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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2012

To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate an inequity in the applicability of early retirement eligibility requirements to military reserve technicians.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 2001

Mr. ABERCROMBIE (for himself, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. BACA, Mr. EVANS, Mr.

HINCHEY, Mr. FROST, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. HALL of Ohio, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. KILDEE, Mrs. WILSON,

Mr. RAHALL, Mr. RUSH, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. SHOWS, Mr.

STRICKLAND, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. RANGEL, Mrs.

JONES of Ohio, Mr. OTTER, Mr. KUCINICH, and Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

Government Reform

A BILL

To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate an inequity in the applicability of early retirement eligibility

requirements to military reserve technicians.

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

•HR 2012 IH

1 SECTION 1. EQUITABLE APPLICATION OF EARLY RETIRE2 MENT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO MILI3 TARY RESERVE TECHNICIANS.

4 (a) TECHNICIANS COVERED BY FERS.—Paragraph

5 (1) of section 8414(c) of title 5, United States Code, is

6 amended by striking ‘‘after becoming 50 years of age and

7 completing 25 years of service’’ and inserting ‘‘after com8 pleting 25 years of service or after becoming 50 years of

9 age and completing 20 years of service’’.

10 (b) TECHNICIANS COVERED BY CSRS.—Section

11 8336 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding

12 at the end the following new subsection:

13 ‘‘(p) Section 8414(c) of this title applies—

14 ‘‘(1) under paragraph (1) of such section to a

15 military reserve technician described in that para16 graph for purposes of determining entitlement to an

17 annuity under this subchapter; and

18 ‘‘(2) under paragraph (2) of such section to a

19 military technician (dual status) described in that

20 paragraph for purposes of determining entitlement

21 to an annuity under this subchapter.’’.

22 (c) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (c) of section 8414

23 of title 5, United States Code (as amended by subsection

24 (a)), and subsection (p) of section 8336 of such title (as

25 added by subsection (b)), shall apply according to the pro26 visions thereof with respect to separations from service re-
3

•HR 2012 IH

1 ferred to in such subsections that occur on or after Octo2 ber 5, 1999.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-226-PB

Beth Handy, et al.

O R D E R

The defendants have jointly moved to continue the June 3,

2008 trial in the above case, citing the complexity of the fivedefendant case, scheduling conflicts, and need for additional

time to resolve issues pending against two of the defendants in

California prior to the trial in this matter. Although the

government objects to a continuance of the trial date, the court

has determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that, for

the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice served in granting

a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the

defendants in a speedy trial. 

Accordingly, to allow the parties additional time to resolve

the above-referenced issues and to properly prepare for trial,

the court will continue the trial from June 3, 2008 to October

21, 2008. 

Case 1:06-cr-00226-PB Document 112 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The May 21, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued to

September 29, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. 

The court will not grant any further continuances of this

matter. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 19, 2008

cc: David Bownes, Esq.

Mark Irish, Esq.

Robert Rabuck, Esq.

Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Richard Johnston, Esq.

Dana Cole, Esq.

Michael Iacopino, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00226-PB Document 112 Filed 05/19/08 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**








**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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








In
      connection with the Annual Report of The Dress Barn, Inc. (“the Company”) on
      Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended July 26, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I, David R. Jaffe,
      President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:




(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
                and




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





The
      foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the
      provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended
      to be used for any other purpose.








/s/
      David R. Jaffe


David
      R.
      Jaffe


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


December
      4, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS  FOR THE TWO  MONTHS  ENDED  JUNE 30,  1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                1
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               2-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      22,820
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,676,124
<ALLOWANCES>                                22,500
<INVENTORY>                                 1,057,084
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            3,138,414
<PP&E>                                      812,043
<DEPRECIATION>                              580,019
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              3,811,976
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       3,017,304
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    2,583
<OTHER-SE>                                  614,267
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                3,811,976
<SALES>                                     1,623,754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,623,754
<CGS>                                       1,237,942
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,237,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            482,819
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          21,894
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (118,901)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (10,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (108,901)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (108,901)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.06)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Janice A. Witterschein,

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00076-PB

Orion House, Inc.,

Defendant

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL, WITH PREJUDICE

NOW COME the parties in the above-entitled matter, by and through their attorneys, and 

hereby stipulate that this action is dismissed, with prejudice and without costs or interest, 

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1).

JANICE A. WITTERSCHEIN, 

By her attorney,

LAW OFFICES OF NANCY RICHARDS-STOWERS,

Date: January 16, 2009 By: /s/Nancy Richards-Stowers

Nancy Richards-Stowers (NHBA # 2147)

32 Daniel Webster Highway, Suite #7

Merrimack, NH 03054

603.881.3312

nrichardssto@igc.org

ORION HOUSE, INC.,

By their attorneys,

JACKSON LEWIS LLP,

Date: January 16, 2009 By: /s/Debra Weiss Ford

Debra Weiss Ford (NHBA # 2687)

100 International Drive, Suite 363

Portsmouth, NH 03801

603.559.2700

fordd@jacksonlewis.com

Case 1:08-cv-00076-PB Document 7 Filed 01/16/09 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

LINDA RUMBAUGH,

Petitioner

v.

THOMAS J. KOZESKY, JR.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 204 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ECHELON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          19,700
<SECURITIES>                                    44,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,600
<PP&E>                                         139,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 455,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,800
<BONDS>                                         61,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                     209,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   455,900
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1,600)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (700)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (900)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .97
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1






SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO






18 U.S.
C. SECTION 1350,






AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO






SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






I, Gary F
Kimmons, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
eDoorways Corporation. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






/S/ Gary
F Kimmons






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






Gary F
Kimmons






Chief
Executive Officer






May 20,
2008






This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, or otherwise required, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 99.7



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the annual report of
Emerald Health Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2018 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert C. Hill, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



(1)         The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|April 30, 2019 | /s/
    Robert C. Hill                       | 
|-------------- | -------------------------------------------- | 
|               |                                              | 
|               | Robert C. Hill                               | 
|               | Chief Financial Officer                      | 
|               | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Emerald Health Therapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by Emerald Health Therapeutics, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Claire Gruppo, Respondent, v Gabrielle London, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[808 NYS2d 79]

*487Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered on or about June 9, 2005, which, in an action for breach of contract and architectural malpractice, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment as to liability for architectural malpractice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see JMD Holding Corp. v Congress Fin. Corp.,*4 NY3d 373, 384 [2005]; *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]) on the issue of defendant’s liability for architectural malpractice. Her proof, including an affidavit from a licensed architect who had been involved in the design of the building affected by the alleged malpractice, established that although defendant was retained to investigate how plaintiffs apartment could be combined with an adjoining apartment into a single unit, and, in that connection, to conduct a survey of existing conditions and draw up working drawings and written specifications for the project, she instead devised a plan without reviewing the building’s original plans or conducting a test probe on the wall whose demolition she proposed, which, proper investigation would have disclosed, was of a load-bearing or structural nature.

Defendant’s opposition to summary judgment, consisting of no more than the unsubstantiated affirmation of counsel, who lacked personal knowledge of the facts, was insufficient to raise a triable issue *(see JMD Holding Corp.,*4 NY3d at 384-385; *Ruggiero v Cardella Trucking Co.,*16 AD3d 342, 344 [2005]). Nor was defendant’s speculation that discovery might reveal grounds to impugn the credentials of plaintiffs expert and/or the basis for his knowledge, sufficient to avoid summary judgment *(see White v New York City Tr. Auth.,*308 AD2d 341, 343 [2003]; *Jean v Zong Hai Xu,*288 AD2d 62 [2001]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
B.7. Selected Measures of Financial Performance of Agricultural and Other Small Banks

Percent

Distribution of net income as a Average rate Rate N

share of average equity at of return of return 

agricultural banks on equity to assets 

25 percent Agri- Other Agri- Other A

Negative 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 and cultural Small cultural small cu

Period All banks income percent percent percent percent percent over banks Banks banks banks ba1998...... 100.0 2.0 8.7 35.6 35.5 13.4 3.5 1.3 11.3 11.7 1.2 1.2 1999...... 100.0 2.9 7.9 34.8 33.3 14.2 4.9 1.9 11.8 11.9 1.2 1.1 2000...... 100.0 2.4 8.9 35.3 33.5 13.8 4.2 1.8 11.7 11.4 1.2 1.1 2001...... 100.0 3.1 12.6 37.6 28.6 13.1 3.7 1.3 10.8 10.4 1.1 1.0 2002...... 100.0 3.0 10.7 35.1 31.4 13.5 4.6 1.7 11.5 10.6 1.2 1.1 2003...... 100.0 2.7 12.2 36.6 29.3 12.9 4.4 1.8 11.2 10.7 1.2 1.1 2004...... 100.0 2.1 10.0 34.9 31.4 13.8 5.8 2.0 11.5 10.5 1.2 1.1 2005...... 100.0 1.7 10.1 34.5 29.9 14.6 6.4 2.8 11.8 10.7 1.2 1.1 2006...... 100.0 2.7 10.9 35.7 30.1 13.1 4.6 2.8 11.4 10.1 1.2 1.1 2007...... 100.0 3.2 12.3 36.6 29.4 11.8 4.5 2.2 10.6 7.7 1.1 .9 2008...... 100.0 7.4 15.2 35.0 27.0 9.9 3.8 1.6 9.0 1.5 1.0 .2 2004: Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.1 5.5 .6 .5  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.9 8.0 .9 .8  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.5 10.5 1.2 1.1 2005: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.0 2.9 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.9 5.6 .6 .6  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 9.0 8.3 .9 .8  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.8 10.7 1.2 1.1 2006: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.0 2.7 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.1 5.7 .6 .6  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 9.0 8.0 .9 .9  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.4 10.1 1.2 1.1 2007: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.8 2.3 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.7 4.6 .6 .5  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.4 6.6 .9 .7  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 10.6 7.7 1.1 .9 2008: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.0 1.5 .3 .2  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.6 2.5 .6 .3  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 7.6 2.4 .8 .3  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 9.0 1.5 1.0 .2 2009: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.8 .5 .2 .0  Note. Agricultural and other banks are defined in the introduction to section B; small banks have less than $500 million in assets. Total primary anavailable at the end of the period specified) are measured as a percentage of total assets. Quarterly data are cumulative through the end of the quarte n.a. Not available.27
#### Ida M. FOSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-16510.

D.C. No. CV-01-02962-SI.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 13, 2003.

*357Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies Foster’s request for oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Ida M. Foster appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in Foster’s action alleging employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race and age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *see Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co.,*26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

Summary judgment was proper because Foster failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the advice she received regarding her early retirement constituted an adverse employment action by her employer and whether others who were similarly situated and not within her protected class were treated more favorably than she was. *See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,*411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).

Foster similarly failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was constructively discharged, *see Bergene v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District,*272 F.3d 1136, 1143-44 (9th Cir.2001), whether there was a pattern and practice of discrimination in the Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”), *see Hazlewood Sch. Dist. v. United States,*433 U.S. 299, 307-08, 97 S.Ct. 2736, 53 L.Ed.2d 768 (1977), or whether her workplace was a hostile work environment. *See*29 C.F.R. § 1606.8(b); *Garcia v. Spun Steak Co.,*998 F.2d 1480, 1489 (9th Cir.1993).

Summary judgment was proper on Foster’s retaliation claim because she failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her employer subjected her to an adverse employment action, or that there was a causal link between the actions by her employer and the complaints she filed against the VA with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. *See O’Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co.,*79 F.3d 756, 763 (9th Cir. 1996).

Summary judgment on Foster’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was proper because she failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her employer’s conduct in dispensing retirement advice was sufficiently outrageous or whether her distress was caused by her employer’s actions. *See Simo v. Union of Needletrodes, Industrial & Textile Employees,*316 F.3d 974, 992 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.