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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3580 

To assure the safety of expeditionary facilities, infrastructure, and equipment 

supporting United States military operations overseas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 25 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mrs. HUTCHISON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To assure the safety of expeditionary facilities, infrastructure, and equipment supporting United States military 

operations overseas. 

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 ‘‘Ensuring Safe Facili5 ties and Equipment for American Troops Overseas Act’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 3580 IS

1 SEC. 2. SAFETY OF EXPEDITIONARY FACILITIES, INFRA2 STRUCTURE, AND EQUIPMENT SUPPORTING 

3 UNITED STATES MILITARY OPERATIONS 

4 OVERSEAS. 

5 In order to assure the safe utilization by the Armed 

6 Forces of expeditionary facilities, infrastructure, and 

7 equipment supporting United States military operations 

8 overseas, the Secretary of Defense shall certify to the con9 gressional defense committees, by not later than March 

10 30, 2009, that each of the following actions have been ac11 complished: 

12 (1) That generally accepted industry standards 

13 for the safety of personnel are incorporated into 

14 military regulations establishing requirements for fa15 cilities, infrastructure, and equipment, including 

16 standards with respect to fire protection and struc17 tural integrity, and standards with respect to elec18 trical systems, water treatment, and telecommuni19 cation networks. 

20 (2) That each contract or task or delivery order 

21 carried out for the construction, installation, repair, 

22 maintenance, or operation of expeditionary facilities 

23 for the Armed Forces overseas incorporates gen24 erally accepted industry standards for the safety of 

25 personnel utilizing such facilities. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•S 3580 IS

1 (3) That the standards required under para2 graphs (1) and (2) apply in all current and future 

3 United States military operations overseas. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 08-1442 

NORRIS G. DILLAHUNT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHNNIE CLARK; CITY OF NEW BERN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (4:07-cv-00097-H)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norris G. Dillahunt, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart,

SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, PA, New Bern, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Norris G. Dillahunt appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dillahunt v.

Clark, No. 4:07-cv-00097-H (E.D.N.C. March 19, 2008). 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. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXI Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form  10-QSB
for  the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XXI,  Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 6, 2007



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 6, 2007
**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 QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of LIN TV Corp. for the three months ended September 30,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, Vincent L. Sadusky, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and Richard J. Schmaeling, Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

         (1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

         (2) The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Dated:  October 31, 2008 |   | /s/  Vincent L. Sadusky                            |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   | Vincent  L. Sadusky                                |
|                          |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer             |
|                          |   |                                               |
|                          |   |                                               |
| Dated:  October 31, 2008 |   | /s/  Richard J. Schmaeling                         |
|                          |   | Richard  J. Schmaeling                             |
|                          |   | Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
KAYLOR v. FOX.

No. COA07-1272.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 17, 2008.

Certification Date July 7, 2008.

Appeal from Caldwell (06CVD1802).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,





AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO





SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Tier Technologies, Inc., (the “Company”), for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Ronald W. Johnston, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his knowledge:




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




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







Dated:  November 22, 2010
/s/ Ronald W. JohnstonRonald W. JohnstonChief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Reid, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 437]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered April 8, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree.

Defendant was charged with course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree stemming from his repeated sexual contact with his underage son. Defendant waived indictment and agreed to plead guilty to course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree. During the plea colloquy, County Court advised defendant of the rights he was giving up by virtue of his plea, including his right to assert a potential defense of intoxication. Defendant thereafter admitted that on at least two occasions between April 2001 and May 2002 he engaged in sexual conduct with a child under the age of 13. Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of two years followed by a three-year period of postrelease supervision. County Court also issued an order of protection prohibiting defendant from having contact with his son. Counsel indicated that he might seek a modification of the order at a later time, but raised no further objection to the order of protection. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, defendant’s claim that his plea allocution was insuf*1216ficient is not preserved for our review in light of his failure to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Church,*287 AD2d 788, 788 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 680 [2001]; *People v Ferreri,*271 AD2d 805, 805 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 834 [2000]). The exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable as defendant did not make any statements that were inconsistent with his guilt such as to negate an essential element of the crime *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; *People v Ward,*2 AD3d 1219, 1219 [2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 808 [2004]), and he opted to waive a possible intoxication defense after discussing it with his attorney. In any event, defendant’s unpreserved attack on his plea allocution is refuted by the record, which reveals that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered *(see People v Baker,*301 AD2d 868, 869 [2003], *lv dismissed*99 NY2d 625 [2003]; *People v Kemp,*288 AD2d 635, 636 [2001]). Defendant’s remaining claim that the order of protection was not part of the plea agreement is not preserved for our review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Nieves,*2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]) and, in any event, the order was properly issued pursuant to CPL 530.12 (5) given the parent-child relationship here *(see People v Goodband,*291 AD2d 584, 585 [2002]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
STATE v. Felix Ricardo SALDIERNA.

No. 271PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 14, 2015.

W. Rob Heroy, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Saldierna, Felix.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 13th of October 2015 by State of NC:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of October 2015."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 10th day of November 2015 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 1997 (Unaudited) and the 
Consolidated Statements of Income for the Three Months Ended March 31, 1997
(Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>             
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  Mar-31-1997                            
<CASH>                                         8,069
<SECURITIES>                                  15,672
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                     632
<INVENTORY>                                    4,031
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              37,220
<PP&E>                                         5,249
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                45,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,765
<BONDS>                                          158
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          56
<OTHER-SE>                                    38,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  45,694
<SALES>                                       12,062
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              12,062
<CGS>                                          4,590
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               9,579
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,867)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (672)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,195)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,195)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.21)
        



</TABLE>
# C_2008128EN.01000801.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Amsterdam, Netherlands) — K.D. Chuck v Raad van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

(Case C-331/06) (1)

1

(Old-age insurance - Worker who is a national of a Member State - Social security contributions - Separate periods - Different Member States - Calculation of periods of insurance - Application for a pension - Residence in a non-Member State)

(2008/C 128/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K.D. Chuck

Applicant:

Defendant: Raad van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 48 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Old-age pension insurance — Calculation of insurance periods of a national of a Member State who has worked in two other Member States — Residence in a non-member State at the date of retirement

Operative part of the judgment

Article 48(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, requires the competent institution of the last Member State in which a worker who is a national of a Member State resided to take into account, in calculating the old age pension of that worker, who, when he submits his pension claim, is resident in a non-Member State, of the periods worked in another Member State under the same conditions as if that worker still resided in the European Community.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

1

---
#### Diane Kelly et al., Respondents, v Antonio Licciardi et al., Appellants.

[799 NYS2d 824]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs own a 50% interest in the defendant Villa Paradiso Restaurant, Inc., the defendants appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated May 6, 2003, as denied that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment, and (2) from an order of the same court dated September 10, 2003.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 10, 2003, is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements *(see*22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated May 6, 2003, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

With respect to the order dated May 6, 2003, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment, as the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the credibility of the nonmoving party is not a relevant consideration in determining a motion for summary judgment *(see Dyckman v Barrett,*187 AD2d 553, 554 [1992]). Moreover, for purposes of this appeal, the defendants do not dispute the validity of an “affidavit” purportedly executed by the defendant Antonio Licciardi before a notary public in December 1998, which acknowledged that the plaintiffs own a 50% interest in “Villa Paradiso.” The defendants cannot, on the one hand, concede the existence of the underlying agreement claimed by the plaintiffs and, on the other, assert *453that, as a matter of law, the agreement is unenforceable as against the statute of frauds *(see Concordia Gen. Contr. v Peltz,*11 AD3d 502 [2004]). The defendants’ alternate contention that the alleged agreement fails for want of consideration raises a disputed issue of fact that must await trial.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.
# CE2004070EN.01018001.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/180 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/180

---

(2004/C 70 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2967/03

by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   European Ombudsman for children

Subject:

The European Network of Ombudsmen for Children (ENOC) was created in 1997 by Unicef at Trondheim (Norway) in order to provide a link between children's ombudsmen in Europe. The network currently includes several EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Each country or region which has an independent children's ombudsman may join the network, the main purpose of which is to ensure that children's rights are upheld to a greater extent in Europe by seeing that the Convention on Children's Rights is implemented, by supporting individual and collective action in the area and by encouraging the Member States to introduce relevant policies.

The network also acts as a forum for the exchange of information, experience and ideas between European countries, in particular by means of comparative studies.

Could the Commission not appoint an Ombudsman for children in order to increase the transparency and raise the profile of child-protection initiatives organised within Europe? Appointment of a European Ombudsman for children would enable the European network to be better coordinated and children's needs and interests to be better served.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

(19 November 2003)

As the Treaties stand, the Commission has no legal basis for coordinating the action of the Member States' Ombudsmen along the lines suggested by the Honourable Member.

Moreover, at the close of their meeting in Lucca (IT), on 25/26 September 2003, the Ministers responsible for children's rights in the 15 Member States made no reference to the possibility of appointing a European ombudsman in their conclusions.

In April 2003, ENOC asked the Commission for financial support for the establishment of a permanent secretariat.

In its reply to ENOC, the Commission gave a detailed account of how funding by grants operated and drew its attention to the fact that funding must be accepted by the budgetary authority, i.e. Parliament and the Council.

If ENOC wishes to receive funds from the European institutions, it must submit a dossier to that end. ENOC has not yet taken the decision to do so.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Jonathon Lavon FRIEND El.

No. 345P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Jonathon Lavon Friend, for Friend, Jonathan Lavon.

Joseph L. Flyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 18th of November 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Forsyth and Davidson Counties:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."