alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:11-cv-01731-CMA-MJW Document 21 Filed 03/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-01731-CMA-MJW Document 21 Filed 03/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1211 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1211

 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide enhanced penalties 
             for marketing controlled substances to minors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 2007

Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide enhanced penalties 
             for marketing controlled substances to minors.

    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 ``Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act 
of 2007''.

SEC. 2. SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR MARKETING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES TO 
              MINORS.

    Section 418 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 859) is 
amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by adding at the end the 
        following: ``; marketing to minors'';
            (2) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``twenty-one 
        years of age'' the following: ``, or who manufactures, creates, 
        distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute a 
        controlled substance that is flavored, colored, packaged, or 
        otherwise altered in a way that is designed to make that 
        controlled substance more appealing to a person under twenty-
        one years of age, or who attempts or conspires to do so,''; and
            (3) in subsection (b), by inserting after ``twenty-one 
        years of age'' the following: ``, or who manufactures, creates, 
        distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute a 
        controlled substance that is flavored, colored, packaged, or 
        otherwise altered in a way that is designed to make that 
        controlled substance more appealing to a person under twenty-
        one years of age, or who attempts or conspires to do so,''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, W. Bradley Blair, II, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewedthis Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Golf Trust of America, Inc;

 

2.             Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)           Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)           Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)           Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)           All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)           Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| November 7, 2007 |     | /s/ W. Bradley  Blair, II           |   |
|------------------|----------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|             |     | W. Bradley  Blair, II               |
|             | * * | *Chief Executive Officer and  President* |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6425
WILLIAM F. JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus P. L. HUFFMAN, Warden, Bland Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-220-R) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as amended by , Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 (Law. Co-op.Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent thata certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Huffman , CA-95-220-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 5, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23389]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-8586-3]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental 
Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and 
Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. 
Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of 
Federal Activities at 202-564-7146.
    An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental 
impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 6, 2008 (73 FR 
19833).

Draft EISs

EIS No. 20080288, ERP No. DS-NOA-E91023-00, Amendment 16 to the Fishery 
Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery, Additional Information 
to Analyze Four New Management Measures Alternatives for Gag and 
Vermillion Snapper, Implementation, South Atlantic Region.

    Summary: While EPA has no objections to the proposed action, EPA 
did request clarification of the SEDAR data for the vermillion snapper. 
Rating LO.

EIS No. 20080303, ERP No. DS-USN-K11094-00, Developing Home Port 
Facilities for Three NIMITZ-Class Aircraft Carriers in Support of the 
U.S. Pacific Fleet, New Circumstances and Information to Supplements 
(the 1999 FEIS) Coronado, CA.

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO.

Final EISs

EIS No. 20080324, ERP No. F-BLM-J65331-WY, Kemmerer Field Office 
Planning Area, Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Lincoln, 
Sweetwater and Uinta Counties, WY.

    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

EIS No. 20080325, ERP No. F-NRC-E06025-NC, Generic--License Renewal of 
Nuclear Plants (GEIS) Regarding Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, 
Unit 1, Plant-Specific Supplement 33 to NUREG-1437, Wake County, NC.

    Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about 
radiological monitoring of plant effluents, and storage and disposition 
of radioactive waste.

    Dated: September 30, 2008.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E8-23389 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
(July 22, 2002)

#### Ashley Appell et al., Respondents, v Geraldine Mandel, Doing Business as M & F Stationary Store, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[745 NYS2d 491]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Geraldine Mandel, doing business as M & F Stationary Store, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated October 22, 2001, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A person, other than a parent, who undertakes to control, care for, or supervise an infant, is required to use reasonable care to protect the infant over whom he or she has assumed temporary custody or control. Such a person may be liable for any injury sustained by the infant which was proximately caused by his or her negligence. While a person caring for entrusted children is not cast in the role of an insurer, such an individual is obliged to provide adequate supervision and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately resulting from the negligent failure to do so *(see Zalak v Carroll,*15 NY2d 753, 754; *Mary*A. *ZZ. v Blasen,*284 AD2d 773, 775; *Singh v Persaud,*269 AD2d 381, 382). Upon our review of the record, we agree with the Supreme Court that there are issues of fact as to whether the appellant agreed to supervise the infant plaintiff, and, if so, whether the appellant provided adequate supervision under the circumstances. Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
Case 1:11-cv-01968-CMA-BNB Document 26 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-01968-CMA-BNB Document 26 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-01968-CMA-BNB Document 26 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-01968-CMA-BNB Document 26 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-01968-CMA-BNB Document 26 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-01968-CMA-BNB Document 26 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-01968-CMA-BNB Document 26 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7
211 La. 227

#### STATE v. RACHAL.

No. 38418.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1947.

S. R. Thomas and Jas. W. Jones, Jr., both of Natchitoches, for appellant.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Cul-ligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., and H. L. Hughes, Dist. Atty., of Natchitoches, for appellee.

McCALEB, Justice.

The defendant is appealing from a conviction and sentence for having sixty bottles of whiskey in his possession for sale for beverage purposes.

Aside from the overruling of a formal motion for a new trial — based primarily on the ground that the conviction is contrary to the law and the evidence — which we have repeatedly declined to notice, there is ordy one bill of exception contained ip the record.

The bill, which is not supported by oral argument or brief, was taken to the action of the Court in overruling nine of eleven special charges requested by the defendant. All of the special charges refused by the judge were predicated upon the no- * tion that the State was required to adduce direct evidence of a sale or an offer or intention to sell by defendant of the liquor kept by him in order to prove the offense denounced by the statute (Act No. 15 of 1934, as amended by Act No. 202 of 1940).

There is no merit in the contention. The elements of the offense — i.e., possession with intent to sell as a beverage — may be proved (like all facts) by circumstantial as well as direct evidence. See State v. Pilcher, 161 La. 135, 108 So. 312; State v. Lauvet, 164 La. 543, 114 So. 151.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
* 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. 99-10343

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RAFAEL CUEVAS,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:98-CR-120-1-D

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

September 23, 1999

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rafael Cuevas appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea

conviction for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, a

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Cuevas’ attorney has filed a

Motion to File Brief and Appendix in Present Form in this court. 

That motion is GRANTED.

Cuevas argues that the district court erred in denying him a

safety-valve reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. The

district court denied this reduction based on a determination 
No. 99-10343

-2-

that Cuevas had not, as of the time of the sentencing hearing,

truthfully provided to the Government all the information that he

had concerning the offense. There is no clear error in this

determination. See United States v. Rodriguez, 60 F.3d 193, 195

n.1 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Cuevas next argues that he should have received a downward

departure based on his age, health, and military service. He

contends both that the district court was mistaken in its belief

that it lacked authority to depart below the statutory minimum

and that the district court erred in refusing to grant the

departure. 

This court lacks jurisdiction to review a defendant’s

challenge to his sentence based on mere dissatisfaction with the

court’s refusal to grant a downward departure, unless the court’s

refusal was the result of a violation of law or a misapplication

of the Guidelines. United States v. DiMarco, 46 F.3d 476, 477

(5th Cir. 1995)(citing 18 U.S.C. § 3742). A refusal to depart is

a violation of law if the court mistakenly assumed that it lacked

the authority to depart. United States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93,

95 (5th Cir. 1994). 

The district court did state that it lacked the legal

authority to depart below the statutory minimum. However,

alternatively assuming that this belief was erroneous, the

district court also stated as an “independent and alternative”

reason for judgment that, assuming it had the authority to grant

the departure, it refused to do so in the exercise of its

discretion. There is thus no violation of law, and we lack
No. 99-10343

-3-

jurisdiction to consider Cuevas’ contention that the district

court erred in exercising his discretion to not grant the

departure. 

Accordingly, Cuevas’ sentence is AFFIRMED.
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 Quarterly Report of National Healthcare Technology, Inc.
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies 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 his knowledge:

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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

/s/ Charles Smith
Charles Smith, CEO, CFO
Dated: May 20, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7080

FRANCISCO BRYAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ROBESON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; JERRY MOODY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-94-953-5-CT-H)

Submitted: October 31, 1997 Decided: January 15, 1998

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francisco Bryan, Appellant Pro Se. R. Anthony Hartsoe, WOMBLE,

CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Bryan v. Robeson County

Detention Ctr., No. CA-94-953-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. July 24, 1997). The

Appellees’ motion to strike Appellant's brief is denied.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
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 7Federal Reserve Bank of: ChicagoFilings received during the week ending November 28, 2020FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodALLIANCE BANCORP                                                                                                        CICAlliance Bancorp Employee Stock Ownership Plan with 401(k) Provisions, Francesville, Indiana, together with Shane R. Pilarski, Francesville, Indiana, Ronald K. Kruger, Francesville, Indiana, and Alyssa M. Chapman, Winamac, Indiana, as administrators, and as a group acting in concert, to retain control of 10 percent or more of the voting shares of Alliance Bancorp, Francesville, Indiana, and thereby indirectly control Alliance Bank, Francesville, Indiana.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 12/08/2020CBI BANK & TRUST                                                                                                        * 18C
Case 1:11-cv-01962-CMA-CBS Document 6 Filed 08/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-01962-CMA-CBS Document 6 Filed 08/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                         136,234
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9,122,830
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (133,665)
<INVENTORY>                                    244,826
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,712,346
<PP&E>                                         15,835,122
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,412,634)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 22,714,805
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          12,757,257
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       27,126
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,481,613
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   22,714,805
<SALES>                                        22,286,846
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22,286,846
<CGS>                                          21,809,416
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  21,809,416
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               797,670
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             393,417
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (697,541)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (697,541)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (697,541)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.26)



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02392-WJM-MJW

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff(s)/ Counter Defendant(s),

v.

AMEE LYN SECHRIST,

Defendant(s)/Third Party Plaintiff(s)/Counter Claimant(s),

v.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

Third Party Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant Sechrist’s Unopposed Motion to

Vacate Requirement of Preparing a Scheduling Order at Scheduling/Planning

Conference, Docket Number 37, filed with the Court on November 14, 2011, is

GRANTED. 

Date: November 16, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02392-WJM-MJW Document 39 Filed 11/16/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1