alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{C0244328.1 }

Law Offices of 

Sulloway & Hollis, P.L.L.C. 

Concord, N.H. 03302 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Evangelos Pashos, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Life Insurance Company of North 

America and Parlex Corporation, 

 Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 

 Case No. 1:06-cv-21 

 

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff 

Evangelos Pashos and defendants Life Insurance Company of North America and Parlex 

Corporation hereby stipulate that the plaintiff's claims against defendants in this 

matter be dismissed with prejudice. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 EVANGELOS PASHOS 

 By His Attorneys, 

 MCDOWELL & OSBURN, P.A. 

DATED: October 19, 2006 By: /s/ David S.V. Shirley #12538 

 David S.V. Shirley, Esq. 

 Bar No. 12538 

 282 River Road 

P.O. Box 3360 

Manchester, NH 03105 

(603)623-9300 

e-mail: dshirley@mcdowell-osburn.com 

Case 1:06-cv-00021-PB Document 26 Filed 10/19/06 Page 1 of 2
{C0244328.1 } 2

Law Offices of 

Sulloway & Hollis, P.L.L.C. 

Concord, N.H. 03302 

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA 

and PARLEX CORPORATION 

 By Their Attorneys, 

 SULLOWAY & HOLLIS, P.L.L.C. 

DATED: October 19, 2006 By: /s/ William D. Pandolph #5579 

 William D. Pandolph, Esq. 

 Bar No. 5579 

 9 Capitol Street 

 P.O. Box 1256 

 Concord, NH 03302-1256 

 (603)224-2341 

 e-mail: wpandolph@sulloway.com 

Case 1:06-cv-00021-PB Document 26 Filed 10/19/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.9

        The development and production of Seaweed Iodine Food Supplement

             Transfer technique and Joint R&D cooperation Agreement*

Harbin Three-Happiness Bioengineering Co., Ltd. (referred "Party A") ,and Ocean
Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (referred as "Party B")
agree to do further research on Seaweed Iodine Food Supplement project, which
was approved by Ministry of Health.

On the previous work basis, both parties agree the following items after
friendly discussion together:

Item 1: Each party makes use of its own advantages to research and develop
Seaweed Iodine jointly and find out how to produce new products of Seaweed
Iodine Food series.

Item 2. The term is five years, commencing from January 8, 1999 to January 8,
2004.

Item 3. Party A is responsible to provide facilities, equipments and research
fees. Party B is responsible for technique development, product process, and
related service.

Item 4. Obligations and rights of both parties

Party A agrees to pay [Y]2.2million (RMB yuan). Party A agrees to pay the
initial [ ]0.4 million in ten days from this agreements goes into effect, the
rest part will be paid up by paying [Y]0.45 million every years. If Party A
becomes a public company in China, then [Y]1 millon will be paid to Party B, the
bonus will be paid in one month commencing form get listed. In addition, Party A
agrees to pay Party B ten percent of profit, subject to a good revenue.

Item 5. Both parties won't burden related obligations in joint liability of the
other side, and Party A is responsible to do sales.

Item 6. If each party fails to implement his obligations expressed hereby ,then
he will do compensation to the other side this agreement will terminated
automatically.

Item 7. Both parties will adjust the cooperation method depending quantity and
outcome increase accordingly.

Item 8. Make improvement towards Seaweed Iodine Food Supplement during
cooperation, as well as develop new products.

Chop of Harbin Three-Happiness Bioengineering Co., Ltd.
Chop of Ocean Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences


*Translation from Chinese original
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1231 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1231

To amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 to 
     allow for increased use of school resource officers by local 
                         educational agencies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2001

     Ms. Dunn (for herself, Mr. Smith of Washington, and Mr. Wamp) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 to 
     allow for increased use of school resource officers by local 
                         educational agencies.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES 
              ACT OF 1994.

    Section 4116(c) of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities 
Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 7116(c)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(c) Authority To Use School Resource Officers.--
            ``(1) In general.--In meeting the program requirements 
        under subsection (a), a local educational agency may use up to 
        100 percent of the amount of funds that it receives under this 
        subpart for a fiscal year to establish and operate school-based 
        partnerships between local law enforcement agencies and local 
        school systems by using school resource officers who operate in 
        and around elementary and secondary schools to combat school-
        related crime and disorder problems, gangs, and drug 
        activities.
            ``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `school 
        resource officer' has the meaning given the term in section 
        1709(4) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
        1968.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### MARQUETTE CASUALTY CO. v. Proctor SIMMONS et al.

No. 8183.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 25, 1954.

Morgan, Baker & Skeels, Shreveport, for appellant.

Lunn, Irion, Switzer, Trichel & Johnson, Shreveport, for appellees.

Before HARDY, GLADNEY and AYRES, JJ.

HARDY, Judge.

This is a suit by plaintiff insurer, as subrogee, for recovery of damages paid to its insured. There was judgment rejecting plaintiff’s demands, from which plaintiff has appealed.

*479This case is a companion case, consolidated for trial and consideration on appeal, with the case of Simmons v. Willis, La.App., 73 So.2d 475, which has been this day decided. For the reasons set forth in the opinion in the said styled and numbered case, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.
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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1773-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1773-DR), dated June 25, 2008, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         September 8, 2008.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 25, 2008.

Callaway County for Individual Assistance.

Chariton, Harrison, and Macon Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance.)

Adair, Monroe, and Putnam Counties for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance.

Knox, Randolph, Saline, Schuyler, Scotland, and Worth Counties for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E8-21657 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1424

To amend the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention

Act to direct the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe rules that

prohibit certain deceptive and abusive recovery practices in connection

with telemarketing.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. BACA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and

Abuse Prevention Act to direct the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe rules that prohibit certain deceptive

and abusive recovery practices in connection with telemarketing.

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 ‘‘Deceptive and Abusive

5 Recovery Practices in Telemarketing Prevention Act’’.
2

•HR 1424 IH

1 SEC. 2. RULES PROHIBITING CERTAIN DECEPTIVE AND

2 ABUSIVE RECOVERY PRACTICES IN CONNEC3 TION WITH TELEMARKETING.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(a) of the Telemarketing

5 and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15

6 U.S.C. 6102(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing:

8 ‘‘(4) RULES PROHIBITING CERTAIN DECEPTIVE

9 AND ABUSIVE RECOVERY PRACTICES.—(A) The

10 Commission shall prescribe under this section rules

11 that prohibit requesting or receiving payment of any

12 fee or consideration to—

13 ‘‘(i) obtain, or assist in obtaining, any good

14 or service for which money or any item of value

15 was paid by a person in a previous tele16 marketing transaction; or

17 ‘‘(ii) recover, or assist in recovering, money

18 or any other item of value paid by a person in

19 a previous telemarketing transaction;

20 until 7 business days after the date the good or serv21 ice, or money or other item, respectively, is delivered

22 to the person.

23 ‘‘(B) Rules prescribed under subparagraph (A)

24 shall not apply to the request or receipt of payment

25 by an attorney specifically retained to provide serv26 ices described in subparagraph (A) (i) or (ii).’’.
3

•HR 1424 IH

1 (b) DEADLINE.—The Federal Trade Commission

2 shall prescribe rules under the amendment made by sub3 section (a) by not later than 90 days after the date of

4 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Eugene Gayda

v. Civil No. 05-cv-244-JD

City of Nashua, et al.

O R D E R

In anticipation of trial, which is scheduled to begin on

Monday, December 4, 2006, the court has reviewed the parties’

proposed jury instructions. With respect to the Fourth Amendment

claim against Philip Chouinard, both parties propose instructions

pertaining to his intent or state of mind at the time of the

incident. Therefore, it appears that some confusion exists as to

the law governing that claim.

As the First Circuit has recently explained, “the Fourth

Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. 

Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably

be crossed without a warrant.” Buchanan v. Maine, --- F.3d ---,

2006 WL 3317667 at *6 (1st Cir. Nov. 16, 2006) (internal

quotation marks omitted). An officer’s subjective intent or

state of mind in entering the plaintiff’s residence is not

pertinent to determining whether a Fourth Amendment violation

occurred. Hudson v. New York, 271 F.3d 62, 68-69 (2d Cir. 2001).

Any jury instruction to the contrary is not appropriate. Id. 
2

In this case, as in Buchanan, the parties do not dispute

that Philip Chouinard entered Eugene Gayda’s apartment without a

warrant and without his consent. The record presented for

summary judgment did not indicate that any exigent circumstances

existed in this case that would have permitted that entry. 

Chouinard’s purpose or intent in entering the apartment is not

relevant to the Fourth Amendment claim. Therefore, the record in

the case to date strongly suggests that a Fourth Amendment

violation occurred. However, the parties are left to their

proof.

The qualified immunity analysis in this case will focus on

the second and third elements of the defense. Those elements are

whether the applicable law was clearly established so that “it

would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct would be

unlawful in the situation he confronted,” and, if it would have

been clear, whether an officer could have reasonably but

mistakenly concluded that the entry area and stairway were not a

private residence. Buchanan, 2006 WL 3317667 at *8. While the

court decides whether qualified immunity applies, the jury may

answer factual questions that are pertinent to that decision. 

Rodriguez-Marin v. Rivera-Gonzalez, 438 F.3d 72, 83-84 (1st Cir.

2006). 
3

Conclusion

The court will fashion instructions that comport with these

legal standards. The parties may submit revised proposed

instructions that reflect the legal principles governing this

case. Any such revised instructions shall be filed no later than

noon on Friday, December 1, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

November 29, 2006

cc: Brian J.S. Cullen, Esquire

Fred K. Mayer, III, Esquire
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 183 (Friday, September 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21967]



[[Page 54418]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1786-DR]


Louisiana; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1786-DR), dated September 2, 2008, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 11, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following 
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of September 2, 2008.

    Calcasieu Parish for Individual Assistance (already designated 
for emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct 
Federal assistance under the Public Assistance program).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-21967 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
#### THOMPSON v. JOHNSTON, Warden.

No. 8714.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 11, 1938.

George Thompson, in pro. per.

Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., and A. J. Zirpoli, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.

STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.

The United States District Court (Northern District of California) denied the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus upon appellant’s petition, hence this appeal by him.

Petitioner is restrained of his liberties by virtue of conviction and sentence upon three indictment charges. His only point is that he was convicted and sentenced to prison, where he is now restrained of his liberties, upon a conspiracy charge, which is not of itself a crime since the scheme to violate a federal law was actually accomplished and petitioner was convicted and sentenced to prison upon the substantive offense.

We need but quote one sentence from Parmagini v. United States, 1930, 9 Cir., 42 F.2d 721, 725 : “The last count of conspiracy to violate these laws is a separate and distinct offense punishable as such. Ader v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 284 F. 13; Brady v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 24 F.2d 405, 59 A.L.R. 563.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 88.

The ruling of the District Court is affirmed.
#### SALINE LUMBER CO. v. STEWART.

No. 6696.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 2, 1944.

S. R. Thomas, of Natchitoches, for appellant.

Russell E. Gahagan, of Natchitoches, for appellee.

*321DREW, Judge.

Plaintiff sued to recover $150 alleged to be due it by defendant on account of a timber transaction. The lower Court awarded plaintiff judgment for the amount of $125 and defendant appealed.

In this Court appellant has submitted his case without argument or brief which, under the jurisprudence of this Court, is equivalent to an abandonment of his appeal. We might add, however, we have examined the record and find the judgment of the lower Court is correct.

The appeal is therefore dismissed at appellant’s costs.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned officers of the registrant certifies, to the best of his knowledge,
that the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Report, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the registrant.





Dated:  May 14, 2003                     /s/ Kari Stefansson
                                         -------------------
                                         Kari Stefansson
                                         Chairman, President, Chief
                                         Executive Officer


Dated:  May 14, 2003                     /s/ Lance Thibault
                                         ------------------
                                         Lance Thibault
                                         Chief Financial Officer and
                                         Treasurer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
furnished to deCODE genetics, Inc. and will be retained by deCODE genetics, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-4753

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN B. KOTMAIR, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR98-342-CCB) Submitted: February 26, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John B. Kotmair, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John B. Kotmair, Jr., appeals the district court’s order remanding his action to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Kotmair , No. CR-98-342-CCB (D. Md. Oct. 8, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED