alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 5 filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 5 filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7624-7625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2290]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board; Public 
Meeting

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Appendix 2 of Title 
5, United States Code, Public Law 92-463,

[[Page 7625]]

notice is hereby given that the U.S. Small Business Administration 
(SBA), National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board will 
be hosting a public meeting via conference call to discuss such matters 
that may be presented by Board members, staff of the SBA and interested 
others. The conference call is scheduled for Tuesday, February 19, 
2008, at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The purpose of this meeting is 
to discuss the upcoming ASBDC Spring Conference in March and other 
official SBDC business.
    Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must 
contact Alanna Falcone, Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Office of Small Business Development Centers, 409 3rd 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, telephone (202) 619-1612 or fax 
(202) 481-0134.

Cherylyn H. Lebon,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-2290 Filed 2-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P`
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00350-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ROBERT WHITTALL,

Defendant.

ORDER

THIS MATTER coming before the Court upon motion of the government to grant

the defendant an additional one-level decrease in the offense level for acceptance of

responsibility pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines section 3E1.1(b), and

the Court having considered the same, it is hereby

ORDERED that Government’s Motion to Grant the Defendant an Additional OneLevel Decrease Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) (ECF Doc. No. 29), filed March 14,

2012, is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that the defendant be granted an additional one-level decrease in the

offense level.

Dated: March 28, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

WILEY Y. DANIEL,

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cr-00350-WYD Document 36 Filed 03/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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: 11Federal Reserve Bank of: DallasFilings received during the week ending October 26, 2013FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment Period2009 TCRT                                                                                                               4c8
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 188 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55890-55891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22667]

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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

[Docket No. SSA-2008-0044]

Agreement on Social Security Between the United States and 
Denmark; Entry Into Force

AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Commissioner of Social Security gives notice that an 
agreement coordinating the United States (U.S.) and Danish social 
security programs will enter into force on October 1, 2008. The 
agreement with Denmark, which was signed on June 13, 2007, is similar 
to U.S. social security agreements already in force with 21 other 
countries--Australia, Austria, Belgium,

[[Page 55891]]

Canada, Chile, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, 
Korea (South), Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, 
Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Agreements of this type are 
authorized by section 233 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 433).
    Like the other agreements, the U.S.-Danish agreement eliminates 
dual social security coverage--the situation that exists when a worker 
from one country works in the other country and is covered under the 
social security systems of both countries for the same work. Without 
such agreements in force, when dual coverage occurs, the worker, the 
worker's employer, or both may be required to pay social security 
contributions to the two countries simultaneously. Under the U.S.-
Danish agreement, a worker who is sent by an employer in the U.S. to 
work in Denmark for 5 years or less remains covered only by the U.S. 
social security program. Similarly, a worker who is sent by an employer 
in Denmark to work in the U.S. for 3 years or less remains covered only 
by the Danish social security program. The agreement includes 
additional rules that eliminate dual U.S. and Danish coverage in other 
work situations.
    The agreement also helps eliminate situations where workers suffer 
a loss of benefit rights because they have divided their careers 
between the two countries. Under the agreement, workers may qualify for 
partial U.S. benefits or partial Danish benefits based on combined 
(totalized) work credits from both countries.
    Individuals who wish to obtain copies of the agreement or want more 
information about its provisions may write to the Social Security 
Administration, Office of International Programs, Post Office Box 
17741, Baltimore, MD 21235-7741 or visit the Social Security Web site 
at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/international.

    Dated: September 19, 2008.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security.
[FR Doc. E8-22667 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
```
Exhibit 21
  SUBSIDIARIES
    OF THE REGISTRANT
  Jurisdiction ofIncorporation orOrganizationSchawk Worldwide Holdings Inc.

United StatesSchawk Holdings, Inc.

United StatesSeven Seattle, Inc.

United StatesSchawk USA Inc.

United StatesKedzie Aircraft LLCSchawk LLC

United StatesSchawk de Mexico SRL de CV

MexicoSchawk Servicios Administrativos SRL de CV

MexicoMiramar Equipment, Inc.

United StatesSchawk Digital Solutions Inc.

United StatesSeven Worldwide UK Ltd.

United KingdomWinnetts UK Ltd.

United KingdomSchawk Wace Group

United KingdomSchawk UK Holdings Ltd

United KingdomSeven Worldwide Ltd

United KingdomSchawk UK Ltd

United KingdomWace Wiltshire Ltd.

United KingdomGallions Estates Ltd

United KingdomSchawk UK Corporate Packaging Ltd.

United KingdomSchawk UK Overseas Investments Ltd.

United KingdomRipley Group Ltd.

United KingdomClyde Gravure Ltd.

United KingdomRiddington and Co. Ltd.

United KingdomRipley and Co. Ltd

United KingdomRipley Roll Lable Ltd.

United KingdomScrutton Speed Ltd.

United KingdomDulip Ltd

United KingdomSchawk Germany GMBH

GermanySchawk Canada, Inc.

CanadaProtopak Innovations, Inc.

CanadaSchawk Belgium BVBA

BelgiumSchawk Poland Sp z.o.o.

PolandBrandmark International Holding B.V.

NetherlandsDJPA Partnership B.V.

NetherlandsDJPA Partnership Ltd

United KingdomSchawk Spain, SL

SpainSchawk Thailand Ltd.

ThailandAnthem Design & Consulting (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.

ChinaSchawk Japan, Ltd.

JapanSchawk India Pty. Ltd.

IndiaSchawk Holdings Australia Pty Ltd.

AustraliaSchawk Australia Pty. Ltd.

AustraliaAnthem! Design Pty Ltd.

AustraliaMarque Brand Consultants Pty Ltd.

AustraliaSchawk Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.

SingaporeAnthem Design Singapore Pte. Ltd.

SingaporeSchawk Labuan, Inc.

MalaysiaSchawk BVI Services, Inc.

British Virgin IslandsSchawk BVI Holdings, Inc.

British Virgin IslandsSchawk Imaging Sdn. Bhd.

MalaysiaSchawk Kuala Lumpur Sdn. Bhd.

MalaysiaSchawk Penang Sdn. Bhd.

MalaysiaSchawk Imaging (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.

ChinaLaserscan Technology (M) Sdn. Bhd.

Malaysia
#### Miriam Sakol, Appellant, v Abigail Kirsch et al., Respondents.

[808 NYS2d 224]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered June 28, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against the corporate defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff when she fell near the bottom of a winding staircase she was descending during a wedding reception at defendants’ mansion on the Hudson River, the motion court correctly found that the affidavit of plaintiff’s engineering expert was insufficient to defeat defendants’ motion for summary judgment inasmuch as it failed to set forth a violation of any specific safety guidelines in effect at the time of the mansion’s construction more than 100 years ago and prior to the adoption of building codes *(see Jones v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y.,*3 AD3d 225, 228 [2004]; *Veccia v Clearmeadow Pistol Club,*300 AD2d 472 [2002]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

592
KA 10-02511

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JULIAN JENKINS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LINDA GEHRON, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), entered August 17, 2010 pursuant to the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act. The order denied defendant’s application to be resentenced upon defendant’s 2005 conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his application for resentencing under the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act (CPL 440.46). We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in determining that he was ineligible for resentencing because he had previously been released on parole and at the time of his application was reincarcerated for violating his parole ( see People v Paulin , ___ NY3d ___ [June 28, 2011]). Further, because defendant was incarcerated at the time of his application, the fact that he was subsequently re-released on parole does not render his application moot ( see People v Santiago , ___ NY3d ___ [June 28, 2011]). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings on defendant’s application for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46.

Entered: August 19, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
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: 8Federal Reserve Bank of: St. LouisFilings received during the week ending July 4, 2009FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodMCGEHEE BANK EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN THE                                                                          4c8Southeast Financial Bankstock Corporation, McGehee, Arkansas, to engage in lending activities.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not applicable
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial extracted from Winthrop Interim 
Partners 1. A Limited Partnership and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such fifnancial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         13
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          271,867
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (271,854)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  38,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (38,692)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (38,692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (38,692)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.38)
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 02-cv-00311-RPM

CLIMAX MOLYBDENUM COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOLYCHEM, LLC,

Defendant,

v.

PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION,

Additional Party on Counterlcaim.

AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING COUNT II OF CLIMAX MOLYBDENUM COMPANY’S

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

On October 25, 2006, this Court entered an order dismissing Count II of Climax

Molybdenum Company’s Second Amended Complaint submitted to it by counsel for Climax.

On October 26, 2006, Molychem, L.L.C., filed a motion to amend that order to delete from it

the provision that “each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.” The motion to amend

is well taken and that provision was inadvertently included in the from signed by the Court.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Order Dismissing Count II of Climax Molybdenum Company’s

Second Amended Complaint entered October 25, 2006, is amended to delete and exclude

therefrom the provision that each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

DATED: October 27, 2006

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

___________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 169 Filed 10/27/06 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2195

To suspend temporarily the duty on formamide.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 14, 2001

Mr. MCCRERY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on formamide.

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON FORMAMIDE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.30.23 formamide (CAS

No. 75–12–7)

(provided for in

subheading

2924.10.10) ....... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2004 ’’.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn
2

•HR 2195 IH

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit 10.2  


AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT  


        AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT made as of the 13th day of May, 2004 by and between AEROFLEX INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation
(hereinafter the "Company") and MICHAEL GORIN (hereinafter the "Executive"). 


W I T N E S S E T H:  


        WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated March 1, 1999, as amended subsequently by Amendment Agreements dated
September 1, 1999, August 13, 2001 and November 8, 2001 (hereinafter the "Employment Agreement"); and 


        WHEREAS,
the Company and Executive desire to further modify the said Employment Agreement. 



        NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 



	2.
	Paragraph 2(b)
shall be amended and restated as follows, effective as of the date hereof: 





"(b)    Employment Term.    The Employment Term shall commence on the Effective Date and shall terminate on December 31,
2009." 



	2.
	Except
as specifically provided in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement is in all other respects hereby ratified and confirmed without amendment. 




        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written. 



	

 	
 	

AEROFLEX INCORPORATED
	

 	
 	

By:	

/s/  HARVEY R. BLAU      
 Harvey R. Blau, Chairman & CEO
	

 	
 	

 	

/s/  MICHAEL GORIN      
 Michael Gorin
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Oliver Hooper

v. Civil No. 08-cv-426-JD

Warden, Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

O R D E R

Because of the difficulties Oliver Hooper experienced with

representation in this case, in which he seeks relief under 28

U.S.C. § 2254, his response to the Warden’s motion for summary

judgment has been delayed repeatedly. On October 30, 2009,

counsel was appointed to represent Hooper. On January 20, 2010,

Hooper filed a motion to terminate representation by his

appointed counsel and asked to be permitted to proceed pro se. 

The court granted Hooper’s motion on January 26, 2010, and

terminated representation by appointed counsel. The court also

established deadlines for Hooper to notify the court as to

whether he would rely on the response to summary judgment filed

by his appointed counsel or make other filings on his own behalf.

Within the time allowed for his response, Hooper filed a

motion asking to withdraw his previously-granted motion to

terminate representation by his appointed counsel or to

reconsider the order terminating the representation of his

Case 1:08-cv-00426-JD Document 35 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 3
appointed counsel. Hooper now contends that he has had the

opportunity to review the objection to summary judgment filed on

his behalf by appointed counsel and is satisfied with appointed

counsel’s representation. Based on Hooper’s motion, the court

will consider the objection to summary judgment filed on Hooper’s

behalf on January 18, 2010, as Hooper’s filing in opposition to

the Warden’s motion for summary judgment. 

The representation of appointed counsel has been terminated,

however, and the court will not revisit that issue. Hooper asked

to proceed pro se, and his request was granted. Therefore,

Hooper is proceeding pro se in this case. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Hooper’s motion for

reconsideration (document no. 34) is granted to the extent that

the objection to summary judgment (document no. 30), filed on

Hooper’s behalf by appointed counsel on January 18, 2010, is

accepted as his response to the Warden’s motion for summary

judgment. 

Because Hooper is proceeding pro se and will continue to

proceed pro se, any additional filings in this case are his

responsibility.

2

Case 1:08-cv-00426-JD Document 35 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 3
The deadline for the Warden to file a notice of intent to

file a reply to the objection to summary judgment (document no.

30) will be three days after the filing date of this order.

If the Warden files a reply, Hooper will have ten days from

the date the reply is filed to file a motion for leave to file a

surreply, which must be accompanied by a copy of his proposed

surreply. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

February 10, 2010

cc: Oliver Hooper, #78519, pro se

Elizabeth C. Woodcock, Esquire

3

Case 1:08-cv-00426-JD Document 35 Filed 02/10/10 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Bryan Bernard, etal .

V .

Town of Tilton, NH, et al .

Civil No . 08-cv-183-JD

ORDE R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated October 16, 2008, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

November 5, 2008 /s/JosephA. DiClerico. Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc : Bryan Bernard, pro se

Joan Voutour, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00183-JD Document 6 Filed 11/05/08 Page 1 of 1
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

444444444444444 NO. 03-06-00209- CV
444444444444444 In re Samuel T. J ackson
ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Relator Samuel T. J ackson filed this petition for writ of m andamus and an eme rg ency motion to stay disqualification. We deny the petition for wr it of mandamus and ove rrule the motion to stay disqualification.

Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Filed: Apr il 14, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, James D. Constantine, hereby certify that, to
the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 1, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp.



|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    JAMES D. CONSTANTINE                                                                
|                                                                                           
|James D. Constantine Executive Vice President and Chief Financial andAdministrative Officer

December 5, 2003



This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and will be retained by Factory Card
& Party Outlet Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.