alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 59613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23966]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Active Duty Service Determinations for Civilian or Contratual 
Groups

SUMMARY: On September 24, 2008, the Secretary of the Air Force, acting 
as Executive Agent of the Secretary of Defense, determined that the 
service of the group known as the ``Vietnamese Citizens Who Served in 
Vietnam Under Contract With the U.S. Armed Forces and Were Assigned to 
Reconnaissance Teams and Exploitation Forces Within the Military 
Assistance Command, Studies and Observations Group (MACVSOG), Ground 
Operations OP-35, Command and Control (C&C), From January 1964 to April 
1972.''
    Shall not be considered ``active duty'' for purposes of all laws 
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. James D. Johnston at the 
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC); 1535 Command 
Drive, EE Wing, 3d Fl.; Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002.

Bao-Anh Trinh,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-23966 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

Certification

 

The undersigned officer ofNatrol, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that to thebest of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.  This certification is providedsolely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 
| Date:  | 5/15/2003 |   | Name:  | /s/Dennis R.  Jolicoeur                |
|--------|-----------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |      |   |   |                                   |
|   |      |   | Title: | Chief  Financial Officer and Executive |
|   |      |   |   | Vice  President                        |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL E. HEGARTY

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH FTR – Courtroom A501

Date: February 21, 2013 Cathy Pearson, Courtroom Deputy

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Iris Halpern

William Moench

Plaintiff, 

v.

WENDY J. CABRERA, Kent Eichstadt (by phone)

Intervenor Plaintiff,

v.

THE ORIGINAL HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY Benson Pope (by phone)

OF GEORGIA, INC., Danielle Kitson

Katherine Hinde

Defendant.

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER

TELEPHONIC ORAL ARGUMENT

Court in session: 3:02 p.m.

The Court calls case. Appearances of counsel by telephone. 

Argument and discussion regarding Defendant HBH’s Motion for Sanctions Under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 37 against Plaintiff EEOC for Failure to Comply in Good Faith with the Court’s Order (Doc.

267, filed 12/12/12). 

Discussion regarding an extension of time for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s brief

regarding apportionment of costs and the status of the questionnaires.

ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s brief regarding apportionment of costs

is due by 12:00 p.m. (noon) on February 25, 2013. 

2. Plaintiff shall provide copies of the 13 questionnaires to Defendant by

12:00 p.m. (noon) on February 22, 2013.

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 328 Filed 02/21/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Discussion regarding Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Reconsideration of Costs (Doc. 325, filed

2/20/13) and further argument and discussion regarding Defendant HBH’s Motion for Sanctions

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 against Plaintiff EEOC for Failure to Comply in Good Faith with the

Court’s Order (Doc. 267, filed 12/12/12). 

ORDERED: Defendant HBH’s Motion for Sanctions Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 against Plaintiff

EEOC for Failure to Comply in Good Faith with the Court’s Order (Doc. 267,

filed 12/12/12) is taken under advisement. 

Court in recess: 4:05 p.m. (Hearing concluded)

Total time in court: 1:07

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 328 Filed 02/21/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1147 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1147

To amend title 38, United States Code, to terminate the administrative 
freeze on the enrollment into the health care system of the Department 
  of Veterans Affairs of veterans in the lowest priority category for 
              enrollment (referred to as ``Priority 8'').

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 18, 2007

  Mrs. Murray introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to terminate the administrative 
freeze on the enrollment into the health care system of the Department 
  of Veterans Affairs of veterans in the lowest priority category for 
              enrollment (referred to as ``Priority 8'').

    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 ``Honor Our Commitment to Veterans 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) Over 273,000 veterans have been barred from receiving 
        health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs as a 
        result of a freeze on the enrollment of veterans who are in the 
        lowest priority category for enrollment (referred to as 
        ``Priority 8'').
            (2) Veterans with incomes as low as $26,902 have been 
        barred from receiving health care from the Department of 
        Veterans Affairs by reason of the freeze.
            (3) Hundreds of thousands of veterans are returning home, 
        or will return home, from Afghanistan and Iraq and may be 
        denied needed long-term benefits due to the freeze.
            (4) The average veteran whose benefits are frozen is 62.8 
        years old and is entering a time in life when health benefits 
        are needed most.

SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FREEZE ON ENROLLMENT IN HEALTH 
              CARE SYSTEM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    Section 1705 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) The Secretary shall administer the health care enrollment 
system under this section so as to enroll any veteran who is eligible 
under this section for such enrollment and who applies for such 
enrollment.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Gerald Wright, Petitioner, v Sheldon Greenberg, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

[744 NYS2d 906]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition and mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondents to dismiss an action entitled *People v Wright,*pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Indictment Nos. 5535/01, 6605/01, and 7334/01, against the petitioner, and application for poor person relief.

Application by the respondent Charles J. Hynes to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8002 (b) is waived and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the application to dismiss the proceeding is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a *464court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged — acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569; *see Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 352). Similarly, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16).

The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. O’Brien, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Struble *v.*Ach et al., Board of County Commissioners of Hamilton County.

(No. 25022

Decided December 19, 1934.)

*Mr. Roy L. Struble*and *Mr. Sol*Goodman, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Louis J. Schneider,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Walter M. Locke*and *Mr. Robert A. Ludeka,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J.,, Carver, Hart, Stephenson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.
#### Nicholas JANUARY v. Robt. H. SMITH et al.

No. 2145.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 3, 1940.

Argued before LE BLANC and OTT, JJ., and HERMANN MOYSE, Judge ad hoc.

Taylor, Porter & Brooks, of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Durrett & Hardin, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

HERMANN MOYSE, Judge ad hoc.

For the ■ reasons assigned in the opinion this day handed down in the case of Cal Prevost v. Robert H. Smith et al., 197 So. 90S, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from in this case be affirmed, appellant to pay all costs.

LE BLANC and OTT, JJ., concur in the decree.

DORE, J., not participating.
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 the quarterly report of National Healthcare Technology, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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:

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.


Dated:  February 16, 2004 /s/ Charles Smith
                  Name: Charles Smith
Title:  Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  February 16, 2004 /s/ Charles Smith
                  Name: Charles Smith
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Se nior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. JUAN HERNANDEZ-ORTIZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 09-50568 D.C. No. 3:09-cr-02644-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 6, 2011 Pasadena, California Before: NOONAN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, ** Senior District Judge. 

# FILED
MAY 18 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Juan Hernandez-Ortiz, native and citizen of Mexico, appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 a nd 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez-Ortiz’s motion to substitute appointed counsel. Hernandez-Ortiz provided no explanation for his lack of trust in his attorney, nor could he point to any “striking signs of serious conflict.” United States v. Mendez-Sanchez , 563 F.3d 935, 944 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Adelzo-Gonzalez , 268 F.3d 772, 778 (9th Cir. 2001)). The record contains no indication that antagonism or hostility on his attorney’s part limited the effectivene ss of her representation, and she fully supported Hernandez-Ortiz at the hearing on the motion to substitute. See Adelzo-Gonzalez , 268 F.3d at 779. Moreover, as the district court properly recognized, a defendant’s “general unreas onableness” does not suffice to show an “irreconcilable conflict.” Mendez-Sanchez , 563 F.3d at 943, 945 (citations omitted). The district court did not conc lude that Hernandez-Ortiz’s motion was untimely, and the court’s inquiry was ade quate because its “specific and targeted questions” established that Hernandez-Or tiz’s attorney was competent and capable of effectively representing him. Adelzo-Gonzalez , 268 F.3d at 778.3 The district court’s application of an 8-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) was proper because Hern andez-Ortiz’s § 496(a) conviction for receipt of stolen property categorically qualifies as an aggravated felony. See Verdugo-Gonzalez v. Holder , 581 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The full range of conduct proscribed by California Penal Code section § 496(a) falls within the generic definition of a theft offe nse” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G).). AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of Incentra  Solutions,
Inc. (the  "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  Paul
McKnight, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,  pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:    November 14, 2005                       By:   /s/ Paul McKnight
                                                       -----------------
                                                       Paul McKnight
                                                       Chief Financial Officer



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

This  certification   accompanies  each  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

SENIOR JUDGE RICHARD P. MATSCH

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02550-RPM

SIAMAK AMIRINOOR v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02584-RPM

KEVIN STRINGER, et al., v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02817-RPM

DANIEL JONES v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02819-RPM

ROBERT DURAN v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; and

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00876-RPM

PAUL ALFREDO GARCIA-PEREZ, et al., v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING CONFERENCE

____________________________________________________________________________ 

Pursuant to the Orders entered in the captioned cases by this Court on April 23,

2012, it is

ORDERED that a conference to enable the development of a coordinated case

management order is scheduled for May 18, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. in the Conference

Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout Street,

Denver, Colorado.

Dated: April 24th, 2012.

 BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

_________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02550-RPM Document 29 Filed 04/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

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 Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alvin J. Catz, Chief Financial Officer of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Western Pennsylvania Adventure
Capital Fund, LLC.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Alvin J. Catz                              
|Alvin J. Catz                                  
|Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director
|May 4, 2010                                    

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and will be retained by Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23581]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Harvard University, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision on 
Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes

    This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 
(Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Public Law 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR 
part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
in Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 08-043. Applicant: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 
02138. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G2 F20 TWIN. 
Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 
73 FR 52297, September 9, 2008.
    Docket Number: 08-044. Applicant: Pennsylvania University, Hershey, 
PA 17033. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM 1400. 
Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 
52297, September 9, 2008.
    Docket Number: 08-045. Applicant: University of Texas at Austin, 
Austin, TX 78712. Tecnai G2 Spirit Bi0TWIN Republic. Intended Use: 
2008. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech 
See notice at 73 FR 52297, September 9, 2008.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were 
ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and 
is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an 
electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other 
instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in 
the United States at the time of order of each instrument.

Dated: September 30, 2008.
Faye Robinson,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E8-23581 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129562 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129562 

 COA: 254820 

Calhoun CC: 2003-000406-FC 

DAVID LEE WALTON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1219 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification**

 

The undersigned officer of Natrol, Inc. (the “Company”) herebycertifies that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q to which thiscertification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgatedunder the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and theExchange Act.  In accordance with clause(ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” forpurposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to theliability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated byreference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, exceptto the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

 
| Date: November 14, 2003 | Name:  | /s/ Elliott Balbert                              |   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         | Title: | Chief Executive Officer, President and  Chairman |
|                              |        |                                                  |        |  |

 

----