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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5723 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5723

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New York, as the ``Navy Corpsman Jeffrey 
                   L. Wiener Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2010

  Mrs. McCarthy of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New York, as the ``Navy Corpsman Jeffrey 
                   L. Wiener Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. NAVY CORPSMAN JEFFREY L. WIENER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Navy 
Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 9, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 15652 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 0 0 6 2 - CR- FTM - 2 9 SPC U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R O G E L I O P A R E D E S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 9, 2008) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntR oge l i o P a r e de s appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e of 41 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt2

i m po se d aft erhe pl ed gu i l ty t o i l l egal re entryby an al i en previ ou sl y deport ed as an aggravat ed fe l on , 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) , (b)( 2). O n ap p e a l, P a r e d e s a r g u e s th a t th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is u n r e a s o n ab l e b e c au s e th a tc o u r tf a i l e d t o g i v e a d e q u a t e w e i g h tt o c e r t a i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. S peci fi ca l l y, P ar edes st at es thatthe courtshou l d h ave gi ven m or e w e i ghtt o e vi de nc e of ( 1) hi s c ul tur a l a s s i m i l a t i on, ( 2) hi s ha r d w orki ng nature, and (3) the fa ctthathe had n otbeen arr es t ed si nce the bi rth o f hi s daugh t er . T hi s c ou rthas pre vi ou sl y hel d that“ [i ] ti s aca rdi nal rul e of app el l at e r evi ew tha tapa r ty m a y notc ha l l e nge a s e rr orarul i ng orothe rtr i a l pr oc e e di ng i nvi t e d by thatparty. ” U

n i ted S ta tes v. R o ss , 131 F . 3d 970, 988 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( c i t a t i on o m itte d ) . T h e d o c tr in e o f in v ite d e rr o rap p lie s to s itu a tio n s in w h ic h “ap a r ty i nd uces or i nv i t es the di stri ctcourti nt o m aki ng an error. ” U ni te d State s v . Stone , 13 9 F . 3d 82 2, 83 8 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ). B e c au s e th e r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s th a t P a r e d e s r e q u e s te d , a n d u ltim a te ly r e c e i ve d, al ow - e nd gui de l i ne s e nt e nc e a nd be c aus e he ne ve robj e c t e d t o the 41- m onth s e nt e nc e a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, w e c onc l ude tha the i nvi t e d a ny e rr or th a t m a y h a v e o c c u rr e d , a n d m a y n o t n o w c h a lle n g e th e r e a s o n ab le n e s s o f h is s e n te n c e . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f f irm P a r e d e s ’s s e n te n c e . AF F I RME D.
exv10w7xay





Exhibit 10.7(a)


June 9, 2009


Eckhardt Trading Company

1314 North Dearborn Parkway

The Carriage House

Chicago, Illinois 60610


Attention: Ms. Audrey L. Gale


     Re: Management Agreement Renewal


Dear Ms. Gale:


We are writing with respect to your management agreement concerning the commodity pool to which
reference is made below (the “Management Agreement”). We are extending the term of the Management
Agreement through June 30, 2010 and all other provisions of the Management Agreement will remain
unchanged.



	 	•	 	CMF Eckhardt Master Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	SB Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	SB Diversified Futures Fund L.P. II




Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it
to the attention of Ms. Jennifer Magro at the address above or fax to 212-793-1986. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-559-5046.



Very truly yours,




	 	 	 	 	 
	CITIGROUP MANAGED FUTURES LLC

 	 
	By:  	/s/ Jennifer Magro
 	 
	 	Jennifer Magro 	 
	 	Chief Financial Officer and Director 	 
	 
	ECKHARDT TRADING COMPANY

 	 
	By:  	/s/ William Eckhardt 	 
	  	Print Name: William Eckhardt 	 



JM/sr
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. 08-20809

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LUIS ZAVALA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:04-CR-326-6

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Zavala appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to

revoke his pretrial detention order. Zavala has been in custody since his 2004

arrest. In 2008, we reversed Zavala’s jury convictions of two counts of conspiracy

to possess with intent to distribute and two counts of possession with intent to

distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine. Zavala contends that he is not a

flight risk and that his continued detention violates his rights under the Eighth

Amendment, the Speedy Trial Act, the Bail Reform Act, and the Due Process

Clause.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-20809

2

The district court determined that Zavala did not rebut the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3142 presumption that no condition or combination of conditions would

reasonably ensure Zavala’s appearance or the safety of the community if Zavala

were released. 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (e) & (f). Absent an error of law, we will uphold

a district court’s pretrial detention order if it is supported by the proceedings

below. United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir. 1992); United States

v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989).

Zavala has not shown that he rebutted the presumption that he is a flight

risk and that his release would present a danger to the community. See § 3142.

Zavala did not raise his constitutional arguments in the district court. Further,

he has abandoned any argument related to the Speedy Trial Act by failing to

brief it adequately. See United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 242 n.1 (5th Cir),

cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 336 (2007). His Eighth Amendment argument is

foreclosed. See Hare, 873 F.2d at 800. The lack of consideration of Zavala’s due

process claim will not result in a manifest miscarriage of justice as Zavala had

ample opportunity to present the argument to the district court. See United

States v. Barrett, 837 F.2d 1341, 1344 n.2 (5th Cir. 1988) (declining to consider

due process argument raised for the first time).

The district court’s decision is supported by the proceedings below. See

Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586. The pretrial detention order is AFFIRMED.
----

**Exhibit 32.1**

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

In connection with the annual report of Silver Dragon Resources Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Marc Hazout, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

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

Date: July 17, 2007 

By: /s/ Marc Hazout                   

> 
Marc Hazout  President and Chief Executive Officer

----
#### Peter S. Schenck *against*The Executors of John Schenck, Deceased.

If the summons issuing out of this court, calls upon the defendants to answer the plaintiff in a plea of trespass, and also to a bill to be exhibited against the defendants to the damage of the plaintiff §8000, and the declaration is in’ assumpsit, the defendant may crave oyer of the writ and plead in abatement, the variance between the summons and the declaration, and such plea will be good.

*W. Halsted,*for the plaintiff.

*Vroom,*for the defendants.

The Chief Justice

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes before us on a demurrer to a plea in abatement, in which the defendant, after oyer of the writ of summons, whereby the action was commenced, alleges a variance between the writ and the declaration in this, “ that in and by the said writ the said defendants are summoned to answer unto the plaintiff in a plea of trespass, and in the said declaration founded on the said writ, the said plaintiff complains of the defendants of a plea of trespass on the case upon promises.”

The summons requires the defendants *“*to answer unto Peter S. Schenck of a plea of trespass; and.also to a bill of the said Peter then and there to be exhibited against the said David Manners, Garret Schenck and Peter Voorhees, executors as aforesaid, to his damage, eight thousand dollars.” The declaration is in assumpsit, containing the common counts for work and labor done, money lent and advanced, money paid, laid out and expended, goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered, and a count on a subscription to pay a sum of money to assist the plaintiff in erecting a grist mill.

Between the action of the declaration and the action of the writ, there is clearly the variance averred by the *327defendants in their plea. The latter is trespass. They are required to answer “in a plea of trespass,” and although the words, “ and also to a, bill,” &c., are added, yet no other form of action is expressed, and hence the writ must necessarily be either a writ in trespass or without form of action. It is probable the person who drew the writ, intended to pursue the form of the court of King’s Bench, and the ancient form of this court, inserting the clause of .trespass and the *aa etiam,*in the latter of which he may have intended to express some other form of action; but he has not done so, and the writ stands therefore an informal writ in trespass. In the case of *The Bank of New Brunswick*v. *Arrowsmith,*4 *Halst.*284, we held that the declaration must conform to the writ. Such conformity is required, as well by the rules of the common law, as by our statute, which forbids the practice of declaring, by the by; a practice introduced into the court of King’s Bench, in consequence of their peculiar mode of acquiring, by fiction, jurisdiction of certain civil actions. In the same case, we also held that a defendant may avail himself of a variance between the writ and declaration, by oyer and plea in abatement. *Chirac*v. *Reinicker,*11 *Wheat.*302, variance between the' writ and declaration may be pleaded in abatement.

Let judgment on the plea in abatement be entered for the defendants.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I,
Harry E. Gruber, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of Kintera, Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

Dated:
March 30, 2004

| |  | /s/HARRY E. GRUBER, M.D.Harry E. Gruber, M.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kintera, Inc. and will be retained by
Kintera, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Coast GuardU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Search
Search

Search

-  Home    -  News Room             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Forcecom             
  -  Operations             
  -  Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  History 
-  Units    -  Organization             
  -  Coast Guard A to Z             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  Force Readiness Command 
-  Leadership    -  Commandant’s Initiatives             
  -  Senior Leadership             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Operations             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area Commander             
  -  Pacific Area Commander             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Auxiliary 
-  Resources    -  CG Support             
  -  Legal      -  JoinCGJAG             
    -  Legal_Assistance        -  Find-A-Legal-Assistance-Lawyer             
      -  FAQ 
  -  Civil Rights             
  -  Work-Life             
  -  Administrative Law Judges      -  Virtual Hearing 
  -  Newsroom             
  -  Family             
  -  Library             
  -  CG Web Mail             
  -  Return 2 Service      -  FAQ 
-  Community    -  Art Program             
  -  Girl Scouts / Boy Scouts      -  Eagle Scout Recognition 
  -  Coast Guard Band             
  -  Coast Guard Cities             
  -  Honor Guard             
  -  JROTC      -  NEWS 
  -  Special Programs      -  Industry Academy        -  Contacts             
      -  2018 
  -  Trademark             
  -  Resources      -  History             
    -  CGC Eagle 
-  Mariners    -  National Vessel Documentation Center             
  -  National Maritime Center             
  -  National Pollution Funds Center      -  NRD        -  NRD_FAQs             
      -  Trustee_Links             
      -  NRD_DOCS             
      -  About_NRD_Funding 
  -  Boating Safety 
-  doing business		 
-  Join		 
-  Recruiting		 
-  contact		 
-  About		 

HomeResourcesAdministrative Law JudgesDecisionsALJ Decisions 2022

**ALJ Decisions: 2022**

 

    

**

                      - FOIA
                      - Privacy Policy
                      - MHS Notice of Privacy Practices
                      - Accessibility
                      - No FEAR
                      - Whistleblower Protection
                      - U.S. Department of Homeland Security
                      - DHS Office of Inspector General
                      - WhiteHouse.gov
                      - USA.gov

### Stay Connected

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Matthew Ravenell, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), rendered February 21,1985, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*355Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The testimony of the victim’s mother that her daughter telephoned her only hours after she was sexually attacked by the defendant, reporting that she had been "raped”, was properly admitted into evidence under the recent outcry rule, with proper limiting instructions to the jury *(see, People v Gomez,*112 AD2d 445, *lv denied*66 NY2d 919; *People v Derrick,*96 AD2d 600; *see also, Baccio v People,*41 NY 265). Furthermore, the fact that the testimony of the victim’s mother about the complaint was duplicative of an officer’s testimony to the same effect did not render her testimony inadmissible *(see, People v Gomez, supra).*

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2021313EN.01000101.xml

| 5.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10283 — MEF 4/CDC/3i EOPF Topco/NGM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 313/01)

On 29 July 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10283. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10283. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### TORREY, Respondent v. TORREY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

March 27, 1894.)

Action by Owen Torrey against David Torrey.

Argued before DWIGHT, P. J., and LEWIS, HAIGHT, and BRADLEY, JJ.

No opinion. Motion to strike case from the calendar, and for affirmance, granted on default, with costs.
- Skip to Primary Navigation
      - Skip to Main Content
      - Skip to Footer

          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   

        -  Water & Power            - Dams
          - Powerplants
          - Projects
          - Agrimet/Hydromet
          - Water Operations 
        -  Resources & Research            - Programs
          - Technical Service Center
          - Research & Development
          - Reclamation Manual
          - Reclamation Information Sharing Environment (RISE)
          - Environmental Resources/Reports
          - Library 
        -  About Us            - Mission
          - Fact Sheet
          - Commissioner
          - Addresses/Contacts
          - Organizational Chart
          - Leadership Bios
          - Employment
          - Contact 
        -  Recreation & Public Use            - Find Recreation
          - Recreation.gov
          - Public Use 
        -  News & Multimedia            - News Releases
          - News Stories
          - Speeches
          - Congressional Testimony
          - Fact Sheets
          - Photos
          - Multimedia
          - Social Media 

# WaterSMART

WaterSMART Grants

              - Reclamation
              - WaterSMART
              - WaterSMART Grants
              - Water Marketing Strategy Grants
              - Previous Funding Opportunities

WaterSMART              - WaterSMART
              - Water and Energy Efficiency Grants
              - Water Marketing Strategy Grants                  - Previous Grant Selections
                - Previous Funding Opportunity Announcements
                - Selected Applications
                - Contacts 
              - Small-Scale Water Efficiency Projects
              - Environmental Water Resources Projects
              - Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program
              - Title XVI
              - Large-Scale Water Recycling Program
              - Desalination Construction
              - Basin Studies
              - Baseline Assessments and Pilots
              - Reservoir Operation Pilots
              - Applied Science Grants
              - Cooperative Watershed Management Program
              - Drought Program
              - Water Conservation Field Services Program
              - Interior WaterSMART Site

## Previous Funding Opportunities

Reclamation publishes Grant Funding Opportunties on the Grants.Gov portal. We have provided the previous Funding Opportunity Announcements for your information.

FY 2019 Funding Opportunity

FY 2018 Funding Opportunity

FY 2017 Funding Opportunity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Last Updated: 11/9/22*

## More Information about the Bureau of Reclamation

## Stay in Touch

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

            - Contact Us
            - Site Index
            - Accessibility
            - Disclaimer
            - DOI
            - FOIA
            - No Fear Act
            - Notices
            - Privacy Policy
            - Quality of Information
            - USA.gov
            - Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
#### Walker v. The State.

Appeal from Dale Circuit Court.

Tried before the Hon. A. A. Evans.

Sollie & Kirkland, for appellant.

Charles G. Broavn, Attorney-General, for the State.

*676Opinion by

Tyson, J.

*675The appellant Avas indicted, tried and convicted for burglary. It is held in this case that where the house burglarized Avas a smoke house in which meat Avas kept and the evidence for the State tended to sIioav that the defendant had taken meat from the smoke house burglarized, it is competent for the State to prove that another person AAdio Avas *particeps crvniinis*had knowledge of the house and that it contained meat.

The charges requested by the defendant are held to have been properly refused, on the authority of *Talbert*
      *676
      *v. State,*121 Ala. 33; *Roberts v. State, ante,*p. 47; *Peagler v. State,*110 Ala. 13.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.