alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dwight LANEY, Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Appellee.

No. 00-1865.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 12, 2001.

Decided Jan. 19, 2001.

*602Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Dwight Laney sought social security disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits asserting his diabetes, arthritis, bad back, and neck pain disabled him. An administrative law judge (ALJ) decided that Laney could not return to his past relevant work as a custodian, but that Laney retained the residual functional capacity to perform other sedentary work. The Commissioner denied benefits, and Laney sought judicial review. The district court concluded the decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. On appeal, Laney contends the ALJ committed error in not calling a vocational expert to testify and in failing to make appropriate credibility determinations of Laney’s witnesses. Having carefully reviewed the record, we reject Laney’s contentions for the reasons given in the district court’s opinion. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. We thus affirm the district court.

A true copy.
<PAGE>
                          ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                REGARDING INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT


The Board of Directors
Northfield Laboratories Inc.:

With respect to registration statements of Form S-8 of Northfield Laboratories
Inc., we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated
March 29, 2002 related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 12, 2002
#### City of Cincinnati, Appellee, *v.*Peacock, Appellant.

(No. 6263 —

Decided May 17, 1943.)

*Mr. Robert J. Paul,*for appellee.

*Mr. C. R. Beirne,*for appellant.

Matthews, J.

The appellant was convicted in the Municipal Court of Cincinnati of violating Ordinance 74-100 of the city of Cincinnati by operating a streetcar into the intersection of Twelfth street and Central Parkway against an amber or red light. On appeal to the Common Pleas Court, the conviction was affirmed. The case is here on appeal from that judgment of affirmance.

Central Parkway has a grass strip in its center which divides the traffic proceeding in opposite directions. At the intersection of such thoroughfare with Twelfth street, the flow of traffic is controlled by the same lights for the entire intersection. Under such circumstances, this court held in *Schmidt*v. *City Ice & Fuel Co.,*60 Ohio App., 29, 19 N. E. (2d), 514, that the *322presence of the grass strip did not transform what would otherwise be one intersection into two intersections within the meaning of the traffic laws and ordinances. .

An examination of the bill of exceptions discloses that there is no evidence that the appellant operated the streetcar into the intersection against an amber or red light. The most that the evidence shows is that after entering the intersection on the green light, appellant proceeded to attempt to complete the crossing notwithstanding the light had changed while he was so doing. That is no proof that he entered the intersection in violation of the ordinance.

The judgment of the Common Pleas Court and that of the Municipal Court of Cincinnati are reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to the latter court to enter a judgment of acquittal and discharge of the appellant.

*Judgment reversed.*

Ross, P. J., and Hildebrant, J., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofBlyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31,2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Robert H. Barghaus, Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)                                  The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  Robert H. Barghaus                     |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert  H. Barghaus                         |
|   | Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | December 15,  2003                     |

 

 

Thiscertification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subjectto the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted), Michael Forster, Principal Accounting Officer of
Power-Save Energy Company (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of
his knowledge:





1.


the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
September 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); and





2.


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





Dated:
      November 12, 2008
            /s/Michael
      Forster
              Michael
      Forster
              Principal
      Accounting Officer
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 849 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 6, 2017 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

AN ACT 

To repeal the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act providing for the Independent Payment Advisory Board. 

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


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 849 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Seniors Ac3 cess to Medicare Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVI5 SORY BOARD. 

6 Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protec7 tion and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), sec8 tions 3403 and 10320 of such Act (including the amend9 ments made by such sections) are repealed, and any provi10 sion of law amended by such sections is hereby restored 

11 as if such sections had not been enacted into law. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 2, 

2017. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
585 A.2d 399

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DARRELL ROBINSON.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 254

#### NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. L.R. IN THE MATTER OF N.D.R. AND G.C.R. (MINORS).

June 28, 1990.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,638,299
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,621,869
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    274,749
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,458,910
<PP&E>                                      68,141,743
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,476,851
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,285,438
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,556,225
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,701
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,613,659
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,285,438
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            56,442,904
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               52,505,407
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             938,145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,999,352
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,270,035
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,729,317
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,729,317
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .467
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .467
        

</TABLE>
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7259 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

certain federally-subsidized loan repayments for dental school faculty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2018 

Ms. CLARKE of New York (for herself, Mr. SIMPSON, and Mr. GOSAR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income certain federally-subsidized loan repayments for dental school faculty. 

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 ‘‘Dental Loan Repay5 ment Assistance Act’’. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7259 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN FEDERALLY-SUBSIDIZED 

2 LOAN REPAYMENTS FOR DENTAL SCHOOL 

3 FACULTY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 108(f)(4) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘, under 

6 a loan repayment program receiving a grant or contract 

7 under section 748(a)(2) of such Act’’ after ‘‘section 338I 

8 of such Act’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 108(f)(4) 

10 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik11 ing ‘‘NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS LOAN REPAY12 MENT PROGRAM AND CERTAIN STATE LOAN REPAYMENT

13 PROGRAMS’’ in the heading thereof and inserting ‘‘CER14 TAIN FEDERAL AND STATE LOAN REPAYMENT PRO15 GRAMS’’. 

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall apply to amounts received in taxable 

18 years beginning after the date of the enactment of this 

19 Act. 

20 (d) GAO REPORT.—The Comptroller General of the 

21 United States shall review and report to the appropriate 

22 committees of Congress on the participation of dental pro23 viders and faculty in areas and schools receiving funding 

24 from the Dental Faculty Development and Loan Repay25 ment Program under section 748(a)(2) of the Public 

26 Health Service Act, including the extent to which they reVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:55 Dec 19, 2018 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7259.IH H7259

pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7259 IH

1 main full-time faculty teaching and practicing in dental 

2 clinics located in dental schools, hospitals, or community3 based affiliated sites after receiving funding from the pro4 gram. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
No. 11,165.

#### Indiana, Bloomington and Western Railway Company *v.*McBroom.

Assignment of *Errob.*— Change *of Venue.*— An assignment of error, on appeal from a judgment rendered in a court to which, a change of venue had been taken from another county in the same circuit, which assigns error only in the court from which the change was taken, limits the Supreme Court to the consideration of errors complained of in that court.

From the Warren Circuit Court.

*L. Nebeker, H. H. Dochterman*and *C. W. Fairbanks,*for appellant.

*J. McCabe, L. P. Miller*and *C. McCabe,*for appellee.

Elliott, C. J.

This action was commenced in the Fountain Circuit Court and carried by change of venue to the Warren Circuit Court. The introductory clause of the assignment of errors reads thus: “The appellant says that there is manifest error in the judgment and proceedings of this cause in the circuit court of Fountain county, Indiana, in this, to wit.” The appellee stoutly contends that this statement restricts the assignment to errors committed by the court named, and that it can not be extended to rulings made by the Warren Circuit Court. Cases closely analogous are cited, and we feel bound to hold that the contention of the appellee must prevail, although, if the question were an open •one, we might be reluctant to adopt a rule so rigorous as that laid down by some of the adjudged cases. *Shaw*v. *Spencer,*33 Ind. 143; *Hollingsworth*v. *State, ex rel.,*8 Ind. 257; *Riley*v. *Murray,*8 Ind. 354; *State, ex rel.,*v. *Delano,*34 Ind. 52; *State, ex rel.,*v. *Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co.,*64 Ind. 297; Buskirk Prac. 110; Powell App. Proc. 277.

The principle upon which these cases proceed is that the assignment of errors is in the nature of a complaint, and that this court is bound to give the same effect to the statements in the assignment of errors as the trial court is bound to give to the statements of a complaint.

*168Filed June 17, 1884.

Petition for a rehearing overruled Nov. 12, 1884.

The only ruling made by the Fountain Circuit Court was upon the demurrer to the complaint, and that ruling is conceded to have been correct.

Judgment affirmed.'
585 A.2d 387

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS MURPHY.

October 10, 1990.

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

<ARTICLE>   9
       
<S>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                          1,689,241
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>         32,864,878
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                   70,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                        0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>    12,085,156
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                  0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                    0
<LOANS>                        28,390,681
<ALLOWANCE>                       278,444
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 44,283,905
<DEPOSITS>                     36,306,345
<SHORT-TERM>                            0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>               693,502
<LONG-TERM>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                        9,089,330
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY> 44,283,905
<INTEREST-LOAN>                 1,360,869
<INTEREST-INVEST>                 381,909
<INTEREST-OTHER>                        0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                1,742,778
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                814,603
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                814,858
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>             927,920
<LOAN-LOSSES>                     141,103
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                    887
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                   243,765
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (717,659)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>       (717,659)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (717,659)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.74)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                       4.46
<LOANS-NON>                             0
<LOANS-PAST>                            0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                        0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                         0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                  137,341
<CHARGE-OFFS>                           0
<RECOVERIES>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                 278,444
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>              278,444
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                     0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                 0
        

</TABLE>
585 A.2d 336

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF M.R.N., A JUVENILE.

June 26, 1990.

The parties having stipulated to a dismissal of this matter, it is ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.
TRICO MARINE SERVICES, INC.

                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

               (In thousands, except share and per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Three Months Ended           Six Months Ended
                                                                   June 30,                    June 30,
                                                          ------------  ------------      ----------   -----------
                                                                1997          1996              1997       1996
                                                          ------------  ------------      ----------   -----------
<S>                                                       <C>           <C>               <C>          <C>       
Net income before extraordinary item                           7,974         1,618            14,645        1,982

Extraordinary item, net of taxes                                 -           (917)              -            (917)

                                                            ________     _________          ________   ___________
Net income                                                     7,974           701            14,645        1,065
                                                            ========     =========          ========   ===========


Computation of weighted  average
  number of shares outstanding:

    Issued :  15,646,378

    Weighted average shares outstanding                   15,568,863     9,904,098        15,551,176    8,003,388              
                           

    Add:  Incremental shares applicable to stock
      options based on the Treasury Stock method
      using average market price                           1,285,325     1,263,398         1,308,254    1,087,148
                                                          __________     _________        __________    _________

    Weighted average common shares
      and equivalents outstanding                         16,854,188    11,167,496        16,859,430    9,090,536
                                                          ==========    ==========        ==========    =========


Earnings per common share and
  equivalent outstanding:

     Income before extraordinary item                     $     0.47    $     0.14        $     0.87    $    0.22

     Extraordinary item                                           -          (0.08)              -          (0.10)
                                                          ----------    ----------        ----------    ---------

     Net income                                           $     0.47    $     0.06         $    0.87    $    0.12
                                                          ==========     =========        ==========    =========
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Barten A. VOLLMER, Appellant.

No. 00-1093.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 5, 2001.

Filed Jan. 10, 2001.

Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Barten A. Vollmer pleaded guilty to violating the federal stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, and to conspiring to obstruct justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Citing *United States v. Lopez,*514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), Vollmer argues section 2261A is unconstitutional. Vollmer also contends the district court erred in denying him an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment. We affirm.

Section 2261A is part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and prohibits defendants from traveling across state lines with the intent to injure or harass another person, and in the course of such travel, or as a result of it, placing the person or a member of the person’s immediate family in fear of death or serious bodily injury. Section 2261A’s requirement of travel across state lines clearly falls within Congress’s authority to regulate the channels of commerce. *See United States v. Wright,*128 F.3d 1274, 1275 (8th Cir.1997) (upholding constitutionality of VAWA’s 18 U.S.C. § 2262(a)(1), *574which prohibits crossing of state lines with intent to violate protection order and then subsequently violating order; crossing state lines, without more, is interstate commerce), *cert. denied,*523 U.S. 1053,118 S.Ct. 1376, 140 L.Ed.2d 524 (1998). Contrary to Vollmer’s contention, section 2261A does not punish defendants for merely harboring a threatening intent in the course of interstate travel: the defendant’s travel must actually place the intended victim or an immediate family member in fear of harm. *See id.*at 1276. Vollmer’s reliance on *United States v. Morrison,*529 U.S. 598, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000), is misplaced because *Morrison*invalidated the VAWA’s civil remedy, not its criminal sanctions. *See Morrison,*120 S.Ct. at 1751-54 & n. 5.

We also conclude the district court did not clearly err by finding Vollmer, who received an obstruction-of-justiee enhancement, had not accepted responsibility for his actions. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. n.(4); *United States v. Ervasti,*201 F.3d 1029, 1043 (8th Cir.2000) (standard of review); *United States v. Honken,*184 F.3d 961, 968-70, 972 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*528 U.S. 1056, 120 S.Ct. 602, 145 L.Ed.2d 500 (1999); *United States v. Duke,*935 F.2d 161, 162 (8th Cir.1991).

Accordingly, we affirm.
584 A.2d 230

#### DARLENE R. ESPOSITO v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BOARD OF REVIEW.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 232

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HAROLD ALLEN EDWARDS.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.