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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2074 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2074

For the relief of Klaus Dieter Hinze, Heidi Hinze, Annamarie Hinze, and 
                             Roberto Arndt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2004

  Mr. Dorgan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
For the relief of Klaus Dieter Hinze, Heidi Hinze, Annamarie Hinze, and 
                             Roberto Arndt.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR KLAUS DIETER HINZE, HEIDI 
              HINZE, ANNAMARIE HINZE, AND ROBERTO ARNDT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Klaus Dieter Hinze, Heidi 
Hinze, Annamarie Hinze, and Roberto Arndt shall each be eligible for 
issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an 
application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such 
Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Klaus Dieter Hinze, Heidi Hinze, 
Annamarie Hinze, and Roberto Arndt enter the United States before the 
filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Klaus Dieter Hinze, Heidi 
Hinze, Annamarie Hinze, and Roberto Arndt shall be considered to have 
entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be 
eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act as of the date of enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Klaus Dieter Hinze, Heidi 
Hinze, Annamarie Hinze, and Roberto Arndt the Secretary of State shall 
instruct the proper officer to reduce by 4, during the current or next 
following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
made available to natives of the country of the aliens' birth under 
section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if 
applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available 
to natives of the country of the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of 
such Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

JAMES J. FITZGERALD, 

 Petitioner - Appellee / 

 Cross-Appellant,

v.

ANITA TRAMMELL, Warden, 

Oklahoma State Penitentiary,

 Respondent - Appellant / 

 Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 13-5131 & 13-5133

(D.C. No. 4:03-CV-00531-GKF-TLW)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before LUCERO, BACHARACH, and MCHUGH Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

These cross appeals are before the Court for consideration of Petitioner’s 

Suggestion of Death and Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Cross-Appeal or in 

the Alternative to Allow Substitution of Parties (“Motion”), and Respondent’s response 

thereto. The Motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows. 

As the result of petitioner’s death, these appeals became moot due to 

circumstances unattributable to any of the parties. “A party who seeks review of the 

merits of an adverse ruling, but is frustrated by the vagaries of circumstance, ought not in 

fairness to be forced to acquiesce in the judgment.” U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner 

Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18, 25, 115 S. Ct. 386, 391-92 (1994) (mootness by happenstance 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 11, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 13-5133 Document: 01019384089 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 Page: 1 
2

provides sufficient reason to vacate the unreviewable district court judgment). In this 

instance, both parties seek review of merits of a partially-adverse district court judgment, 

which has been rendered unreviewable by happenstance. 

In light of the foregoing, we dismiss these appeals as moot, vacate the judgment of 

the district court, and remand with instructions to dismiss the underlying case as moot. 

See Claiborne v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2245 (2007) (vacating criminal judgment as 

moot due to defendant’s death during pendency of appeal); United States v. 

Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39-40 (1950) (outlining general procedure to be 

followed when federal case becomes moot during pendency of appeal); Portalatin v. 

Graham, 624 F.3d 69, 78 n.3 (2d Cir. 2010) (reversing district court’s judgment and 

remanding case with instructions to dismiss as moot due to federal habeas petitioner’s 

death during pendency of appeal). All pending motions are denied as moot. 

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of the Court.

The oral argument set for March 19, 2015 is vacated, and all counsel are excused 

from attendance in Denver, Colorado.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Chris Wolpert

 Chief Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 13-5133 Document: 01019384089 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 Page: 2
# The Attorney General of Texas
December 5, 1978 JOHN L. HILL Attorney General
HonorableThomas H.Haynie Chairman OpinionNo. H- 1269 Texas Private Employment Agency Regulatory Board SamHoustonBuilding Austin, Texas Re: Whether the deliberation and vote on findings of fact, conclusions of law and final orders by the Private Employment Agency Regulatory Soard are required to be conducted ina public session. Dear Mr. Haynie: You have asked whether the Open Meetings Act applies to proceedings under the Administrative ProcedureAct. You advise that the Private Employment Agency Regulatory Boardhas adopted Rule399.OLOO.O04(h) which provides inpart: A quorum of the Board necessary to transact any business, including the holding of any hearing in a contested case, is six (6). Any order or decision issued by the Board under these hearing rules shall be approved by a majority in attendance. Such orders or decisions shall be stated either in the record or shall be voted oninexecutive session immediately following the close of the hearing by vote of the members in attendance. (Emphasis added). You argue that the decision-making process under the Administrative Procedure Act, V.T.C.S. article 6252-13a, is exempted from the requirements of the OpenMeetings Act, V.T.C.S. article 6252-17,andyou urge usto reach the same conclusion. We fiid no support for the proposition that the Administrative ProcedureAct was in any way designed to permit state agencies to avoid the requirements of the OpenMeetings Act. The Open Meetings Act is designed for the purpose “of assuring that the public has the opportunity to be informed concerning the transactions of public business ” and should be

p. 5022HonorableThomas H.Haynie - Page 2 (R-1269)

liberally construed to effect that purpose. Toyah Ind.Sch. Dit. v. Pecos-Barstow 2nd. Sch. Dit., 466S.W.Sd377 (Tex. Civ; App. - San Antonio 1971,no writ). We believe the Open Meetings Act requires deliberations to be held in public unless specifically exempted in section 2 of that Act. Corpus Christi C.T.A. v. Corpus Christi Ind. Sch. Uist., 535 S.W.2d429 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1976,no writ). ARvotes are required to be held in open session. V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17,g
SUM~MARY The Administrative Procedure Act does not provide any exception to the requirement that governmental bodies meet inopensession.

APPROVED:

C. ROBERTHEATH.Chairman OpinionCommittee

p. 5023
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-91095) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan and 1999
Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Rainmaker Systems, Inc. of our report dated
January 18, 2001, with respect to the financial statements and schedule of
Rainmaker Systems, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2000.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

San Jose, California
March 27, 2001
#### THE GLOUCESTER TWP. MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY v. GARDEN STATE WATER COMPANY.

June 21, 1978.

Petition for certification granted.
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 Quarterly Report of Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher M. Gleeson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



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



/s/    CHRISTOPHER M. GLEESONChristopher M. Gleeson Chief Executive OfficerNovember 12, 2003




This certification accompanies
this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Matthew Medeiros, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of SonicWALL, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   Date: March 15, 2006 /s/ Matthew Medeiros     **Matthew Medeiros**  **President and Chief Executive Officer**
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jermaine Boykin, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 662]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered September 7, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the County Court’s supplemental *Allen*charge *(see Allen v United States,*164 US 492 [1896]) was coercive, imbalanced, and impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to him by requiring jurors to provide an explanation for their respective positions. However, considered as a whole, the *577charge was not coercive and struck a fair balance between encouraging jurors to attempt to reach a unanimous verdict and not to abandon their conscientiously-held beliefs *(see People v Jolly,*282 AD2d 474, 475 [2001]; *People v Davis,*259 AD2d 627, 627-628 [1999]; *People v Kendrick,*256 AD2d 420, 421 [1998]; *People v McGriff,*254 AD2d 503, 504 [1998]; *cf. People v Aponte,*2 NY3d 304 [2004]).

Further, the charge did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defendant by requiring jurors to provide an explanation for their respective positions *(cf. People v Antommarchi,*80 NY2d 247, 252-253 [1992]; *People v Henry,*283 AD2d 587, 588 [2001]; *People v Diaz,*245 AD2d 526, 527 [1997]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Cozier and S. Miller, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

 

The Board of Directors

Aether Systems, Inc.:

 

We consent to incorporationby reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-91369, 333-52220 and333-52222) on Form S-8 and the registration statements (Nos. 333-48898,333-56154, 333-64264, and 333-74428) on Form S-3 of Aether Systems, Inc. of ourreports dated February 4, 2003 relating to the consolidated balance sheets ofAether Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2002, and therelated consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive loss,stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2002, and the related schedule, which reports appearin the December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of Aether Systems, Inc.

 

Our report dated February 4,2003 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company changed itsmethod for accounting for derivatives with the adoption of SFAS No. 133,“Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities” in 2001, andchanged its method for accounting for intangible assets with the adoption ofSFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” in 2002.

 

 
|   | */s/  KPMG LLP* |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   |                      |
|   | *McLean, Virginia*        |   |
|   | *March 31, 2003*          |   |

 

----
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 11, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

A. DAVID SILVER, a/k/a DAVID

SILVER; ADS PARTNERS, LTC; 

DOE COMPANIES, 1-10, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-2164

 (D.C. No. 1:08-mc-00015-BB)

ORDER

Appellant has failed to file a memorandum brief as directed in the court’s order of

July 23, 2010. Accordingly, this matter is dismissed for failure to prosecute. See 10th

Cir. R. 42.1. 

A copy of this order shall stand as the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-2164 Document: 01018475209 Date Filed: 08/11/2010 Page: 1
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Matthew Medeiros, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of SonicWALL, Inc. on Form
10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of SonicWALL, Inc. Date:
May 16, 2005
    
    By:
    
    
    
    /s/ Matthew MedeirosName:
    
    Matthew MedeirosTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
 I, Robert Selvi, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
SonicWALL, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report
on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of SonicWALL, Inc. Date:
May 16, 2005
    
    By:
    
    
    
    /s/ Robert SelviName:
    
    Robert SelviTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
#### In re Randy REYNOLDS, Petitioner.

No. 03-6990.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.

Decided Sept. 10, 2003.

Randy Reynolds, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Randy Reynolds petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *281materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,936,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    223,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,349,500
<PP&E>                                       1,237,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                (257,600)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,353,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          822,900
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           13,800
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,800
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,509,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,353,900
<SALES>                                          1,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               160,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,502,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,362,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,362,400)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>