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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 448

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health

Service Act with respect to myelogram-related arachnoiditis.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 9, 1995

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and

the Public Health Service Act with respect to myelogramrelated arachnoiditis.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Myelogram-Related

5 Arachnoiditis Amendments of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. ADULTERATED MYELOGRAMS.

7 Section 501 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

8 Act (21 U.S.C. 351) is amended by adding at the end the

9 following:
2

•HR 448 IH

1 ‘‘(j) If it is a myelogram involving the use of

2 Pantopaque, Amipaque, Omipacque, or Isovue.’’.

3 SEC. 3. MYELOGRAM-RELATED ARACHNOIDITIS; ACTIVI4 TIES OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEURO5 LOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE.

6 Subpart 10 of part C of title IV of the Public Health

7 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285j et seq.) is amended by adding

8 at the end the following section:

9 ‘‘MYELOGRAM-RELATED ARACHNOIDITIS

10 ‘‘SEC. 459A. With respect to individuals who have

11 undergone the diagnostic procedure known as a

12 myelogram and who have subsequently developed cases of

13 arachnoiditis, the Director of the Institute shall—

14 ‘‘(1) conduct or support a study to develop an

15 estimate of the number of such individuals in the

16 United States;

17 ‘‘(2) conduct or support research to determine

18 the extent to which such cases are associated with

19 the use of such procedure; and

20 ‘‘(3) conduct or support research on treatments

21 for such cases in such individuals, including treat22 ments to manage pain.’’.

Æ
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 624

To amend section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to permit

the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to reduce the maximum monthly rents in effect for certain projects receiving assistance

under such section to eliminate material differences in the rents charged

for similar assisted and unassisted units in the same area.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 20, 1995

Mr. THOMAS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To amend section 8 of the United States Housing Act of

1937 to permit the Secretary of Housing and Urban

Development to reduce the maximum monthly rents in

effect for certain projects receiving assistance under such

section to eliminate material differences in the rents

charged for similar assisted and unassisted units in the

same area.

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

3 That section 8(c)(2)(C) of the United States Housing Act

4 of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(c)(2)(C)) is amended by strik-
2

•HR 624 IH

1 ing ‘‘The Secretary may not reduce’’ and all that follows

2 through ‘‘periodic payments of the owner.’’.

Æ
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

December 11, 2001 Session

SUSAN KLAMON WHITON (LEEDOM) v. ALAN LOUIS WHITON

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County

No. 88-109-I Ben W. Hooper, III, Judge

FILED JULY 18, 2002

No. E2000-00467-COA-R3-CV 

DISSENTING OPINION

The majority relied upon Gallaher v. Elam, E2000-02719-COA-R3-CV (January 29,

2002) to hold that Tenn. Com. R. & Regs. 1240-2-4-.03(4) is unconstitutional and void. I

respectfully dissent from this holding and herein rely on my Dissenting Opinion filed in the Gallaher

case.

I otherwise concur with the majority.

_________________________

HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, J.
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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard N. Marshall, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/   RICHARD N. MARSHALL


Richard N. Marshall


Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer





August 5, 2010











This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:03 a.m. on Tuesday, August 5, 2008, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters relating to the Corporation's resolution activities. 

In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, seconded by Mr. Scott Polakoff, acting in the place and stead of Director John M. Reich (Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), concurred in by Director Thomas J. Curry (Appointive), Chairman Sheila C. Bair, and Director John C. Dugan (Director, Comptroller of the Currency), that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii) and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B)). 

The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

Dated: August 5, 2008. 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-18407 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 26, 2010

p0719 

# Order

July 26, 2010

140783

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140783 COA: 285102 St. Clair CC: 07-001697-FH ASMIR MILJKOVIC, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the a pplication for leave to appeal the January 26, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION § OF JAMARR CANNON FOR A WRIT § No. 114, 2018 OF MANDAMUS §

Submitted: March 1 4 , 2018 Decided: March 16 , 2018

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN , Justices.

O R D E R

This 16 th day of March 2018 , upon consideration of the petition of Jamarr

Cannon for a writ of mandamus and the State’s answer and motion to dismiss , it appears to the Court that: (1) The p etitioner , Jamarr Cannon , was convict ed on January 29, 2018 of multiple drug offenses following a bench trial. His sentencing is currently scheduled for March 28, 2018. He filed this petition seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction

of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Superior Court to make additional findings related to its February 15, 2018 Order denying Cannon’s motion

for reconsideration of its denial of his suppression motion. The State has filed a

motion to dismiss Cannon’s petition on the ground that it manifestly fails to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction. We agree

. ( 2 ) A writ of mandamus is designed to compel a trial court to perform a duty if it is shown that: the complainant has a clear right to the performance of the duty; that no other ade quate remedy is available; and that the trial court has2

arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty. 1 A writ of mandamus will not be issued “to compel a trial court to perform a particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, o r to dictate the control of its docket.” 2 (3) A writ of mandamus is not warranted under the present circumstances

because Cannon cannot establish that the Superior Court has arbitrarily refuse d to perform a duty owed to him and that he has no other adequ ate remedy

. Once Cannon is sentenced, then he may appeal to this Court from the Superior Court’s final judgment, which will bring up any interlocutory rulings for review, including the denial of his suppression motion

. 3 This Court has no jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order in a criminal case. 4 Cannon cannot use the extraordinary writ process to overcome that constitutional hurdle. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is D ISMISSED

. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice

1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 2 Id. 3 Middlebrook v. State , 2000 WL 975060 (Del. May 30, 2000). 4 D EL

. C ONST . art IV, § 11(1)(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 526 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 526

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to relieve farmers and retail 
farm suppliers from limitations on maximum driving and on-duty time in 
the transportation of agricultural commodities or farm supplies if such 
transportation occurs within a 100-air mile radius of the source of the 
      commodities or the distribution point for the farm supplies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 1995

 Mr. Bereuter (for himself and Mr. Laughlin) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to relieve farmers and retail 
farm suppliers from limitations on maximum driving and on-duty time in 
the transportation of agricultural commodities or farm supplies if such 
transportation occurs within a 100-air mile radius of the source of the 
      commodities or the distribution point for the farm supplies.

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

SECTION 1. EXCEPTION FOR FARMERS AND FARM SUPPLIERS FROM TRANSPORTATION 
              LIMITATIONS ON MAXIMUM DRIVING AND ON-DUTY TIME.

    (a) Exception for Farmers and Farm Suppliers.--Regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under section 31502 of 
title 49, United States Code, regarding maximum driving and on-duty 
time for drivers used by motor carriers shall not apply to farmers or 
retail farm suppliers transporting agricultural commodities or farm 
supplies for agricultural purposes if such transportation is limited to 
an area within a 100-air mile radius of the source of the commodities 
or the distribution point for the farm supplies.
    (b) Conforming Regulations.--The Secretary shall amend part 395 of 
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to reflect the exception 
provided by subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
Ex 12.1



CERTIFICATION





I, James M. DeMesa, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of MIGENIX Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The companys other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:



a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b)

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



c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)

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



b)

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





|      |                |                               |                        
|----- | -------------- | ----------------------------- | -----------------------
|Date: | July 31, 2006  |                              
|      |                | James M. DeMesa              
|By:   | James DeMesa |                               | Chief Executive Officer
|      |                | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### In the Matter of the Application of Arthur F. O’Brien, Respondent, to Revoke Letters of Administration Issued to Henrietta O’Brien, Appellant, on the Estate *934of Thomas F. O’Brien, Deceased.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION




In connection with the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Stratasys, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December
31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, S. Scott Crump, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:




(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.




Date: March 8, 2010
            By:
            /s/
            S. SCOTT CRUMPS. Scott CrumpChief Executive
  Officer


---
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-1211

_____________________________

NATHANIEL J. BROWN,

Appellant,

v.

PAMELA JO BONDI,

Attorney General of 

Florida, 

Appellee.

___________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James O. Shelfer, Judge.

April 20, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has filed myriad actions in this Court and others 

attacking his 2005 judgment and sentence entered in Duval 

County. See Brown v. State, 229 So. 3d 397 (Mem.) (Fla. 1st DCA 

2017). This appeal is the latest in that collection, and like the 

rest, it is frivolous. 

In 2010, we barred Appellant from “filing any future [pro se] 

appeals, petitions, motions, pleadings or other filings”

challenging his conviction, in part because “those filings ha[ve] 

consumed an inordinate amount of our limited judicial 

resources.” Brown v. State, 35 So. 3d 72, 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). 
2

Apparently unfazed by our warnings, Appellant continued filing 

pro se actions in this Court challenging that conviction. E.g., 

Brown v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 393, 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). In 2017, 

this Court broadened Appellant’s bar to include any further 

filings, unless they are signed by a member in good standing with 

The Florida Bar after rejecting Appellant’s argument that his 

civil litigation should be considered separate from his criminal 

litigation when considering sanctions. Brown v. State, 221 So. 3d 

1284, 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). After barring Appellant twice,

we also warned him that future “violation of this order could 

result in referral to the Department of Corrections for sanctions 

under section 944.279, Florida Statutes.” Brown, 221 So. 3d at 

1284–85. 

That brings us to Appellant’s current appeal. First, we 

dismiss the appeal because Appellant is barred from filing any 

pro se actions in this Court. Second, all pending motions are 

stricken as unauthorized. But because Appellant has yet to heed 

our warnings to stop filing frivolous actions, we also direct a 

certified copy of this opinion be provided to the Department of 

Corrections to be forwarded to the appropriate institution or 

facility for disciplinary procedures pursuant to section 944.279, 

Florida Statutes. 

Finally, we note that Appellant is still barred from filing any

document with this Court that is not signed by a member in good 

standing of The Florida Bar, and the Clerk of this Court is 

directed to reject any further filings by Appellant not signed by a 

member in good standing with The Florida Bar. This includes 

any post-disposition motion filed in this case.

WETHERELL, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331. Any such motion must be signed by a member 

in good standing of The Florida Bar.

_____________________________
3

Nathaniel J. Brown, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General and Charles J. F. Schreiber, 

Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
[J-35-2020 and J-36-2020]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MOHD NASSER ALKASSMI,

Appellant

v.

KATHY BOOCKVAR, PENNSYLVANIA 

SECRETARY OF STATE AND JESSICA

MATHIS, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

ELECTIONS AND NOTARIES IN THEIR 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

Appellees

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 16 MAP 2020

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 135 

MD 2020 dated March 6, 2020

SUBMITTED: March 13, 2020

KELLY ANN RICHARDSON WYATT,

Appellant

v.

KATHY BOOCKVAR, PENNSYLVANIA 

SECRETARY OF STATE AND JESSICA 

MATHIS, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

ELECTIONS AND NOTARIES IN THEIR 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

Appellees

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 17 MAP 2020

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 137 

MD 2020 dated March 6, 2020

SUBMITTED: March 13, 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2020, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is 

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6519

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus CARLOS ALBERTO PEREZ-FULGENCIO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:01-cr-30058-FFF; 7:05-cv-00235-sgw) Submitted: June 16, 2006 Decided: June 26, 2006 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos Alberto Perez-Fulgencio, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Carlos Alberto Perez-Fulgencio seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Perez-Fulgencio that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district courtorder based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, PerezFulgencio failed to object to the magist rate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see alsoThomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Perez-Fulgencio has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED