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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3582 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3582

  To permit individuals to continue health plan coverage of services 
           while participating in approved clinical studies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 1996

  Mrs. Lowey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To permit individuals to continue health plan coverage of services 
           while participating in approved clinical studies.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Improved Patient Access to Clinical 
Studies Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING IN APPROVED CLINICAL 
              STUDIES.

    (a) Permitting Participation in Approved Clinical Studies.--A 
health plan may not deny (or limit or impose additional conditions on) 
coverage of items and services furnished to an enrollee if--
            (1) the enrollee is participating in an approved clinical 
        study,
            (2) the items and services are furnished according to the 
        design of the study or to treat conditions resulting from 
        participation in the study, and
            (3) the items and services would otherwise be covered under 
        the plan except for the fact that they are provided in 
        connection with participation in such a study.
A health plan may not discriminate against an enrollee on the basis of 
the enrollee's participation in such a study.
    (b) Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as 
requiring a health plan to provide for payment for items and services 
normally paid for as part of an approved clinical study.
    (c) Approved Clinical Study Defined.--In this section, the term 
``approved clinical study'' means--
            (1) a research study approved by the Secretary of Health 
        and Human Services, the Director of the National Institutes of 
        Health, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, 
        the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Defense, or 
        a qualified nongovernmental research entity (as defined in 
        guidelines of the National Institute of Health), or
            (2) a peer-reviewed and approved research program, as 
        defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
        conducted for the primary purpose of determining whether or not 
        a treatment is safe, efficacious, or having any other 
        characteristic of a treatment which must be demonstrated in 
        order for the treatment to be medically necessary or 
        appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.19
  th
 Terms of Separation
  Agreement Company Interwoven
 Resignation as an Officer and Director of the Company Separation Date
 Obligations of the Company
 Base Salary
 Separation Benefits
 Base Salary
 2006 and 2007 Bonus




---



##### 



Employee Benefits COBRA
 Stock Options Shares
 Fees of Counsel
  Your Obligations




---



##### 



Confidentiality Agreement
   E-mail, Telephone,Voice Mail and Computer
 Release Release
 Arbitration




---



##### 



Attorneys Fees
 Confidentiality; Non-disparagement
 No Admission of Liability
 No Knowledge of Wrongdoing
 Successors
 Integration




---



##### 



No Oral Modification
 Governing Law
 Review of Separation Agreement; Effective Date Effective Date
 No Representations




---



##### 



Sincerely,INTERWOVEN, INC./s/ Frank J. Fanzilli, Jr.By:       Frank J. Fanzilli, Jr.Title:       Lead Independent Director
  /s/ Martin BraunsSignatureDate:
    

1/25/06




---



##### 



ADDENDUM A
 Release Executive Interwoven
 Release
 Executive Parties Company Released
Matters
    et. seq.
 1




---



##### 



Release of Executive
 Surviving Obligations and Rights
 No Existing Litigation
 2




---



##### 



General Release
 
  No Release of Certain Claims
 Acknowledgment of Waiver of Claims under ADEA ADEA
 prior
    3




---



##### 



EXECUTIVES ACCEPTANCE OF RELEASE:
 BEFORE SIGNING MY NAME TO THE RELEASE, EXECUTIVE STATES THE FOLLOWING: I HAVE READ THE RELEASE, I
UNDERSTAND IT AND I KNOW THAT I AM GIVING UP IMPORTANT RIGHTS. I HAVE OBTAINED SUFFICIENT
INFORMATION TO INTELLIGENTLY EXERCISE MY OWN JUDGMENT. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT I SHOULD CONSULT
WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE SIGNING IT, AND I HAVE SIGNED THE RELEASE KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY.
  25th January
 /s/ Martin BraunsExecutives Signature
 INTERWOVENS ACCEPTANCE OF RELEASE:
 BEFORE SIGNING THIS RELEASE, INTERWOVEN STATES THE FOLLOWING: THE PERSON SIGNING FOR INTERWOVEN
HAS READ THE RELEASE, UNDERSTANDS IT AND KNOWS THAT INTERWOVEN IS GIVING UP IMPORTANT RIGHTS.
INTERWOVEN HAS OBTAINED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO INTELLIGENTLY EXERCISE ITS OWN JUDGMENT. IT HAS
BEEN ADVISED THAT IT SHOULD CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE SIGNING IT, AND IT HAVE SIGNED THE
RELEASE KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY.
 INTERWOVEN, INCBy:
    
    /s/ Frank J. Fanzilli, Jr.Name:
    
    Frank J. Fanzilli, Jr.Title:
    
    Lead Independent Director
 4




---



##### 



th
 Resignation from the Board of Directors
   Very truly yours,/s/ Martin W. BraunsMartin W. Brauns
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15591]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board <SUP>1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 
Stat. 803, which was enacted on December 29, 1995, and took effect 
on January 1, 1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission and 
transferred certain functions to the Surface Transportation Board 
(Board). This notice relates to functions that are subject to Board 
jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[STB Finance Docket No. 32960]


The Locomotive Preservation & Operating Group, Inc., d/b/a The 
Sheffield Station Junction Railway--Lease and Operation Exemption--
Armco Asset Management

    The Locomotive Preservation & Operating Group, Inc., doing business 
as The Sheffield Station Junction Railway, a noncarrier, has filed a 
verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease and operate 
approximately 20 miles of rail lines located within the Sheffield 
Station Industrial Park, Kansas City, MO, and owned by Armco Asset 
Management, a unit of Armco, Inc. The proposed transaction was to be 
consummated on the date of final agreement of the parties, but not 
sooner than May 27, 1996 (the effective date of the exemption).
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 32960, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1201 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20423 and served on: D. J. Roberts, 
Sheffield Station Junction Railway, P. O. Box 266217, Kansas City, MO 
64126-6217.


    Decided: June 11, 1996.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15591 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

As independent auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report, dated February 18, 2003, which includes an emphasis paragraph
relating to uncertainty as to the Company's ability to continue as a going
concern, relating to the financial statements of Commonwealth Biotechnologies,
Inc. for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, included in the 2002 Annual
Report to Shareholders and incorporated by reference into the Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB, into the Company's previously filed Form S-8 Registration
Statement, File No. 333-51074, and Form S-3 Registration Statement No.
333-51078.



                                                         MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP





Richmond, Virginia
March 31, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33911-33912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16629]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP90-95-012]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 25, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 21, 1996, Colorado Interstate Gas Company 
(CIG), tendered for filing a semiannual compliance filing consisting of 
work papers detailing accrued interest payments made by CIG to its 
affected customers related to the unused portion

[[Page 33912]]

of transportation credits in the above referenced docket.
    CIG states that this is the final report and the appropriate refund 
has been made to all affected customers.
    CIG states that copies of the filing were served upon all of the 
parties to this proceeding and affected state commissions and affected 
parties.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before July 2, 1996. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to 
make protestant parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the 
Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16629 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1

 The court erroneously named the wrong parties in the body of the original

judgment, filed on October 28, 2009. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

LEO WEATHERS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-14788

MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

AMENDED1

 JUDGMENT

In accordance with the court’s “Opinion and Order Granting Defendant’s Motion

for Judgment, and Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment,” dated October 28, 2009,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of

Defendant Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, and against Plaintiff Leo Weathers. 

Dated at Detroit, Michigan, this 4th day of November, 2009.

 DAVID J. WEAVER

CLERK OF THE COURT

BY: S/Lisa Wagner 

Lisa Wagner, Deputy Clerk 

and Case Manager to

Judge Robert H. Cleland

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\08-14788.WEATHERS.Amended.Judgment.wpd

2:08-cv-14788-RHC-VMM Doc # 29 Filed 11/04/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 251
Case 2:08-mj-30554-DUTY ECF No. 2 filed 12/16/08 PageID.2 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:08-mj-30554-DUTY ECF No. 2 filed 12/16/08 PageID.3 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:08-mj-30554-DUTY ECF No. 2 filed 12/16/08 PageID.4 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:08-mj-30554-DUTY ECF No. 2 filed 12/16/08 PageID.5 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:08-mj-30554-DUTY ECF No. 2 filed 12/16/08 PageID.6 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:08-mj-30554-DUTY ECF No. 2 filed 12/16/08 PageID.7 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:08-mj-30554-DUTY ECF No. 2 filed 12/16/08 PageID.8 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:08-mj-30554-DUTY ECF No. 2 filed 12/16/08 PageID.9 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:08-mj-30554-DUTY ECF No. 2 filed 12/16/08 PageID.10 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:08-mj-30554-DUTY ECF No. 2 filed 12/16/08 PageID.11 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:08-mj-30554-DUTY ECF No. 2 filed 12/16/08 PageID.12 Page 11 of 11
Filed 3/24/15 P. v. Lucachin CA2/7 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION SEVEN 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

ANDY LUCACHIN, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B258450 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. NA098987) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Norman J. Shapiro, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Steven A. Brody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

____________________ 
2 

 When Ashley English arrived home, she discovered her apartment had been 

ransacked and $3,500 worth of property was missing. After the police and English found 

her missing property in Andy Lucachin’s home, he was arrested and charged with first 

degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 and receiving stolen property 

(§ 496, subd. (a)) with special allegations he had served three prior prison terms within 

the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). 

 A jury convicted Lucachin as charged. In a bifurcated proceeding, he admitted the 

prior prison term enhancements. The trial court sentenced Lucachin to an aggregate state 

prison term of nine years: the six-year upper term for first degree burglary plus one year 

for each of the three prior prison term enhancements. The court stayed sentencing for 

receiving stolen property under section 654. 

 We appointed counsel to represent Lucachin on appeal. After examination of the 

record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On December 22, 

2014 we advised Lucachin he had 30 days within which to personally submit any 

contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have received no response. 

 We have examined the record and are satisfied Lucachin’s appellate attorney has 

fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v.

Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly

(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 IWASAKI, J.*

We concur: 

 PERLUSS, P. J. ZELON, J. 

 

1

 Statutory references are to this code. 

*

 Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3641

To amend the Federal Power Act to provide for the delegation of dam

safety authority to State government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 13, 1996

Mr. GALLEGLY (for himself, Mr. FARR of California, Mr. FAZIO of California,

and Mrs. SEASTRAND) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Federal Power Act to provide for the

delegation of dam safety authority to State government.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DELEGATION OF DAM SAFETY AUTHORITY

4 UNDER FEDERAL POWER ACT.

5 Section 10(c) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.

6 803(c)) is amended by adding the following after the first

7 sentence thereof: ‘‘Upon the request of the licensee, where

8 the installed capacity of the generating equipment does

9 not exceed 10MW, the Commission shall permit the State

10 wherein the dam is located to regulate the safety of the
2

•HR 3641 IH

1 dam, unless the Commission determines that the State

2 does not have an adequate dam safety program.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1  In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Grand Motion Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending February 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jim Akrivos, in my capacities set forth below 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, to my knowledge:  (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.   April 14, 2008 /s/ Jim Akrivos Jim Akrivos, President (as Principal Executive Officer)
Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 78 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 78 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 78 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 78 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 78 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 78 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 78 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:08-cr-20585-GER-DAS Document 78 Filed 11/03/2009 Page 8 of 8
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dennis L. STANLEY, Defendant-Appellant. Dennis L. STANLEY, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 60642, 62852.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 31, 1993.

Elizabeth Haines, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jennifer A. Glancy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

CRANDALL, Presiding Judge.

Defendant, Dennis Stanley, appeals from judgments of conviction, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and felonious restraint. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of one year on each count. Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for posteonviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Defendant’s judgments of conviction are affirmed. Defendant’s appeal from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion is dismissed.

Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. Viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, there was substantial evidence at trial that defendant beat and choked the female victim with a leather belt while keeping her confined in an apartment.

Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s comment during closing argument that the testimony of the victim was “uncontradieted.” The trial court sustained defendant’s objection, but denied his motion for a mistrial. Defendant claims this was an improper comment on his constitutional right not to testify in violation *837of his right to Due Process and his privilege against self-incrimination.

The trial court has wide discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument. *State v. Shaw,*636 S.W.2d 667, 675 (Mo. banc 1982). Where the prosecutor allegedly has alluded to a defendant’s failure to testify, the trial court’s decision will be disturbed only where the references are direct and certain. *State v. Hutchinson,*458 S.W.2d 553, 555 (Mo.1970). A prosecutor’s comment that the evidence is “uncontradicted” or that the defendant has failed to offer evidence is not a direct and certain reference to the defendant’s failure to testify. *State v. Robinson,*641 S.W.2d 423, 426 (Mo. banc 1982). Clearly the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial. Defendant’s first point is denied.

Defendant next contends that the trial comí; erred in giving an instruction to the jury patterned after MAI-CR3d 302.04, defining “reasonable doubt.” That instruction has repeatedly been upheld as proper. *State v. Griffin,*848 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Mo. banc 1993); *State v. Antwine,*743 S.W.2d 51, 62-63 (Mo. banc 1987), *cert. denied*486 U.S. 1017, 108 S.Ct. 1755, 100 L.Ed.2d 217 (1988). Defendant’s last point is denied.

The judgments of conviction on direct appeal are affirmed. Defendant’s appeal from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion is deemed abandoned for failure to brief any allegations of error and is therefore dismissed.

REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16676]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 922


Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary: Petition to Ban 
the Use of Motorized Personal Watercraft Within the Gulf of the 
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary

AGENCY: Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), Office of Ocean and 
Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Ocean Service (NOS), 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of 
Commerce (DOC).

ACTION:  Notice of receipt of a petition.

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

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has 
received a petition from the Environmental Action Committee of West 
Marin County to ban the use of motorized personal watercraft within the 
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Ed Ueber at 415-556-3509 or Elizabeth Moore at 301-713-3141.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine 
Sanctuary (GFNMS) was designated in January 1981, and encompasses 948 
square nautical miles of ocean and coastal waters off the coast of San 
Francisco. The GFNMS presently has no regulations restricting the use 
of motorized personal watercraft.
    The Sanctuaries and Reserves Division within NOAA's National Ocean 
Service (NOS) received a petition on April 18, 1996, from the 
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, California (EAC) to ban 
the use of motorized personal watercraft in the GFNMS. EAC believes 
that ``the use of motorized personal watercraft * * * is completely 
incompatible with the existence of a marine sanctuary,'' and gives such 
reasons as the danger of such craft to biological resources; danger to 
other human users; noise, water, and air pollution; and incompatibility 
with other Sanctuary uses such as mariculture and small non-motorized 
watercraft. NOS is reviewing the petition and will notify the 
petitioner of its decision whether or not to proceed with a rulemaking 
to ban the use of motorized personal watercraft in the GFNMS. If NOS 
decides to initiate rulemaking proceedings, then the public will be 
provided with an opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking in 
accordance with the procedures of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 
and the Administrative Procedures Act.

    Dated: June 25, 1996.
David L. Evans,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal 
Zone Management.
[FR Doc. 96-16676 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-M