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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5006 

To authorize the establishment of a program of voluntary separation incentive 

payments for nonjudicial employees of the District of Columbia courts 

and employees of the District of Columbia Public Defender Service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2014 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To authorize the establishment of a program of voluntary 

separation incentive payments for nonjudicial employees 

of the District of Columbia courts and employees of 

the District of Columbia Public Defender Service. 

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 ‘‘District of Columbia 

5 Courts and Public Defender Service Voluntary Separation 

6 Incentive Payments Act’’. 


tjames@gpo.gov on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5006 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR PROGRAM OF VOLUNTARY 

2 SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR DIS3 TRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 17 of title 11, District 

5 of Columbia Official Code, is amended by inserting after 

6 section 11—1726 the following new section: 

7 ‘‘§ 11—1726A. Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay8 ments 

9 ‘‘The Joint Committee on Judicial Administration 

10 may, by regulation, establish a program substantially simi11 lar to the program established under subchapter II of 

12 chapter 35 of title 5, United States Code, for nonjudicial 

13 employees of the District of Columbia courts.’’. 

14 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

15 of chapter 17 of title 11, District of Columbia Official 

16 Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to 

17 section 11—1726 the following new item: 

‘‘11—1726A. Voluntary separation incentive payments.’’. 

18 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR PROGRAM OF VOLUNTARY 

19 SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR DIS20 TRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC DEFENDER 

21 SERVICE. 

22 Section 305 of the District of Columbia Court Re23 form and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 (sec. 2–1605, 

24 D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the 

25 following new subsection: 


tjames@gpo.gov on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5006 IH

1 ‘‘(d) The Director may establish a program substan2 tially similar to the program established under subchapter 

3 II of chapter 35 of title 5, United States Code, for employ4 ees of the Service.’’. 

Æ 


tjames@gpo.gov on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
   
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
    
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
   
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-09945) pertaining to the BRE Properties, Inc. Dividend Stock
Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-02257) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Non-Employee Director
Stock Option Plan of BRE Properties, Inc. and the Assumed Real Estate Investment
Trust of California 1991 Officer Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-61209) pertaining to the BRE Properties, Inc. 1994 Non-Employee
Director Stock Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-60082)
pertaining to the BRE Properties, Inc. 1992 Employee Stock Option Plan, and the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-5389) pertaining to the BRE Properties,
Inc. 1984 Stock Option Plan of our report dated January 14, 1997 (except Note
13, as to which the date is February 12, 1997), with respect to the financial
statements and related financial schedule of BRE Properties, Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.
    
 
   
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
    
 
February 13, 1997
San Francisco, California
## United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-3324

___________ Andre Porter, *

* Appellant, *

* v. *

* St. Louis County, Missouri; St. Louis * County Health Department; Unknown * Rotnick, St. Louis County Health * Department, Individually and * Officially; Unknown Todd, Doctor, * St. Louis County Health Department, * Individually and Officially; Rita * Appeal from the United States Hendrick, Nursing Supervisor, St. * District Court for the Eastern Louis County Health Department, * District of Missouri. Individually and Officially; Deb * Kinder, Head Nurse, St. Louis County * [UNPUBLISHED] Health Department, Individually and * Officially; R.N. Jane Unknown, * Nurse, St. Louis County Health * Department, Individually and * Officially; Hector Sanchez, Nurse, * St. Louis County Health Department, * Individually and Officially; Kate * Rudisill, Nurse, St. Louis County * Health Department, Individually and * Officially; Gary Preston, St. Louis * County Health Department, * Individually and Officially; Henry * Willis, Correctional Officer, St. Louis * County Justice Center, Individually *1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2- and Officially; Tina Hahler, * Caseworker, St. Louis County * Justice Center, Individually and * Officially; Alexis Woods, * Correctional Officer, St. Louis * County Justice Center, Individually * and Officially; Al Breeding, Unit * Manager, St. Louis County Justice * Center, Individually; Charles Dooley, * County Executive, Officially; Roy * Mueller, Director of Justice Services, * Individually, *

* Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: January 4, 2011 Filed: January 7, 2011

___________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Andre Porter appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment entered by the District Court 1 in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having conducted de novo review of the record and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Porter, see Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc. , 559 F.3d 880, 884–85 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review), we cannot say that defendant s’ conduct rose to the level of deliberate indifference within the meaning of applicable case law, seeLangford v. Norris , 614 F.3d 445, 459–60 (8th Cir. 2010). We also conclude that the District Court did not improperly-3- consider the affidavits that were notari zed by defense counsel, and did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint c ounsel. Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Porter’s motion for counsel.

______________________________
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


        Name                                       Jurisdiction of Incorporation
    -------------                                  -----------------------------

Packeteer Holdings, Inc.                                     Delaware
Packeteer International Inc.                                 Delaware
Packeteer Caymans                                             Cayman
Packeteer K.K.                                                 Japan
Packeteer Asia Pacific Limited                               Hong Kong
Packeteer Europe B.V.                                     The Netherlands
Packeteer Technologies                                        Canada
Packeteer Australia Pty Limited                              Australia
Packeteer UK Ltd.                                         United Kingdom
Packeteer GmbH                                                Germany
Packeteer SAS                                                 France
Packeteer Aps                                                 Denmark
Packeteer Singapore                                          Singapore
Packeteer Korea                                             South Korea
Packeteer Iberica                                              Spain
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2286 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:13:21 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2286 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:13:21 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2286 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:13:21 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2286 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:13:21 Page 4 of

4
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 20

- 2106

___________________________
United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Edward Frank Brewer

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________
Submitted: February 1 6 , 2021 Filed: February 19, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRASZ, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After considering a number of factors, the district court 1 decided not to reduce
Edward Brewer’s 240

- month prison sentence under the First Step Act. See Pub. L.

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.-2- No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Though he challenges the decision on a host of grounds, we affirm.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United
States v. McDonald , 944 F.3d 769, 771

– 72 (8th Cir. 2019) (discussing the standard
of review and outl ining the two

- step analysis for motion s under the First Step Act). The First Step Act did not require the court to reduce Brewer’s sentence, even if he was eligible

. § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222 (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.”) . And t he court did more than enough by considering the statutory sentencing factors before making
a decision

. S ee 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Moore , 963 F.3d 725, 727 (8th Cir. 2020) (expla ining that, in reviewing a First Step Act motion, “a district court may, but need not, consider the section 3553 factors”)

.

Brewer’s remaining arguments fare no better. He was not entitled to a plenary resentencing hearing, nor can he now challenge his original sentence. See Moore
, 963 F.3d at 728 (explaining how motions under the First Step Act are different from “original, plenary sentencing” proceedings); United States v. Williams , 943 F.3d 841, 843

– 44 (8th Cir. 2019) (holding that district courts need not hold hearings on these motions); see also United States v. Denson , 963 F.3d 1080, 1089 (11th Cir. 2020) (refusing to entertain an attack on the original sentence in one of these motions). Moreover, given “the court’s otherwise careful analysis,” an y “ minor factual misstatement” about Brewer’s criminal history does not “warrant[] remand.”
United States v. Moore , 975 F.3d 84, 93 (2d Cir. 2020)

.

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court, grant counsel permission to withdraw, and deny Brewer’s pending pro se motions.

______________________________
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

EXHIBIT 7

TROSTLE DECLARATION 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-10 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 1

of 4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-10 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 2

of 4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-10 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 3

of 4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2306-10 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 13:27:55 Page 4

of 4
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4391

_____________________________

TRAVIS TURMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John F. Simon, Judge.

October 7, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, C.J., and WOLF and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS  OF THE CHIEF  FINANCIAL  OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Paul Intlekofer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Nutrition 21, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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  report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this 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 report;

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

         a) Designed such  disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or caused such
disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  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 report is being prepared;

         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls
and  procedures  and  presented  in  this  report  our  conclusions   about  the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c)  Disclosed  in this report any change in the  registrant's  internal
control over financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual  report)  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or  persons   performing  the  equivalent   functions):

         a) All significant  deficiencies and material  weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal  control over financial  reporting which are reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report  financial  information;  and

         b) Any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


Date: November 13, 2003


Paul Intlekofer
Chief Financial Officer


                                       22
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Dave Côté, CEO of Packeteer, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Packeteer, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors: (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Dated:  March 15, 2007 /s/ Dave Côté   Dave Côté   Chief Executive Officer
**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**

|   | (1)    | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d),                as                applicable, 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 6, 2008                                       |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                   |
| /s/                GARRICK CLAYTON                                     |
| Garrick                Clayton, Chief Financial                Officer |

----
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Docket 2-2010]

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Elizabeth Whiteman at                         *Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov*                         or (202) 482-0473.                    

Dated: January 13, 2010.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-1244 Filed 1-21-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21
                                                                      ----------

                                 Subsidiaries
                                 ------------

                                 Address of                      Jurisdiction of
    Name                         Principal Office                Incorporation
    ----                         ----------------                ---------------

1.  Persist, S.A.                Avda. Sofia 45-53
                                 Local Comercial Torre 7
                                 08870 - Sitges (Barcelona)
                                 Spain                           Spain

2.  Peritus Software Services    2 Federal Street                Massachusetts
    Securities Corporation       Billerica, MA 01821

3.  Peritus Software Services    Gopalakrishna Complex           India
    (India) Private Limited      V Floor, 45/3, Residency Road
                                 Bangalore, India

4.  Millennium Dynamics, Inc.    2 Federal Street                Delaware
    (formerly Twoquay, Inc.)     Billerica, MA 01821