alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Joseph V. Sansone et al., Appellants, v Russell D. Coogan, as Candidate for the Nomination of the Republican, Democratic, Liberal and Conservative Parties for the Office of City Court Judge of the City of Lockport, et al., Respondents.

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Special Term, Doyle, J. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Doyle, J. — Election Law.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ. (Order entered Aug. 21, 1987.)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5846 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5846

  To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require the chief 
  executive officer of each drilling and production operation under a 
lease under that Act to annually certify the operator's compliance with 
             all applicable laws and operating regulations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2010

Mr. Sarbanes (for himself, Mr. Grijalva, and Mrs. Capps) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require the chief 
  executive officer of each drilling and production operation under a 
lease under that Act to annually certify the operator's compliance with 
             all applicable laws and operating regulations.

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

SECTION 1. CEO ANNUAL CERTIFICATION REGARDING OFFSHORE DRILLING AND 
              PRODUCTION OPERATION.

    Section 22 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
1348) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) CEO Annual Certification.--
            ``(1) In general.--The operator of each drilling and 
        production operation under a lease under this Act shall 
        annually submit to the Secretary a general statement by the 
        operator's chief executive officer that certifies to the 
        operator's compliance with all applicable laws and operating 
        regulations.
            ``(2) Required statements.--Each certification under 
        paragraph (1) shall include, but not be limited to, statements 
        that the chief executive officer--
                    ``(A) has reviewed the exploration plans and 
                production plans submitted to the Secretary with regard 
                to the demonstrated capability and technology to 
                respond immediately and effectively to a worst case oil 
                spill in real world conditions; and
                    ``(B) certifies that each such plan, based upon the 
                chief executive officer's knowledge, is an accurate and 
                effective response to a worst case oil spill in real-
                world conditions.
            ``(3) Civil penalty.--Any chief executive officer who fails 
        to comply with paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be liable for a 
        civil penalty under section 24.''.
                                 <all>
```
# Extension and Validity Periods

Once you file your child’s Form I-600 or Form I-800 petition, you do not need to continue to extend or file new Form I-600As or Form I-800As. For the orphan process, you may choose to forgo filing Form I-600A, and instead, also request a suitability determination with your child’s Form I-600 (known as concurrent or combination filing). 

For more information on suitability approval extensions and validity periods for the orphan and Hague processes, see the tables below. For information on the ongoing duty of disclosure and suitability-related changes during the intercountry adoption process, see our Updated Home Studies and Significant Changes page.

Form I-600A, Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition

Form I-800A, Application for Determination of Suitability to Adopt a Child from a Convention Country.

04/01/2021

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
EXHIBIT 10.3
                              Promissory Note

$5,000.00                                                    August 1, 2001
                                                              Santa Ana, CA

     On Demand FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned promises to pay in
lawful money of the United States of America to the order of Procyon
Corporation, nominee or assignee, the sum of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($5,000.00), with interest from August 1, 2001 until paid at the rate of
twelve percent (12%) per annum.

     Should interest not be paid, it shall thereafter bear interest as the
principal, but such unpaid interest so compounded shall not exceed an
amount equal to simple interest on the principal at the maximum rate
permitted by law.  The undersigned hereby waives presentment for payment,
protest, notice of protest, notice of nonpayment, and diligence in bringing
suit, and further agrees, in case suit is instituted, to collect this
Promissory Note or any portion thereof, to pay such additional sum for
attorneys' fees as the Court may adjudge reasonable in such suit.

                                   Saiph Corporation

                                   By: /s/ Eric Chess Bronk
                                       Eric Chess Bronk, President
386 P.2d 657

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Larry KEMP, Jr., Appellant.

No. 1279.

Supreme Court of Arizona. In Division.

Nov. 13, 1963.

*61Stanley M. Jerman, Phoenix, for appellant.

Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Stirley Newell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

LOCKWOOD, Justice

Appellant, Larry Kemp, Jr., was convicted of statutory rape and assault with a deadly weapon. At trial a court-appointed lawyer represented him. A different court-appointed lawyer prosecutes this appeal.

The crimes occurred on December 24, 1961. The victim, a fifteen year old girl, returned home from babysitting and went to bed. A few minutes later she was awakened by a man who “pounced” on her back and threatened to kill her with a knife if she made any noise. He then raped her. The victim’s older sister and her date entered the house and heard moans coming from the bedroom. When the sister turned on the bedroom light, the man grabbed some of his belongings and ran out the room. The sister’s “boyfriend” tackled him. During the ensuing fight, the man stabbed the friend four times with a knife and then fled out the back door.

Eighteen hours later, appellant was arrested at his apartment by Officer Dan Dryden and taken immediately to police headquarters. Another officer, Andrew Best, obtained the keys to appellant’s car from Dryden and went to the scene of the arrest. Approximately one hour had elapsed since the arrest when Best unlocked the car and found a pistol which belonged to the victim’s mother and a knife with brownish stains. Two days later, two “flashlights were taken from the car by the police. Three months later, appellant’s landlady gave police officers permission to remove some of appellant’s shirts from a suitcase in the room ap*62pellant had used until his arrest in December. Defendant’s counsel at trial did not move to suppress any of these items. Nor did he object to their admissability •on the ground that they were illegally •obtained.

Appellant now contends “the use of il-' legally obtained evidence by the prosecution .and its admission in evidence was fundamental error and deprived defendant of a fair trial notwithstanding the fact that •defense counsel did not raise the issue at ■trial.”

Even assuming the evidence was illegally obtained, as a matter of law and procedure, the failure to object to its admissability at the time it is presented 'by the prosecution constitutes a waiver ■on the part of the defendant. Indeed, the fact that the defense motions for suppressing evidence and quashing affidavits •or warrants have been overruled by the ■court does not relieve the accused or his •counsel from the duty of objecting to the admission of such evidence on the grounds that it was illegally obtained. Gradle v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 178 F.2d 962 (1949); Robertson v. State, 94 Fla. 770, 114 So. 534 (1927); Webb v. State, 33 Okl.Cr. 77, 242 P. 784 (1926) ; State v. Berry, 253 S.W. 712 (Mo. 1923); Dukes v. Commonwealth, 196 Ky. 60, 244 S.W. 74 (1922); and State v. Mitchell, 119 N.C. 784, 25 S.E. 783, 1020 (1896).

Judgment affirmed.

STRUCKMEYER and JENNINGS, JJ., concurring.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO\
                 13 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 Enviro Voraxial Technology,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alberto DiBella, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 13 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.

Date: August 11, 2006


/s/ Alberto DiBella
-------------------
Alberto DiBella
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 333-24789, 333-70831, 333-81089, 333-86735, 333-40364 and
333-57788) pertaining to the 1994 Incentive and Non-Statutory Stock Option
Plan, the 1995 Stock Plan, the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, options granted
outside of any plan, the Decisive Technology Corporation 1996 Stock Option Plan
and the 1999 Non-Officer Stock Option Plan of MessageMedia, Inc. and in the
Registration Statements (Forms S-3 No. 333-42855, 333-70959, 333-42855,
333-70959, 333-81081, 333-86731, and 333-89967) of MessageMedia, Inc. and the
related Prospectus of our report dated February 15, 2001, except for Note 14 as
to which the date is February 23, 2001, and except for the third and fourth
paragraphs of Note 1 as to which the date is September 28, 2001, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of MessageMedia, Inc.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) Amendment No. 1 for the year ended
December 31, 2000.


                                                         /s/ ERNST & YOUNG, LLP


Denver, Colorado
November 7, 2001
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 11-1611 UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, Appellee,

v. $8,440,190.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant In Rem, ROBERT HOVITO VAN BOMMEL DUYZING, Claimant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on June 17, 2013 is amended as follows: On page 33, line 30, replace "he" with "the"
Exhibit
32.1 Section 906 Certification




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 Nutra Pharma Corp. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K, Amendment Number 1,  for the period ending December 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Rik J. Deitsch, Chief Executive Officer and 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/ Rik
      J. DeitschRik
      J. DeitschChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
      January 25, 2010





This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before
or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.




A signed
original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the
registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-2990MN

_____________

Karl G. Granse, citizen of *

Minnesota, in propria persona, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

United States of America; * District of Minnesota.

Department of the Treasury, *

sued as Department of Treasury; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Internal Revenue Service; Park *

Drive Partnership, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: April 22, 1997

 Filed: May 1, 1997

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Karl G. Granse appeals the district court’s order granting the

appellees’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. Granse

brought this action after the Internal Revenue Service levied on

and sold his real property to satisfy jeopardy assessments having

to do with Granse’s delinquent federal taxes. Having carefully

reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & NAV. CO. v. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

February *7,*1916.)

No. 2471.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the’Eastern District of Washington; Frank H. Rudkin, Judge.

Arthur C. Spencer and Charles E. Cochran, both of Portland, Ox-., and Hamblen & Gilbert, of Spokane, Wash., for plaintiff in error.

Francis A. Garrecht, U. S. Atty., of Spokane, Wash., and Philip J. Doherty, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C.

Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and WOLYERTON, District Judge.

GILBERT, Circuit Judge.

This case presents the same issues and the same state of facts that were before this court in the ease of the same title (Case No. 2490, reported 222 Fed. 887, 138 C. C. A. 367), in which this court held that a carrier inadvertently and honestly omitting from the report required by order of the Interstate Commerce Commission under Interstate Commerce Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379, as amended, instances in which employes were permitted to remain on duty for a longer period than that prescribed by Hours of Service Act March 4, 1907, c. 2939, 34 Stat. 1415 (Comp. St. 1913, §§ 8677-8680), is not subject to the penalties imposed by the Interstate Commerce Act. Following that decision, it is ordered that the judgment of the court below be reversed, and that this cause be remanded to the court below for a new trial.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9472]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL00-66-000]


Louisiana Public Service Commission and the Council of The City 
of New Orleans, Louisiana v. Entergy Corporation, Entergy Service, Inc, 
Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, 
Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc. and Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Notice 
of Complaint

April 11, 2000.
    Take Notice that on April 10, 2000, the Louisiana Public Service 
Commission and the Council of the City of New Orleans filed with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a Compliant against 
Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., 
Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, 
Inc. and Entergy New Orleans, Inc. seeking amendments to the Entergy 
System Agreement.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene nor protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or 
protests must be filed on or before May 1, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to he 
complaint shall also be due on or before May 1, 2000.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-9472 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                      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 Quarterly Report of Allergy Research Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Dr. Stephen A. Levine, Chief Executive Officer and 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 to my knowledge:

      (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.

Dated: May 13, 2008


                                        By: /s/ Stephen A. Levine
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Dr. Stephen A. Levine
                                            Chief Executive Officer and
                                            Chief Financial 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 Allergy Research Group, Inc. and
will be retained by Allergy Research Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Cecil DUDGEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kelly CUNNINGHAM, Superintendent; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-36109.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2011.*

Filed: April 27, 2011.

Cecil Dudgeon, Steilacoom, WA, pro se.

Megan Elizabeth Carper, Assistant Attorney General, Donna J. Hamilton, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, William M. Van Hook, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Cecil Dudgeon, who is civilly committed as a sexually violent predator to the Special Commitment Center (“SCC”) pursuant to Wash. Rev.Code 71.09, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his request for a preliminary injunction which sought to enjoin SCC officials from censoring Dudgeon’s incoming mail. In his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Dudgeon alleged that officials violated his First Amendment and due process rights by confiscating a calendar which contained photographs of his family.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. *The Lands Council v. McNair,*537 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir.2008); *see Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,*555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); *Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc.,*686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir.1982) (explaining limited scope of review). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.