alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09** 
**- 7449** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
DARRYL ANTON HARRIS, a/k/a Chub , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3:95

- cr
- 00005

- FDW

- 15 )

Submitted : July 18, 2011 Decided: July 25, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per c uriam opinion

.

Darryl Anton Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Darryl Anton Harris seek s to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the
order granting his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Because the district court
lacked the authority to consider Harris’s motion for
reconsideration, see United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233,

235

- 36 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 130 S. Ct. 3530 (2010), we affirm the district court’s order denying the motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) by Scanner Technologies Corporation (Registrant), I, Elwin M. Beaty, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and



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



Dated: March 21, 2008
        By:
        /s/ Elwin M. BeatyElwin M. Beaty
Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer






---
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 4 of 4
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6388 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6388

 To amend title II of the Social Security Act to increase to $332 the 
             maximum amount of the lump-sum death benefit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2010

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title II of the Social Security Act to increase to $332 the 
             maximum amount of the lump-sum death benefit.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Death Benefit 
Increase Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN LUMP-SUM DEATH PAYMENTS.

    Section 202(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(i)) is 
amended by striking ``$255'' and inserting ``$332''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall apply with respect to deaths 
occurring no earlier than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**USFF Band Menu**

                    - USFF Band Home
                    - USFF Band Leadership
                    - Performing Ensembles
                    - Upcoming Schedule
                    - U.S. Navy Fleet Band Auditions
                    - Contact USFF Band

**Performing Ensembles**

----

Get to know the U.S. Fleet Forces Band's several performing ensembles that consist of ceremonial bands, concert bands, parade bands, wind and brass bands. 

 

Ceremonial Band

Concert Band

Parade Band

Brass Band

Woodwind Quintet

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
3056877.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------X

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE

LITIGATION

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

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No.:

21 MC 102 (AKH)

LUIS RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiffs,

- against -

WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC., et al,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No.:

07-CV-05313-AKH

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

BY DEFENDANT

WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC.

-----------------------------------------------------------------X

To the Clerk of this Court and All Parties of Record:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC. (“Weston”), by

and through its attorneys, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP,

hereby appears in the above-entitled action, and that all pleadings and papers in this action be

served upon the undersigned at the office and address stated below. The undersigned certifies

that he is admitted to practice before this Court.

Dated: New York, New York

January 2, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 2
2

3056877.1

Yours etc.,

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP

By: _/s/ Jason Harrington_____

Jason Harrington (JH7273)

Attorneys for Defendant

Weston Solutions, Inc.

150 E 42

nd

Street

New York, NY 10017

(212) 490-3000 (p)

(212) 490-3038 (f)

To: All parties via ECF

Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 2 of 2
JMK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0385

JAMIE MICHAEL JOHNSON,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for an extension of time, and good 

cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including March 8, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 26 2021

01/26/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0385
Exhibit 31.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Pamela Fredette, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of enherent Corp.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of enherent Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Pamela Fredette                            
|Pamela Fredette                                
|Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
|                                               
|May 10, 2007
Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 64 Filed 02/07/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 64 Filed 02/07/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald Shell, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), *610rendered July 10, 1986, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney refused the court’s offer to hold a *Bruton*hearing *(see, Bruton v United States,*391 US 123) to determine whether the codefendant’s confession implicating him should be suppressed or redacted or whether there should be a severance. Defense counsel stated that in order to prove his theory of the crime, that the victim had been murdered by the codefendant in a jealous rage, he wanted the codefendant’s statements introduced into evidence. We find, based on the evidence adduced at trial, that the strategy was logical albeit unsuccessful. "It is not for this court to second-guess whether a course chosen by defendant’s counsel was the best trial strategy, or even a good one, so long as [the] defendant was afforded meaningful representation” *(People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796, 799-800). The defendant’s trial counsel provided him with "meaningful representation” within the context of *People v Baldi*(54 NY2d 137) and *Strickland v Washington*(466 US 668; *see also, People v Harris,*109 AD2d 351, 361).

We also find the defendant’s sentence to be justified in light of his prior record and the nature of the crime *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 85-87). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Bionery Suarez, Petitioner, v William J. McCooe, Respondent.

CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel respondent Justice to decide a motion made on behalf of petitioner, the defendant in an action pending in the Supreme Court, New York County, denied, and the petition dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner made a motion for temporary maintenance and child support in an action pending in the Supreme Court, New York County, returnable on April 30, 1987. On the same day, the respondent Justice denied the motion as jurisdictionally defective, finding it had not been properly served. The memorandum decision and order (one paper) was filed in the office of the County Clerk on May 7, 1987. On May 13, 1987, the petitioner submitted an order to show cause, requesting reargument, to the respondent Justice who declined to sign the order, noting "application for leave to reargue is denied.” The respondent Justice also, subsequently, filed a supplemental memorandum further detailing the ground for his original decision.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the motion complained of was promptly decided by the court. Had the petitioner been so advised, she could have appealed that decision. In any *304event, there is no bar to her renewing the motion upon proper service of her moving papers. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1647 

To authorize Department of Veterans Affairs health care providers to provide 

recommendations and opinions to veterans regarding participation in 

State marijuana programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2019 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Mr. AMASH, Mr. GALLEGO, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. YOUNG, Mr. PETERS, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. 

COHEN, Mr. MASSIE, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. TITUS, and Ms. 

MCCOLLUM) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize Department of Veterans Affairs health care 

providers to provide recommendations and opinions to 

veterans regarding participation in State marijuana programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Equal Access 

5 Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1647 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROVISION BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AF2 FAIRS HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS OF REC3 OMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS REGARDING 

4 VETERAN PARTICIPATION IN STATE MARI5 JUANA PROGRAMS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi7 sion of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall author8 ize physicians and other health care providers employed 

9 by the Department of Veterans Affairs to— 

10 (1) provide recommendations and opinions to 

11 veterans who are residents of States with State 

12 marijuana programs regarding the participation of 

13 veterans in such State marijuana programs; and 

14 (2) complete forms reflecting such recommenda15 tions and opinions. 

16 (b) STATE DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

17 ‘‘State’’ means each of the several States, the District of 

18 Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any terri19 tory or possession of the United States, and each federally 

20 recognized Indian Tribe. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [EB Docket No. 01-99; DA 01-1044]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

On April 24, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) released a Hearing Designation Order (“HDO”) initiating a consolidated hearing to adjudicate the damages claims of several complainant independent payphone providers (“Complainants”) against certain local exchange carriers (“Defendants”). To avail themselves of the opportunity to participate in this hearing, the parties are required to file a written Notice of Appearance with the Office of the Commission Secretary, stating an intention to appear on the date fixed for the hearing and present evidence on the issues specified in the HDO, within 20 days of the mailing of the HDO to the parties.

# DATES:

The HDO was mailed to the parties on April 24, 2001. The parties are required to file their Notice of Appearance by May 14, 2001.

# ADDRESSES:

Submit the Notice of Appearance to the Office of the Commission Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-204B, Washington DC 20554.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tejal Mehta, 202-418-7397.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Commission has previously ruled that the Defendants violated section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and part 69 of the Commission's rules by improperly assessing End User Common Line charges upon the Complainants.                     *See C.F. Communications Corp., et al.*                     v.                     *Century Telephone of Wisconsin, Inc., et. al.,*                     Memorandum Opinion and Order on Remand, 15 FCC Rcd 8759 (2000). The HDO resolves certain outstanding issues and refers others, including whether Complainants are entitled to an award of damages, to an Administrative Law Judge.                

Federal Communications Commission.

David H. Solomon,

Chief, Enforcement Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01-10951 Filed 5-1-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Exhibit 13.2  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Sanofi, a French société anonyme (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:  The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: March 10, 2015  By:
/s/   Jérôme ContamineJérôme   ContamineExecutive   Vice President Chief Financial Officer (1)  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sanofi and will be retained by Sanofi and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  
 (1)Principal financial officer.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00329

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF A.P., A C HILD §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 231st District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 231

- 691938

- 2 0 )

February 10, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is af firmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wade Birdwell
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 22010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-4548]

Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Jasper Stud Mill, Jasper, TX

Notice of Termination of Investigation
    Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment 
assistance, hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA), and in accordance with 
Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), an investigation was initiated on 
February 13, 2001, in response to a petition filed by a company 
official on behalf of workers at Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Jasper 
Stud Mill, Jasper, Texas.
    This case is being terminated due to the petitioner's request that 
the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this 
case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-11013 Filed 5-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-31-M
```
Case 1:07-cv-01539-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01539-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01539-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01539-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01539-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01539-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 6 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01539-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 7 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01539-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 8 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01539-AKH Document 16 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 9 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-01659-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01659-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01659-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01659-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01659-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 5 of 5
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350), the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly Report of W. R. Grace &
Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"),
fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained
in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Paul J. Norris
-----------------------------
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer


Date: May 13, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:07-cv-05364-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05364-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05364-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05364-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05364-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 5 of 5