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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 859 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 166
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 859

                          [Report No. 110-487]

 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 2082) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for 
 intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States 
     Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central 
  Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 11, 2007

  Mr. Hastings of Florida, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 2082) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for 
 intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States 
     Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central 
  Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2082) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for intelligence 
and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, 
the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency 
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. All points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are 
waived.
                                                 House Calendar No. 166

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 859

                          [Report No. 110-487]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 2082) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for 
 intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States 
     Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central 
  Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 11, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
**Exhibit      32(a)**

**TXU      CORP.**

**Certificate      Pursuant to Section 906 **

**of      Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CEO**

| 1.   | The                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006                (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.   | Information                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operation of the                Company. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|         |                                                                                                                                                                     |                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         |                                                                                                                                                                     |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                |                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|         |                                                                                                                                                                |                                          /s/ C. John Wilder |
|         | Name:                              C.              John Wilder                           |
|         | Title:                                Chairman,              President and CEO |
No. 99-31413

-1-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-31413

 

DELBERT WILLIAMS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-660-B

- - - - - - - - - -

April 25, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Delbert Williams, Louisiana prisoner # 299746, seeks a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) in order to appeal the denial

without prejudice of his federal habeas corpus application, filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for failure to exhaust available

state remedies. His guilty plea waived the alleged federal

constitutional deprivation he raised as his sole claim in the

instant § 2254 application. See Shute v. Texas, 117 F.3d 233, 237-

38 (5th Cir. 1997). He has therefore made a credible showing that

the district court erred in dismissing his application for failure

to exhaust because a claim that affords no ground for habeas corpus
No. 99-31413

-2-

relief is not required to be exhausted. See Murphy v. Johnson, 110

F.3d 10, 11 (5th Cir. 1997)(applicant must make credible showing of

exhaustion before this court will determine whether he has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in his

underlying claims); Colvin v. Estelle, 506 F.2d 747, 748 (5th Cir.

1975)(exhaustion requirement does not apply to petition that fails

to state a violation of a federal constitutional right).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of the

unaddressed underlying habeas corpus claim because the district

court did not consider whether a COA should be granted on that

issue. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 387-88 (5th Cir.

1998). Accordingly, the motion for COA is GRANTED, the district

court’s judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the

district court with directions to dismiss the instant application

with prejudice for failure to plead a claim cognizable in § 2254

habeas.

COA GRANTED; JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Chad Evans

v. Civil No. 08-cv-105-JD

Warden, New Hampshire

State Prison

O R D E R

Chad Evans seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from

his sentence, which Evans contends was based on an ex post facto

application of state law. Instead of filing an answer, the

Warden filed a motion for summary judgment. When the deadline

for filing an answer expired and was noted in the docket, the

Warden filed a motion for clarification, arguing that the motion

for summary judgment satisfied the court’s order that the Warden

“answer or [] otherwise plead within thirty days of this Order.”

The Warden is mistaken. A motion for summary judgment under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is not an answer or a

pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 & 12. The Warden, apparently,

was confused by an out-of-date version of Rule 56(b), which

provided that a party could move for summary judgment “at any

time.” 

Case 1:08-cv-00105-JD Document 19 Filed 03/03/10 Page 1 of 2
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Warden’s motion for

clarification (document no. 18) is granted in that the court

states that the Warden has not complied with the court’s order

issued on January 20, 2010. The Warden shall file his answer, or

otherwise plead as allowed under Rules 8 and 12, on or before

March 10, 2010.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 3, 2010

cc: David M. Rothstein, Esquire

Elizabeth C. Woodcock, Esquire

2

Case 1:08-cv-00105-JD Document 19 Filed 03/03/10 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00425-JM   Document 69   Filed 11/18/08   Page 1 of 1
#### The State, ex rel. James, *v.*Hanefeld, Dir. of Agriculture, et al.

(No. 24512

— Decided April 18, 1934.)

*Messrs. Monger & Davis,*for relator.

*Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, and *Mr. Isadore Topper,*for respondents.

This cause came on to be heard upon the demurrer of the respondents to the petition of the relator, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged that the demurrer to the petition be, and the same hereby is, sustained on authority of *Sergeant*v. *McSweeney, Dir. of Public Welfare,*126 Ohio St., 623.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the writ of mandamus prayed for be, and the same hereby is, denied.

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Matthias, Zimmerman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.

Jones and Beyis, JJ., not participating.
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 10.20

             Schedule to Form of First Amendment to Lease Agreement

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Landlord                     State of Incorporation    Tenant
--------                     ----------------------    ------
<S>                          <C>                       <C>
Pennsylvania BCC             Pennsylvania              Financial Care Investors of
Properties, Inc.                                       Lebanon, L.L.C.

Pennsylvania BCC             Pennsylvania              Financial Care Investors of
Properties, Inc.                                       Loyalsock, L.L.C.

HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.       Delaware                  Financial Care Investors of
                                                       Sagamore Hills, L.L.C.

HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.       Delaware                  Financial Care Investors of
                                                       Westerville, L.L.C.

HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.       Delaware                  Financial Care Investors of
                                                       Morristown, L.L.C.

HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.       Delaware                  Financial Care Investors of
                                                       Oak Ridge, L.L.C.
</TABLE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Landlord                    Unit      Bed       Facility                    Loan Amount
--------                    ----      ---       --------                    -----------
<S>                         <C>       <C>       <C>                         <C>
Pennsylvania BCC             60        66        Personal Care               $686,800.00
Properties, Inc.

Pennsylvania BCC             60        66        Personal Care               $674,050.00
Properties, Inc.

HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.       103       105       Residential Care            $1,243,550.00

HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.       106       106       Residential Care            $1,313,675.00

HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.       60        66        Assisted-Care Living        $692,000.00

HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.       60        66        Assisted-Care Living        $697,948.00
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   2
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Tenant                                                  Property
------                                                  --------
<S>                                                     <C>
Financial Care Investors of Lebanon, L.L.C.             Lebanon, Pennsylvania

Financial Care Investors of Loyalsock, L.L.C.           Williamsport, Pennsylvania

Financial Care Investors of Sagamore Hills, L.L.C.      Sagamore Hills, Ohio

Financial Care Investors of Westerville, L.L.C.         Westerville, Ohio

Financial Care Investors of Morristown, L.L.C.          Morristown, Tennessee

Financial Care Investors of Oak Ridge, L.L.C.           Oak Ridge, Tennessee
</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIEL ECKARD, AKA Gabriel Allen Eckard,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CHARLES MITCHELL, Classification Counselor; et al.

,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 36010

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 01810

- RSM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020 * *

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Gabriel Eckard appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process

violation s while he was a pretrial detainee . We hav e jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

withou t oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 36010

§ 1291 . We review de novo. Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene , 648 F.3d 1014, 1018

(9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Eckard failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his placement in maximum

security housing was not reasonably related to the jail’s legitimate objectives of

maintaining saf

ety and security. See Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520, 538

- 39 (1979)

(“Absent a showing of an expressed intent to punish on the part of detention

facility officials . . . if a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is

reasonably related t o a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without

more, amount to punishment.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

To the extent that Eckard contends he was retained in maximum security housing

without due process, we reject this contention as unsupported by the record. See

Toussaint v. McCarthy , 801 F.2d 1080, 1100 (9th Cir. 1986) (inmates in

administrative segregation are entitled to due process protections consisting of

periodic review, notice of hearings, and an opportunity to be heard), abrogated in

part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 482

- 83 (1995).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Eckard’s motion to

amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because Eckard

failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Zimmerman v. City of Oakland , 255

F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) ( setting forth standard of review and discussing3 19

- 36010

factors for granting a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)).

AF FIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv- 01751-MSK-MEH

PHYLLIS NINAHUALPA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAFEWAY INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01751-RBJ-MEH Document 7 Filed 07/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
|   | 1. | Amendment No.1 to the Quarterly      Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2010      (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (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 theCompany. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| BY:    | /s/      Steven Strasser           |   |
|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Steven      Strasser               |   |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer       |   |
|   | (principal      executive officer) |   |

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Golf Trust of America, Inc.

|Date: November 22, 2004 |  |                                                                                    
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | /s/W. BRADLEY BLAIR, IIW. Bradley Blair, II President and Chief Executive Officer  
|Date: November 22, 2004 |  |                                                                                    
|                        |  | /s/SCOTT D. PETERSScott D. Peters Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT (10.3)


                     SECOND AMENDMENT TO SERVICE AGREEMENT

This Second Amendment to Service Agreement made and entered into this 1st day of
March, 1996 by and between Oak Brook Bank, 1400 Sixteenth Street, Oak Brook,
Illinois 60521 ("Buyer") and First Data Resources, Inc., 7301 Pacific Street,
Omaha, Nebraska 68114 ("FDRI").

                                  WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Buyer and FDRI heretofore entered into a Service Agreement dated as of
November 22, 1991 as amended by Amendments to Service Agreement dated September
2, 1994, the "Service Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, Buyer and FDRI now desire to amend the Service Agreement as hereinafter
more particularly set forth;

NOW THEREFORE, Buyer and FDRI hereby agree as follows:

     1.  Section 6.1 of the Service Agreement is hereby amended by the addition
         of the following, effective March 1, 1996:

         "Anything in this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, this
         Agreement shall continue in effect for an additional period of one (1)
         month commencing on March 1, 1996 and ending on March 31, 1996 (the
         "Extension Period"). During the Extension Period, Buyer shall continue
         to pay FDRI for the services hereunder at the rates paid to FDRI by
         Buyer for such services during the previous twelve (12) month period."

     2.  As hereby amended and supplemented, the Service Agreement shall remain
         in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Service
Agreement the day and year first above written.

FIRST DATA RESOURCES INC.         OAK BROOK BANK

By: /S/ROBIN SGROI                By: /S/ROSEMARIE BOUMAN
   ----------------------            ------------------------
Title: Senior Vice President      Title: Executive Vice 
                                  President and Chief Financial
                                  Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Amanda Cossaboon

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00260-JL

Maine Medical Center

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

September 4, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. will include a substantive,

meaningful discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. 

Counsel are expected to be prepared to engage in an open,

cooperative discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of

the obligations imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) and (4), and

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all

matters.

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

Case 1:08-cv-00260-JL Document 10 Filed 08/14/08 Page 1 of 2
2

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

notice, and will bear this in mind at the conference.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: August 14, 2008

cc: Gary B. Richardson, Esq.

Heather M. Burns, Esq.

Gerald F. Petruccelli, Esq.

Michael P. Lehman, Esq.

Sarah S. Murdough, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00260-JL Document 10 Filed 08/14/08 Page 2 of 2