alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of

-- Teledyne Scientific & Imaging, LLC Under Contract No. HROO 11-09-C-OO16 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61105

Nicole J. Owren-Wiest, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP Washington, DC E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Srikanti Schaffner, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Carson, CA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 20 April 2018

dministrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61105, Appeal ofTeledyne Scientific & Imaging, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of

-- Teledyne Scientific & Imaging, LLC Under Contract No. HROO 11-09-C-OO16 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61105

Nicole J. Owren-Wiest, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP Washington, DC E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Srikanti Schaffner, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Carson, CA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 20 April 2018

dministrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61105, Appeal ofTeledyne Scientific & Imaging, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A2266. KELVIN AKWANZA SPOONER v. WELLS FARGO BANK N. A.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. Following

an adverse ruling, defendants Kelvin and Melissa Spooner appealed to the superior

court. The superior court entered a final judgment and writ of possession in favor of

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. on June 3, 2015.

1 On June 8, 2015, Kelvin Spooner filed a

“Motion to Dismiss [the] Consent Final Judgment and Writ of Possession and

Defendant(s) / Appellant(s) Motion for Summary Judgment” and an “Affidavit of

Appearance and Appellant’s Brief.” The trial court denied Spooner’s June 8 motion

on June 22, 2015. Spooner filed a notice of appeal and an application for

discretionary appealfromthat order. We dismissed Spooner’s application on July 24,

2015. See Case No. A15D0487. We lack jurisdiction over Spooner’s direct appeal.

“[A]ppeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of lower

courts by certiorari or de novo proceedings shall be by application for discretionary

appeal.” (Punctuation omitted.) Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga. App. 874, 875 (581 SE2d

333) (2003); see also OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1). As referenced above, we dismissed

Spooner’s application for discretionary review of the order at issue, and he is not

entitled to a direct appeal of the same order. Accordingly, his appeal is hereby

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

1 Spooner filed a direct appeal from the trial court’s order, which we dismissed

for failure to follow discretionary appeal procedures. See Case No. A15A2114,

dismissed on August 3, 2015.

September 16, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/16/2015
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1887

AN ACT

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to lift the patient

limitation on prescribing drug addiction treatments by

medical practitioners in group practices.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF THE 30-PATIENT LIMIT FOR

4 GROUP PRACTICES.

5 Section 303(g)(2)(B) of the Controlled Substance Act

6 (21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(B)) is amended by striking clause

7 (iv).

Passed the Senate June 7, 2004.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1887

AN ACT

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to lift the

practices.treatments by medical practitioners in grouppatient limitation on prescribing drug addiction
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of
Principal Financial OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I,
John E. Yetter, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc., hereby
certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 of
Derma Sciences, Inc. (the Form 10-Q) upon my best knowledge and belief fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Derma Sciences, Inc.

|                          |                                                                                                              | 
|------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Dated:  November 12, 2009 | /s/ John E. Yetter                                                                                           | 
|                          | John E. Yetter, CPA
        Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer) |
#### William Grissman *v.*George W. Smith.

Debtor — Pretended Insolvency — Purchase of Claim — Fraud.

Buying in of Grissman’s debts with his own money, at a discount from his creditors, they believing him insolvent when he was solvent, was a fraud on them and a sufficient legal reason why no court would assist him to procure the profits thus made by his own fraudulent act.

APPEAL EROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

June 21, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Williams :

It is evident that Grissman understood the amount of each item of his account correct when it was presented to him. It would be a far-fetched presumption to say that a man did not know the amount of the debts he owed; besides it may be fairly presumed in this instance that most of the items were for notes which had been taken up by Smith and doubtless were declared over to Grissman. One was for a judgment against him. He surely ought to have known its amounts; if he did not it was because of his own *laches.*

It may also be presumed from the evidence that Grissman knew, previous to said settlement, that Smith was purchasing debts on *304him at a discount; His own salesman’s act in acknowledging a settlement in full by writing should not be disturbed without proof of mistake or fraud or overreaching of some sort.

*Mix, for appellant.*

*Pirtle, for appellee.*

The excuse given by Grissman for signing the receipt that he had made a purchase of a house and lot at over $6,000 and must have the money and could not get it from Smith without signing said receipt is wholly unsustained by the evidence. The proof shows he got the money in the forenoon, examined the account, and signed the receipt. -

The proof raises the presumptions that it was agreed between their parties that Smith should have the benefit of purchasing in Grissman’s debts, as he had been and still was insolvent, or .that these should be purchased in for their joint benefit.

The purchase in of these debts with Grissman’s money, at a discount from his creditors, they believing him to be insolvent when really he had more than a sufficiency in money to pay them, would be a fraud on them and a sufficient legal reason why no court would assist him to get this profit thus made by his own fraudulent act.

In either aspect of the case it seems clear that appellant is not entitled to the relief sought, and the court correctly dismissed his petition.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
**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**




In
      connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Health Systems Solutions,
      Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Susan Baxter Gibson, Principal 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, 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.




By:
              /s/ Susan
              Baxter GibsonSusan
                Baxter Gibson
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              April
                16, 2007
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**WARRENRESOURCES, INC.**

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

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Warren Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Norman F. Swanton, Chairman ofthe Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,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 fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of the Company. |

 
| s/ Norman F. Swanton           |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Norman F. Swanton              |
| *Chairman  of the Board*       |
| *And  Chief Executive Officer* |
| * *                       |
| August 2, 2007                 |

 

1

----
SCAD-10-0000196 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

THOMAS D. COLLINS, III, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC 10-044-8878)

ORDER OF PUBLIC CENSURE

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba and Duffy, JJ.,

 and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura,

 assigned by reason of vacancy)

This court has received the Disciplinary Board’s Report

and Recommendation for the Public Censure of Respondent Thomas D.

Collins, III. In consideration of the report and the 

stipulations in support of the report, it appears that Respondent

Collins was convicted of several counts of failure to file state

income and general excise tax returns and that the convictions

were entered upon deferred acceptance of guilty and deferred

acceptance of no contest pleas. Respondent Collins stipulated

that his failures to file tax returns violated Rule 8.4(a) and

8.4(b) of the Hawai#i Rules of Professional Conduct. 

Consequently, a public censure is warranted. Therefore,

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAD-10-0000196

03-JAN-2011

02:22 PM
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Thomas D. Collins,

III, is Publicly Censured.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 3, 2011.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Craig H. Nakamura

2
EXHIBIT 99.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                                 AS ADOPTED TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is intended to accompany the Annual Report of Sense Holdings,
Inc., on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof, and is given solely for
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The undersigned, in
my capacity as set forth below, hereby certifies 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 fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of
                operations of the Company.


/s/ Dore Scott Perler                           Date:  April 15, 2003
-------------------------                              --------------
Dore Scott Perler
CEO, Sense Holdings, Inc.
#### Britton *v.*Wheeler.

In a suit, under the statute, against the maker and indorser of a promissory note, and process served on both, the plaintiff cannot enter a *nol. pros,*as to one (who has not pleaded a matter going to his personal discharge), and proceed to judgment against the other.

ERROR to the *Vanderburgh*Circuit Court.

Perkins, J.

Assumpsit against the maker and indorser of a promissory note negotiable and payable at a chartered bank in this state, and founded on the 157th sect, of chapt. 40 of the R. S. of 1843. Process was served on both defendants, but on *Pierce,*one of them, the service was not ten days prior to the first day of the term of the Court to which the writ was returnable. The defendants not appearing, the plaintiff entered a *nolle prosequi*as to *Pierce,*and took judgment by default against *Britton,*the other defendant.

The judgment must be reversed. By proceeding under the statute above referred to, the plaintiff elected to treat the maker and indorser of the note as joint contractors, and must be governed in his suit by the rules of law applicable to such. *Dillon*v. *The State Bank,*6 Blackf. 5.— *Goodlet*v. *Britton, Id.*500. The law is, that in actions *ex contractu*a *nol. pros,*cannot be entered as to one defendant and the suit prosecuted against the others, till after such defendant shall have severed in pleading, and pleaded matter going to his personal discharge. 1 Chitt. Pl. 599. — 1 Howard’s *U. S.*Rep. 104. — 1 Blackf. 140. — 5 *id.*332.-6 *id.*500.

*32
      *J. Lockhart,*for the plaintiff.

*C. I. Battell,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 10, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ADRIAN CARTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant 

v. 

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC SAFETY; VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

SAFETY,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-7017

(D.C. No. 6:10-CV-00083-RAW)

ORDER

On May 17, 2010, this court issued an order directing the appellant, Mr.

Adrian Carter (who was apparently incarcerated at the time he filed this appeal), to

either pay the filing fee for this appeal or file a proper motion for leave to proceed

without prepayment of fees. The order also directed Mr. Carter to advise the

court, in writing, whether he is still incarcerated, either at the Pittsburg County

Jail or at some other facility. In addition, the order advised Mr. Carter that his

failure to respond to the order, within 14 days, would subject his appeal to

dismissal without further notice. See 10th Cir. R. 42.1. 

Appellant has failed to respond to the court’s May 17, 2010 order. 

Appellate Case: 10-7017 Document: 01018438442 Date Filed: 06/10/2010 Page: 1 
2

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution. 10th Cir. R. 42.1. 

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

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH SHUMAKER, Clerk of Court 

by:

Christine Van Coney

Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-7017 Document: 01018438442 Date Filed: 06/10/2010 Page: 2
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1999

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, as added by 

the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act 

of 2003, to provide for negotiation of fair prices for Medicare prescription 

drugs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 9, 2003

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. GRAHAM of Florida, Mr. 

KENNEDY, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. DORGAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. LAUTENBERG, 

Mr. BINGAMAN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. 

KOHL, Ms. CANTWELL, and Mr. ROCKEFELLER) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security 

Act, as added by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, to provide 

for negotiation of fair prices for Medicare prescription 

drugs.

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 ‘‘Medicare Prescription 

5 Drug Price Reduction Act’’. 
2

•S 1999 IS 

1 SEC. 2. NEGOTIATING FAIR PRICES FOR MEDICARE PRE2 SCRIPTION DRUGS. 

3 Section 1860D–11 of the Social Security Act, as 

4 added by section 101(a) of the Medicare Prescription 

5 Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, is 

6 amended by striking subsection (i) (relating to noninter7 ference) and by inserting the following: 

8 ‘‘(i) AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE PRICES WITH MAN9 UFACTURERS.—In order to ensure that beneficiaries en10 rolled under prescription drug plans and MA–PD plans 

11 pay the lowest possible price, the Secretary shall have au12 thority similar to that of other Federal entities that pur13 chase prescription drugs in bulk to negotiate contracts 

14 with manufacturers of covered part D drugs, consistent 

15 with the requirements and in furtherance of the goals of 

16 providing quality care and containing costs under this 

17 part.’’.

Æ
1

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1940

___________

Alverne C. Bush, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

L-3 Communications/Titan Group, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 25, 2010

Filed: December 13, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alverne Bush appeals following the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in her employment discrimination action. After careful de novo review, see

Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir. 2004), we conclude that

summary judgment was properly granted. Even assuming Bush made a prima facie

case of discrimination on any of the bases asserted in her complaint, she failed to

create a jury issue on whether her unsatisfactory job performance – the reason given

for her termination – was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. See Richmond v. Bd.
-2-

of Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 957 F.2d 595, 598 (8th Cir. 1992). Summary

judgment also was proper on Bush’s claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act,

because she did not provide the required notice to her employer. See Woods v.

DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984, 991 (8th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, see 8th Cir. R. 47B,

and deny Bush’s pending motion for appointment of counsel. 

______________________________
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1812

To amend the Home Owners’ Loan Act to clarify the citizenship of Federal 

savings associations for purposes of Federal court jurisdiction. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2003

Ms. CANTWELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL

To amend the Home Owners’ Loan Act to clarify the citizenship of Federal savings associations for purposes of Federal court jurisdiction.

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

3 SECTION 1. CITIZENSHIP OF FEDERAL SAVINGS ASSOCIA4 TIONS FOR JURISDICTION PURPOSES. 

5 Section 5 of the Home Owners’ Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 

6 1464) is amended by adding at the end the following new 

7 subsection: 

8 ‘‘(x) HOME STATE CITIZENSHIP.—In determining 

9 whether a Federal court has diversity jurisdiction over a 

10 case in which a Federal savings association is a party, the 
2

•S 1812 IS 

1 Federal savings association shall be considered to be a cit2 izen only of the State in which such savings association 

3 has its main office.’’.

Æ
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1942

To require the President to submit to Congress a quarterly report on the 

projected total cost of United States operations in Iraq, including military 

operations and reconstruction efforts, through fiscal year 2008. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 24, 2003

Mr. CORZINE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To require the President to submit to Congress a quarterly 

report on the projected total cost of United States operations in Iraq, including military operations and reconstruction efforts, through fiscal year 2008.

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 ‘‘Future Iraq Costs 

5 Act’’. 
2

•S 1942 IS 

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON PROJECTED TOTAL COST OF UNITED 

2 STATES OPERATIONS IN IRAQ. 

3 (a) QUARTERLY REPORT.—Not later than 30 days 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 

5 days thereafter, the President shall submit to each Mem6 ber of Congress a report on the projected total cost of 

7 United States operations in Iraq, including military oper8 ations and reconstruction efforts, through fiscal year 

9 2008. 

10 (b) EXPLANATION OF CHANGES IN PROJECTED

11 COST.—The President shall include in each report sub12 mitted under subsection (a) after the initial report under 

13 that subsection an explanation for any change in the total 

14 projected total cost of United States operations in Iraq 

15 from the projected total cost of such operations stated in 

16 the preceding report. 

17 (c) TERMINATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT IN

18 FISCAL YEAR 2008.—No report is required under this 

19 section after December 31, 2007.

Æ