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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1195 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1195

 To require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the Philadelphia 
  universal feeding pilot program until the last day of the 2012-2013 
          school year of the School District of Philadelphia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2009

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the Philadelphia 
  universal feeding pilot program until the last day of the 2012-2013 
          school year of the School District of Philadelphia.

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

SECTION 1. PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSAL FEEDING PILOT PROGRAM.

    The Secretary of Agriculture shall carry out the pilot program 
described in section 18(c)(2)(A) of the Richard B. Russell National 
School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769(c)(2)(A)) in the city of Philadelphia 
until the last day of the 2012-2013 school year of the School District 
of Philadelphia, as determined by the city of Philadelphia.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.7
 MANAGEMENT BONUS GUIDELINES
 Purpose:
  Eligibility Requirements:
 
    
    Management personnel are eligible for consideration
    
    Employed by the company for a minimum of six months of the fiscal year
    
    Be actively employed by the company at the time of payment or retired between
the last day of the fiscal year and the payment date. Retirees must meet the
definition of normal retirement  sixty-five years old with a minimum of five years of
service with the company
    
    Rated Meets Expectationsor higher on last performance evaluation
 Calculations:
 
    
    Bonus percentages are based on a Board approved matrix which consists of eight
company performance levels and five categories of management
    
    Bonus percentages for Category A are 0%, 10%, 18%, 20%, 23%, 27%, 31%, and 35%.
    
    Bonuses will be calculated on base salaries as of the last day of the fiscal
year
    
    Bonuses will be prorated for those with six but less than twelve months of
service in the fiscal year and those promoted to an eligible position during the fiscal
year
    
    Bonuses for those on an approved leave of absence, including disability, will
be prorated based upon the number of full months actually worked during the fiscal year
    
    Bonuses will be rounded to the nearest hundredth  up or down
Exhibit C

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 516-3 Filed 04/02/19 Page 1 of 2
Filters Used: 

Email Report 

Form Format 

Date Printed: 12/08/2017 

Time Printed: 10:37AM 

Printed By: SJR 

.... .. - . ,.--

The Information transmitted by the following e-mail is intended only for the 

addressee and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any interception, 

review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action upon 

this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 

prohibited by law and may subject them to criminal or civil liability. If you received 

thls communication in error, please contact us immediately at 480.240-4020, and 

delete the communication from any computer or networi< system. 

From; Michael Lacey (mallto:mgl@qamer.net] 

Sent: 07/29/2016 8:14 AM 

To: John Becker 

Subject: 

dear john 

i think I am ready to move fo,ward with the visit to the Los Angeles lawyer you 

mentioned who has expertise in off-shore. 

to revisit for just a moment, I am not Interested in any tax avoidance. i just 

want to put aome.assets in place where litigious parties, Including government 

parties, can not access my accounts. 

i know this Is short notice, but was hoping that Aug 4 or 5 might work. and for 

the sake of getting out of Arizona's boiler, hoping this works.for your calendar. 

if this is not feasible because of schedules and such short notice, then i 

would look at either Oct 13-14 or Oct 27 -28. 

finally, what do I need to do to set up an account through your office in order 

to send checks to former writers and editors? I have one of my colleagues 

.. ,- . 

assembling the names and addresses offormer staff. while the individual checks are under 

the amount that creates consequences, there are about 400 individuals. 

I would think a note from your office confirming whereabouts would precede a check. 

michael lacey 

292 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 516-3 Filed 04/02/19 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                            <C>              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1999       DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                         318               240
<SECURITIES>                   0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                  15,218            15,097
<ALLOWANCES>                   85                166
<INVENTORY>                    6,352             6,510
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               28,051            22,940
<PP&E>                         70,049            62,080
<DEPRECIATION>                 25,099            18,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 98,174            93,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          23,442            24,872
<BONDS>                        0                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0                 0
<PREFERRED>                    0                 0
<COMMON>                       1                 1
<OTHER-SE>                     (12,344)          (12,493)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   98,174            93,408
<SALES>                        110,130           98,025
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               110,130           98,025
<CGS>                          85,809            77,459
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  99,203            89,382
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               (243)             (51)
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             10,365            10,311
<INCOME-PRETAX>                805               (1,617)
<INCOME-TAX>                   755               427
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            50                (2,044)
<DISCONTINUED>                 0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0                 0
<CHANGES>                      0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                   50                (2,044)
<EPS-BASIC>                    0.000             0.000
<EPS-DILUTED>                  0.000             0.000



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICKY GARRETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF ST. CLAIR SHORES; CITY OF

ST. CLAIR SHORES POLICE OFFICER,

SERGEANT DAVID CHAVIS; CITY OF ST.

CLAIR SHORES POLICE OFFICER,

DETECTIVE THOMAS HANNON;

JEFFREY WALLACE; and SPECIAL

AGENT MICHAEL SURATT;

Defendants.

 /

Case Number: 08-14081

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS

TO STRIKE AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT 

This matter is before the Court on (1) Defendants City of St. Clair Shores’,

Sergeant David Chavis’s, Detective Thomas Hannon’s, and Jeffrey Wallace’s

(collectively “St. Clair Shores Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 33);

(2) Defendant Special Agent Michael Suratt’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 35);

(3) St. Clair Shores Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses (doc. 48);

and (4) Defendant Suratt’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses (doc. 50).

For the reasons stated on the record at a hearing held on June 10, 2010, the

Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motions to Strike

Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses. (Docs. 48, 50). 
2

In addition, as more fully stated on the record at the hearing, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (docs. 33, 35) for the following reasons. 

The Court finds that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars Garret from re-litigating the

issues surrounding the existence of probable cause and the voluntariness of his

confession to Suratt. As to Garrett’s confession to Chavis and Hannon, the Court finds

that the confession was voluntary and that the Defendants are entitled to qualified

immunity. Although Garrett alleged that Chavis somehow got an eyewitness to change

his account of the incident to implicate Garrett, there is not sufficient evidence upon

which a jury could conclude that Chavis was the cause of the alleged change in the

eyewitness’s account. Finally, as to the allegations against Wallace, there is nothing to

indicate that the evidence Wallace allegedly fabricated was ever used against Garrett,

and thus it did not infringe Garrett’s rights.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Marianne O. Battani 

 MARIANNE O. BATTANI

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 16, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon counsel of record on this date by ordinary

mail and electronic filing.

s/Bernadette M. Thebolt

Case Manager
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 126 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33742-33743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16498]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Freight Forwarder License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean 
freight forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 510).
    Persons knowing of any reason why any of the following applicants 
should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Freight Forwarders, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C. 
20573.


[[Page 33743]]


Excel International
One Lake Bellevue Dr., Suite 107
Bellevue, WA 98005
James T. Gibbs
April J. Perla
Partners
Westrans Air Express (USA), Inc.
713 South Hindry Avenue
Inglewood, CA 90301
Officer: Anthony Tam, President

    Dated: June 24, 1996.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16498 Filed 6-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
1 

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

James C. Grant (admitted pro hac vice) 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

920 Fifth Ave, Suite 3300 

Seattle, Washington 98104-1610 

Telephone: (206) 757-8096 

Facsimile: (206) 757-7096 

Email: jamesgrant@dwt.com 

Counsel for Defendants Michael Lacey and James Larkin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CR-18-422-PHX-SPL 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO LATE 

FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR FURTHER 

CLARIFICATION RE ORDER 

ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT 

TO CONTINUE REVIEW OF 

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS 

James Larkin and Michael Lacey, by and through their undersigned counsel, 

respectfully move the Court for an order granting leave to late file their Reply in 

Support of Motion for Further Clarification re Government’s Review of Privileged 

Communications (Doc. 452). The Reply is being filed late because undersigned 

counsel had medical issues (back problems) requiring doctors’ visits and treatment, 

and missed the deadline for filing the Reply as a result. 

Counsel conferred with government counsel regarding this request. The 

government, through Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin M. Rapp, has indicated that it 

does not oppose this request. 

For the above reasons, Mr. Larkin and Mr. Lacey respectfully move for leave to 

late file their Reply in Support of Motion for Further Clarification re Government’s 

Review of Privileged Communications. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 479 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 3
2 

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 27th day of February, 2019. 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

By: ____________________________ 

James C. Grant 

 Attorney for Defendants 

Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 479 Filed 02/27/19 Page 2 of 3
3 

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on February 27, 2019, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the United States District 

Court of the District of Arizona by using the CM/ECF system, and that service will be 

accomplished by the CM/ECF system to all counsel of record. 

s/ James C. Grant 

James C. Grant 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 479 Filed 02/27/19 Page 3 of 3
#### Craig JOHNSON, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 56175.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 21, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 11, 1990.

Application to Transfer Denied Feb. 18, 1990.

Michael D. Burton, St. Louis, for movant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

ORDER

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his rule 24.035 motion. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 31

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION

                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT

I, Ronald Xiuru Xie, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-KSB of Drucker, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this amended annual 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 annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  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 amended annual 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 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 annual 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 amended
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)  presented  in  this  amended  annual  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
functions):

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



<PAGE>

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
amended  annual  report  whether  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.

Date:  September 11, 2003



/s/Ronald Xiuru Xie
-----------------------
Ronald Xiuru Xie
President, CEO, Acting CFO
EXHIBIT 32.1
**CERTIFICATION**
     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform andInvestor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), CharlesCrocker, the Chief Executive Officer of BEI Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”)hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended October2, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the“Annual Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the endof the period covered by the Annual Report and results of operations ofthe Company for the period covered by the Annual Report.
Dated December 16, 2004 /s/ Charles Crocker
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (333-87213) pertaining to the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, 1999
Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan and the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan of Scientific Learning Corporation of our report dated January 31, 2000
with respect to the financial statements and schedules of Scientific Learning
Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1999.





Walnut Creek, California
March 17, 2000
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

2AO 435

AZ Form (Rev. )

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

APPEAL CRIMINAL

NON-APPEAL CIVIL

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER 6SHFLI\

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

TESTIMONY (6SHFLI\

PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

OTHER (6SHFLI\)

VOIR DIRE

OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

OPINION OF COURT

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

SENTENCING

BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(&heck all that apply) ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS  

PAPER COPY

3')HPDLO

$6&,,HPDLO

14 DAYS  

7 DAYSH[SHGLWHG  

DAILY

 

HOURLY

 

REALTIME

 

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING 025(7+$121()250$7,

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

'$<6

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.)By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Peter S. Kozinets 602-514-7500 January 6, 2022

U.S. Attorney's Office

40 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1800 Phoenix AZ 85004

CR-18-00422-SMB Diane Humetewa 12/3/2021 12/13/2021

USA v. Lacey et al Phoenix AZ

✔

✔

Motion to Dismiss Hearing 12/3/2021

Motion to Dismiss Hearing 12/13/2021

✔

peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

s/Peter S. Kozinets

1/6/2022

✔

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1448 Filed 01/06/22 Page 1 of 1
Order entered July 3, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01065-CR

ARTHUR FRANKLIN MILLER, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-81265-2013

ORDER

Before Justices Lang, Stoddart, and Schenck

Appellant appealed this case to this Court, urging in a single issue that he received 

ineffective assistance of counsel. On June 1, 2015, this Court affirmed the trial court’s 

judgment.

On May 23, 2018, the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded this case to this Court 

determine whether appellant demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that he would have opted for a 

jury if his attorney had correctly advised him about his probation eligibility from the trial court. 

Although the trial judge made oral findings at the conclusion of the September 2, 2014 hearing 

on appellant’s motion for new trial, the court did not recite or enter any findings with respect to
whether appellant demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that he would have opted for a jury if his 

attorney had correctly advised him about his probation eligibility from the trial court.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require that we not affirm or reverse a judgment 

or dismiss an appeal if (1) the trial court’s erroneous action or failure to act prevents the proper 

presentation of a case to the court of appeals and (2) the court can correct its action or failure to 

act. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4(a).

Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to enter supplemental findings of fact and 

conclusions of law regarding whether appellant demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that he 

would have in fact opted for a jury if his attorney had correctly advised him about his probation 

eligibility from the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4. We ORDER the trial court to transmit 

a supplemental clerk’s record containing the supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of 

law to this Court no later than TWENTY DAYS from the date of this order. 

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable John Roach, Jr., 

Presiding Judge of the 296th Judicial District Court and to all counsel in this case.

We ABATE this appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order or when the supplemental clerk’s 

record is received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK 

JUSTICE