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

Calendar No. 92

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H.R. 483

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 7 (legislative day, APRIL 5), 1995

Received; read the first time

APRIL 24, 1995

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit

medicare select policies to be offered in all States, and

for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMITTING MEDICARE SELECT POLICIES TO

4 BE OFFERED IN ALL STATES FOR AN EX5 TENDED PERIOD.

6 Section 4358(c) of the Omnibus Budget Reconcili7 ation Act of 1990, as amended by section 172(a) of the

8 Social Security Act Amendments of 1994, is amended to

9 read as follows:
2

HR 483 PCS

1 ‘‘(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—(1) The amendments made

2 by this section shall only apply—

3 ‘‘(A) in 15 States (as determined by the Sec4 retary of Health and Human Services) and such

5 other States as elect such amendments to apply to

6 them, and

‘‘(B) subject to paragraph (2), during the 81 7 ⁄2

8 year period beginning with 1992.

9 ‘‘(2)(A) The Secretary of Health and Human Serv10 ices shall conduct a study that compares the health care

11 costs, quality of care, and access to services under medi12 care select policies with that under other medicare supple13 mental policies. The study shall be based on surveys of

14 appropriate age-adjusted sample populations. The study

15 shall be completed by December 31, 1998.

16 ‘‘(B) The Secretary shall determine during 1999

17 whether the amendments made by this section shall remain in effect beyond the 81 18 ⁄2 year period described in

19 paragraph (1)(B). Such amendments shall remain in ef20 fect beyond such period unless the Secretary determines

21 (based on the results of the study under subparagraph

22 (A)) that—

23 ‘‘(i) such amendments have not resulted in sav24 ings of premiums costs to those enrolled in medicare

25 select policies (in comparison to their enrollment in
3

HR 483 PCS

1 medicare supplemental policies that are not medicare

2 select policies and that provide comparable cov3 erage),

4 ‘‘(ii) there have been significant additional ex5 penditures under the medicare program as a result

6 of such amendments, or

7 ‘‘(iii) access to and quality of care has been sig8 nificantly diminished as a result of such amend9 ments.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives April 6, 1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
Calendar No. 92

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 483

AN ACT

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to

States, and for other purposes.permit medicare select policies to be offered in all

APRIL 24, 1995

Read the second time and placed on the calendar
EXHIBIT
32.2





STATEMENT
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant
to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Sam
Lindsey, Chief Financial Officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies that:





The
Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended March 31, 2009 (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 Company.








/s/
      Sam LindseySam
      Lindsey, Chief Financial OfficerDated:
      June 22, 2009
ctle_ex1013.htm


EXHIBIT 10.13


 


 





 




  





1











  






 






 




  





2











  








 





 




  





3











  






 





 




  





4











  






 





 




  





5











  






 







 




  





6











  








 





 




  





7











  






 





 




  





8











  






 





 


 

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-20272

v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

FRANCIS A. SHARRAK, 

Defendant.

 /

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to continue trial [dkt 24]. Defendant

requests a 90-day extension of the July 12, 2010, trial date. 

The Court finds that Defendant has not shown good cause for an extension. Moreover, this

case has been pending for nearly a year, and the Court has previously granted five extensions in

these proceedings, all at the request of Defendant. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to continue trial

[dkt 24] is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 25, 2010
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on May 25, 2010.

S/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF CEO





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: | September 17, 2004  |                              
|----- | ------------------- | -----------------------------
|      |                     | James M. DeMesa              
|By:   | /s/ James M. DeMesa |                              
|      |                     | (Principal Executive Officer)
No. 12,743.

#### State of Louisiana vs. T. J. Hand.

No appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a verdict and sentence condemning the . defendant to pay a fine of ten dollars, or in the alternative suffer imprisonment in the parish jail for a period of ten days.

A PPEAL from the Sixteenth Judicial Court for Parish of St. Tam- ^ many. *Reid, J.*

*M. J. Cunningham,*Attorney General, for Plaintiff, Appellee.

*Charles T. Madison*and *Charles J. Boatner*for Defendant, Appellant.

*1077Submitted on briefs June 4, 1898.

Opinion handed down June 13, 1898.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Watkins, J.

The defendant was indicted for the offence of wilfuly and unlawfully failing and refusing to work the public road in violation of the provisions of Act No. 117 of 1896, and having been found guilty and sentenced by the court to pay a fine of ten dollars and costs, and in default of payment of fine that he be confined in the parish jail for a period of ten days, he prosecutes this appeal.

In this court the Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction *ratione materim*to entertain the same, because the defendant is charged with a simple misdemeanor, the puntshment of which is not less than five dollars, nor more than twenty-five dollars, and in default of payment of the fine assessed imprisonment in the parish jail of not less than ten nor more thirty days.

The motion is well taken and the appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT
32.1.


Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








We,
Juhani Taskinen, Chief Executive Officer, and Trupti Mehta, Principal Accounting
Officer, of Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based
upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period September 30,
2008 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"):





(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
Registrant.








Date:
            
            November 13,
      2008
            
            By:
            /s/  Juhani
      TaskinenJuhani
      Taskinen, Chief Executive Officer





By:
            /s/  Trupti
      MehtaTrupti
      Mehta, Chief Accounting Officer/CFO








* A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.73


 


 Pledge Contract


 


 ABC(2012)2002
13100220130061344


 


Pledgor : Shijie Kaiyuan Auto Trade Co., Ltd


 


Pledgee
: Agricultural Bank of China, Shijiazhuang North City Branch


 


Signing Date :October 30, 2013


 


Pledge Definition :   To ensure multiple loans Party
B (Pledgee) has lent to Shijie Kaiyuan Auto Trade Co., Ltd., Party A (Pledgor) is willing to provide Real Estate pledge hereunder
for Party B.


 


Maximum Amount: RMB 320,817,500
**Exhibit
      23**




**Consent
      of Cobitz, VandenBerg & Fennessy**







**Cobitz,
      VandenBerg & Fennessy**


**CERTIFIED
      PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**


**9944
      S. Roberts Road • Suite 202**


**Palos
      Hills, Illinois 60465**


**―**


**(708)
      430-4106 • FAX (708) 430-4499**




**INDEPENDENT
      AUDITOR’S CONSENT**




We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference and use of our report, dated February
      15, 2008 on the consolidated financial statements of AMB Financial Corp. which
      appears in AMB Financial Corp.’s Annual Report of Shareholders and Form 10-KSB
      for the year ended December 31, 2007.










March
      26,
      2008


Palos
      Hills, Illinois
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EARLAND COLLINS,

Plaintiff, Civil Case No.

 08-CV-14881

vs.

 PAUL D. BORMAN

WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S OUTSTANDING MOTIONS RELATING TO A

CASE THAT WAS CLOSED ON DECEMBER 22, 2008

On December 22, 2008, the Court dismissed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff did not appeal.

On June 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Motion for Denial of Amendment V Due

Process of Law to File A Complete Federal Complaint Under 42 U.S.C. 1983 Civil Rights and

Denial of Amendment XIV Due Process of Law (in forma pauperis).” See docket entry 10.

On June 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Motion Requesting Court Record’s Or

Destroyed By Courthouse Appointment Attorney.” See docket entry 11.

The Court has read both motions and is unable to determine, with any degree of certainty,

what Plaintiff is asking of it. In the first motion, Plaintiff appears to take issue with the Court’s

decision to dismiss his case back in 2008. However, the time to appeal or seek reconsideration of

the Court’s judgment has long expired. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff requests a reexamination of the

merits of his case, the motion is denied. To the extent Plaintiff requests something else, the motion

is denied because the Court cannot discern what relief is being requested.
2

In the second motion, Plaintiff appears to be requesting a copy of some or all of the court

documents relating to this case. These documents are publicly available and may be obtained

through the Clerk’s office.

The underlying case remains closed.

SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 14, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

June 14, 2010.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2753

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Matthew Paul Casas

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin

____________

 Submitted: February 3, 2016

Filed: February 5, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Paul Casas directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court

1

after he pled guilty to distributing and possessing child pornography. His counsel has

The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.
moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, this court dismisses the appeal.

Casas’s appeal waiver should be enforced and prevents consideration of his

claim. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review

of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886,

889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss

appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered

into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result). An

independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), reveals

no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 

The appeal is dismissed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

-2-
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 451

To amend the independent counsel provisions of title 28, United States

Code, to authorize the appointment of an independent counsel when

the Attorney General determines that Department of Justice attorneys

have engaged in certain conduct.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 9, 1995

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the independent counsel provisions of title 28,

United States Code, to authorize the appointment of

an independent counsel when the Attorney General determines that Department of Justice attorneys have engaged in certain conduct.

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENT

4 OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.

5 Section 592(c) of title 28, United States Code, is

6 amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (A),

7 by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and
2

•HR 451 IH

1 inserting ‘‘; or’’, and by adding after subparagraph (B)

2 the following:

3 ‘‘(C) the Attorney General, upon completion of

4 a preliminary examination under this chapter, deter5 mines that there are reasonable grounds to believe

6 that—

7 ‘‘(i) attorneys of the Department of Jus8 tice have engaged in prosecutorial misconduct,

9 corruption, or fraud, and

10 ‘‘(ii) further investigation is warranted.’’.

Æ
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

Case No: 09-12152

v.

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

AUTO RAIL LOGISTICS, INC., and

AUTO WAREHOUSING CO., and

JOHN CORRIGAN,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

I. Introduction

On July 30, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 19). 

That same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 20). 

The Court DENIES both motions. 

II. Standard of Review and Analysis 

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure

materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In

reviewing a motion for summary judgment, “the evidence as well as all inferences drawn

therefrom must be read in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” 

Kochins v. Linden-Alimak, Inc., 799 F.2d 1128, 1133 (6th Cir. 1986). A genuine issue

of material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
2

verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986). 

The Court denies both parties’ motions; multiple genuine issues of material fact

exist, including, but not limited to:

• Whether Plaintiff was entitled to FMLA benefits for any period

between December 26, 2007 and January 8, 2008;

• Whether Defendants terminated Plaintiff for failure to produce a

medical certification or for suspected abuse of sick leave;

• Whether Defendants removed Plaintiff from the work schedule or

told him not to return to work, until he produced an adequate

medical certification;

• Whether Defendants had a legitimate reason, unrelated to the

exercise of Plaintiff’s FMLA rights, for terminating Plaintiff;

• Whether Plaintiff violated any notice procedure or sick leave policy

of Defendants;

• Whether Plaintiff’s “last chance agreement” covered tardiness and

absences. 

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: November 24, 2010

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

November 24, 2010.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk
192 La. 388

#### SUCCESSION of HEINIG.

No. 35216.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 3, 1939.

Walter W. Wright, of New Orleans, for appellee Dudley C. Foley, Jr.

Robert Guerard Hughes, of New Orleans, for appellant Mrs. Johanna Schenck, wife of Charles Murphy.

LAND, Justice.

Dudley C. Foley, Jr., as agent and attorney in fact of Herman Heinig, nonresident and husband of decedent, applied for letters of administration in the above succession, alleging that decedent, also a non-resident, had left community property and effects within the jurisdiction of the court, consisting mainly of a certain piece of real estate and rentals due thereon, and that Herman Hejnig was the surviving spouse in community; that there are debts due by the estate of the decedent, as well as debts due to the estate, and that an administration is necessary.

An opposition to the appointment of Dudley C. Foley, Jr., as administrator, was filed by Mrs. Johanna Schenck, wife of Charles Murphy, who alleged that she is a resident of the City of New Orleans; that she is a sister of decedent; that decedent left no -'forced heirs; that the property left by her within the jurisdiction of the Gourt is her separate property; and that opponent, as an heir of decedent, is entitled to the administration thereof.

The opposition of Mrs. Charles Murphy was dismissed, and from the judgment appointing Dudley C. Foley, Jr., as administrator, opponent has suspensively appealed, and- has executed and filed bond in the lower court, in the sum of $200, the amount fixed by the judge.

Dudley C. Foley, Jr., administrator and appellee, has moved to dismiss the appeal at the cost of appellant.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is without merit. Under articles 580 and 1059 of the Code of Practice, a suspensive appeal cannot be taken from a judgment appointing an administrator of a succession, after the determination of the necessity for the appointment by the judge.

However, a suspensive appeal from a judgment appointing an administrator, though not permitted under articles 580 and 1059 of the Code of Practice, will not be set aside, where appellant, as in the case at bar, has furnished bond in the amount fixed by the judge, but will be maintained as a devolutive appeal. Succession of Pavelka, 157 La. 480, 102 So. 579.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that the order of appeal herein granted from the judgment dismissing the opposition of Mrs. Johanna Schenck, wife of Charles Murphy, to the application of Dudley C. Foley, Jr., agent and attorney in fact of Herman Heinig, to be appointed administrator of the succession ot Mrs. Herman Heinig, be and is hereby decreed to operate devolutively and not suspensively-

It is further ordered that the motion to dismiss the appeal, filed by appellee, Dudley C. Foley, Jr., administrator, be and is hereby denied and overruled.

HIGGINS, J., absent.