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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1365 

To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 

to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with any of the management partners of the Boston Harbor 

Islands National Recreation Area, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2007 

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to authorize the Secretary of the 

Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with any 

of the management partners of the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR BOSTON 

4 HARBOR ISLANDS NATIONAL RECREATION 

5 AREA. 

6 Section 1029(d) of the Omnibus Parks and Public 

7 Lands Management Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 460kkk(d)) 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 1365 IS

1 is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(3) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.— 

4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subpara5 graph (C), the Secretary may consult and enter 

6 into 1 or more cooperative agreements with an 

7 eligible entity described in subparagraph (B) to 

8 acquire from and provide to the eligible entity 

9 goods and services for— 

10 ‘‘(i) the cooperative management of 

11 land within the recreation area; 

12 ‘‘(ii) the construction of recreation 

13 area facilities; or 

14 ‘‘(iii) any other purpose that is con15 sistent with the purposes described in sub16 section (a). 

17 ‘‘(B) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.—For purposes 

18 of this subparagraph, an eligible entity is— 

19 ‘‘(i) the Commonwealth of Massachu20 setts; 

21 ‘‘(ii) a political subdivision of the 

22 Commonwealth of Massachusetts; or 

23 ‘‘(iii) any partnership entity specified 

24 in subsection (e)(2). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•S 1365 IS

1 ‘‘(C) CONDITIONS.—A cooperative agree2 ment shall only be entered into under subpara3 graph (A) if the Secretary determines that— 

4 ‘‘(i) appropriations for carrying out 

5 the purposes of the cooperative agreement 

6 are available; and 

7 ‘‘(ii) the cooperative agreement is in 

8 the best interests of the United States.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### William ROACH, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 17, 1974.

*14Anthony M. Wilhoit, Public Defender, William C. Ayer, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Frankfort, for appellant.

Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Robert L. Chenoweth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

STEINFELD, Justice.

Appellant William Roach was found guilty of breaking and entering (KRS 433.-190) and unlawful possession of narcotic drugs (KRS 218.020 and 218.210). He was sentenced to penitentiary confinement of five years on the former and ten years on the latter conviction. From a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict, Roach appeals belatedly but with permission of the court. We affirm.

The first claimed error is that the trial court failed to follow KRS 28.430, which requires reporting of the trial proceedings when requested by a party. Although National Dairy Products Corp. v. Rittle, Ky., 487 S.W.2d 894 (1972), was a civil case, its reasoning is dispositive of this issue, and that disposition is adverse to Roach’s contention.

The two other alleged trial errors involve the introduction of evidence Roach’s counsel (different from the present) failed to use the method provided by RCr 12.68 (Appeals when No Stenographic Report is Available), therefore we have no record from which to consider these assertions. A narrative statement is among the papers of this case, but there is no certificate of service nor is there indication that it was approved or disapproved by the trial court. These are requirements of RCr 12.68. Lawson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 403 S.W.2d 281 (1966). Cf. Robinson v. Pound, Ky., 432 S.W.2d 645 (1968), and Richardson v. Eaton, Ky., 402 S.W.2d 857 (1966).

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Alan F. Krock hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer of PMC-Sierra, Inc. (PMC), that, to my knowledge, this Quarterly Report of PMC on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended April 2, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PMC.



|                      |  |     |  |                             
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------
|Date: August 16, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Alan F. Krock           
|                      |  |     |  | Alan F. Krock               
|                      |  |     |  | Vice President,             
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer and 
|                      |  |     |  | Principal Accounting Officer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1216, -1254 AVID IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. THE CRYSTAL IMPORT CORPORATION and

DATAMARS SA,

Defendants-Appellees, and DATAMARS, INC.,

Defendant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

in case no. 2:04-CV-183, Judge T. John Ward.

ON MOTION 

### ORDER Datamars SA moves to reform the official caption.* Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

It is this court's usual practice to not delete parties from the caption because they were dismissed by the district court, unless the dismissal was on consent or due to settlement. See also Fed. R. App. P. 12(a) (the clerk must docket the appeal under the title of the district court action). Thus, the court need not delete Datamars, Inc. from the caption. Because it appears, based on the submission, that Datamars, Inc. will not be participating in the appeal, the court deletes the "appellee" designation related to Datamars, Inc. from the caption.

### The motion is granted to the extent that the revised official caption is reflected
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Jan Horbalv above.

MAY 15 2009 Date

cc: John W. Thornburgh, Esq. Mark A. Hannemann, Esq. s8 Jan Horbaly Clerk us t 

## fildlit %Ras Pon L CIRCUIT
MAY 1 5 2009 JAN HUNoni.t CLERK



### 2009-1216, -1254 - 2 -
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.9


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the use of our audit report dated April 21, 1999 with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of travelbyus.com, ltd. [formerly
LatinGold Inc.] in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 of Aviation Group,
Inc. [the "Registration Statement"] and to the reference to our firm under the
heading "Experts" in the Registration Statement.




                                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
October 31, 2000                        Ernst & Young LLP
Toronto, Canada                        Chartered Accountants
1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable John

F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1546

___________

Vernon Smith, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Willa Dean Spath, Circuit Clerk, Lee * Eastern District of Arkansas 

County, Bill Lewellen, Public *

Defender, Lee County, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: March 31, 1999

 Filed: May 17, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Inmate Vernon Smith appeals from the final judgment entered in the District

Court1

 for the Eastern District of Arkansas, dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C.
-2-

§ 1983 action prior to service. Smith claimed his Fourteenth Amendment due process

rights were violated when defendants deliberately delayed the correction of a clerical

error in his sentencing order. We conclude dismissal was proper because Smith’s

complaint allegations show he suffered no resulting injury other than alleged emotional

distress. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (prisoners may not bring federal civil actions for

mental or emotional injury without prior showing of physical injury); Knight v.

Lombardi, 952 F.2d 177, 179 (8th Cir. 1991) (inmate’s procedural due process claim

dismissed where inmate failed to allege or present evidence of injury flowing from

alleged violation). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). We deny Smith’s request for

appointment of counsel.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                     7
<LEGEND>   This  schedule contains summary financial  information
extracted  from  the  consolidated financial  statements  of  MMI
Companies, Inc. and subsidiaries for the three month period ended
March 31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference  to
such financial statements.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>            1,126,972
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>           0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>             0
<EQUITIES>                      53,208
<MORTGAGE>                      0
<REAL-ESTATE>                   0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                  1,235,508
<CASH>                          14,361
<RECOVER-REINSURE>              26,415
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>          41,761
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,059,416
<POLICY-LOSSES>                 1,172,403
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>             225,384
<POLICY-OTHER>                  0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>           0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                 118,869
<COMMON>                        1,903
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<OTHER-SE>                      402,230
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,059,416
<PREMIUMS>                      81,258
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>             18,460
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>              189
<OTHER-INCOME>                  15,053
<BENEFITS>                      61,819
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>     15,463
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>            28,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 6,399
<INCOME-TAX>                    533
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             5,866
<DISCONTINUED>                  (3,643)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    2,223
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .12
<RESERVE-OPEN>                  0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>             0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>               0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>              0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                 0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>         0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2(b)**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Hickory Tech Corporation (HickoryTech) on Form 10-Q for the periodending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Christensen, Chief Financial Officerof HickoryTech, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of HickoryTech.
| /s/ David A. Christensen                          |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| David A. Christensen                              |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| August 4, 2006                                    |

 

----
#### E. E. MUSGRAVE, Appellant, v. Hoover DAWAHARE and Donald F. Crosthwaite, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 19, 1973.

Robert J. Greene, Perry & Greene, Paintsville, for appellant.

Harry M. Caudill, Whitesburg, for ap-pellees.

Opinion, of the Court by

Special Commissioner ROBERT O. LUKOWSKY,

Affirming.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1161

MANUEL HELMBRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus BONNIE DAVIS, in her private and official capacity; CHIEF K. GESSLER, in his official capacity; OFFICER WALLACE, in his official capacity; UNKNOWN DESK OFFICER, in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 06-1595

MANUEL HELMBRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus BONNIE DAVIS, in her private and official capacity; CHIEF K. GESSLER, in his official capacity; OFFICER WALLACE, in his official capacity; UNKNOWN DESK OFFICER, in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees.- 2 - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (5:04-cv-00069-FPS)
Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: September 28, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Manuel Helmbright, Appellant Pro Se. Paul C. Camilletti, CAMILETTI, SACCO & PIZZUTI, Wheeling, West Virginia; Melanie Morgan Norris, Jacob Andrew Manning, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Manuel Helmbright appeals the district court’s orders granting defendant police officers’ motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and vacating its pre-trial conference and trial schedule in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Helmbright v. Davis , No. 5:04-cv-00069-FPS (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 20, 2006; Mar. 23, 2006. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 16, 2011*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.215 Bank Loans Not Elsewhere Classified** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                       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 Zond-PanAero Windsystem Partners I
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Eric D. Gadd, Chief Executive Officer of Zond Windsystems
Management LLC, as General Partner of the Partnership, 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 and belief, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except that the Report
          was not timely filed; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Partnership for the three months ended March 31, 2003.


Date: May 10, 2004
                                 /s/ ERIC D. GADD
                                 ------------------------------
                                 Eric D. Gadd
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Zond Windsystems Management LLC, as General
                                 Partner of Zond-PanAero Windsystem Partners I
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned, John D. Reedy, ExecutiveVice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Michael Foods, Inc.(the “Company”), has executed this certification in connection with the filingwith the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the “Report”).

 

The undersigned hereby certifies that:

 

1.   The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

2.   The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 13thday of August, 2002.

 
| /s/ John Reedy                           |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| John D. Reedy                            |
| Executive Vice President,  Treasurer and |
| Chief Financial Officer                  |

 

----
EXHIBIT 10.1

 

DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS

 

First Data Corporation (the “Company”) directors do not receive compensation. However, all of the directors of the Company are also directors of the Company’s parent company, First Data Holdings Inc. (“Holdings”). On April 14, 2014, the Holdings Board of Directors approved the following compensation for nonemployee directors not associated with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. Such directors shall receive an annual cash retainer of $75,000 paid in quarterly installments, restricted stock award of shares of common stock of Holdings with a value of $125,000 on the date of election, and a grant of options to acquire 500,000 shares of common stock of Holdings with a strike price equal to the fair market value at the date of grant as determined by the Holdings Board of Directors. The restricted stock awards will vest upon the later of 3 years from the date of grant or the expiration of the lockup period following an initial public offering of shares of Holdings. The option grant date will be the date of election to the Board and the options will vest equally over three years on the anniversary of the grant and have a ten-year term. Such directors also will be eligible to defer the cash retainer under the Director Deferred Compensation Plan.

 

1
#### Davis, Appellant, *v.*Snyder.

*Judgments*— Judgment *by confession*— Opening *judgments*— Dis*cretion of court.*

1. It is not an abuse of judicial discretion to open a confessed judgment entered upon a judgment note where the evidence shows mysterious and unnatural conduct on the part of the plaintiff, where no purpose, reason or motive for the action, of the judgment defendant in borrowing the money alleged to be the consideration for the note appears, but where it does appear that he was seventy-three years old at the time of the transaction and was shortly thereafter judicially determined to be of enfeebled intellect.

Practice, *Supreme Court*— Assignments *of error*— Defective *assignments.*

, 2. An assignment of error raising objections to depositions which does not show that such objections were raised in the court below will not be considered by the Supreme Court.

Argued Feb. 15, 1915.

Appeal, No. 293, Jan. T., 1913, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Schuylkill Co., No. 144, July T., 1910, opening confessed judgment in case of W. J. Davis v. Solomon Snyder.

Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Elkin, Stewart and Mosohzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Buie to show cause why confessed judgment should not be opened and defendant let in to a defense. Before Brumm, J.

The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court opened the judgment. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned*was in opening judgment.

*569March *22,*1915:

*Robert A. Reich,*for appellant.

*R. J. Graejf,*for appellee was not heard.

Per Curiam,

The learned court below, in the exercise of the discretion vested in it, could not have denied the application of the appellee for the opening of the judgment entered against him by the appellant. We concur in its conclusion that all the testimony, records and facts developed in the case show very mysterious and unnatural conduct on the part of the plaintiff, as well as a want of purpose, reason or motive for the defendant’s borrowing the money as alleged. At the time the appellee is alleged to have borrowed the money from the appellant he was seventy-three years of age. Three years later he was declared to be a person of feeble mind, in proceedings instituted in the court below, and it'appeared that, at the time the appellant alleges the money was loaned to him, he was possessed of an ample estate of his own. Though notified, through his attorney, to be present when the depositions were taken in support of the petition to open the judgment, that he might be cross-examined, the appellant declined to appear and explain his alleged business transactions with the appellee. This, in itself, is quite significant, but, that he may not be prejudiced in asking the jury to sustain his judgment, we forbear saying anything more as to the merits of the case.

It does not appear from the assignments of error that the objections made to the depositions on this appeal were made in.-the court below. They are not, therefore, to be considered here: Winton v. Little, 94 Pa. 64.

Appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.