alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 1617 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 561 Kingsland 

Avenue in University City, Missouri, as the ‘‘Harriett F. Woods Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. HARRIETT F. WOODS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 561 Kingsland Avenue in University City, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Harriett F. Woods 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Harriett F. Woods Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
* The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3065

___________ John S. Grimes, Jr., * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * City of St. Joseph, Missouri, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 12, 2001 Filed: April 18, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and VIETOR, * District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. After his criminal prosecution for City ordinance violations and later dismissal from City employment, John S. Grimes, Jr. brought this civil rights action against the City of St. Joseph, Missouri, alleging malicious prosecution and violations of the Fourth** The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- Amendment, Due Process, and the Confrontation Clause. The district court ** granted summary judgment to the City, holding the undisputed facts showed the City complied withdue process because Grimes was given adequate notice of all actions being taken against him and hadan opportunity to be heard both before and after his termination. The district court concluded Grimes's malicious prosecution claim failed because there was no evidence the City acted in an outrageous manner in bringing criminal charges against Grimes. Although Grimes's was eventually acquitted because the ordinances he violated were unconstitutionally vague, the charges were brought in good faith. The district court also held Grimes lacked standing to bring any Fourth Amendment claim because he no longer

owned the property in question when it was searched without a warrant. Last, the court concluded Grimes's Confrontation Clause claim failed because Grimes failed to present any evidence that the City retaliated against him for taking his criminalcase to trial. On appeal, Grimes contends the district court committed error in granting summary judgment.
We see no useful purpose in writing at length about this fact-intensive situation. Because there is no genuine issue of material fact and the City is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we hold the district court properly granted summary judgment to the City, and thus summarily affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also grant the City's motion to strike portions of Grimes's addendum, which were not included in the joint appendix submitted by the parties. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Moises FAIDENGOLD, Appellant, v. Diana ESCORIHUELA, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2498.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 9, 2011.

Alan S. Fine, for appellant.

Ricardo Pines, Coral Gables; Gonzalez & Wermuth, J. Michael Wermuth, Miami, and Vijay G. Brijbasi, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and GERSTEN and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See LaRose v. A.K.,*37 So.3d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 24-0280

_________________

IN RE THE MATTER OF:

LORA JEAN OSTER,

 Petitioner and Appellee,

 v.

JON KURTIS OBLINGER,

 Respondent and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

The record was filed for purposes of this appeal on May 3, 2024. The opening brief 

is now overdue.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file, and serve the 

opening brief on appeal no later than July 19, 2024. Failure to file the brief within that 

time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all parties. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 19 2024

06/19/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0280
#### BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY and Agricultural and Mechanical College v. 2300 CANAL STREET, L.L.C., et al.

No. 2011-CC-0744.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Me*983chanical College; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 2010-7577; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0082.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), James M. Gower, Chief Executive Officer of Rigel
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company"), and Ryan D. Maynard, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:

In
Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of February 27, 2009.

/s/ JAMES M. GOWER James M. Gower Chief Executive Officer

/s/ RYAN D. MAYNARD Ryan D. Maynard Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


This
certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 41275 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JOSE ANTONIO HERNANDEZ

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:14

- CR

- 277

- 1

Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Antonio Hernandez
presents an argument that is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United

States , 523 U.S. 224, 228, 235 (1998), which held that convictions used to
enhance a sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)( 2) need not be set forth in the

indictment. T he motion for s ummary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 1 8 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-41275 Document: 00513158878 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2015No. 14

- 41275

2 motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 14-41275 Document: 00513158878 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2015
**EXHIBIT 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**The Board of DirectorsTotal Entertainment Restaurant Corp.We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registrationstatement on Form S-8 of Total Entertainment Restaurant Corp. ofour report dated March 25, 2005, with respect to theconsolidated balance sheets of Total Entertainment RestaurantCorp. as of December 28, 2004 and December 30, 2003, and therelated consolidated statements of income, stockholders’equity, and cash flows for each of the years ended December 28,2004, December 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002 (such reportcontains explanatory paragraphs that refer to the adoption ofStatement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, Goodwilland Other Intangible Assets, effective December 26, 2001 and therestatement of the consolidated financial statements for theyears ended December 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002) and ourreport dated April 20, 2005 with respect to management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 28, 2004 and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 28, 2004, which reports appear in the December 28, 2004annual report on Form 10-K/A of Total Entertainment RestaurantCorp.Our report dated April 20, 2005, on management’s assessmentof the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 28, 2004, expresses ouropinion that Total Entertainment Restaurant Corp. did notmaintain effective internal control over financial reporting asof December 28, 2004 because of the effect of a materialweakness on the achievement of the objectives of the controlcriteria and contains an explanatory paragraph that states theCompany’s controls over the selection, monitoring, andreview of assumptions and factors affecting lease anddepreciation accounting were ineffective as of December 28, 2004.(signed) KPMG LLPWichita, KansasApril 21, 2005
Exhibit 32

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 Annual Report of Gevity HR, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Garry J. Welsh, as Interim Chief Executive Officer and as Chief Financial 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, that:



|Dated: March 17, 2008 |  | /s/GARRY J. WELSHGarry J. Welsh Interim Chief Executive
Officer
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 17, 2008 |  | /s/GARRY J. WELSHGarry J. Welsh Chief Financial Officer        

---



QuickLinks
#### W. R. Haymes v. W. S. Gray.

(No. 3051.)

Error from Plays County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 252. *Landlord’s lien; abandonment or waiver of.*When a landlord sues to recover rent, and for the enforcement of his lien upon the property of the tenant, which has been seized under a distress warrant, and takes a judgment merely for the rent due, and does not insist upon a foreclosure of his lien in the suit, and there is no foreclosure adjudged, he thereby waives and abandons his lien, and such lien no longer constitutes a right to the property levied on under the distress warrant, and cannot support a claim to the property in a trial'of the *193right of the property. [Wise v. Old, 57 Tex. 514; Toland v. Swearengen, 39 Tex. 447; Johnson v. Murphy, 17 Tex. 216; W. & W. Con. Rep. § 1222.]

June 11, 1884.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Certification of Principal Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Howard Sampson, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report onForm 10-K of iVOW, Inc., as amended.

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this annualreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this annual report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this annual report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a.               Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;

 

b.              Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c.               Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a.               All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b.              Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:May 2, 2005

 
| /s/ Howard  Sampson     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Howard Sampson          |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
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





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Cenveo, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the ‘‘Company’’),
does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:









The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended March 28, 2009
(the ‘‘Form 10-Q’’) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: May
6, 2009


/s/ RobertG.Burton,Sr.


Robert G.
Burton, Sr.


Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer





Date: May
6, 2009


/s/ Mark
S. Hiltwein


Mark S.
Hiltwein


Chief
Financial Officer







A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Cenveo, Inc. and will be retained by
Cenveo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q
or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24562]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9208-4]


Underground Injection Control Program Hazardous Waste Injection 
Restrictions; Petition for Exemption--Class I Hazardous Waste Injection 
Dow Chemical Company (DOW), Magnolia, AR

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of a Final Decision on a No Migration Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that an exemption to the land disposal 
restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act have been granted to Dow 
Chemical Company (DOW) for a Class I injection well located at 
Magnolia, Arkansas. As required by 40 CFR Part 148, the company has 
adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Environmental 
Protection Agency by the petition and supporting documentation that, to 
a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of 
hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste 
remains hazardous. This final decision allows the underground injection 
by DOW, of the specific restricted hazardous wastes identified in this 
exemption, into Class I hazardous waste injection well DWD No. 1 at the 
Magnolia, Arkansas facility, until October 1, 2020, unless EPA moves to 
terminate this exemption under provisions of 40 CFR 148.24. Additional 
conditions included in this final decision may be reviewed by 
contacting the Region 6 Ground Water/UIC Section. As required by 40 CFR 
148.22(b) and 124.10, a public notice was issued July 29, 2010. The 
public comment period closed on September 13, 2010. No comments were 
received. This decision constitutes final Agency action and there is no 
Administrative appeal. This decision may be reviewed/appealed in 
compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

DATES: This action is effective as of September 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and all pertinent information 
relating thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection Division, Source 
Water Protection Branch (6WQ-S), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Dellinger, Chief Ground Water/
UIC Section, EPA--Region 6, telephone (214) 665-7150.

    Dated: September 22, 2010.
William K. Honker,
Acting Division Director, Water Quality Protection Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-24562 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7181 

To establish the number of Members of the House of Representatives at 

400. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 28, 2018 

Mr. ISSA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To establish the number of Members of the House of 

Representatives at 400. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘400 Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NUMBER OF REPRESENTA6 TIVES AT 400. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 22(a) of the Act entitled 

8 ‘‘An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decen9 nial census and to provide for apportionment of Rep10 resentatives in Congress’’, approved June 18, 1929 (2 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 7181 IH

1 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is amended by striking ‘‘the then existing 

2 number of Representatives’’ and inserting ‘‘400 Rep3 resentatives’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

5 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to the regular de6 cennial census conducted for 2020 and each subsequent 

7 decennial census. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Exhibit 10.4.1 

**EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN AGREEMENT**

**AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2008**

This Agreement, dated as of the 24th day of December, 2008, is by and between NSTAR (the “Company”) and Werner J. Schweiger (the “Executive”). 

Whereas, the Executive was elected Senior Vice President – Operations of the Company and became an employee of NSTAR Electric & GasCorporation effective February 25, 2002. 

Whereas, the Company and the Executive entered into an Executive Retirement Plan Agreementeffective February 25, 2002; 

Whereas, the Company and the Executive desire to amend such Agreement to reflect certain changes made tothe NSTAR Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “NSTAR SERP”) in connection with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; 

Whereas, the Board of Trustees of the Company has authorized the execution of an amended and restated Executive Retirement Plan Agreement between the Company and the Executive consistent with the terms of thisAgreement. 

Now, therefore, the Company and the Executive do hereby agree that the Executive shall have the rightsand benefits set forth in the NSTAR SERP as amended and restated effective January 1, 2008, which is comprised of the 409A Plan and the Grandfathered Plan (as defined therein) and a copy of which is set forth as Exhibit A to this Agreement;provided, however that for purposes of determining the Executive’s rights and benefits hereunder, Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of the Grandfathered Plan and Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the 409A Plan are deemed deleted in their entirety and replaced(with corresponding adjustments to section references) with the following: 

“(a) Benefits. The Company agrees that itwill provide an annual single life annuity benefit of up to (A) 60% of Highest Average Total Compensation (as herein defined) which will accrue as follows: 10% after the first year of service (from February 25, 2002), 2-1/2% per yearfor years two through seventeen, and 3-1/3% per year for years eighteen through twenty, less (B) the single life annuity which would be received at such time from the NSTAR Pension Plan (as from time to time amended) and the NSTAR ExcessBenefit Plan (as from time to time amended) (the “Excess Plan”), as determined by the RC with reference to such actuarial factors as it shall select from time to time, less (C) 50% of the Primary Social Security Benefit (as hereindefined) and less (D) the single life annuity which the Participant would be entitled to receive under his previous employer’s retirement plans, calculated at the time of receipt. Benefits will vest fully on February 24, 2003 butshall not be payable until age 55.” 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, NSTAR and theExecutive have caused this Agreement to be executed this 24th day of December, 2008, effective as of January 1, 2008. 

 
NSTARBy: /s/ THOMAS J. MAY /s/ W. J. SCHWEIGER Werner J. Schweiger