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

Calendar No. 209 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1099 

To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to make individuals 

employed by the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission 

eligible to obtain Federal health insurance. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 12, 2007 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. HARKIN, and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 19, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to 

make individuals employed by the Roosevelt Campobello 

International Park Commission eligible to obtain Federal 

health insurance. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HEALTH INSURANCE. 

4 Section 8901(1) of title 5, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1099 RS

1 (1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

2 the end; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (I), by inserting ‘‘and’’ 

4 after the semicolon; and 

5 (3) by inserting before the matter following 

6 subparagraph (I) the following: 

7 ‘‘(J) an individual who is employed by the 

8 Roosevelt Campobello International Park Com9 mission and is a citizen of the United States,’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Calendar No. 209 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1099 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States 

sion eligible to obtain Federal health insurance. sevelt Campobello International Park CommisCode, to make individuals employed by the RooJUNE 19, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement of Form S-8 (File No. 333-117235) of GoldenCycle Gold Corporation of our report dated February 9, 2005, which appearsin the consolidated financial statements included in this Company’s Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2004.

 
|                | /s/ Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman P.C. |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                |                                               |
| Denver, Colorado    |                                               |
| March 31, 2005 |                                               |
|                     |                                                    |  |

 

1

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GEORGE McCLOSKEY,

Appellant,

v.

NANCY McCLOSKEY ,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-48

[December 19, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Indian River County; Paul B. Kanarek, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

312016CA000264.

Wayne R. McDonough of Wayne R. McDonough, P.A., Vero Beach, for 

appellant.

Owen Schultz of McCarthy, Summers, Wood, Norman, Melby & 

Schultz, P.A., Stuart, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2014

JERROLD BARON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D12-3780

[November 19, 2014]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Dan L. Vaughn, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 562006CF000418A.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel and Louis G. Carres, Special 

Assistant Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional 

Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine 

Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s thorough order denying appellant’s motion 

for postconviction relief from his convictions for vehicular manslaughter 

and DUI manslaughter. After a full evidentiary hearing, the trial court 

concluded that none of the appellant’s contentions constituted ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Most claims were either unproven or were shown 

to be reasonable trial strategy decisions by counsel and agreed to by the 

appellant. Moreover, competent substantial evidence supports the trial 

court’s conclusion that, even if all of appellant’s claims of ineffective 

assistance and failure to present evidence had been cured at trial, there 

was no reasonable probability that the results at trial would have been 

different, given the testimony and other evidence presented by the state. 

See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). This included 

eyewitness testimony of appellant’s swerving and weaving prior to striking 

the pedestrian victims, as well as his fleeing the scene, and his admissions, 

in recorded telephone calls at the jail, to drinking and driving.
2

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

 

As an accompaniment to the Annual Report of MainSource Financial Group,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Donald A. Benziger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

•                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and

•                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for theperiods presented.

 

This certification is based on inquiries that I have made, or havecaused to be made, in a good faith effort on my part to be a responsible andcompetent chief executive officer serving the Company and its manyconstituencies.

 

This certification merely accompanies and is not part of the Report,shall not be deemed filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and may not be used for any purpose other than compliance with 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002.

 

Date: March 10, 2006

 
| /s/ James M. Anderson |   |
|-----------------------|--------|

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02470-BNB

KEITH C. BROOKS, JR.,

Applicant,

v.

ANGEL MEDINA, Warden, Limon Correctional Facility, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, 

Respondents.

ORDER TO FILE PRE-ANSWER RESPONSE

As part of the preliminary consideration of the Application for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this case, the Court has determined that a

limited Pre-Answer Response is appropriate. Respondents are directed pursuant to

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts

and to Denson v. Abbott, 554 F.Supp. 2d 1206 (D. Colo. 2008), to file a Pre-Answer

Response limited to addressing the affirmative defenses of timeliness under 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d) and/or exhaustion of state court remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). If

Respondents do not intend to raise either of these affirmative defenses, they must notify

the Court of that decision in the Pre-Answer Response. Respondents may not file a

dispositive motion as their Pre-Answer Response, or an Answer, or otherwise address

the merits of the claims in response to this Order.

 In support of the Pre-Answer Response, Respondents should attach as exhibits

all relevant portions of the state court record, including but not limited to copies of all

documents demonstrating whether this action is filed in a timely manner and/or whether

Case 1:11-cv-02470-BNB Document 7 Filed 11/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Applicant has exhausted state court remedies.

Applicant may reply to the Pre-Answer Response and provide any information

that might be relevant to the one-year limitation period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)

and/or the exhaustion of state court remedies. Applicant also should include

information relevant to equitable tolling, specifically as to whether he has pursued his

claims diligently and whether some extraordinary circumstance prevented him from

filing a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action in this Court. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that within twenty-one days from the date of this Order

Respondents shall file a Pre-Answer Response that complies with this Order. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the filing of the PreAnswer Response Applicant may file a Reply, if he desires. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that if Respondents do not intend to raise either of the

affirmative defenses of timeliness or exhaustion of state court remedies, they must

notify the Court of that decision in the Pre-Answer Response.

DATED November 21, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02470-BNB Document 7 Filed 11/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald Strafford, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Mackston, J.), rendered February 16, 1989, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

A review of the record discloses that the defendant waived his right to appeal as part of his plea agreement. Because we *899find that this waiver was made freely, knowingly and voluntarily, the defendant’s appeal must be dismissed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1

                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
              SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael Burke, President and Director of Focus Affiliates, Inc.
certify that :

1  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Focus Affiliates,
   Inc.

2  Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue
   statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
   make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
   statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
   this Quarterly Report;

3  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
   information included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all
   material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
   flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
   Quarterly Report;

4  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
   procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
   Registrant and I have:

a  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
   information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated
   subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
   particularly during the period in which this Quarterly Report is being
   prepared;

b  evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
   procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
   Quarterly Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c  presented in this Quarterly Report my conclusions about the effectiveness
   of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
   Evaluation Date;

5  I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's
   auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or
   persons performing the equivalent function);

a  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
   controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record,
   process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
   Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
   employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal
   controls.


Dated : February 26, 2008         Signature :  /s/ Michael Burke
                                               --------------------------
                                                   Michael Burke
                                                   President and Director


<PAGE>
#### Robert C. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Dec. 21, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
accompanying financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                            2812
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    27894
<ALLOWANCES>                                       905
<INVENTORY>                                      21481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 61845
<PP&E>                                           97155
<DEPRECIATION>                                   65135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  100155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            23328
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38165
<OTHER-SE>                                       11652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    100155
<SALES>                                         184927
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                184927
<CGS>                                           158617
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   158617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 22542
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    10
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2328
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1430
<INCOME-TAX>                                       862
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                568
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    246
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       322
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0465 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHAEL LEE MARFUTA, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 2 9, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 21 2023

02/21/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0465
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 10.15b

                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated as of the 29th day of February
2000 between Juno Online Services, Inc. (the "Company") and Richard Eaton (the
"Employee").

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee are parties to an Employment Agreement
dated as of September 25, 1998 (the "Employment Agreement") pursuant to which
the Employee is employed by the Company;

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained
herein, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1.   AMENDMENT TO COMPENSATION PROVISIONS. Section 2 of the Employment Agreement
     is amended as follows:

     a.   In Section 2(a), the Compensation Period shall begin on January 1,
          2000 and shall end on December 31, 2000.

     b.   In Section 2(a), the figure set forth as the Employee's base salary
          shall be replaced with $160,000. This new figure shall remain subject
          to all of the provisions of Section 2(a).

     c.   Section 2(d) entitled "Non-Refundable Advance Against Bonus" is
          deleted in its entirety.

2.   NO OTHER AMENDMENTS. Except as expressly amended as provided herein, the
     Employment Agreement shall continue to be, and shall remain, in full force
     and effect in accordance with its terms.

3.   SEVERABILITY. The holding of any provision of this amendment to be illegal,
     invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction shall not
     affect any other provision of this amendment, which shall remain in full
     force and effect.


<PAGE>


4.   GOVERNING LAW. This amendment shall be governed by, and construed and
     interpreted in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York (without
     regard to conflicts-of-laws-principles.)

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the
date first written above.

JUNO ONLINE SERVICES, INC.

By: /s/ Charles Ardai
   -----------------------------
        Charles Ardai
        President and Chief Executive Officer

EMPLOYEE:

    /s/ Richard Eaton
   -----------------------------
        Richard Eaton
Case 1:11-cr-00360-WJM Document 97 Filed 09/02/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-cr-00360-WJM Document 97 Filed 09/02/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BRIGHT HORIZONS, INC. AT MARCH 31, 1998 AND
FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      15,414,076
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,981,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                   571,355
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,214,729
<PP&E>                                      26,208,500
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,935,435
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,468,715
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,445,155
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,007
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,709,329
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,468,715
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            77,359,888
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               65,719,480
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             167,468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,235,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,777,183
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,777,183
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        


</TABLE>
#### The State, ex rel. The George D. Harter Bank of Canton, Trustee, et al. *v.*Lindsay, Judge.

(No. 25444

Decided June 12, 1935.)

*Messrs. Gnau & Miller,*for relators.

*Messrs. Wilkin, Fisher S Limbach,*for respondent.

This cause came on to be heard upon the demurrer of the respondent to relator’s petition praying for a writ of prohibition to prevent the Court of Common Pleas from entering final judgment in an action instituted by the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District to appropriate land for the relocation of the track and right of way of a private railroad corporation, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged that the demurrer be, and the same hereby is, sustained and, respondent not desiring to plead further, a writ of prohibition denied, for the reason that the relator has an adequate remedy at law by proceedings in error and a writ of prohibition does not lie to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment. *State, ex rel. MacDiarmid,*v. *Eastman, Judge,*118 Ohio St., 121, 160 N. E., 626; *State, ex rel.*
      *681
      *Carmody,*v. *Justice, Judge,*114 Ohio St., 94, 150 N. E., 430; *Silliman*v. *Court of Common Pleas of Williams County,*126 Ohio St., 338, 185 N. E., 420.

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, O. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias and Day", JJ., concur.
No. 80-154 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1980 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: 

SHERYL L. PARK, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

VS . 

STERLING C. PARK, 

Appellant and Respondent. 

,Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Deer Lodge, Montana 

Honorable John B. McClernan, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Michael J. McKeon, Anaconda, Montana 

For Respondent : 

C. F. Mackay, Anaconda, Montana 

Submitted on briefs: November 6, 1980 

Decided : Fry r. 

,. i 1, 3 1980 
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

Sterling Park appeals from a Deer Lodge County District 

Court order directing him to pay maintenance and support for 

his wife and children. 

The parties were married on April 20, 1971, in Orem, Utah. 

Three children were born of the marriage and were of minor age 

at the time the cause was filed in District Court. After hearing the court entered a judgment ordering Sterling Park to pay 

$135 per week for the maintenance and support of his wife 

Sheryl and the couple's three children. No special findings 

of fact or conclusions of law were entered with the judgment. 

The issue we are asked to address is whether the District 

Court judgment is sufficient and properly entered. We find that 

it was not. 

Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P., commands the District Court to find 

the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law. 

The failure to comply with Rule 52, M.R.Civ.P., is fatal to the 

validity of the order. 

This Court disdains its role as the corrector of mistakes 

too obvious to question. We grow weary of continual disregard 

of the most basic rules of practice and procedure. These rules 

are clear, and this Court expects and demands that they be 

followed. 

The order is vacated and and remanded for the entry of a 

proper order. 
We concur: