U.S.C.

g 7703(lXB) and 46 C.F.R. $ 5.29 is PROVED BY ANSWER. I have carefully reviewed the

file and find that the proposed sanction is appropriate under the provisions of46 C.F.R. 6 5.569.

IT IS FURTIIER ORDERED that Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential is

SUSPENDED OUTRIGHT FOR SIX (6) MONTHS, commencing the date it was deposited

with tle Coast Guard.

Done and dated March 23, 2023

New York, NY

7th/.ga-$;t<

HON. WALTER J. BRUDZINSKI

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

UNITED STATES COAST CUARD
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Palmiere, Appellant.

Memorandum: The police officer’s questioning of defendant at the scene of an accident about what happened, who owned the car, and whether he was drinking was investigatory, not custodial, interrogation *(see, People v Aia,*105 AD2d 592, 593; *People v Brown,*104 AD2d 696, 697; *People v Gardell,*59 AD2d 929). Defendant’s later statement, made after *Miranda*warnings, was not tainted by the prior interrogation and was correctly found to be admissible.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Reed, J. — driving while intoxicated, and other offenses.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Albert Hartje et al., Petitioners, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

— Mikoll, J.

*960Each petitioner is an inmate at Great Meadow Correctional Facility and was charged with being an accessory to escape from that facility in misbehavior reports dated April 26, 1985. Following a Superintendent’s hearing, each petitioner was found guilty of the charge and given a penalty of 180 days in the special housing unit, 180 days’ loss of commissary packages and call-home privileges, and six months’ loss of good time. Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul respondent’s determinations, to expunge from their records any reference to their alleged misbehavior and to enjoin respondent from conducting new Superintendent proceedings on this matter.

Petitioners claim, *inter alia,*that the determinations were not supported by substantial evidence since the hearing officer did not personally assess the credibility of the confidential informants. Respondent, in lieu of an answer, moved for an order, *inter alia,*annulling the determinations and remitting the charges to respondent for new hearings. Respondent contends that confidential materials submitted for Special Term’s in camera review demonstrate that substantial evidence is available to support respondent’s determinations. Respondent concedes that under this court’s decision in *Matter of Alvarado v LeFevre*(111 AD2d 475), the determinations are not supported by substantial evidence but argues that a new hearing should be granted because this deficiency can be cured.

Examination of the confidential materials submitted for in camera review indicates that the credibility and reliability of the informants may be assessed at a new hearing in each matter and the evidentiary deficiency may possibly be corrected. Consequently, the determinations should be annulled and the matters remitted to respondent for further proceedings in accordance with this decision *(see, Matter of Jennings v Coughlin,*99 AD2d 635, 636; *Matter of Shipman v Coughlin,*98 AD2d 823, 824).

Determinations annulled, without costs, and matters remitted to respondent for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### New York Juvenile Asylum, Respondent, *v.*Cane, Appellant.

*(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.*

June 26, 1890.)

Appeal from eighth district court.

Argued before Allen, P. J., and Bookstaver, J.

*L. Mathot,*for appellant. *Dixon, Williams*& *Ashley,*for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

vs.

TRENTON ANTHONY WALTERS, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Number: 2023-0286

CG Enforcement Activity ID: 7662684

ADMISSION ORDER

Issued: January 11, 2024

By Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge: Walter J. Brudzinski

Appearances:

For the Coast Guard

Lee Willett

USCG Marine Safety Unit Savannah

For the Respondent

Trenton Anthony Walters, Pro se
ADMISSION ORDER

On or about August 2, 2023, the United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Savannah

(Coast Guard) issued a Complaint against Trenton Anthony Walters (Respondent) seeking to 

revoke his Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC or credential) for drug use in violation of 46 

U.S.C. § 7704(b) and 46 C.F.R. § 5.35. Specifically, the Coast Guard alleges Respondent took a 

required random drug test pursuant to 46 C.F.R. Part 16 on September 3, 2022, in which 

Respondent’s specimen test positive for marijuana metabolites (THCA). 

In Respondent’s Answer, dated October 30, 2023, he admits to all jurisdictional 

and factual allegations. The Answer indicates Respondent does not request settlement 

discussions and does not request to be heard on this matter. Although Respondent did not 

check the box agreeing with the Coast Guard’s proposed order of revocation, he admits to 

the factual allegation of Use of or Addiction to the Use of Dangerous Drugs under 46 

U.S.C. 7704. Revocation is the only proper order for this charge. See 46 C.F.R. § 5.569. 

WHEREFORE,
ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s violation of Use of or Addiction to the 

Use of Dangerous Drugs under 46 U.S.C. § 7704(b) and 46 C.F.R. § 5.35 is PROVED BY 

ANSWER. I have carefully reviewed the file and find that the proposed sanction of revocation 

is appropriate under the provisions of 46 C.F.R. § 5.569. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s Merchant Mariner Credential is

REVOKED. Respondent must immediately surrender his credentials to the Investigating 

Officer at the United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Savannah, 100 W. Oglethorpe Ave., 

Suite 1017, Savannah, GA 31401. If Respondent knowingly continues to use his credentials, he 

may be subject to criminal prosecution.

______________________________________

HON. WALTER J. BRUDZINSKI

Chief Administrative Law Judge

United States Coast Guard

Date: January 11, 2024
_______________________________________ __ ___________________ ________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 11, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 132949(85) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices RANDY C. BURRIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 132949 v COA: 261505 Wayne CC: 02-208320-NF ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellant.

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion by the Coalition Protecting Auto NoFault for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in this case is considered and it is GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 11, 2008

Clerk
#### In the Matter of Kathleen Wolfe, Appellant, v Town Board of the Town of Islip, Respondent.

In an action for a judgment declaring that the action of the defendant denying the plaintiff’s request for a zoning change is unconstitutional, originally denominated a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), entered September 9, 1985, as granted judgment to the defendant.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by adding a provision thereto declaring that the action of the defendant denying the plaintiff’s request for a zoning change was not improper; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant.

Although this action was originally brought as a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, Special Term appropriately converted it to an action for a declaratory judgment since the applicant sought a legislative change of zoning *(see,*CPLR 103 [c]; *Kasper v Town of Brookhaven,*122 AD2d 200, 201). The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant’s approval of her application for a zoning change would not have resulted in impermissible spot zoning *(see, Dauerheim, Inc. v Town Bd.,*33 NY2d 468, 473-474; *Taylor v Incorporated Vil. of Head of Harbor,*104 AD2d 642, 645, *lv denied*64 NY2d 609), that the present zoning ordinance deprived her of a reasonable return on her property under any permissible use *(see, Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492, 501), or that the defendant’s action in denying her *637application was the result of discrimination *(see, Megin Realty Corp. v Baron,*46 NY2d 891, 893). Therefore, we do not disturb the action taken by the defendant.

The court erred in disposing of this action without declaring the rights of the parties *(see, Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 322, *appeal dismissed*371 US 74, *cert denied*371 US 901; *Alleva v Alleva Dairy,*129 AD2d 663). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Hooper, JJ., concur.