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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6764-S6765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  TREATY WITH PANAMA ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS--TREATY 
                            DOCUMENT 102-15

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the following treaty on the Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 
3, Treaty Document 102-15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask unanimous consent that the treaty be 
considered as having been passed through its various parliamentary 
stages up to and including the presentation of resolution of 
ratification; that the two committee provisos be considered and agreed 
to, and no other provisos, reservations, or understandings be in order; 
that any statements be printed in the Congressional Record as if read; 
that when the resolution of ratification is agreed to, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be notified of 
the Senate's action; and that following disposition of the treaty, the 
Senate return to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for a division vote on the resolution 
of ratification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All those in favor of the resolution of 
ratification will rise and stand until counted. (After a pause.) Those 
opposed will rise and stand until counted.
  In the opinion of the Chair, on a division, two-thirds of the 
Senators present and voting having voted in the affirmative, the 
resolution of ratification is agreed to.
  The resolution of ratification is as follows:

       Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
     therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the 
     ratification of the Treaty between the United States of 
     America and 
     [[Page S6765]] the Republic of Panama On Mutual Assistance in 
     Criminal Matters, With Annexes and Appendices, signed at 
     Panama on April 11, 1991. The Senate's advice and consent is 
     subject to the following two provisos, which shall not be 
     included in the instrument of ratification to be signed by 
     the President:
       Nothing in this Treaty requires or authorizes legislation, 
     or other action, by the United States of America prohibited 
     by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by 
     the United States.
       Pursuant to the rights of the United States under this 
     Treaty to deny requests which prejudice its essential public 
     policy or interest, the United States shall deny a request 
     for assistance when the Central Authority, after consultation 
     with all appropriate intelligence, anti-narcotic, and foreign 
     policy agencies, has specific information that a senior 
     government official who will have access to information to be 
     provided under this Treaty is engaged in or facilitates the 
     production or distribution of illegal drugs.
     

                          ____________________
```
#### Thomas Braidfoot v. Andrew Taylor and A. J. Long.

(No. 1815, Op. Book No. 3, p. 541.)

Appeal from Baylor County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 174. *Certiorari; sufficient ground for.*That the judgment complained of was rendered by the justice at a time other than when by law a regular term of his court could be held, is a sufficient ground for *certiorari,*because such judgment would be without authority. [R. S. art. 303.]

§ 175. *Certiorari bond; variance.*In the body of a *certiorari*bond the judgment was described as one rendered against *Thomas Braidford,*and he was named as principal in the bond, but the bond was signed Thomas *Braidfoot,*and Braidfoot, and not Braidford, was the name of the real plaintiff in the *certiorari. Held,*that the variance was immaterial. By an unbroken line of decisions in this ■ state, it is settled that the omission of *70the name of an obligor in the body of a bond, where it is duly signed by him, forms no substantial objections to it. [Hirams v. Coit, Dallam, 449.] In determining the question as to who is bound by a bond, the signatures will be looked to rather than the body of the instrument. If a person whose name is not inserted in the body of an instrument of writing, signs it at the foot thereof, it is a sufficient execution thereof to make it his act. [Keeton v. Spradling, 13 Mo. 321; Johnson & Cain v. Steamboat Lehigh, id. 539; Bridge v. Mathes, 7 N. H. 230; Hinsman v. Hinsman, 7 Jones (N. C. L.), 510; Beery v. Homan, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 48; Ex parte Fulton, 7 Cowen, 484; Wood v. Comar, 50 Ala. 284; Morgan v. Thrift, 2 Cal. 562; Taylor v. Strickland, 37 Ala. 642.]

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 U.S. presents Bells of Balangiga to the PhilippinesPublished Nov. 15, 2018
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Abbigayle Wagner
                        
                        
                        90th Missile Wing Public Affairs
                **F.E. WARREN AIR FORCE BASE, Wyo. (AFNS) --**
                Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis and Philippine Ambassador to the U.S. Jose Romualdez visited F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., Nov. 14, during which the Bells of Balangiga were officially presented to the Philippine government.
During the visit, Mattis attended a veterans remembrance event and provided remarks on the presentation of the bells during an official ceremony.
In 1901, the Bells of Balangiga were used during an attack on an American garrison where 45 soldiers were killed. The 11th Infantry Division returned to America with the bells. Since 1904, the bells have been housed at F.E. Warren AFB, and in 1992 they became property of the U.S. Air Force Museum System.
“To those who fear we lose something by returning the bells please hear me when I say the bells mark time, but courage is timeless,” said Mattis. “It does not fade in history’s dimly lit corridors nor is it forgotten in history’s compost.”
Presenting the bells supports our nation’s continued partnership with the Philippines.
“History teaches us that nations with allies thrive,” said Mattis. “It reminds us too that all wars end. By returning the Bells of Balangiga to our ally and our friend the Philippines we pick up our generations responsibility to deepen the respect between our people.”secretary of defense 



SecDEF 



Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis 



James N. Mattis 



Philippine Ambassador to the United States Jose Romualdez 



Bells of Balangiga 



F.E. Warren AFB 



veterans 



U.S. Air Force Museum System 



11th Infantry Division 



Air Force 



AF 



Air Force Base 



Air Force Global Strike Command 



AFGSC
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 accompanying Quarterly Report of VSUS Technologies Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three month period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bryan Norcross, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, 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, 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 fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: February 8, 2010By: /s/ Kyle GotshalkKyle GotshalkChief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the 
first and second time by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

           By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Heflin, Mr. Coverdell, 
             and Mr. Nunn):
       S. 848. A bill to grant the consent of Congress to an 
     amendment of the Historic Chattahoochee Compact between the 
     States of Alabama and Georgia; to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary.
           By Mr. D'AMATO:
       S. 849. A bill to amend the Age Discrimination in 
     Employment Act of 1967 to protect elected judges against 
     discrimination based on age; to the Committee on Labor and 
     Human Resources.
           By Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself, Mr. Coats, Mr. 
             Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Inouye):
       S. 850. A bill to amend the Child Care and Development 
     Block Grant Act of 1990 to consolidate Federal child care 
     programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor 
     and Human Resources.
     

                          ____________________
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0585

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHARLES GEOFFREY SANTORO,

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 November 25, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 19 2022

10/19/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0585
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 19

- 60941 Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus

John Riley, also known as P. J.,

Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:08

- CR

- 92

- 1

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *
John Riley, federal prisoner # 15081

- 043, challenges the district court’s order denying his motion for resentencing under the First Step Act of 2018, § 404, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018). Riley

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 8, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-60941 Document: 00515665508 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2020No. 19

- 60941

2 contends: his motion did not receive a complete review on the merits; and the order denying his motion lacked any explanation or review of his claim.

A district court’s discretionary denial of relief under Section 404 of the First Step Act is , generally, reviewed for abuse of discreti on. United
States v. Jackson , 945 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2019).

O n limited remand, the district court explained that it had denied Riley’s motion for resentencing because his sentence “has previously been reduced by all applicable guideline amendments” . Insofar as Riley maintains
the court failed to consider the merits of his motion for a sentence reduction,
his contention fails. Id

. at 321

– 22 (denying motion for reduced sentence
under § 404 because , inter alia , “[defendant] had his day in court. He f iled a detailed motion explaining why he should get a new sentence; the government responded; the court denied the motion; and, on limited remand, it explained why. . . . The procedures here were blameless”.).
Alternatively, if Riley is challenging the c ourt’s reasoning for its denial, his contention is waived for inadequate briefing. See Fed. R. App

. P

. 28(a)(8)(A); United States v. Reagan , 596 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2010) ( “a failure to brief . . . constitutes waiver”). He claims his motion “never received a complete review on the merits as required”. As discussed above, on limited remand, the court provided an adequate explanation for its denial

. (In addition, he conce des his claims lack merit. See Jackson , 945 F.3d at 321

– 22.)

AFFIRMED

. Case: 19-60941 Document: 00515665508 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2020
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trans Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lisa A. Corbitt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the            Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

|   | (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

/S/ LISA A. CORBITT

Lisa A. Corbitt

Chief Financial Officer

May 18, 2009

 

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.
# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ ASETEK DANMARK A/S, Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

CMI USA INC., FKA CO OLER MASTER USA, INC ., COOLER MASTER CO., LTD., Defendants

- Appellants

______________________

2016

- 1026, 2016

- 1183

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 3:13

- cv

- 00457

- JST, Judge Jon S. Tigar.

______________________
ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

______________________
Before P ROST , Chief Judge, N EWMAN , and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R
The petition for panel rehearing is granted in part. The opinion of the court, Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA INC.

, 842 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), is modified as follows:ASETEK DANMARK A / S v. CMI USA INC

. 2

At 842 F.3d at 1353, “ Opinion dissenting in part filed by Chief Judge Prost ” is deleted. At 842 F.3d at 1367, the paragraph that begins “Two final, related points. ...” is replaced by the follow ing : Two final, related points. First, the need for further proceedings to determine the proper reach of the injunction in this case leads us to vacate the injunction, effective

upon issuance of our ma n date, insofar as the injunction reaches conduct by Coole r Master that does not abet new violations by CMI. The district court is to conduct those pr ocee d ings in as reasonably prompt a fashion as possible. Our partial vacatur of the i njunction does not foreclose Asetek from pu rsuing rei n statement of the vacate d portion of the injunction should there be unjustifiable delay by Cooler Ma s ter in completing the proceedings, or from purs u ing any other remedies against Cooler Master, if otherwise authorized by law. At 842 F.3d at 1367, the sentence in the CONCLUSION t hat begins “Insofar as ...” is replaced by the following: Insofar as the injunction reaches such co nduct, we vacate the injunction and remand for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.

At 842 F.3d at 1367

, “AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART” is replaced by “AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART .”

At 842 F.3d at 1367

– 71, Chief Judge Prost’s partial dissent is withdrawn

. The revised opinion accompanies this order.ASETEK DANMARK A / S v. CMI USA INC

. 3

I T I S S O O RDERED

. F OR THE C OURT

April 3, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       TRIBUTE TO DONALD O. BROOK

                                 ______

                          HON. DAVID E. BONIOR

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, May 24, 1995
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Donald O. 
Brook who is being honored this evening by the Clinton Township 
Goodfellows. He is being named as a Goodfellow of the Year at a 
recognition dinner at the Fern Hill Country Club in Clinton Township, 
MI.
  Donald Brook is currently Deputy Chief of Police in the Clinton 
Township Police Department. During his 26 years of service he has 
served the people of Clinton Township faithfully in his role as a 
police officer. During this time, Deputy Chief Brook managed to earn 
four college degrees, including a doctorate from Wayne State University 
in Administration and Supervision.
  In addition to applying his academic knowledge in his profession as a 
police officer, Chief Deputy Brook teaches at Macomb Community College 
and Central Michigan University. As an adjunct faculty member of both 
institutions, he teaches students in the areas of criminal justice and 
management and supervision.
  Taking an active role in one's community is a responsibility we all 
share, but few fulfill. Donald Brook has dedicated much of his life to 
this endeavor. His time, talents, and energy are appreciated by many. I 
thank Donald Brook for his efforts and commend him for his good work.
  I applaud the Clinton Township Goodfellows for recognizing Chief 
Deputy Donald Brook. For 25 years, nearly as long as he has been an 
officer of the law, Donald Brook has also served the community-at-large 
as a Goodfellow. He has provided outstanding leadership to the 
community of Clinton Township and I am sure he is proud to be honored 
by the Goodfellows.
  The devotion the Goodfellows and Chief Deputy Brook have displayed to 
their community is an inspection. Their contributions are many and they 
deserve our gratitude for their compassion and work.
  On behalf of the Clinton Township Goodfellows, I urge my colleagues 
to join me in saluting Doctor and Chief Deputy Donald Brook.

                          ____________________
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6358
ROBERT LEE JONES, JR., Petitioner - Apellant, versus COMMANDER MCGINNIS, TPU, NORVA NAVSTA Norfolk, Virginia; SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-95-827-2) Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: July 2, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Phillip Ellington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia; David Allen Anderson, Office of the Judge Advocate General, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. McGinnis , No. CA-95-827-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 26, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
583 A.2d 315

#### NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. V.K. AND L.K. IN THE MATTER OF J.K. AND V.K., MINORS.

January 23, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 236 *N.J.Super.*243, 565 A.2d 706)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GREGORY WOODS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 62 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25th day of June, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
##### 



Exhibit 10.4 Summary of Material Terms of
PharmaBio Development (PBD) Bonus Plan The PBD bonus plan (the Plan) is an informal guideline not in written
plan form which provides for the payment of annual cash bonuses to selected
eligible PBD management employees in amounts, if any, determined by the
Compensation and Nominations Committee (the Committee) in its discretion.
The Committee has indicated an intent to consider payment of bonuses based on
performance targets. The aggregate bonus pool will be equal to the aggregate
target bonus opportunities of all the Plan participants after taking into
account their aggregate base salaries and actual performance compared to target
for the Plan Year. The aggregate bonus pool will be allocated among
participants in the Committees discretion. The bonuses called for under the
Plan are completely discretionary and are not earned until they are paid.
Participants who join the PBD business unit mid-year will have their awards (if
any) prorated. Bonuses are intended to be paid no later than March 31 of the year
following the Plan Year, except that the Committee may specify that a portion
of bonus awards be paid on a deferred basis. Participants must be employed on
the date bonuses are paid in order to receive a payment, except that
participants who retire prior to that date may have their bonuses prorated and
paid on the date other bonuses are paid in the Committees discretion. The
Company has reserved the right, in its discretion, to amend or terminate the
Plan at any time prior to the payment of any bonuses, as well as the right to
decide not to pay bonuses, or to pay bonuses based on any other factors it
determines, even if inconsistent with the Plan. Participants should not assume
continued participation in the Plan.