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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3608

To amend section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1995 to prohibit additional payments for restructuring costs under

defense contracts and to revise certain reporting requirements relating

to such costs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 10, 1996

Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. BARRETT of

Wisconsin, Mr. STARK, and Mr. MILLER of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on National Security

A BILL

To amend section 818 of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1995 to prohibit additional payments

for restructuring costs under defense contracts and to

revise certain reporting requirements relating to such

costs.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO PAYMENTS FOR

4 AND REPORTS ON RESTRUCTURING COSTS

5 UNDER DEFENSE CONTRACTS.

6 (a) PROHIBITION ON ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS FOR

7 RESTRUCTURING COSTS.—Section 818 of the National
2

•HR 3608 IH

1 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public

2 Law 103–337; 108 Stat. 2821; 10 U.S.C. 2324 note) is

3 amended by inserting at the end of subsection (a) the fol4 lowing new paragraph:

5 ‘‘(3) Effective on the date of the enactment of this

6 paragraph, no additional payments shall be made for re7 structuring costs incurred on or after August 15, 1994,

8 until reports to Congress for 1995 and 1996 are filed pur9 suant to subsection (e).’’.

10 (b) AMENDMENTS RELATING TO REPORT BY SEC11 RETARY OF DEFENSE.—Subsection (e) of section 818 of

12 such Act is amended—

13 (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by

14 striking out ‘‘1995, 1996, and 1997’’ and inserting

15 in lieu thereof ‘‘1995 and 1996’’; and

16 (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting at the end

17 the following new subparagraph:

18 ‘‘(F) Actual employment data within de19 fense contractors immediately before public an20 nouncement of plans for each business combina21 tion since July 21, 1993, and layoffs subse22 quent to approval of each such business com23 bination, along with an estimate of the costs to

24 the United States resulting from the layoffs.’’.
3

•HR 3608 IH

1 (c) AMENDMENTS RELATING TO REPORT BY COMP2 TROLLER GENERAL.—Subsection (g) of section 818 of

3 such Act is amended—

4 (1) in paragraph (2)—

5 (A) by striking out ‘‘periodically’’ and in6 serting in lieu thereof ‘‘quarterly every fiscal

7 year’’; and

8 (B) by striking out the period at the end

9 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ‘‘, in10 cluding the amount of appropriated funds obli11 gated for each business combination.’’; and

12 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking out ‘‘1997’’

13 and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘1996’’.

Æ
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Marlin MOSS, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 69045.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 17, 1996.

Rosalynn Koch, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for DefendanVAppellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, David R. Truman, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for PlaintiffTRespon-dent.

*901Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury for first degree murder, § 565.020, RSMo Supp.1982, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced him in accordance with the jury’s assessment to consecutive prison terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of probation or parole for first degree murder and life imprisonment for armed criminal action. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
**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**

The undersigned, Yapp Moi Lee, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and director of Smartec Holdings Inc.,(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Smartec Holdings Inc. for the interim period ended September 30, 2007 (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 Smartec Holdings Inc.

Dated:  November 19, 2007

 

/s/ Yapp Moi Lee

Yapp Moi Lee, President 

Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and director 

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Smartec Holdings Inc. and will be retained by Smartec Holdings Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.2             Brad Beckstead Consent Letter


G.   B R A D   B E C K S T E A D
--------------------------------
 Certified  Public  Accountant
                                                            330 E. Warm Springs
                                                            Las Vegas, NV 89119
                                                                   702.257.1984
                                                             702.362.0540 (fax)



July 23, 2001


To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of G. Brad Beckstead, CPA, consents to the inclusion of my report
of December 5, 2000, on the Financial Statements of Insynq, Inc.
(A Development Stage Company) (formerly Xcel Management, Inc.) for the years
ended May 31, 2000 and 1999, in any filings which are necessary now or in the
near future to be filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Signed,


/s/ G. Brad Beckstead
----------------------
G. Brad Beckstead, CPA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

CLIFTON E. JACKSON and Case No.: 2009-11529

CHRISTOPHER M. SCHARNITZKE, Judge David M. Lawson

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and 

 other persons similarly situated

SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT 

SERVICES, INC, and COCA COLA

ENTERPRISES, INC, foreign corporations,

and DR. PAUL DROUILLARD, 

Jointly and Severally, 

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

MARSHALL LASSER P25573 

MARSHALL LASSER PC

Attorney for plaintiffs

po box 2579 

Southfield MI 48037

248-647-7722

BUTZEL LONG

By: Daniel B. Tukel P34978

Lynn A. Sheehy P38162

Katherine D. Goudie P62806

Attorneys for Defendant Dr. Drouillard

150 W. Jefferson, Ste. 100

Detroit, MI 48226

313-225-7000

______________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS

Plaintiffs move ex parte under Local Rule 7.1(C)(3) for leave to exceed the page

limits in his response to Dr. Drouillard’s motion to dismiss. The grounds are:

• This relief was granted to Dr. Drouillard;

• The large number of the grounds Dr. Drouillard has raised in his motion;

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that this instrument, together with all referenced attachments was

served on all parties to this case and/or their attorneys of record at their respective addresses

as disclosed by the pleadings on July 17, 2009 by the following method(s): 

[] U.S. Mail [] Fax [] Hand Delivered 

[] Federal Express [] UPS

[X] Other: ELECTRONICALLY EMAILED

 /s/Delilah D. Talon 

Signature of Serve

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 07/17/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 290
2

• the complexity and potential finality of the motion.

Plaintiffs’ brief is 41 pages from the beginning of the Argument to the signature block.

/s/ Marshall Lasser 

Marshall Lasser PC, by 

Marshall Lasser P25573

po box 2579

Southfield MI 48307

(248) 647 7722

July 17, 2009

C:\wp51\DOCS\CocaColaRICO\ExParteMotionExceedPageLimit.wpd

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 23 Filed 07/17/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 291
|   **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 MASS Petroleum Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended May 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jordan Shapiro, 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, 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.

By: /s/ *Jordan Shapiro*Jordan ShapiroPresident and Chief Executive Officer

October 18, 2012
                 
              |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ADIL SHAFI,

Counterclaim Plaintiff/

Third Party Plaintiff,

vs Case No: 09-10454

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

BRAINTECH, INC. AND

FREDERICK WEIDINGER,

Counterclaim Defendant/

Third Party Defendant

____________________________________/

ORDER

The Court held a Final Settlement Conference on Wednesday, March, 23, 2001.

Attending were J.P. Murphy representing Adil Shafi, Tom McNeill representing Rick

Weidinger and Susan Koval representing Braintech.

The Court discussed several pending motions. One is Counter-Defendant's

Motion to Compel Certain Source Code Required by the Court’s December 17, 2010

Order (Doc. # 91). The Court refers this to Magistrate Judge Michelson.

Another pending motion is Shafi's Motion for Temporary Stay of Proceedings

(Doc. #92). The successor corporation to Braintech, Robotics Vision Tech, filed suit

against Shafi in the Eastern District of Virginia. Although not in total agreement

concerning the scope of that lawsuit, the parties do agree that it is related to the

litigation pending here, and that if the Virginia court does not dismiss that suit but

transfers it here, it should be joined for trial with this case. Counsel for Weidinger

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Document 100 Filed 03/30/11 Page 1 of 2
2

indicated that if the case did get transferred, he would want discovery, further stalling

trial of this case. 

Accordingly, it was agreed:

1. Counsel for Shafi will accept service in the Virginia case for his client;

2. He will, as soon as possible, file a Motion To Dismiss Or To Transfer

Venue of that case to this Court;

3. If venue is transferred, the two cases will be combined for all purposes. 

Accordingly, Shafi's Motion for Temporary Stay of Proceedings is MOOT.

4. Defendant Wiedinger’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief is

DENIED.

In the event the Virginia court dismisses that case or declines to transfer venue,

the Court will enter a new Scheduling Order.

IT IS ORDERED.

 /s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: March 30, 2011

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

March 30, 2011.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Document 100 Filed 03/30/11 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SONDRA McKERRICHER,

 

Plaintiff(s),

Case No. 08-15025

vs. 

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

CleanNet OF GREATER MICHIGAN, et al

Defendant(s).

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On August 1, 2010 the attorneys of record advised the court that a settlement

had been reached and there being no further communication with the court to the

contrary; 

This case hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This case may be

reopened, if necessary, by motion of either party without the payment of additional fees

or costs. Alternatively, the parties may submit an order of dismissal with prejudice

upon consummation of the settlement.

SO ORDERED.

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 8, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record on 

September 8, 2010 by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:08-cv-15025-GCS-DAS Doc # 27 Filed 09/08/10 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 308
Weather Underground, Incorporated v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Incorporated et al Doc. 29 Att. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 10 Filed 06/03/09 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 99
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 10 Filed 06/03/09 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 100
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 10 Filed 06/03/09 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 101
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 10 Filed 06/03/09 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 102
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 10 Filed 06/03/09 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 103
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 10 Filed 06/03/09 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 104
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 16

- 6001

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Appellee ,

v.

DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV , Defendant, Appellant

.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 21, 2024 is amended

as follows:
On page 7, line 13, "of" is replaced with "on"
On page 63, line 12, "148" is replaced with "1 4

- 15 "
The opinion of Judge Howard, dissenting in part, is amended

as follows:
On page 79, line 13, "1036" is replaced with "316

- 17"
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16** 

**- 6891** 

GEORGE CLEVELAND, III ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v.

WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE, in their official and individual capacity; OFFICER I. MAYES, in their official and individual capacity; OFFICER M. JONES, in their official and individual capacity; WARDEN (UNKNOWN NAME), in their official and individual capacity; LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, in their official and individual capacity; OFFICER TYRELL ADMORE, in their official and individual capacity; CONTRABAND LT. CHARLES HARTZOG, in their official and individual capacity; BUSINESS EMPLOYEE T. WAY, in their official and individual capacity; MACDOUGALL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, in their official and individual capacity ; OFFICER FRANCINE BACHMAN, in their official and individual capacity; DIRECTOR BRYAN STIRLING, of the SCDC, in their official and individual capacity; UNKNOWN NAMES OF THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE SCDC, in their official and individual capacity
,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:15

- cv

- 04512

- RBH )

Submitted : December 20, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

George Cleveland, III , Appellant Pro Se

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

George Cleveland, III, appeals the district court ’ s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated b y the district court.

Cleveland v. Cartledge , No. 4:15

- cv

- 04512

- RBH (D.S.C. May 23,

2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before th is court and argument would not aid the d ecisional

process.

AFFIRMED
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January

28 , 2020

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00939

- CV

RICHARD REUTER, KENNETH SHEPHERD , AND AXM SYSTEMS, LLC , Appellant s

V.
INDUSTRIAL SPECIALISTS, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal fr om the 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19

- CV

- 1215

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed November 13, 2019 . On January 9,
2020 , appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 4 2. 1. The motion is granted.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists Justices Zimmerer, Spain
, and Hassan

.
Exhibit 32.2



Chief Financial Officers Certification required under

Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the annual report of PanAmerican Bancorp (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Alfredo M. Barriero, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that, to my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.







Date: March 30, 2004











|/s/ ALFREDOM. BARREIRO 
|-----------------------
|Alfredo M. Barreiro    
|Chief Financial Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 15, 2016

NO. 03

- 15

- 00716

- CV

Max Rodriguez, Appellant

v.

Scott Noel, Dr. Roy Klein, and Hon

- Ling Klein, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFO RE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GO ODWIN, AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on September 23, 2015. Appellant

has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that

the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismis ses the appeal

.

A ppellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
For December 31st, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTITITY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,091,586
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      302,936
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,471,022
<PP&E>                                           7,263,788
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (597,670)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,401,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,114,563
<BONDS>                                          4,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,286,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,401,182
<SALES>                                          1,604,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,604,267
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,845,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (184,655)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,096,937)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,096,937)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,096,937)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (1.290)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (1.290)
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20023-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

 v.

D-4 ASHLEY REBECCA ALLEN,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AS TO THE CONSPIRACY COUNT OF THE

SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on September 15, 2009, by United States Magistrate Judge

Charles E. Binder pursuant to the defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report on

September 16, 2009, recommending that this Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty. As of

today’s date, no party has filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal.

Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the

failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently

review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the

findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 109] is ADOPTED.

1:09-cr-20023-TLL-PTM Doc # 126 Filed 11/04/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 512
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s plea of guilty as to the conspiracy count of the

second superseding indictment is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 108] is

taken UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: November 4, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on November 4, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cr-20023-TLL-PTM Doc # 126 Filed 11/04/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 513