alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 2061

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

An Act

To amend the charter of Southeastern University of the District of Columbia.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER OF SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY REGARDING BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

Section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act for the relief of the

Southeastern University of the Young Men’s Christian Association

of the District of Columbia’’, approved August 19, 1937 (50 Stat.

697), as amended by section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to

amend the charter of Southeastern University of the District of

Columbia’’, approved October 10, 1966 (80 Stat. 883), is amended—

(1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘, one-third of whom’’

and all that follows and inserting a period; and

(2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘elected for a term’’

and inserting ‘‘elected by the board for a term’’.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CURRENT TRUSTEES.

The amendment made by section 1 shall not affect the term

of office of any individual serving on the Board of Trustees of

Southeastern University as of the date of the enactment of this

Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CALTON, INC.
     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In connection with the annual report of Calton, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony
J. Caldarone, Chairman, 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, 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
         Company.



Dated:  February 28, 2008      By: /s/ Anthony J. Caldarone
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Anthony J. Caldarone
                                   CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PRESIDENT
                                   AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000767

27-FEB-2015

07:45 AM
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 1Federal Reserve Bank of: BostonFilings received during the week ending November 5, 2005FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBUTLER BANCORP, MHC                                                                                                     * 3A1
#### Jeffrey Naprawa et al., Appellants, v 985 Fifth Avenue Company et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 426]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered October 2, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Jeffrey Naprawa in an alleged assault and battery by defendant employees of a building owned and managed by the remaining defendants, after a jury trial resulting in a verdict (a) finding that two of the three defendant employees (Chong and Bourke) did not commit either an assault or a battery, and that the third defendant employee (Muniz) did commit an assault, and (b) deadlocking as to whether Muniz committed a battery, granted the motions of all defendants except Muniz to accept the verdict insofar as in favor of Chong and Bourke and to dismiss the action as against them, granted Muniz’s cross motion to reject the verdict insofar as it found that he had committed an assault and for a new trial on all causes of action asserted against him, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for a new trial on all issues on the ground of juror misconduct, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the parties consented to a jury charge that contained interrogatories requiring findings of fault as against Chong, Bourke and Muniz individually, rather than jointly, plaintiffs cannot now argue that the actions of the three were so interwoven as to preclude a retrial as against only one. We would add that nothing in the record necessarily requires a finding that all three participated in the alleged beating *(cf., Zinman v Church Charity Found.,*175 AD2d 833). The trial court also properly set aside the verdict against Muniz for assault because in common parlance as in criminal law (Penal Law art 120), the word “assault” connotes physical contact causing injury. Muniz would be prejudiced by having to retry the issue of battery before a new jury aware that the first jury had found that he had committed an assault *(cf., Zinman v Church Charity Found., supra).*

Plaintiffs’ request for a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct was properly rejected. The “professional” opinion purportedly voiced by a juror psychologist to the effect that the injured plaintiff “could have been hallucinating” during the al*358leged beating was not “distinct from and additional to” medical evidence introduced at trial on that subject *(People v Maragh,*94 NY2d 569, 574). Jurors are presumed to follow all of the court’s instructions on the law, but this does not mean that a juror with expertise on a particular subject addressed at trial is expected to “check [his] life experiences at the courtroom door” *(People v Arnold,*96 NY2d 358, 366). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-217-01/02-SM

William L. Twining and

Shirley Bruce

O R D E R

Defendant Bruce’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 20). Trial has been rescheduled for the May 2008 trial

period. Defendant Bruce shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than

February 11, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, her continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: April 25, 2008 at 2:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: May 6, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00217-SM Document 21 Filed 01/31/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

January 31, 2008

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Stanley Norkunas, Esq. 

Peter Papps, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00217-SM Document 21 Filed 01/31/08 Page 2 of 2
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41199 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

EDY GALLARDO

- CAZARES , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 13

- 2

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Edy Gallardo

- Cazares has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a n original and a supplemental brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gallardo

- Cazares h a s not f iled a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief s and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 20 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41199 Document: 00513804387 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016No. 15

- 41199

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leav e to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-41199 Document: 00513804387 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
NO. 04-15-00254-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 

______________________________________________________ 

THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND 

SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY 

Appellants 

vs.

OLSVALDO PERALTA

Appellee 

_________________________________________________________ 

APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE SUR-REPLY BRIEF 

_________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 Corbin L. Snow, III Robert W. Clore 

 State Bar No. 18809100 State Bar No. 24012436 

 310 West Sunset 15481 S. Padre Island Dr. #101 

 San Antonio, TX 78209 Corpus Christi, TX 78418 

 Telephone: (210) 820-0020 Telephone: (361) 558-3527 

 Facsimile: (210) 820-0019 Facsimile: (361) 949-0908 

 corbinsnow@thesnowlawfirm.com rclore@robclorelaw.com 

 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 

OSVALDO PERALTA 

 

ACCEPTED

04-15-00254-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

8/24/2015 3:13:05 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 08/24/2015 3:13:05 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellee, Osvaldo Peralta, files this Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply Brief 

and moves for this Court to grant him leave to file his Sur-Reply Brief. Appellee 

seeks leave to file this Sur-Reply to aid the Court in its decision, and to address 

arguments and inaccurate assertions made in Appellants’ Reply Briefs. 

Appellee respectfully requests that this Court grant his Motion for Leave to 

File Sur-Reply Brief, and deem that Appellee’s Sur-Reply Brief, submitted to this 

Court contemporaneous with this motion, be filed. Appellee prays for such other 

relief, in law or in equity, to which this Court finds Appellee justly entitled. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Robert W. Clore 

Robert W. Clore

State Bar No. 24012436

15481 S. Padre Island Dr. #101

Corpus Christi, Texas 78418

Telephone: (361) 558-3527

Facsimile: (361) 949-0908

rclore@robclorelaw.com

Corbin L. Snow, III

State Bar No. 18809100

310 West Sunset 

San Antonio, TX 78209

Telephone: (210) 820-0020

Facsimile: (210) 820-0019
 corbinsnow@thesnow

lawfirm.com

ATTORNEYS FOR 

APPELLEE, OSVALDO

PERALTA

CERTIFICATION OF CONFERENCE

I, Robert W. Clore, certify that I communicated with Deborah Lynne Klein, 

Attorney for Appellant, the City of San Antonio, and Clarissa M. Rodriguez, 

Attorney for Appellant, the San Antonio River Authority, on August 21, 2015, and

they indicated that they oppose the Motion. 

/s/ Robert W. Clore 

Robert W. Clore

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that the above and foregoing instrument has been forwarded 

to counsel as indicated below on this the 24th day of August, 2015.

Deborah Lynne Klein, Attorney for the City of San Antonio, 

Deborah.Klein@sanantonio.gov

Clarissa M. Rodriguez, Attorney for the San Antonio River Authority, 

clarissa.rodriguez@rampage-sa.com

Corbin L. Snow, III, Trial Attorney for Appellant Osvaldo Peralta, 

corbinsnow@thesnowlawfirm.com

VIA E-FILING

/s/ Robert W. Clore 

Robert W. Clore
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01761-RPM

CARLOS BASSATT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER and

PATRICK SANCHEZ

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER ON MOTIONS

_____________________________________________________________________

In the First Amended Complaint, filed July 10, 2011, the plaintiff alleges a claim

for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, in the first

claim for relief; a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 in the second claim for relief against the

School District and a violation of that statutory provision against Patrick Sanchez in the

third claim for relief. On August 11, 2011, the defendants filed a pleading designated

Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion to Stay Litigation, attached exhibits

reflecting adjudicative proceedings before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and a

notice of appeal to the Colorado Court of Appeals by the School District, seeking review

of a final order ruling in favor of Carlos Bassatt that the District engaged in retaliation in

violation of the Colorado anti-discrimination statute. Strangely, the motion to dismiss

asserts that the plaintiff’s claims in this case are barred by collateral estoppel and

alternatively, asks for a stay of this action pending resolution of the appeal. The plaintiff 
2

responded to the defendants’ motion by moving to strike it or consider it a motion for

summary judgment. The defendants replied on September 15, 2011.

These pleadings by the defendants are procedurally irregular. A collateral

estoppel is a form of res judicata which is an affirmative defense under Fed.R.Civ.P.

8(c). It is now

ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion to

Stay Litigation is denied; the plaintiff’s motion to strike or to construe the motion to

dismiss as a motion for summary judgment is moot and it is

ORDERED that the defendants will answer the amended complaint by October

10, 2011.

DATED: September 19, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

__________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge
# National Hunting and Fishing Day, 2008

From our rugged peaks and mountains to our shining seas, our Nation is blessed with remarkable natural treasures.  These magnificent landscapes are places where families and friends can create lasting memories and enjoy the outdoors.  On National Hunting and Fishing Day, our country honors the many contributions of America's hunters and anglers, who add to our heritage and keep our wildlife populations healthy and strong.

Our Nation's sportsmen and women are among our foremost conservationists.  They care deeply about our wildlife habitats, and they have contributed billions of dollars to wildlife restoration through the Pittman-Robertson Act, which is a levy on certain sporting goods.  This investment has helped restore many species, including the American elk, black bear, and wild turkey.  Through the Federal Waterfowl Stamp program, the conservation of habitats for migratory birds has been greatly improved.  By protecting our Nation's wildlife, we can continue to advance the values of good stewardship.

My Administration has created, protected, and restored millions of acres of wetlands.  Through my Ocean Action Plan, we are protecting fish populations and marine habitat.  I was pleased to amend Executive Order 12962 to recognize the value of recreational fishing as a sustainable activity in Federal waters.  We have also improved the health of millions of acres of forests under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.  This important legislation is helping to protect our public lands from the risk of catastrophic wildfires and contributes to a healthier environment for all Americans.

On this special day, we remember our responsibility to preserve the great American landscape for future generations, and we celebrate the joy of hunting and fishing in the great outdoors.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 27, 2008, as National Hunting and Fishing Day.  I call upon the people of the United States to join me in recognizing the contributions of America's hunters and anglers, and all those who work to conserve our Nation's fish and wildlife resources.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-sixth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

[FR Doc. E8-23326

Billing code 3195-01-P
#### WHALEN v. DE ANGELIS.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02188-RPM

MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SURE SHOT DRILLING, INC., 

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Pursuant to the Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice [22] filed June 3, 2014, it is

ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear their own fees and

costs.

Dated: June 4th, 2014

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02188-RPM Document 23 Filed 06/04/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10006

 Conference Calendar 

__________________

RICHARD ENGLISH,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBERTSON MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,

ROBERTSON UNIT, TEXAS DEPARTMENT 

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:94-CV-177

- - - - - - - - - -

(March 23, 1995)

Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard English, a Texas state prisoner, proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis, filed the instant civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Robertson Medical

Department, Robertson Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, denied him reasonable medical care in violation of the

Eighth Amendment. 

A district court may dismiss an IFP complaint as frivolous

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if it lacks an arguable basis in law or
No. 95-10006

-2-

fact. Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). If it

appears that "insufficient factual allegations might be remedied

by more specific pleading," this court considers whether the

district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint

without affording any effort to amend. Id.

"To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

denial of medical treatment, a [convicted] prisoner must allege

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs." Woodall

v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268, 272 (5th Cir. Unit A June 1981) (citing

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976)). Prison officials

violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and

unusual punishment when they demonstrate deliberate indifference

to a prisoner's serious medical needs, constituting an

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Wilson v. Seiter, 501

U.S. 294, 296-97 (1991). Deliberate indifference is equivalent

to subjective recklessness in the criminal law. It is more than

negligence but less than intent to harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 114

S. Ct. 1970, 1978-79 (1994). The prison official must know of

and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health. Id. at 1979. 

An inmate's disagreement with his medical treatment does not

establish a constitutional violation. See Varnado v. Lynaugh,

920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). 

English's allegations do not suggest that he had a serious

medical need. To the extent that English's allegations amount to

claims of delay in receiving medical treatment, delay that

results in substantial harm is evidence of deliberate

indifference. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir.
No. 95-10006

-3-

1993). As English did not allege that his condition worsened

during the delay, an Eighth Amendment claim on this point is not

stated. Id. at 195. 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 of the SABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gary W. Rada, President and Chief Executive Officer of Factory Card & Party
Outlet Corp. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

        (1)     the quarterly Report, as amended, on Form 10-Q/A of the Company
                for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2002 (the "Report") fully
                complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
                Securities Exchanges Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  April 30, 2003

/s/ Gary W. Rada
----------------
Gary W. Rada
President and Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 of the SABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James D. Constantine, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and
Administrative Officer of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

        (3)     the quarterly Report, as amended, on Form 10-Q/A of the Company
                for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2002 (the "Report") fully
                complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
                Securities Exchanges Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  April 30, 2003

/s/ James D. Constantine
------------------------
James D. Constantine
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer
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 Amendment No.3 to the Annual Report of Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended May 29, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Monroe G. Milstein, 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; and

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



/s/  Monroe G. Milstein
Monroe G. Milstein
President and Chief Executive Officer [Principal Executive Officer]
April 12, 2005
EXHIBIT 23












INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(File Nos.  33-61949, 33-52786, 33-36609 and 33-23837) of the A.G. Edwards,
Inc. 1988 Incentive Stock Plan on Form S-8 of our report dated April 24,
1997, appearing in and/or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of A.G. Edwards, Inc. for the year ended February 28, 1997.







/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
May 27, 1997
St. Louis, Missouri