alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7557

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HAROLD SMITH, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-85-166, CA-02-2456-6-13AK) Submitted: January 8, 2003 Decided: February 3, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Corley Lucius, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Harold Smith, Jr., a federal pri soner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as successive. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a cert ificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Smith has not made the requisite showing. SeeUnited States v. Smith , Nos. CR-85-166; CA-02-2456-6- 13AK (D.S.C. Sept. 13, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2406 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2406

   To amend title XII of the Public Health Service Act to expand the 
    definition of trauma to include thermal, electrical, chemical, 
                radioactive, and other extrinsic agents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2014

   Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XII of the Public Health Service Act to expand the 
    definition of trauma to include thermal, electrical, chemical, 
                radioactive, and other extrinsic agents.

    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 ``Improving Trauma Care Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. TRAUMA DEFINITION.

    (a) Revised Definition Under Trauma Systems Grants Programs.--
Paragraph (4) of section 1231 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 300d-31) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(4) Trauma.--The term `trauma' means an injury resulting 
        from exposure to--
                    ``(A) a mechanical force; or
                    ``(B) another extrinsic agent, including an 
                extrinsic agent that is thermal, electrical, chemical, 
                or radioactive.''.
    (b) Revised Definition Under Interagency Program for Trauma 
Research.--Paragraph (3) of section 1261(h) of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d-61(h)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(3) The term `trauma' means an injury resulting from 
        exposure to--
                    ``(A) a mechanical force; or
                    ``(B) another extrinsic agent, including an 
                extrinsic agent that is thermal, electrical, chemical, 
                or radioactive.''.
                                 <all>
```
News United States Air Force
 Air Force seeks 69th Annual Arthur S. Flemming Award nominationsPublished Aug. 21, 2017
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Alexx Pons
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Air Force officials are seeking nominations for the 69th Annual Arthur S. Flemming Award. 
The award, sponsored by George Washington University and the Arthur S. Flemming Awards Commission, honors outstanding federal employees who have made significant and extraordinary contributions to the federal government in the categories of leadership and/or management; legal achievement; social science, clinical trials and translational research; applied science and engineering; and basic science. 
The Air Force can submit two civil service or military members per category for a total of 10 nominations.
The purpose of the award is to recognize outstanding and meritorious achievement while working for the federal government; to encourage the highest standards of performance in the federal service; to enhance appreciation of our form of government and the opportunities and responsibilities it presents; and to attract outstanding individuals to a career in federal service.
Organizations and base-level personnel must contact their major command, combatant command, field operating agency or direct reporting unit for applicable suspense dates and additional information regarding nomination procedures. Nomination packages are due to the Air Force’s Personnel Center by Nov. 17, 2017.
Specific eligibility and application procedures are available via myPers. Select “any” from the dropdown menu and search “Flemming.”
For more information about Air Force personnel programs, go to **myPers**. Individuals who do not have a myPers account can request one by following the instructions on the **Air Force’s Personnel Center** website.Air Force 



military 



AFPC 



nominations 



AETC 



AF 



Air Force Personnel Center 



Air Education and Training Command 



Arthur S. Flemming Award 



joint base 



civil service 



federal government 



JB San Antonio-Randolph
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMITMENT OF K.L. TO THE CAMDEN COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES CENTER.

July 11, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 66 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S5561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         THE CHAPLAIN'S PRAYER

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the Chaplain for his timely and 
comforting words.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT
      32.2






CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002






I,
      Arthur
      N. Robins, Chief Executive Officer of Encompass Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
      do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




This
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September
      30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report"),
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and




The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Date:
      March 14, 2007




/s/
      Arthur N. Robins


Arthur
      N.
      Robins


Chief
      Executive Officer
News United States Air Force
 CMSAF shares purpose, pride with Creech AFB AirmenPublished Oct. 24, 2018
                        
                        By Senior Airman James Thompson
                        
                        
                        432nd Wing/432nd Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs
                **CREECH AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNS) --**
                Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force Kaleth O. Wright visited Creech Air Force Base for an in-depth look at the Remotely Piloted Aircraft enterprise and the Airmen who ensure the nation’s security.
This was Wright’s first trip to Creech AFB, and he made time to meet with the Airmen who support the persistent, dominant attack and reconnaissance mission.
Wright had the opportunity to tour the 432nd Wing/432nd Air Expeditionary Wing and base operations, stopping by the 432nd Maintenance Group, 42nd Attack Squadron, 432nd Aircraft Communication Squadron, and the 799th Security Forces Squadron. He also flew a training mission with the 432nd Operations Support Squadron’s MQ-9 flight simulator.
While visiting the units on base, he recognized some of the wing’s superior performers, and expressed the significant impact Creech AFB Airmen have in today’s operational success.
“The 432nd Wing and MQ-9 mission is extremely important to the security of our nation,” Wright said. “This wing supports five combatant commanders. We have young pilots and sensor operators who are doing (amazing) work for our nation. It’s extremely important when it comes to warfighting, prosecuting violent extremist organizations and many other things.”
Wright held a question and answer session with Creech AFB Airmen during a luncheon, discussing changes like the transition to Operational Camouflage Pattern uniforms and opening the floor for constructive input. 
“I was truly inspired to meet Chief Wright,” said Tech. Sgt. Krizia, 432nd Wing Staff Agency flight chief. “He provided genuine perspective, answers to hard questions and motivated me to be a better leader for my Airmen.”
Just as Airmen appreciated learning from Wright, Wright was equally impressed when he found how empowered men and women of the 432nd Wing are in their warfighting efforts.
“I’ve been to a lot of places, a lot of bases all across our Air Force and the responsibility and the authority that we levy upon our youngest lieutenants and our youngest Airmen I was able to see today, both in the RPA and the intelligence enterprise, I think is amazing,” Wright said. “I couldn’t be more proud of the Airmen that are here executing this mission and I just want to personally say thank you to all of them.”CMSAF 



security 



Air Combat Command 



simulator 



RPA 



Creech AFB 



flight 



reconnaissance 



visit 



Remotely Piloted Aircraft 



tour 



Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force 



attack 



ACC 



m MQ-9
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DERRICK GILBERT.

February 26, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
### Supreme Court ofthe United States Office ofthe Clerk 

### Washington, DC 20543-0001 March 30, 2015 Clerk 

### Court ofAppeals ofTexas, Twelfth District 1517 W. Front Street Suite 354 Tyler, TX 75702 Scott S. Harris Clerk ofthe Court (202)479-3011
12lhCourt of Appeals District
Re: Charles Christopher Lancaster v. Natrenia L. Hicks, et al. No. 14-8203 (Your No. 12-13-00283-CV) CATHY 5. Lu^.\, v^i-fc

Dear Clerk: 

### The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case: 

### The motion ofpetitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ ofcertiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. Sincerely, 

### ^t\ Scott S. Harris, Clerk
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 at the dates and for the
periods indicated.
  /s/ Barry R. Elson
    
    /s/ Ronald G. EidellName: Barry R. Elson
    
    Name: Ronald G. EidellTitle: Acting Chief Executive Officer
    
    Title: Chief Financial Officer
EX-10.26



 Exhibit 10.26 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO LICENSE AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 2, effective March 14, 2006, to the License Agreement effective upon the Effective Time as amended on
February 28, 2006 (the “Agreement”), by and between Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc., and FibroGen, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Parties”). The Parties, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, agree as follows: 
  

	 	(1)	Article 22 is replaced in it’s entirety with the following: 

 “The terms contained
in this Agreement shall be null and void if the certificate of merger with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware for the Imigen Acquisition is not filed on or before March 30, 2006.”; and 

 

	 	(2)	Except as otherwise provided herein, the Agreement has not been modified or amended and remains in full force and effect. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment No. 2 to License Agreement as of the effective date set forth above. 

 

									
	FIBROGEN, INC.	 		 	DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas B. Neff
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Anthony del Campo

					
	Name:	 	 Neff
	 		 	Name:	 	 Anthony A. del Campo, M.B.A.

					
	Title:	 	 CEO
	 		 	Title:	 	 Vice President, Research and Technology Ventures, Dana Farber Cancer Institute

					
	Date:	 	 15 Mar 2006
	 		 	Date:	 	 3/14/2006
#### ANNA LOMBARDI v. FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH.

July 11, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED 
CONDENSED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000770949
<NAME> REEBOK INTERNATIONAL LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         139,906
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  792,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                    47,597
<INVENTORY>                                    562,829
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,610,929
<PP&E>                                         363,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                 194,589
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,908,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          677,785
<BONDS>                                        721,832
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           930
<OTHER-SE>                                     507,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,908,499
<SALES>                                      2,780,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,777,325
<CGS>                                        1,730,202
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,730,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               851,573
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                154,024
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            134,474
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   134,474
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.29
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

November 24, 2015

p1116 

# Order

Clerk November 24, 2015

150540

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150540

COA: 323751

St Clair CC: 14

- 000688

- FH

WILLIAM BASIL LYNDS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 16, 2014

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 31.3





CERTIFICATION



I, Howard R. Curd,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment
    No. 1  to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Invisa, Inc.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date:   April 30, 2015 |  | /s/  Howard R. Curd    
|                       |  | Howard R. Curd         
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM TOYENST.

October 29, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDWARD RANSOM.

May 30, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 5.1



Shipman & Goodwin LLP                                    One American Row
 Counselors at Law                                       Hartford, CT 06103-2819
                                                          Tel: (860) 251-5000


                                April 26, 2001


Occupational Health + Rehabilitation Inc
175 Derby Street, Suite 36
Hingham, MA 02043

     Re:  Registration Statement on Form S-8
          Relating to Shares of Common Stock of
          Occupational Health + Rehabilitation Inc Issuable under its 1998 Stock
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Plan
          ----

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     As counsel for Occupational Health + Rehabilitation Inc, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), we are furnishing you with this opinion in
connection with the issuance of up to an additional 154,000 shares of Common
Stock of the Company (the "Shares") pursuant to the above-referenced Plan (the
"Plan"), to which the above-referenced Registration Statement relates.

     As counsel to the Company, we have examined the Registration Statement and
such other documents as we have deemed necessary or appropriate in order to
express the opinion set forth below. In connection with our opinion hereinafter
given, we have examined and relied upon originals, or copies, certified or
otherwise, identified to our satisfaction, of such agreements, documents,
certificates and other statements of government officials, corporate officers
and representatives, and such other documents as we have deemed relevant and
necessary as a basis for such opinion. In such examination, we have assumed the
genuineness of all signatures and the authenticity of all documents submitted to
us as originals and the conformity with the original documents of documents
submitted to us as copies.

     Based on the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the Shares, when issued
as contemplated by the Plan and said Registration Statement, will be duly
authorized and legally issued, fully paid and non-assessable.

     We hereby consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement. In giving this consent, we do not hereby admit that we
come within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of
the Securities Act or the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

                                             Very truly yours,

                                             /s/ Shipman & Goodwin LLP
**Exhibit 10.26****AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO****SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT**This Amendment to Securities Purchase Agreement (this “Amendment”) is dated as of May7, 2007 by and between Digital Angel Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),and Imperium Master Fund, Ltd. (the “Investor”) and is made with reference to that certainSecurities Purchase Agreement dated as of February 6, 2007 (the “Purchase Agreement”)between the Company and the Investor, pursuant to which the Company issued to the Investor a 10.25%Senior Secured Debenture (the “Debenture”) and a Warrant to purchase common stock of theCompany (the “Warrant”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise definedshall have the respective meanings set forth in the Purchase Agreement and the Debenture, asapplicable.**WHEREAS,**pursuant to Section 4.10(b)(vi) of the Purchase Agreement, the Liabilities ofSignature shall at all times be less than $2,000,000;**WHEREAS,**the Company believes that the Liabilities of Signature may be greater than $2,000,000at some point in the upcoming year and has requested that section 4.10(b)(vi) of the PurchaseAgreement be amended;**WHEREAS,**in exchange for granting the requested amendment and to avoid the need for futureamendments and/or waivers, the Investor has asked the Company to agree to restructure the terms ofthe Purchase Agreement, Debenture and Warrant.**NOW THEREFORE,**for consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged by all parties,the parties hereto hereby agree to the following:1. **Amendment to Section 4.****10(b)****of the Purchase Agreement.**Section 4.10(b) of the PurchaseAgreement is hereby amended and restated in relevant part to read as follows:“4.10 Limitation on Debt and Liens; Financial Covenants.(b) ...During the period beginning on the Execution Date and ending on the Termination Date, theCompany shall, and shall ensure that each of the Company Subsidiaries, comply with each ofthe following financial covenants:...(vi) the Liabilities of Signature shall at all times be less than:(A) $2,600,000 during the period commencing February 6, 2007through May 5, 2008; and