alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

APPOINTMENT TO JUDICIAL

CONDUCT BOARD :

:

:

:

: N O

. 950

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1 3 th day of June , 202 3

, Marie Conley, Dauphin County, is hereby

appointed as a member of the Judicial Conduct Board for a term expiring January 20,

2024.
Case 1:06-cv-00231-PB   Document 17   Filed 11/06/06   Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1022 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 183
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1022

                          [Report No. 107-305]

    To amend title 4, United States Code, to make sure the rules of 
etiquette for flying the flag of the United States do not preclude the 
 flying of flags at half mast when ordered by city and local officials.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2001

Mr. Doolittle introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

                           November 29, 2001

  Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
       House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
                  [Insert the part printed in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 4, United States Code, to make sure the rules of 
etiquette for flying the flag of the United States do not preclude the 
 flying of flags at half mast when ordered by city and local officials.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Community Recognition Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FLAG CODE AMENDMENT.

    Section 7(m) of title 4, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after the sentence beginning ``In the event of the death of a 
present or former official of the government of any State'' the 
following: ``In the event of the death of a present or former official 
of any city or other locality, the chief elected official of that 
locality may proclaim that the National flag shall be flown at half 
staff.''.

                                                 Union Calendar No. 183

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1022

                          [Report No. 107-305]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To amend title 4, United States Code, to make sure the rules of 
etiquette for flying the flag of the United States do not preclude the 
 flying of flags at half mast when ordered by city and local officials.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 29, 2001

  Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
       House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Wanjiku Thiongo

v. Case No. 04-cv-387-PB

United States of America

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 25, Motion for Certificate 

of Appealability

Ruling: Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right. As I explained when I resolved

the issue of fact on which the present motion is based, the

prosecutor gave notice of her promises not to prosecute certain

witnesses to the defense. Motion denied. 

Entered by: Paul Barbadoro, District Judge

Date: August 22,2005

cc: John J.E. Markham, II, Esq.

Janis F. Lint, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA 

Case 1:04-cv-00387-PB Document 27 Filed 08/22/05 Page 1 of 1
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 Maritime Commission

Notice is hereby given that the Order revoking the following license is being rescinded by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515.

*License Number:*                     020747N.                

*Name:*                     Prime Logistics Int'l, Inc.                

*Address:*                     6900 N.W. 84th Avenue, Miami, FL 33166.                

*Order Published:*                     FR: 08/20/08 (Volume 73, No. 162, Pg. 49204).                

Sandra L. Kusumoto,

Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.

[FR Doc. E8-21768 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

JOSE EMMANUEL VACA-SALDANA, 

Defendant. 

8:23MJ233 

ORDER 

 

THIS MATTER is before the court on the motion of Richard H. McWilliams to withdraw 

as counsel for the defendant, Jose Emmanuel Vaca-Saldana (Filing No. 15). Thomas M. Petersen 

has filed an entry of appearance as retained counsel for Jose Emmanuel Vaca-Saldana. Therefore, 

Richard H. McWilliams’ motion to withdraw (Filing No. 15) will be granted. 

Richard H. McWilliams shall forthwith provide Thomas M. Petersen any discovery 

materials provided to the defendant by the government and any such other materials obtained by 

Richard H. McWilliams which are material to Jose Emmanuel Vaca-Saldana’s defense. 

The clerk shall provide a copy of this order to Thomas M. Petersen. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated this 27th day of April, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00111-BCB-SMB Doc # 16 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 19
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Covance Inc. (“Covance”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph L. Herring, Chairman of the Boardand Chief Executive Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)   TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Covance.

 

 
| Date:  | May 5, 2008                    |   |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |                                |
|   |                                |
|   | /s/ Joseph L. Herring               |   |
|   |  Joseph L. Herring             |
|   |  Chairman of the Board and     |
|   |  Chief Executive Officer       |
|   |  (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000832 15-OCT-2018 07:55 AM
altn_ex106.htm

EXHIBIT 10.6
  
SECOND AMENDMENT 
TO THE
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING AGREEMENT
 
This SECOND AMENDMENT is to modify, delete and add certain terms and conditions to that certain Professional Consulting Agreement by and between Roberto Forlani and Power Clouds Inc., a Nevada corporation (“PWCL”) signed by both parties on November 12, 2015, with an effective date of January 1, 2016, and subsequently assigned on December 30, 2016 to TELENERGIA EUROPE SRL, a ROMANIAN corporation with registered address of Strada Madrigalului 42A, Apartment 4, 2nd room (“TES”) (the “Agreement”).
 
Unless otherwise indicated, terms used herein that are defined in the Agreement shall have the same meanings herein as in the Agreement.
 
The parties hereto agree as follows:
 
1. Immediately effective upon the full execution of this Amendment, TES hereby agrees to reduce its annual fees to One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000) per year. 
 
2. In accordance with the above, Section 4.1 of the Agreement shall be modified so that it reads as follows:
 
4.1 Base Fee. As compensation for TES's performance of its duties hereunder, Company shall pay to TES a quarterly fee of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) payable quarterly in advance pursuant to invoices submitted by TES. In the event this Agreement is terminated by either party, for any reason, TES will be compensated in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in Section 6 below.
 
Except as herein modified, all the terms and conditions of the above referenced Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict between this Second Amendment and the Agreement, the provisions of this Second Amendment shall prevail.
 
The parties hereby agree that signatures transmitted and received via facsimile or other electronic means shall be treated for all purposes of this Second Amendment as original signatures and shall be deemed valid, binding and enforceable by and against both parties.
 
BOTH PARTIES HERETO REPRESENT THAT THEY HAVE READ THIS SECOND AMENDMENT, UNDERSTAND IT, AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS STATED HEREIN, AND ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A SIGNED, TRUE AND EXACT COPY OF THIS AMENDMENT.
 
Second Amendment
Professional Consulting Agreement
 
Initials: _______
Power Clouds Initials: ______
 
	 
	1
	
 
	 


  
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have agreed to amend the terms and conditions of the Second Amendment.
 
	 	POWER CLOUDS INC.	
	 	 	 	 
		By:	/s/ Vincent Browne	
	 
	Name: 
	Vincent Browne
	 
	 	Its: 	Chief Executive Officer
	 
	 
	Date:
	November 8, 2017
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	TELENERGIA EUROPE SRL
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	By: 
	/s/ Francesco Messina
	 

	 
	Name: 
	Francesco Messina
	 

	 
	Its: 
	Sole Director
	 

	 
	Date: 
	November 8, 2017
	 



 
Second Amendment
Professional Consulting Agreement
 
	 
	2
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 1 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 2 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 3 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 4 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 5 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 6 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 7 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 8 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 9 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 10 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 11 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 12 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 13 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 14 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 15 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 16 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 17 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 18 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 19 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 20 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 21 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 22 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 23 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 24 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 25 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 26 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 27 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 28 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 29 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 30 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 31 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 32 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 33 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 34 of 35
Case 1:04-cv-00104-PB Document 1-3 Filed 03/22/04 Page 35 of 35
#### The State, ex rel. Rabb, Gdn., *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio.

(No. 24473

Decided February 28, 1934.)

*Mr. Ben B. Robb,*for relator.

*Mr. John W. Brisker,*attorney general, and *Mr. R. R. Zurmehly,*for respondent.

*586This cause came on to be heard upon the petition of the relator for a writ of mandamus, the amended answer and the reply thereto, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged by this court that the writ be, and the same hereby is, denied.

It appears from the pleadings that relator’s ward, John Lentz, on November 6, 1922, was injured while in the employ of an employer which was a contributor to the workmen’s compensation fund; that temporary total compensation was paid to relator’s ward from November 6, 1922, to May 13, 1923, in the sum of $366.14, and that on said last named date permanent partial award was granted to relator’s ward in the sum of $1,416.00; that checks for such compensation were made payable to relator’s ward until on or about July 18,' 1924, when respondents were advised that relator’s ward was arrested, found guilty and committed to the workhouse for nonsupport, and the respondents were directed by the court of common pleas to forward compensation to relator’s ward in care of the humane society, for the benefit of the family of the relator’s ward; and that since receiving said direction from the court of common pleas payments were made by the respondents in accordance therewith; and that all awards granted by the respondents have been paid in full.

The respondents having exercised the discretion vested in them by Rule 18 of the Industrial Commission of Ohio and made full payment from the workmen’s compensation fund, for the injuries sustained by relator’s ward, a writ of mandamus is therefore denied. *State, ex rel. Van Harlingen,*v. *Board of Edn. of Mad River Twp. Rural School Dist.,*104 Ohio St., 360.

*TXT ‘4 J • J Writ denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-100-JD

HemCon, Inc.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

Following jury selection on April 14, 2010, the court

directed counsel to file “bullet proffers” of the testimony to be

given by certain witnesses, the scope of whose testimony has been

addressed by prior orders in response to certain motions in

limine. As discussed with counsel, “bullet proffers” shall be

filed for Dr. John Michael Dornish, Dr. Simon McCarthy, Dr. Paul

Sanford, and Dr. Robert S. Langer. Counsel shall include

specific citations to the appropriate source (such as the expert

report, interrogatory answer, or deposition), with page,

paragraph and/or line numbers, for each bullet proffer. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 15, 2010

cc: Julie M. Baher, Esquire

Garet K. Galster, Esquire

Daniel R. Johnson, Esquire

Heather E. Krans, Esquire

Joseph A. Kromholz, Esquire

Lynda Q. Nguyen, Esquire

Brian M. Poissant, Esquire

Daniel D. Ryan, Esquire

Ognian V. Shentov, Esquire

Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire

Daniel E. Will, Esquire

Leigh S. Willey, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 305 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Snyder *v.*School District of Greensburg Borough, Appellant.

*Equity*— Equity *practice*— Preliminary *injunction*— Appeals— *Practice, Supreme Cjourt.*

1. On appeal from a decree granting or refusing a preliminary injunction the Supreme Court will not consider the merits of the controversy but will determine only, whether on the facts de-' veloped, an injunction should have been granted or refused.

2. Where on appeal from a decree in equity continuing until final hearing an injunction restraining defendant school directors from collecting a tax, issuing bonds and acquiring land for a school building, it appeared that there was a finding by the lower court that the undertaking on which the school directors proposed to enter would increase the indebtedness of the school district beyond the legal limit, the Supreme Court would not further consider the merits of the controversy and affirmed the decree.

Argued Oct. 2, 1914.

Appeal, No. 171, Oct. T., 1914, by defendants, from decree of O. P. Westmoreland Co., *570Equity Docket, 1914, No. 867, awarding an injunction, in case of C. E. Snyder v. Directors of the School District of the Borough of Greensburg, E. M. Gross, President, John Robb Clarke, Secretary of said Board, and E. P. Scott, Tax Collector of said District.

Before Fell, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, J.J.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity for an injunction. Before Doty, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

The court granted a preliminary injunction, which was continued until final hearing. Defendants appealed.

*Error assigned*was the decree of the court.

*James S. Moorhead*and *Robert W. Smith,*for appellant.

*Albert H. Bell, Cecil E. Heller*and *James S. Beacom,*with them *David L. Newill*and *J. Clarke Bell,*for appellee.

October 26, 1914 :

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from a decree modifying and continuing until final hearing a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from collecting a tax, from issuing bonds and from acquiring by purchase or condemnation certain land for the purpose of erecting a school building thereon. It was found by the learned judge of the Common Pleas that the undertaking on which the school directors proposed to enter would increase the indebtedness of the district beyond the legal limit. Other objections to the proposed action by the directors were left by the court for consideration on final hearing. Manifestly they should be so left by us. We see no reason for departing from the established practice of this court on an appeal from the granting *571or refusing of a preliminary injunction to express no opinion on the merits of the controversy until after final hearing and decree and to determine only whether on the facts developed an injunction should have been granted or refused: Ross Common Water Co. v. Blue Mountain Water Co., 228 Pa. 235.

The decree is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Emil Coffey, Jr., Appellant

No. 06

- 16

- 00180

- CR v. The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 403rd District Court of Travis County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. D

- 1

- DC

15

- 203099 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
We note that the appellant, Emil Coffey, Jr., has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 13 , 2017 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Presidential Determination No. 2008-24 of August 15, 2008

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the Secretary of Defense

# Continuation of U.S. Drug Interdiction Assistance to the Government of Colombia

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2291-4), I hereby certify, with respect to Colombia, that (1) interdiction of aircraft reasonably suspected to be primarily engaged in illicit drug trafficking in that country's airspace is necessary because of the extraordinary threat posed by illicit drug trafficking to the national security of that country; and (2) that country has appropriate procedures in place to protect against innocent loss of life in the air and on the ground in connection with such interdiction, which shall at a minimum include effective means to identify and warn an aircraft before the use of force is directed against the aircraft.

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the 
                    *Federal Register*
                     and to notify the Congress of this determination.



[FR Doc. E8-21974 Billing code 4710-10-P
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00374

- CR

Z ACHARY A UGUSTE K ITCHEN

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 297th District

Court

of Ta rrant County (1478907D)

April 4 , 2019

Opinion by Justice Bassel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT ON REHEARING

After reviewing the State’s motion for rehearing, we deny the motion. We

withdraw our December 31, 2018 opinion and judgment and substitute the following.

Th is court has again considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt and the judgment nunc

pro tunc . The judgment adjudicating guilt is modified to delete $420 from the order

to wi thdraw funds so that it reflects that $0 should be withdrawn from A ppellant’s

inmate trust account, and we delete the line in the judgment adjudicating guilt that

states, “REPARATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $420.” T he judgment nunc protunc is modified to state , “While on community supervision, Defendant violated the

terms and conditions of community supervision as set out in the State’s ORIGINAL

Motion to Adjudicate Guilt as attached: PARAGRAPHS ONE, THREE, FOUR,

AND FIVE.” It is ordered that the judgment adj udicating guilt and the judgment

nunc pro tunc are affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

Justice Dabney Bassel