alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant.

No. CR 80-183-R.

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Feb. 29, 1984.

*1056OPINION

REAL, Chief Judge.

Defendant, SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, INCORPORATED has moved to dismiss the Sanyo Aspect of Count One of the Indictment, and for clarification that the previous dismissal by this Court for abuse of the Grand Jury process was not only on constitutional grounds but also in the exercise of this Court’s supervisory power over the Grand Jury process.

The motion is granted as to the Sanyo Aspect of Count One of the Indictment.

The Court of Appeal, in *United States v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.,*719 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir.1983), reversed the dismissal as resting on constitutional grounds only without a showing of prejudice. It appears that what the Court left open was the discretionary dismissal in the exercise of the supervisory power of this Court.

Although I respectfully disagree with the Court of Appeal on the question of a showing of prejudice by the defendant, that ruling is the law of the case and I abide it. I only point out that the only scenerio that I can conjure that would fulfill a showing of prejudice, other than an evaluation of a prosecutor’s misconduct, in the circumstances of a Grand Jury indictment, would be to call each grand juror and, in the context of this case, ask something like the following:

> Q. Were you affected by the testimony of John Nevins in your vote to return an indictment against SEARS?

> Q. Were you affected by what Mr. Gorman said about SEARS?

> Q. Were you satisfied that Mr. Gorman kept his promise to present the evidence he had to explain SEARS’ conduct?

If a grand juror answered in the affirmative, prejudice would clearly be established.

There may be other questions that lawyers could ask. Such inquiry of a grand juror is not permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence and/or Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Certainly prejudice should be able to be particularly presumed from the degree of prosecutorial misconduct shown by the facts of this case.

It may not have been sufficiently clear in my Opinion reported at 518 F.Supp. 179 (C.D.Cal.1981), but I was particularly concerned that the only way this court could assure the government that the conduct of Mr. Gorman could not and would not be tolerated, was to dismiss the indictment. That I believed to be in the exercise of my discretionary supervisory power. I now reiterate all the reasons set forth in my Opinion reported at 518 F.Supp. 179 (C.D.Cal. 1981), and now again dismiss the indictment with prejudice.

The motion to dismiss was filed and briefed and, without notice to the Court or defense counsel, the government sought and got a superseding indictment. Such action by the government should not be tolerated. Any proceedings upon that superseding indictment are stayed until the final disposition of the original indictment, either after appeal or when the order of *1057dismissal of the original indictment otherwise becomes final.
1-CH/202951.1

LAW OFFICES

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

101 PARK AVENUE

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10178

(212) 309-6000

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

EMILIO NOBLE, : Electronically Filed

:

Plaintiff, : 7:07-cv-05832-KMK-GAY

:

-against- :

:

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION, :

:

Defendant. :

------------------------------------------------------------------------x

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Amber Kagan, an attorney, hereby certify that on November 16, 2007, I electronically 

filed Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff Emilio Noble’s Complaint with the Clerk of the Court 

using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following:

Stephen Bergstein at steve@tbulaw.com

s/ Amber Kagan

Amber Kagan (AK-7973)

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

101 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10178

Telephone: 212.309.6000

Facsimile: 212.309.6001

Email: akagan@morganlewis.com

Case 7:07-cv-05832-KMK-GAY Document 18 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2068 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2068

 To modify the authorization to provide assistance to certain foreign 
       police and law enforcement forces, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2019

  Mr. Guest introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To modify the authorization to provide assistance to certain foreign 
       police and law enforcement forces, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Security Partner Modernization 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION TO POLICE TRAINING UNDER THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE 
              ACT OF 1961.

    Section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2420) 
is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 660. PROHIBITED POLICE TRAINING.

    ``Funds made available to carry out this Act, and local currencies 
generated under this Act, may be used to provide training, advice, or 
financial support for police, prisons, or other law enforcement forces 
of a foreign government, except that such funds or currencies may not 
be used--
            ``(1) to provide any type of assistance that is otherwise 
        prohibited by any provision of law, including to provide any 
        assistance to individuals or units described in section 620M;
            ``(2) to provide assistance that the Secretary of State 
        determines would likely aggravate or substantially contribute 
        to corruption, human rights violations, or political 
        suppression of dissent; or
            ``(3) to support any internal intelligence or surveillance 
        program on behalf of any foreign government within the United 
        States or elsewhere.''.
                                 <all>
```
Stock-Settled Stock Appreciation Rights Grants


 EXHIBIT 10.3 
  
 2006 STOCK-SETTLED STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHTS GRANTS 
 TO CERTAIN EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
  

			
	 Executive Officer

	  	 2006 Stock-Settled Stock
 Appreciation Rights Grants*


	 Jon A. Marshall
     President and
     Chief Executive Officer
	  	120,400            
		
	 W. Matt Ralls
     Executive Vice President
     and Chief Operating Officer
	  	60,800            
		
	 James L. McCulloch
     Senior Vice President
     and General Counsel
	  	45,500            
		
	 Marion M. Woolie
     Senior Vice President,
     Operations
	  	44,200            
		
	 Roger B. Hunt
     Senior Vice President,
     Marketing
	  	44,200            
		
	 Michael R. Dawson
     Senior Vice President and
     Chief Financial Officer
	  	41,600            
		
	 Cheryl D. Richard
     Senior Vice President,
     Human Resources
	  	28,800            
		
	 R. Blake Simmons
     President,
     Applied Drilling Technology Inc.
	  	28,800            
		
	 Robert L. Herrin
	  	3,700            
	     Vice President
	  	 
	     and Controller
	  	 



	*	The grant of the Stock-Settled Stock Appreciation Rights is effective January 3, 2006.
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 1 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 2 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 3 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 4 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 5 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 6 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 7 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 8 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 9 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 10 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 11 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 12 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 13 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 14 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 15 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 16 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 17 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 18 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 19 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 20 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 21 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 22 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 23 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 24 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 25 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 26 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 27 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-3 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 28 of 28
EXHIBIT 10.10



September 15, 2005

Mr. Francis R. Biscan Jr.
President & CEO
American Stellar Energy Inc.


Re:  Extension to Option Agreement on the San Miguel Groupings, near Temoris,
Chihuahua, Mexico between Amermin S.A. de C.V., a 97% owned subsidiary of
American Stellar Energy, Inc. and Paramount Gold Mining Corp. in trust for a
Mexican subsidiary to be created at a later date (Paramount). The San Miguel
Groupings are approximately 800 acres and are  known as Santa Clara, Las Tres
S.S.S.,  San Luis, El Carmen, Swanick, Sangre De Cristo, Las Tres B.B.B.,
Guadalupe De Los Reyes, San Juan, El Rosario, San Miguel (Head of group) and
Empalme.


Dear Mr. Biscan;

This agreement will serve to provide an extension to the original Option
Agreement regarding the San Miguel Groupings Joint Venture dated the 3rd Day
of August, 2005 between American Stellar Energy, Inc. and Paramount Gold
Corp.. The deadlines described in the 1st paragraph under "Terms: 1.a)" and
2nd paragraph "Terms: 1.a)" both contained in Exhibit A below, will be
extended to November 30th, 2005.


                            Exhibit A
                            ---------
Terms:
------
1.   Upon the signing of this Agreement, Paramount agrees to purchase 35% of
      American Stellar Energy's interests in the San Miguel Groupings by
      completing the following;
      a) Make a non-refundable payment of US$50,000.00, coinciding with the
      signing of this Agreement (the payment will be refundable if a
      satisfactory title search is not secured by Paramount from American
      Stellar by August 17, 2005);
      b) Make a payment of US$250,000.00 by August 18th 2005, to purchase 25%
      of American Stellar Energy's interests in the San Miguel Groupings;
      c) Make a payment of US$100,000.00 by November 18th, 2005; to increase
      the purchase to 35% of American Stellar Energy's interests in the San\
      Miguel Groupings and;
      d) Paramount must issue to American Stellar 300,000 Rule 144 restricted
      common shares

      Upon signing of this Agreement, American Stellar agrees to:
      a) Make available a certified copy of title for the San Miguel Groupings
      as soon as one is received or no later then August 17th, 2005.


The parties mutually understand that, subject to the conditions contained
herein, this letter constitutes a binding agreement.

Please indicate your concurrence with the foregoing by affixing your signature
below, and thereafter transmitting such executed copy in the manner heretofore
described.



DATED this ____ day of September, 2005


       /s/ Christopher Crupi
Per: ______________________________

Christopher Crupi, CA
Director
Paramount Gold Mining Corp.



DATED this 15th day of September, 2005


       /s/ Francis R. Biscan
Per: _____________________________

Francis R. Biscan Jr.
President & CEO
American Stellar Energy, Inc.


DATED this 15 day of September, 2005

      /s/ Ramiro Trevizo Ledezma
Per: _____________________________

Ramiro Trevizo Ledezma
Title: President
Amermin S.A. De C.V.
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 21-3 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 21-3 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 21-3 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 21-3 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            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 Annual Report of International Card Establishment,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-2 for the period ended December 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William Lopshire, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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: May 20, 2009

                                By: /s/ WILLIAM LOPSHIRE
                                        ________________________________________
                                        William Lopshire
                                        President (principal executive officer)
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 195 

To provide full-year appropriations for the Indian Health Service in the 

event of a partial lapse in appropriations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. MULLIN (for himself, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. COLE, and Mr. SIMPSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To provide full-year appropriations for the Indian Health 

Service in the event of a partial lapse in appropriations, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Pay our Doctors Act 

5 of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FULL-YEAR APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE INDIAN 

7 HEALTH SERVICE. 

8 If a joint resolution making continuing appropria9 tions for fiscal year 2019 is not in effect, there is hereby 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 195 IH

1 appropriated for fiscal year 2019, out of any money in 

2 the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as 

3 may be necessary, at an annualized rate for operations as 

4 provided in the Department of the Interior, Environment, 

5 and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018 (division 

6 G of Public Law 115–141) for fiscal year 2018 and under 

7 the authority and conditions provided in such Act, for con8 tinuing projects or activities (including the costs of direct 

9 loans and loan guarantees) that were conducted in fiscal 

10 year 2018 and for which appropriations, funds, or other 

11 authority were made available under any account relating 

12 to the Indian Health Service, including the ‘‘Indian Health 

13 Services’’, ‘‘Contract Support Costs’’, and ‘‘Indian Health 

14 Facilities’’ accounts. 

15 SEC. 3. TERMINATION. 

16 Appropriations and funds made available and author17 ity granted pursuant to section 2 shall be available until 

18 September 30, 2019. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Clear All

        11 January 2024    

#                     Navy Exchange Service Command’s Second Micro Market@Sea is Underway                 

                The Micro Market@Sea, a new quality of service concept by the Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM), is now underway onboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69). Only the second of its kind, the mission of this self-service facility is to provide Sailors with 24/7 convenience and access to food,            

        04 May 2023    

#                     Navy Housing Introduces Unaccompanied Housing ‘Bill of Rights & Responsibilities’                 

                WASHINGTON - Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) has implemented a ‘Bill of Rights & Responsibilities’ for Unaccompanied Housing (UH), which outlines resident rights that are guaranteed by Navy Housing as well as resident responsibilities for maintaining the space where they            

        25 July 2022    

#                     USS Whidbey Island decommissions after nearly 38 years of service                 

                Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship namesake, USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) held a decommissioning ceremony at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Va. on July 22 before its inactivation next month.            

        14 July 2022    

#                     Fleet Commanders Vow to Improve Accuracy, Timeliness of Sailors’ Pay                 

                The four-star commanders of Naval Forces Europe-Africa, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and U.S. Pacific Fleet have released a joint directive that aims to quickly improve the timeliness and accuracy of Sailors’ pay.            

        17 June 2022    

#                     Navy to Christen Guided-Missile Destroyer John Basilone                 

                The Navy will christen the future USS John Basilone (DDG 122) during a 10:30 a.m. EDT ceremony on Saturday, June 18, at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine.            

        09 May 2022    

#                     USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr. (DDG 121) set for Charleston commissioning ceremony                 

                USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr.. (DDG 121) will be commissioned, Saturday, May 14 at 10:00 a.m. EST at the Port of Charleston in Charleston, South Carolina.​            

        28 April 2022    

#                     Navy Exchange Service Command Provides Critical Assistance in Times of Crisis                 

                The Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM) serves as a strategic asset around the globe for the U.S. Navy’s crisis response.            

#####  

##### 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
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 3 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 3 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1307

ALLEN OGDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, a Municipal Corporation; RONALD DANIELS, Acting Commissioner Baltimore City Police Department; STEVEN MCMAHAN, Major, Individually and in his official capacity; CARL BROWN, Major, Individually and in his official capacity; THOMAS MARCUZZI, Detective, Individually and in his official capacity; RONALD BURGER, Sergeant, Individually and in his official capacity; JAMES KELLER, Sergeant, Individually and in his official capacity; PATRICK ROWE, a/k/a Scotty, Individually and in his official capacity; TIMOTHY GODWINN, Officer, Individually and in his official capacity; WILLIAM KING, Officer, Individually and in his official capacity; JOHN JACKSON, Officer, Individually and in his official capacity; THE STATE OF MARYLAND; EDWARD T. NORRIS, JR., Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00- 579-L) Submitted: August 27, 2002 Decided: October 16, 20022 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allen Ogden, Appellant Pro Se. Willi am Rowe Phelan, Jr, CITY OF BALTIMORE LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland; Patricia Anne Smith, BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Allen Ogden appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Ogden v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore , No. CA00-579-L (D. Md. Feb. 14, 2002). 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
Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 26 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 26 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 26 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### John Baliotti et al., Respondents, v BLW Management Corp., Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring the interests of the parties in certain real property, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one *525paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated November 20, 1987, which, *inter alia,*denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment in their favor.

Ordered, that the order and judgment is modified by deleting the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th decretal paragraphs thereof and substituting therefor a provision denying the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment; as so modified the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs to the appellant.

Since there was at least some evidence in the record to support the defendant’s position that the parties intended that the 1973 deed convey both parcels, including the deed’s reference to lots 66 and 65, and the parties’ own conduct, the issues should not have been determined as a matter of law. Issue finding rather than issue determination is the focus of a motion for summary judgment *(Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.,*3 NY2d 395, 405). That relief is inappropriate where, as here, the circumstances are confusing and there is ambiguity in the deed *(Pacamar Bearings v British Am. Dev. Corp.,*108 AD2d 191, 192).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  Date: April 29, 2008
    
    /s/ Ron ZwanzigerRon Zwanziger
Chief Executive OfficerDate: April 29, 2008
    
    /s/ David TeitelDavid Teitel
Chief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form
within the electronic version 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-04465-AKH Document 8 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 8 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 8 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 3 of 3