alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2








KINDER MORGAN, INC.


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906


OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kinder Morgan, 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, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Kinder Morgan, Inc. and will be retained by Kinder Morgan, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








Dated:  November 5, 2010

/s/ Kimberly A. DangKimberly A. Dang

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Case 1:07-cv-03348-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03348-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03348-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03348-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03348-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03348-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03348-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03348-AKH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 8 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

-againstALEX RIVERA, 

Defendant(s).

 

 06 Cr. 27 

NOTICE OF

APPEARANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that SULLIVAN & BRILL, LLP, has been retained

by appear on behalf of the ALEX RIVERA in the above-captioned matter. Please

direct any communications regarding the matter to the address and telephone

number indicated below. 

Dated: New York, New York

 October 2, 2007

SULLIVAN & BRILL, LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

 /S/ 

By: Steven Brill, Esq.

Trinity Centre

115 Broadway, 17th Floor

New York, New York 10006

Ph.: 212-566-1000

Fax: 212-566-1068

Email: steveb@sullivanbrill.com

Case 1:06-cr-00027-LAK Document 49 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15008-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03350-SAS Document 32 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03350-SAS Document 32 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### HELMS v. REA

No. 20 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 465.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 11 October 1972.
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 1 of 14
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 2 of 14
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 3 of 14
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 4 of 14
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 5 of 14
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 6 of 14
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 7 of 14
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 8 of 14
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 9 of 14
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 10 of 14
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 11 of 14
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 12 of 14
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 13 of 14
Case 7:07-cv-03352-CLB Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 14 of 14
Case 1:06-cv-15037-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-14940-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-830V

UNPUBLISHED

DANIEL JOSEPH MARTIN,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: October 26, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Kevin Kelly Fitzharris, Barrett McNagny LLP, Fort Wayne, IN, for petitioner.

Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On June 5, 2019, Daniel Joseph Martin filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on 

October 2, 2017. Petition at 1, 3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit 

of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 20, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at

1. Specifically, Respondent concludes that “[P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with 

SIRVA of the right arm and that it meets the requirements of a Table injury claim for 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

SIRVA stemming from the flu vaccination on October 2, 2017.”

Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has met the statutory requirements 

for entitlement to compensation. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY GARMONG, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

NEVADA SUPREME COURT; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15715 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00718-APG-VCF 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Gregory Garmong appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from state 

court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Garmong’s request for oral 

argument, set forth in the reply brief, is denied.

FILED

FEB 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 17-15715 

1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Garmong’s action as barred by the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Garmong’s action is a “de facto appeal” of prior 

state court judgments, and raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with 

those judgments. See Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred claim that was “inextricably intertwined” with 

the state court’s decision); Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff’s claim because alleged legal 

injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and the 

relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court's 

decision was wrong and thus void”). 

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5525 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5525

    To terminate the moratorium on deepwater drilling issued by the 
                       Secretary of the Interior.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2010

Mr. Olson (for himself, Mr. Pence, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. McCaul, Mr. 
Smith of Texas, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. 
   Boustany, Mr. Harper, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Paul, Mr. 
 Cuellar, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Shadegg, and Mr. Cassidy) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To terminate the moratorium on deepwater drilling issued by the 
                       Secretary of the Interior.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF MORATORIUM ON DEEPWATER DRILLING.

    The moratorium set forth in the Minerals Management Service Notice 
to Lessees No. 2010-N04, dated May 30, 2010, and any suspension of 
operations issued in connection with the moratorium, shall have no 
force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 15-2 Filed 01/18/2005 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 15-2 Filed 01/18/2005 Page 2 of 2
#### PERDUE v. DANIEL INTERNATIONAL

No. 686P82.

Case below: 59 N.C. App. 517.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 28 January 1983.
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-11 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-11 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-11 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-11 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03344-DFE Document 25-11 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-15014-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### HARRELL v. STEVENS & CO.

No. 127 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 197.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 May 1980.
#### STATE v. McLAURIN

No. 209 PC.

Case below: 41 N.C. App. 552.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 15 July 1980.
1 ... S ee T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SEC OND DI STRI CTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 21 7- CV I N R E DA VI D L E E CA R P E NT E R , J R . R E L AT OR

----- ----- -- OR I GI NAL P R OCE E DI NG

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- T h e c o u r t h a s c o n s id e r e d r e la t o r ’s p e t it io n f o r w r it o f m a n d a m u s a n d is of th e o pi ni on t hat r el i ef s houl d be de ni ed. Accor di ngl y, r el at or ’ s pet i t i on f or w r i t of m and am us i s den i ed. R el at or shal l pay al l cost s of t hi s or i gi nal pr oceedi ng, f or w h ic h l et execut i on i ssue.

P E R CU R I AM P A N E L A : G A R D N E R , J .; C A Y C E , C .J .; a n d W A L K E R , J . DEL I VERE D: J un e 30, 2008
#### STATE v. EDENS

No. 356 PC

Case below: 47 NC App 374

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 16 September 1980.
Unassociated Document










 

MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT









 

WHEREAS, OxySure Systems, Inc. ("OxySure") and Agave Resources, LLC. ("Agave") (OxySure and Agave jointly, the "Parties") entered into that certain Promissory Note ("Note") dated 4/15/08 in
the principal amount of $750,000; and

 

WHEREAS, The Parties Have agreed that it is in their best interests to modify the terms of the Note.

 

NOW, WHEREFORE, FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE SUFFICIENCY OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

 

Section 1 of the Note shall be amended as follows:





Maturity Date. The then outstanding Principal Amount shall become due and payable on the 24 month anniversary of the Issue Date (the "Maturity Date"). "Issue Date" means the later of the date of first issuance of this Note as set forth above or the date of signature hereof.

 

All other provisions of the Note shall remain unchanged. 

 

 

Agreed to and accepted:
Case 1:07-cv-03334-LBS     Document 11      Filed 10/09/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-03334-LBS     Document 11      Filed 10/09/2007     Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         182,797
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  253,816
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               436,613
<PP&E>                                      22,494,518
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,286,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,644,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,307
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,631,638
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,644,945
<SALES>                                      2,300,758
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,308,999
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,512,492
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                796,507
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            796,507
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   796,507
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:06-cv-15092-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## News Release

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Pilot Accounted For From World War II (Lewis, D.)

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
* This opinion is being released initially in typescript form. In the 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit
Nos. 02-3914, 02- 3915 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Petitioner-App ellee ,
v. BDO SEIDMAN , regarding prom oter examination of BDO Seidman, Respondent-A ppellee

.
APPEALS OF: JOHN DOE and JANE DOE and RICHARD ROE and MARY ROE, Proposed Intervenors

.

__________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

. No. 02 C 4822 – Milton I. Shadur , Judge.

__________ ON MOTION TO STAY THE MANDATE SEPTE MBER 25, 2003 *

__________Nos. 02-3914, 02- 3915 Page 2 RIPPLE, C ircu it Judge (in cham bers). J ohn and J ane Doe and Richar d and Ma

ry Roe, a

ppellant s in thi s matter , have f iled a motion to stay i ssuance o f the mandate of this court pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorar i. A movant seeking a stay of this court’s mandate pending the filing of a petition for a

writ of c ertiorar

i must de monstrat e a r easona ble probability of succeeding on the merits and that the movant will suffer

irreparable injury absent a stay. Nanda v. Board of Trs. of the Univ. of

Ill. , 312 F.3d 852, 853 (7th Ci r. 2002) (Ripple, J., in cham

bers). T o de monst rate a r easonable probabil ity of success on the mer

its, the movant m

ust demons trate a reasonable probabil ity

that fo ur Justices will vote to grant

certiora ri and a reasona ble pos sibility that five Justices will vote to reverse this court’s judgment. Id. at 853-54. The appel lants have not met their burden. Fir st, from a procedural perspecti

ve, the m otion fail s to c ertify that the appellan ts in fact are filing a

certiorari petition and fails to identify anyissues they will raise in the petition. See Pra ctitio ner’s Handbook

for Appea

ls, p.89 (2 003) (requir

ing couns el to make

such a certifi cation an d ide ntify th e issues to be raised). More significantly, the appellants’ 3-page motion states o nly that the panel’sopinion “arguably is in conflict with prior opinions of this circu it.” Motion a

t 3. Beyond

this ba re asser tion, the

m otio n contains no argu ment about whethe r the Supreme Court is li kely to grant certiorari and to reverse thejudg ment of th is court. As demonstra

ted by the pa nel’s opini on, its h olding does not confli ct withany Sup reme Cour t authority or

with an y author ity from other circuits. In short, t he motion seems inadequate on its face. Because the appel lants ha

ve faile d to demonstra te a reas onable pr obability of success on the merits, the motion must be denied. MOTION TO STAY MANDATE DENIED
Order entered September 19, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 00482
- CV
FEYSAL AYATI
- GHAFFARI, Appellant

V. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATI ON, ET AL . , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 417
- 03108
- 2013



### O RDER Before the Court is “Appellant’s Request Written Proof of Party’s Standin g ” filed by pro se appellant on September 8, 2017. We DENY the request.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 159 

To implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution 

of the United States for the right to life of each born and preborn 

human person. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 16, 2019 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. RISCH, Mr. HOEVEN, 

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. PERDUE, Mr. CRAMER, 

Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment 

to the Constitution of the United States for the right 

to life of each born and preborn human person. 

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 ‘‘Life at Conception Act 

5 of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE. 

7 To implement equal protection for the right to life 

8 of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 159 IS

1 to the duty and authority of Congress, including Congress’ 

2 power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution of 

3 the United States to make necessary and proper laws, and 

4 Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment 

5 to the Constitution, the Congress hereby declares that the 

6 right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in 

7 each human being. Nothing in this Act shall be construed 

8 to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of 

9 her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or 

10 a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of 

11 preventing fertilization. 

12 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

13 In this Act: 

14 (1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING.—The 

15 terms ‘‘human person’’ and ‘‘human being’’ include 

16 each member of the species homo sapiens at all 

17 stages of life, including the moment of fertilization 

18 or cloning, or other moment at which an individual 

19 member of the human species comes into being. 

20 (2) STATE.—For purposes of applying the 14th 

21 Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 

22 and other applicable provisions of the Constitution 

23 to carry out section 2, the term ‘‘State’’ includes the 

24 District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 159 IS

1 Rico, and each other territory or possession of the 

2 United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### STATE v. HULTMAN

No. 123 PC.

Case below: 20 N.C. App. 201.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 February 1974.
#### CARVER v. CARVER

No. 658PA82.

Case below: 55 N.C. App. 716.

Petition by plaintiff for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 28 January 1983.