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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4070

To designate the Federal building located in Cookeville, Tennessee, as the

‘‘L. Clure Morton United States Post Office and Courthouse’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 12, 1996

Mr. GORDON (for himself, Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee, Mr. CLEMENT, Mr.

DUNCAN, Mr. FORD, Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. QUILLEN, Mr. TANNER, and

Mr. WAMP) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located in Cookeville, Tennessee, as the ‘‘L. Clure Morton United States Post

Office and Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 9 East Broad Street

5 in Cookeville, Tennessee, shall be designated and known

6 as the ‘‘L. Clure Morton United States Post Office and

7 Courthouse’’.
2

•HR 4070 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘L. Clure Morton United States Post

6 Office and Courthouse’’.

Æ
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 571

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that no species

may be determined to be an endangered species or threatened species,

and no critical habitat may be designated, until that Act is reauthorized.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 19, 1995

Mr. BONILLA (for himself, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. POMBO, Mr. FIELDS of Texas,

Mr. LAUGHLIN, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas, Mr. SMITH

of Texas, Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. ROGERS,

Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. PARKER, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. CALVERT, Mr.

BONO, Mr. CANADY of Florida, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, and

Mr. BALLENGER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide

that no species may be determined to be an endangered

species or threatened species, and no critical habitat

may be designated, until that Act is reauthorized.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 571 IH

1 SECTION 1. MORATORIUM ON DETERMINATION OF EN2 DANGERED SPECIES AND THREATENED SPE3 CIES AND DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABI4 TAT.

5 Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

6 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)) is amended by adding at the end the

7 following new paragraph:

8 ‘‘(4) MORATORIUM.—Notwithstanding any

9 other provision of law, during the period beginning

10 on the effective date of this paragraph and ending

11 on the first day thereafter that occurs in a fiscal

12 year for which amounts are specifically authorized

13 by this Act to be appropriated to carry out this Act,

14 the Secretary may not—

15 ‘‘(A) determine that a species is an endan16 gered species or a threatened species for pur17 poses of this Act; or

18 ‘‘(B) designate any critical habitat of a

19 species under this Act.’’.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7233
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID BELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-370, CA-97-1575-7) Submitted: January 30, 1998 Decided: May 5, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Bell, Appellant Pro Se. David Clahoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bell , Nos. CR-93-370; CA97-1575-7 (D.S.C. July 15, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Mrs. Bonnie C. FARR, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of William E. Farr, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 72-2571

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 18, 1972.

Charles C. Jacobs, Jr., Cleveland, Miss., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Alfred A. Levingston, Cleveland, Miss., for defendant-appellee.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

*

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part. I.

PER CURIAM:

This case presents a novel question under Mississippi law about the interpretation given certain clauses in a life insurance policy. The district court held on summary judgment for the defendant insurance company. We affirm.

After careful analysis of the facts and issues in this case, we find that a full opinion by this court could add little or nothing to the well-reasoned opinion rendered by the district court. See 351 F.Supp. 299 (N.D.Miss., 1972).

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,740
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         933,512
<DEPRECIATION>                               (239,484)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,039,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           232
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,039,467
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               196,972
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  146,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,828
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,808
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,841
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,762)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,841
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17


</TABLE>
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3942

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit the geographic

reclassification of hospitals for purposes of disportionate share hospital

payment adjustments under the Medicare program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 1, 1996

Mr. NEY (for himself, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. CREMEANS, Mr.

CLYBURN, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina,

and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit

the geographic reclassification of hospitals for purposes

of disportionate share hospital payment adjustments

under the Medicare program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3942 IH

1 SECTION 1. MEDICARE HOSPITAL GEOGRAPHIC RECLASSI2 FICATION PERMITTED FOR PURPOSES OF

3 DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE PAYMENT AD4 JUSTMENTS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886(d)(10)(C)(i) of the

6 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(10)(C)(i)) is

7 amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subclause (I);

9 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub10 clause (II) and inserting ‘‘, or’’;

11 (3) by inserting after subclause (II) the follow12 ing:

13 ‘‘(III) eligibility for and amount of additional

14 payment amounts under paragraph (5)(F).’’; and

15 (4) by adding at the end the following:

16 ‘‘Any application approved for purposes of subclause (I)

17 for a fiscal year is deemed to be approved for purposes

18 of subclause (III) for that fiscal year.’’.

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

20 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by

21 subsection (a) shall apply to discharges occurring on

22 or after October 1, 1996.

23 (2) TREATMENT.—The amendment made by

24 subsection (a)(4) shall apply regardless of when an

25 approval of reclassification for purposes of section
3

•HR 3942 IH

1 1886(d)(10)(C)(i)(I) of the Social Security Act oc2 curs.

3 (c) TRANSITION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997.—

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—A hospital that seeks reclas5 sification under section 1886(d)(10)(C)(i)(III) of the

6 Social Security Act for fiscal year 1997 shall be per7 mitted to submit an application for such reclassifica8 tion by not later than 60 days after the date of the

9 enactment of this Act.

10 (2) RECONSIDERATION OF CURRENT APPLICA11 TIONS.—In the case of an application of a hospital

12 for reclassification under section

13 1886(d)(10)(C)(i)(I) of such Act that was submitted

14 before the date of the enactment of this Act and

15 that is pending or was denied as of such date, the

16 application shall be treated as an application de17 scribed in paragraph (1) if the hospital submits a

18 written request for treatment under this paragraph

19 to the Medicare Geographic Classification Review

20 Board not later than 60 days after the date of the

21 enactment of this Act.

Æ
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





In connection with the annual report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 20122222 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Marc L. Baker, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ Marc L. Baker





Marc L. Baker


Acting Chief Financial Officer


Dated: November 1, 2012





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Trustees of Michigan Regional Council 

of Carpenters’ Employee Benefits Funds, 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 09-13453

Lori Farlow d/b/a Lakeside Interiors, Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.

____________________________________/

OPINION GRANTING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

This is an ERISA action in which several Plaintiff Trust Funds seek recovery of allegedly

delinquent fringe benefits owed by Defendant. The matter is currently before the Court on

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default Judgment. A hearing was held on December 3, 2009. 

For the reasons that follow, the Court shall GRANT the motion and enter a default judgment in

favor of Plaintiffs. 

The Plaintiffs Trust Funds filed this action against Defendant Lori Farlow d/b/a Lakeside

Interiors (“Defendant”) on September 1, 2009. Plaintiff allege that Defendant has violated its

contractual and statutory obligations by failing to make certain fringe benefit contributions to

Plaintiffs on behalf of Defendant’s employees. 

The docket reflects that Defendant was served on September 15, 2009 and an answer was

therefore due on October 5, 2009. Nevertheless, as of October 14, 2009, Defendant had not

appeared in the action or filed an answer.

On October 14, 2009, Plaintiffs requested a Clerk’s Entry of Default because Defendant

2:09-cv-13453-SFC-DAS Doc # 12 Filed 01/05/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 36
had not yet filed an answer or otherwise appeared in this action. A Clerk’s Entry of Default was

entered on October 15, 2009.

Plaintiffs now seek entry of a default judgment.

Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a “judgment by default

shall not be different in kind from or exceed in amount that prayed for in the demand for

judgment.” FED. R. CIV. P. 54(c). 

Here, Plaintiffs are not requesting any relief not sought in the complaint. Plaintiffs are

seeking $53,552.56 in unpaid fringe benefit contributions owed by Defendants. In support of

their motion, Plaintiffs submitted an affidavit of auditor Ken Whatley. (Docket Entry No. 9).

Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion and supporting materials, it is ORDERED that

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. A Default Judgment shall be issued forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: January 5, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

January 5, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-13453-SFC-DAS Doc # 12 Filed 01/05/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 37
#### BUTITTA v. J. C. PENNY CO., Inc.

No. 4962.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 1, 1935.

Fink & Fink, of Monroe, for appellant.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment rejecting the demands of plaintiff in a suit for damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff was al*163lowed to prosecute the suit in forma pauperis. The record, as lodged in this court, does not contain a note of evidence, and, after same was lodged here appellant filed a motion in which she set out that the deputy clerk and court reporter had failed and refused to transcribe the stenographic notes of the evidence taken on trial thereof, and prayed that this court order and direct the said deputy clerk and court reporter to transcribe and place in the record the note of evidence.

This court is without jurisdiction to issue the order prayed for. The court reporter, who is a deputy clerk, is an officer of the Fourth judicial district court in and for Ouachita parish, La., which court has jurisdiction to compel the officers thereof to perform their duties. Appellant has not exhausted his remedy before the district court. State ex rel. Allen R. Gentry v. O’Quinn, 5 La. App. 703.

Appellant properly perfected her appeal in the case, and should not be allowed to lose her right to an appeal through the fault or negligence of the clerk in failing to transcribe and file in this court the note of evidence. It therefore follows that the case will have to be remanded in order for the record to be completed, and it is so ordered; costs of the case to await a final determination thereof.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6466** 

DARRON JERMAINE JONES , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
KEITH WHITENER , Respondent

– Appellee, and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:11

- h c - 02099

- FL )

Submi t ted : June 14 , 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Darron Jermaine Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Darron Jermaine Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeala bility. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prison er satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 3 36

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Sla ck , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispe nse with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2006

The undersigned executive officers of BCSB Bancorp, Inc. (the Registrant) hereby certify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                     |  |        |  |                         
|-------------------- |  | ------ |  | ------------------------
|                     |  | By:    |  | /s/ Joseph J. Bouffard  
|                     |  | Name:  |  | Joseph J.Bouffard       
|                     |  | Title: |  | President               
|                     |  |       
|                     |  | By:    |  | /s/ Anthony R. Cole     
|                     |  | Name:  |  | Anthony R. Cole         
|                     |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President
|                     |  |       
|Date: March 21, 2008 |  |        |  |
Exhibit 99.1

                              [Company Letterhead]

                                 June 12, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Judiciary Plaza

Washington, DC  20549

         Re:      CONFIRMATION OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN REPRESENTATIONS

      This letter confirms that Arch Wireless, Inc. has received from Arthur
Andersen LLP, the independent public accountant engaged by the company to
examine the company's financial statements that are included in the Form 10-K/A
to which this letter is filed as an exhibit, a representation letter addressed
to the company and stating that:

      o  the audit conducted by Andersen was subject to Andersen's quality
         control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
         reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
         with professional standards; and

      o  there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on
         audits, availability of national office consultation and availability
         of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the relevant
         portions of the audit.

                                Very truly yours,

                                ARCH WIRELESS, INC.


                                By: /S/ J. ROY POTTLE
                                   -----------------------
                                   Name: J. Roy Pottle
                                   Title:  Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, D. Brian Robertson, hereby certifies, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Freshwater
      Technologies, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2010 (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 Freshwater Technologies, Inc.                                                                 

Dated: May 14, 2010

| | /s/ D. Brian Robertson                    
| | ------------------------------------------
| | D. Brian Robertson                        
| | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and    
| | Director                                  
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
| | Accounting Officer)                       

---