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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5360 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5360

To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the standard of visual 
     acuity required for eligibility for specially adapted housing 
       assistance provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2010

   Ms. Herseth Sandlin (for herself and Mr. Boozman) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the standard of visual 
     acuity required for eligibility for specially adapted housing 
       assistance provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

    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 ``Blinded Veterans Adaptive Housing 
Improvement Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF STANDARD OF VISUAL ACUITY REQUIRED FOR 
              ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIALLY ADAPTED HOUSING ASSISTANCE 
              PROVIDED BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) In General.--Section 2101(b)(2)(A) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``5/200 visual acuity or less'' and 
inserting ``20/200 best corrected visual acuity or less or a peripheral 
field of 20 degrees or less''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to specially adapted housing assistance provided on 
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Appellant, v. BILLY HODGES, Respondent.

No. 7539

January 15, 1974

517 P.2d 1006

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Roy A. Woof-ter,*District Attorney, and *H. Leon Simon,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Eric Zubel,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

*4OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

A criminal complaint charged that respondent sold two (2) balloons of diacetylmorphine (heroin) to Las Vegas Police Officer Kent Clifford, in violation of NRS 453.321 and NRS 453.161. After a preliminary examination respondent was ordered to stand trial for the offense and a criminal information was then filed in the district court.

Thereafter, respondent filed a pretrial petition for habeas corpus, contending the information was fatally defective because the proof adduced at the preliminary examination showed the sale had been made to an undercover agent, acting as an intermediary, and not to Officer Clifford. The district court agreed and granted the writ of habeas corpus. Appellant contends the writ was improperly issued.

The sole issue we need to resolve is whether or not an accused is subject to prosecution for the sale of a controlled substance when the proof adduced at the preliminary examination shows the sale was consummated through a third party. We conclude that, in the factual context of this case, respondent is subject to prosecution.

The record reflects that Officer Clifford, together with an undercover agent, drove to the Las Vegas west side and parked his car some 10 to 15 feet from the rear entrance of Kelly’s Liquor Store. The undercover agent got out of the car and met respondent near the rear entrance to the store. After negotiating a price for the heroin the agent walked back to the car and reported to Officer Clifford. Clifford, being satisfied with the terms, gave the undercover agent the agreed amount of money. The agent walked back to respondent, exchanged the money for the heroin, and delivered it to Officer Clifford. Clifford testified that he could not hear all of the conversation between Hodges and the agent but that he did visually observe the entire transaction, which took place in broad daylight.

Our legislature has made it “unlawful for any person to sell, exchange, barter, supply or give away a controlled or counterfeit substance.” NRS 453.321(1). Whether Hodges made the sale directly to Officer Clifford, or through the conduit of the undercover agent, is neither determinative of, nor critical to, the issue of whether or not the crime was committed.

Under our statute it is not necessary that the buyer deal *5directly with the seller, in order to sustain the charge. See People v. Taylor, 338 P.2d 377 (Cal. 1959), which held that the fact that the parties dealt with each other through a third person was immaterial, and such proof was sufficient to sustain a conviction. Compare Tellis v. State, 84 Nev. 587, 445 P.2d 938 (1968), where the accused was charged with the unlawful sale of narcotics to an informer. The proof in *Tellis,*as here, showed the parties had dealt with each other through an intermediary and we affirmed the conviction.

Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                          44,405
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   37,234
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                81,639
<PP&E>                                                          13,533
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  (8,443)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 107,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          116,247
<BONDS>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                         3,575
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     (12,572)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   107,250
<SALES>                                                         77,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                77,590
<CGS>                                                           59,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   59,450
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               185,231
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                (742)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (172,640)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (172,640)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (172,640)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (.05)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7457

MICHAEL CHARLES WEASE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-02-163-2)

Submitted: November 19, 2002 Decided: December 13, 2002

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Charles Wease, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael C. Wease, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order dismissing his habeas corpus petition, 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), as time-barred. The district court dismissed

the petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, Wease must

make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When a district court

dismisses solely on procedural grounds, the movant “must

demonstrate both (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right,’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)). Upon examination

of Wease’s petition, we cannot conclude that reasonable jurists

would find it debatable whether the district court correctly

concluded that the petition was untimely filed. Accordingly, we

deny Wease’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate

of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.1

          

           

        

      

      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

      

      

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-101652, 333-137102,
        333-153419, 333-206420, 333-207946, 333-210151, 333-222294 and 333-228502) of Partner Communications Company Ltd. of our report dated February 28, 2022 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
        reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Selected Financial Data" in this Form 20-F.

      

      

      
        	
                Tel-Aviv, Israel 

                

              	
                /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman

              
	
                February 28, 2022

              	
                Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)

              
	
                 

              	
                A member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited

              


      

      

      

      
        	
                
                  Derech Menachem Begin 146, Tel-Aviv-Yafo  6492103, Israel,

                

              
	
                 P.O Box 7187 Tel-Aviv 6107120  Telephone: +972 -3- 7954555, Fax:+972 -3- 7954556, www.pwc.com/il
#### HOWARD WILLIAM JUSTICE, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 7240

March 26, 1974

520 P.2d 600

*Gary A. Sheerin,*State Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*102
      *Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; and *Michael E. Fondi,*District Attorney, Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

The district court - denied the post-conviction petition of Justice to reduce concurrent sentences for convictions of two counts of robbery. Justice claimed that his sentence was the result of an incorrect presentence report which reflected that he had been convicted of two prior felonies when in fact he had only been convicted of one. Consequently, he contends that he was denied due process.

The record shows that the recommendation of those who prepared the presentence report would have been the same notwithstanding the mistake. Moreover, it is clear that the judge did not primarily rely upon the incorrect information. He considered the fact that Justice was on parole when he committed the robberies and used a firearm in committing them. In these circumstances we do not perceive a denial of due process.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report of River RockEntertainment Authority (the “Authority”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “SEC”) on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officersdoes hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to such officers knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Authority.

 
| By:                                         | /s/ JOHN CIRRINCIONE   |   |
|---------------------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| John Cirrincione                            |                   |
| Chief Operations and Acting General Manager |                   |
| May 15, 2009                           |                   |
|                                        |                   |
| By:                                         | /s/ JOSEPH R. CALLAHAN |   |
| Joseph R. Callahan                          |                   |
| Chief Financial Officer                     |                   |
| May 15, 2009                           |                   |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the River Rock Entertainment Authorityand will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the SEC or its staffupon request.

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 2, 2011 

p0126 

Order 

 

February 2, 2011 

141886 & (11)(12) 

 

JONATHAN R. MOOTHART, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v SC: 141886 

 COA: 298462 

 Grand Traverse CC: 2010-027875-AL 

SECRETARY OF STATE, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the September 22, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals 

is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions 

presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for peremptory reversal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, William T. Freeman, Chief Executive Officer, in connection with the Report on Form 10-Q of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood
Restaurants, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 26, 2010 (the Report), hereby certify in accordance with 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
McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ WILLIAM T. FREEMAN 
|William T. Freeman     
|Chief Executive Officer

Dated: August 4, 2010
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of General Medical Sciences Initial Review Group Biomedical Research and Research Training Review Subcommittee A                     

*Date:*                         November 8, 2005.                              ( print page 61462)    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Clarion Hotel Bethesda Park, 8400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Carole H. Latker, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN18, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2848,                         *latkerc@nigms.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 13, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr., 

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-21125  Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 of RTI International Metals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Lawrence W. Jacobs, 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 except that, as described
     in Item 9A of this Report, the reports required by Item 308 of Regulation
     S-K and the related disclosure are not yet complete; and

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

                                                  /s/ LAWRENCE W. JACOBS
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                    Lawrence W. Jacobs
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

April 14, 2005
Ex 10.14



Exhibit 10.14  Scientific Advisory Board Agreement with Tony Frudakis



                              Contract to Serve on
                      GenoMed's Scientific Advisory Board


Date: 1/17/02



By my signature below I agree to serve as a member of the Scientific Advisory
Board (SAB) of GenoMed, LLC; (the "Company").


I understand and agree that my commitment to the Company is limited to the
following items:


     a. From time to time, to provide advice, consultation or assistance via
telephone conversation, email or FAX.

     b. To provide GenoMed with my curriculum vitae, of which a brief summary,
subject to my final editorial consent, will be included on GenoMed's website (at
www.genomedics.com).

     I understand and agree that I will not at any time or in any manner,
either directly or indirectly, divulge, disclose, or communicate in any manner
any information that is proprietary to the Company. I will protect such
information and treat it as strictly confidential.

     I understand that, as a member of the Company's Scientific Advisory Board,
I may be invited by the Company to participate in additional projects, such as
helping to explain the company's scientific approach to various funding entities
such as venture capital firms, or to analyze the company's scientific data, but
that these additional projects will be negotiated on a case by case basis, and
that I am in no way obligated to perform such duties by the current contract.


     I understand and agree that the Scientific Advisory Board Contract will be
a five (5) year agreement, but that it can be terminated on 30 days' written
notice by either party for any reason whatsoever. The compensation for my
services will be paid by the Company as follows:


1. 100,000 1-year restricted common shares of the Company payable upon the first
anniversary from the date of this Contract.


2. 100,000 1-year restricted common shares of the Company payable upon the
second anniversary from the date of this Contract.


3. 100,000 1-year restricted common shares of the Company payable upon the third
anniversary from the date of this Contract.


4. 100,000 1-year restricted common shares of the Company payable upon the
fourth anniversary from the date of this Contract.


5. 100,000 1-year restricted common shares of the Company payable upon the fifth
anniversary from the date of this Contract.




Signed:/s/ Tony Frudakis                     Date 1/17/02


For GenoMed, LLC:
Signed:/s/ David W. Moskowitz                Date 1/17/02