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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2090 

To direct the Attorney General to submit to Congress investigative materials 

in the event of certain pardons granted by the President, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11, 2019 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. CASEY, Mr. VAN

HOLLEN, and Ms. HIRONO) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To direct the Attorney General to submit to Congress investigative materials in the event of certain pardons granted 

by the President, 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 ‘‘Abuse of the Pardon 

5 Prevention Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT RELATING TO CER7 TAIN PARDONS. 

8 (a) SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION.—In the event 

9 that the President grants an individual a pardon for an 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2090 IS

1 offense against the United States that arises from an in2 vestigation in which the President, or a relative of the 

3 President, is a target, subject, or witness, not later than 

4 30 days after the date of such pardon, the Attorney Gen5 eral shall submit to the chairmen and ranking members 

6 of the appropriate congressional committees all materials 

7 of an investigation that were obtained by a United States 

8 Attorney, another Federal prosecutor, or an investigative 

9 authority of the Federal Government, relating to the of10 fense for which the individual is so pardoned. 

11 (b) TREATMENT OF INFORMATION.—Rule 6(e) of the 

12 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure may not be con13 strued to prohibit the disclosure of information required 

14 by subsection (a) of this section. 

15 (c) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall apply with 

16 respect to a pardon granted by the President on or after 

17 January 20, 2017. 

18 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

19 (1) The term ‘‘appropriate congressional com20 mittees’’ means— 

21 (A) the Committee on the Judiciary of the 

22 House of Representatives and the Committee 

23 on the Judiciary of the Senate; and 

24 (B) if an investigation relates to intel25 ligence or counterintelligence matters, the PerVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:07 Jul 16, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2090.IS S2090

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 2090 IS

1 manent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 

2 House of Representatives and the Select Com3 mittee on Intelligence of the Senate. 

4 (2) The term ‘‘pardon’’ includes a commutation 

5 of sentence. 

6 (3) The term ‘‘relative’’ has the meaning given 

7 that term in section 3110(a) of title 5, United 

8 States Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 189 (Monday, October 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55786-55787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4812]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    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 Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Joint Training.
    Date: October 3, 2007.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Westin Embassy Suites Hotel, 2100 Massachusetts Ave., 
Washington, DC 20008.
    Contact Person: Phillip F. Wiethorn, Scientific Review 
Administrator, DHHS/NIH/NINDS/DER/SRB, 6001 Executive Boulevard; MSC 
9529, Neuroscience Center; Room 3203,

[[Page 55787]]

Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, (301) 496-5388. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f186989485999e8381b19f989f9582df9f9899df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5d2ccc0d1cdcad7d5e5cbcccbc1d68bcbcccd8bc2cad3">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 19, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4812 Filed 9-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### GUILFORD COUNTY and CITY OF HIGH POINT v. CLARENCE C. BOYAN and wife, MARGARET W. BOYAN; LEE F. STACKHOUSE, Trustee for CLARENCE C. BOYAN and wife, MARGARET W. BOYAN; JIMMY D. RIDGE; and PIEDMONT HARDWOOD LUMBER COMPANY

No. 115

(Filed 2 June 1981)

On discretionary review of the decision of the Court of Appeals reported at 49 N.C. App. 430, 272 S.E. 2d 1 (1980), affirming judgment for defendants entered by *Pfaff Judge,*at the 26 *312November 1979 Civil Non-Jury Session of District Court, Guilford County.

Plaintiffs filed this action on 24 January 1975 to foreclose liens for ad valorem taxes (owed to both plaintiffs) and water and sewer assessments (owed to plaintiff City of High Point) on property located at 701 Oakview Road in High Point. At the time the taxes and assessments here involved became due the defendants Boyan owned the subject property. The Boyans conveyed their interest in the property to defendant Ridge by a warranty deed recorded 31 December 1974, prior to the institution of this action.

In their answers, defendants pled *res judicata*as a bar to the claim for water and sewer assessments, alleging that those assessments were the subject of an earlier foreclosure action in 1970 brought by the same plaintiffs in which both plaintiffs entered a voluntary dismissal with prejudice on 5 October 1971.

On 13 September 1976 plaintiffs made a motion in the District Court of Guilford County to amend the dismissal in the earlier action to read that it was without prejudice. Judge Kuykendall granted this motion on 5 October 1976.

On 12 October 1979 plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. Without ruling on this motion, the trial court proceeded to try the case without a jury. At the close of all the evidence the court found as a fact that defendant Ridge was a bona fide purchaser for value. Because at the time Ridge purchased the property the voluntary dismissal with prejudice was a final judgment, the court concluded that Ridge took the property free and clear of the lien and that plaintiff City was barred from asserting any claim of lien against the real property. The trial court also dismissed the assessment claims against the Boyans because the foreclosure of such is an action in rem and, as such, can be enforced only against the property.

The plaintiff City of High Point appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court affirmed the trial court’s judgment on 4 November 1980.

We granted plaintiff City of High Point’s pétition for discretionary review on 4 March 1981.

*313
      *Hugh C. Bennett, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant City of High Point.*

*Boyan and Nix, by Kathleen E. Nix, for defendant-appellees Clarence C. and Margaret W. Boyan.*

*Stephen E. Lawing for defendant-appellee Ridge.*

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the record, the briefs and oral arguments of counsel and the authorities there cited, we conclude that the petition for discretionary review was improvidently allowed.

The order allowing plaintiffs petition for discretionary review is vacated; the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming judgment for defendants remains undisturbed.
#### GUNTHER v. BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD

No. 460P82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 341.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 25 August 1982.
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.2 BARCLAYCARD FUNDING PLCS OFFICERS CERTIFICATE GRACECHURCH
RECEIVABLES TRUSTEE LIMITED
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned officer of Barclaycard Funding PLC, a private limited liability company
incorporated under the laws of Jersey, Channel Islands (the MTN Issuer), hereby certifies on
behalf of the MTN Issuer and on his own behalf for purposes of the Investor Certificate, as
follows:  1.

I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Director of the MTN Issuer;2.

I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate on behalf of the MTN Issuer; and3.

To the best of my knowledge, the MTN Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants under the
Relevant Documents for the issue of the Investor Certificate for the period between January 1, 2004
and December 31, 2004. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
Registration Statement related to the above-referenced issue of Investor Certificate. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name this 30th day of June, 2005. By:
    /s/ Paul Gerard TurnerName:
    Paul Gerard TurnerTitle:
    Director
Case 1:07-cv-03480-AKH Document 3 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 15.1  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-184351) pertaining to the Executive Share Option Plan, Long-Term Umbrella Incentive Plan, Non-Executive Directors Equity Incentive Plan, Executive Officer IPO Stock Option Grants and Non-Executive Director IPO Stock Option Grants of Luxfer Holdings PLC (the Company) and in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-196166) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Share Incentive Plan of the Company of our report dated March 14, 2017, relating to the financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 included in this Form 20-F.  /s/   PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPManchester,   United KingdomMarch 14,   2017
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10942

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RONALD LEE COOPER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:95-CR-158-Y)

August 8, 1997

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

At sentencing, the district court explained that letters from

victims of Ronald Lee Cooper’s fraud contributed to his decision to

deny Cooper’s motion for downward departure. Cooper urges us to

review his sentence because the district court did not summarize

the letters in writing or provide the defense with copies and did

not give him a reasonable opportunity to comment on the letters as

required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(A).2

“This court will not review a district court’s refusal to

depart from the sentencing guidelines unless a distr ict court’s

refusal is a violation of the law.” U nited States v. Fonts

, 95

F.3d 372, 373 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). “A refusal to depart

is a violation of law only if the court mistakenly assumed it

lacked the authority to depart.” U nited States v. Flanagan

, 87

F.3d 121, 125 (5th Cir. 1996). Indeed, “[t]he imposition of a

lawful sentence coupled with the decision not to depart from the

guidelines provides no ground for relief.” U ni ted States v.

DiMarco

, 46 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (citing

United States v. Miro , 29 F.3d 194, 198-99 (5th Cir. 1994)). The

district court’s statement indicates that it was not under the

impression that the law prohibited a downward departure. Thus, we

do not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s ruling on

Cooper’s motion for downward departure.

Cooper also claims that his counsel provided constitutionally

ineffective assistance. This is not one of the “rare cases where

the record allows the court to fairly evaluate the merits” of this

claim. S ee United States v. Fry

, 51 F.3d 543, 545 (5th Cir. 1995).

Cooper must pursue this theory on collateral review.

DISMISSED.
<PAGE>

                                                                 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 quarterly report of K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Marc S. Hermelin, Chairman and Chief Executive 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; 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:  August 8, 2006                      /s/ Marc S. Hermelin
                                    -----------------------------------------
                                                 Marc S. Hermelin
                                    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BEST WESTERN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10mc8-RH/WCS

BHUPENDRA B. VAGHMAR et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER DISCHARGING THE WRITS OF GARNISHMENT AND

AWARDING PEOPLESSOUTH A LIMITED ATTORNEY’S FEE

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, ECF No. 50. No objections have been filed. Upon

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the

court’s opinion. The five writs of garnishment—to garnishees PeoplesSouth Bank,

The Bank of Bonifay, Community South Credit Union, Wachovia Bank, and

Regions Bank—see ECF Nos. 7, 11, are DISSOLVED. The garnishees are

discharged from any further liability under the writs. The garnished funds are
Page 2 of 2

1

 The basis for the denial of a greater fee in this proceeding is this. As part

of a garnishment proceeding, a garnishee may recover fees for responding to the

writ as a disinterested stakeholder, but the garnishee may not recover fees for

asserting its own separate claim to the funds. See All Am. Semi-Conductor, Inc. v.

Ellison Graphics Corp., 594 So. 2d 342, 342 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Ebsary Found.

Co. v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 569 So. 2d 806, 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). 

PeoplesSouth has not established that it incurred fees in excess of $100 as a

disinterested stakeholder. To the contrary, most of the fees apparently arose from

PeoplesSouth’s claim to an offset for its own benefit. PeoplesSouth may or may

not be entitled to recover those fees under a separate contract with the

defendant—an issue not addressed by this order—but the fees are not recoverable

in this garnishment proceeding.

Case No: 4:10mc8-RH/WCS

released.

2. The clerk must pay to PeoplesSouth Bank the $100 deposit for the writ of

garnishment directed to it. PeoplesSouth’s motion for a greater fee, ECF No. 16, is

DENIED without prejudice to the assertion of a contractual claim against the

defendant through offset or in a proceeding separate from this garnishment

proceeding.1

3. The clerk must enter a judgment dismissing this garnishment proceeding.

SO ORDERED on June 28, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT APRIL 30, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                          86,918
<SECURITIES>                                    17,808
<RECEIVABLES>                                  888,694
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    657,834
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,066,066
<PP&E>                                       1,560,438
<DEPRECIATION>                               (947,393)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,243,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,837,842
<BONDS>                                        771,999
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,053
<COMMON>                                        45,410
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,269,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,243,658
<SALES>                                      3,593,967
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,593,967
<CGS>                                        2,797,157
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,797,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               119,638
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,363
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                236,790
<INCOME-TAX>                                    94,716
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            142,074
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   142,074
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.05


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION

I, Samir N. Masri, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lincoln International
Corporation;

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

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

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

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

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

                                      /s/Samir N. Masri
                                         --------------
                                  Name:  Samir N. Masri
                                  Title: Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                  Date:  May 9, 2007