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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2315 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2315

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to extend the 
           deadline for the INTELSAT initial public offering.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF IPO DEADLINE.

    Section 621(5)(A)(i) of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 
(47 U.S.C. 763(5)(A)(i)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``December 31, 2003,'' and inserting ``June 
        30, 2005,''; and
            (2) by striking ``June 30, 2004;'' and inserting ``December 
        31, 2005;''.

            Passed the Senate April 27, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2315

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to extend the 
           deadline for the INTELSAT initial public offering.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2077 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2077

  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit additional 
  States to enter into long-term care partnerships under the Medicaid 
    Program in order to promote the use of long-term care insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2004

  Mr. Craig (for himself and Mr. Bayh) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit additional 
  States to enter into long-term care partnerships under the Medicaid 
    Program in order to promote the use of long-term care insurance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Long-Term Care Insurance Partnership 
Program Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING ADDITIONAL STATES TO ENTER INTO LONG-TERM CARE 
              PARTNERSHIPS TO PROMOTE USE OF LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1917(b)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1396p(b)(1)(C)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (i), by striking ``shall seek adjustment'' 
        and inserting ``may seek adjustment''; and
            (2) in clause (ii), by striking ``had a State plan 
        amendment approved as of May 14, 1993, which provided'' and 
        inserting ``has a State plan amendment approved which 
        provides''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Janet L. Lehr, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03524-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney's signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6000 

Telephone number

(404 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8703 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 1
---

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 ZooLink Corp. (the
  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
  the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 10, 2003 (the "Report"), the
  undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies
  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.

|Dated: October 10, 2003 | /s/ West McDonald                       
|----------------------- | ----------------------------------------
|                        | West McDonald                           
|                        | President & Principal Accounting Officer

---
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2057

To require the Secretary of Defense to reimburse members of the United 

States Armed Forces for certain transportation expenses incurred by 

the members in connection with leave under the Central Command Rest 

and Recuperation Leave Program before the program was expanded 

to include domestic travel. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2004

Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. DAYTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Defense to reimburse members 

of the United States Armed Forces for certain transportation expenses incurred by the members in connection 

with leave under the Central Command Rest and Recuperation Leave Program before the program was expanded to include domestic travel.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2

•S 2057 IS 

1 SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSPOR2 TATION COSTS INCURRED BY MEMBERS OF 

3 THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES ON 

4 REST AND RECUPERATION LEAVE. 

5 The Secretary of Defense shall reimburse a member 

6 of the United States Armed Forces for transportation ex7 penses incurred by such member for one round trip by 

8 such member between two locations within the United 

9 States in connection with leave taken under the Central 

10 Command Rest and Recuperation Leave Program during 

11 the period beginning on September 25, 2003, and ending 

12 on December 18, 2003.

Æ
#### H. Hammond et al *v.*W. H. & F. Sanford.

Consideration — Failure of — Bills and Notes.

A note 'given for the purpose of securing the discharge of one from the Army, is held to constitute a valid consideration, as to counsel and assist a man to obtain his discharge in a legal manner is neither illegal nor against public policy.

APPEAL FROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 10, 1868.

*McManama, for appellant.*

*Drane, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams r

There is no issue of *non est factum*as to the note sued on, but on the contrary, appellants in their answer say, “they executed the note sued on,” they then attack it for want of consideration and because the consideration was illegal and against public policy, it being given to procure ITammon’s discharge from the draft of the United States in the late war, therefore, all the evidence tending to establish that this note was not executed but a blank note for one hundred dollars more was wholly irrelevant to the issues. The evidence neither established a want of consideration nor a vicious one. To counsel and assist a man to obtain in a legal manner a discharge from the draft is neither illegal nor against public policy, but is simply to aid him in vindicating his legal rights, as is the case in the employment of all lawyers. Judgment affirmed with damages.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2363 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2363

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
       To revise and extend the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

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

SECTION 1. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA.

    Section 401 of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 13751 
note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
                    (A) by striking ``1,200'' and inserting ``1,500'';
                    (B) by striking ``4,000'' and inserting ``5,000''; 
                and
                    (C) by striking ``December 31, 2005'' and inserting 
                ``December 31, 2010'';
            (2) in subsection (c)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2002, 2003, 
                2004, 2005, and 2006'' and inserting ``2006, 2007, 
                2008, 2009, and 2010''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (2)--
                            (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking 
                        ``1,200'' and inserting ``1,500''; and
                            (ii) in subparagraph (B)--
                                    (I) by striking ``4,000'' and 
                                inserting ``5,000''; and
                                    (II) by striking ``2007'' and 
                                inserting ``2010''; and
            (3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (1) and 
        inserting the following:
            ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
        to carry out this section--
                    ``(A) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
                    ``(B) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
                    ``(C) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
                    ``(D) $95,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
                    ``(E) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.''.

            Passed the Senate June 3, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2363

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

       To revise and extend the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.
```
No. 15,312.

#### Hawkins et al. *v.*McDougal.

*Pabtition.*— Tenants *in Common of Life-Estate.*— Tenants in common of a life-estate in land may maintain a suit for partition.

From the Martin Circuit Court.

*A. J. Padgett*and *A. Paget,*for appellants.

*J. H. O’Neall, W. R. Gardiner*and *S. H. Taylor,*for appellee.

*598Filed Nov. 12, 1890.

Elliott, J.

— The only question presented by this record is, whether tenants in common of a life-estate in land can maintain a suit for partition.

In equity, and at law, it has always been held that tenants in common of a life-estate in land may have compulsory partition. Freeman Co-Tenancy and Partition, section 455. Our statute has not changed this rule. *Shaw*v. *Beers,*84 Ind. 528; *Swain*v. *Hardin,*64 Ind. 85 ; *Russell*v. *Russell,*48 Ind. 456; *Longlois*v. *Longlois,*48 Ind. 60.

Judgment affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Williams, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 399]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered March 25, 2003, convicting him of gang assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt of gang assault in the second degree *(see*Penal Law § 120.06). The jury could have reasonably inferred that the defendant and the codefendant were in a position to render immediate assistance to their accomplice and, therefore, posed a sufficient threat of additional violence so as to satisfy the aggravating element necessary to sustain the conviction of gang assault in the second degree *(see People v Marquez,*298 AD2d 407, 408 [2002]; *cf. People v Hedgeman,*70 NY2d 533 [1987]; *People v Carr-El,*287 AD2d 731, 732 [2001], *affd*99 NY2d 546 [2002]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s arguments regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation are partially unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, any prejudice that may have resulted from the challenged remarks was alleviated when the trial court sustained the defendant’s objections and provided curative instructions to the jury *(see People v Burrell,*178 AD2d 422 [1991]). To the extent that any alleged inappropriate remark remained unaddressed, it was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see People v Stith,*291 AD2d 576 [2002]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements onForm S-8 (No. 333-31776, No. 333-31778, No. 333-49336, No. 333-69056, No. 333-72842,No. 333-113392, No. 333-121250, No. 333-123771 and No. 333-135536) and theRegistration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-73778) of Harris Interactive Inc. of ourreport, dated September 12, 2007, relating to the financial statements, financialstatement schedule and the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.       */s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP*         *Rochester, New York*    *September 12, 2007*
#### Michael Wells *v.*Alex. Wilson.

Champerty — Actions.

An action, cannot be maintained in the name of one for the sole benefit of another under a ehampertous agreement.

APPEAL EEOM ESTILL CIRCUIT COUET.

December 10, 1867.

*Turner*& *Lily, for appellant.*

*Barnes, for appellee.*

Opinion oe the Coue't by

Judge Robeetson :

The uncontradicted testimony, as exhibited in this record, proves indisputably that this action is prosecuted in Wilson’s name by Oox or Waters for his own sole benefit under a ehampertous agreement between Wilson and Oox against the letter and spirit of the 3rd section of the 12th Chapter of the' Revised Statutes title Champerty; and consequently, there being no contrariety in the evidence on this subject, the verdict of the jury was without any evidence to support it and was moreover inconsistent with an extraction given by the court to the jury.

Wherefore, without noting any other alleged error, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2165

To specify the end strength for active duty personnel of the Army as of 

September 30, 2005. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 4, 2004

Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. NELSON

of Florida, and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To specify the end strength for active duty personnel of 

the Army as of September 30, 2005.

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

3 SECTION 1. END STRENGTH FOR ACTIVE DUTY PERSONNEL 

4 OF THE ARMY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the au6 thorized strength for active duty personnel of the Army 

7 as of September 30, 2005, shall be 512,400.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

PDS GAMING CORPORATION  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of PDS Gaming Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Johan P. Finley, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Peter D. Cleary, President, Chief
Operating Officer, Treasurer and Interim 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:

|By:    |  | /s/JOHAN P. FINLEYJohan P. Finley                                                 |  | Dated: March 30, 2004
|------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman                                              |  |                      
|By:    |  | /s/PETER D. CLEARYPeter D. Cleary                                                 |  | Dated: March 30, 2004
|Title: |  | President, Chief Operating Officer, Treasurer and Interim Chief Financial Officer |  |                      

This
certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

---

QuickLinks
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 Annual Report of OurPets Company (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, being the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 of OurPets Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) |  | The financial statements, and other financial information included 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 periods presented in this Report.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|   |  |                                                                 
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|   | 
|By |  | /s/    STEVEN
TSENGAS                                           
|   |  | Steven Tsengas Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



Dated:    March 30, 2004



This
certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained in that statute, and not for any other purpose.



44
#### WALTER CUOZZO v. TRUSTEES OF THE POLICE AND FIREMEN’S RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

May 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 4, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40728

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HEXON OCHOA-MARTINEZ, also known as Nelson Cordoba,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:05-CR-1007-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit

Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Hexon OchoaMartinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2332 

For the relief of James Symington. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 21, 2004 

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of James Symington. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JAMES SY4 MINGTON. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, James Symington shall be eligible for issuance of an 

8 immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 

9 alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon fil10 ing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 

11 section 204 of that Act or for adjustment of status to law12 ful permanent resident. 
2 

•S 2332 IS 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If James Symington 

2 enters the United States before the filing deadline speci3 fied in subsection (c), James Symington shall be consid4 ered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall be 

5 eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 

6 Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of enact7 ment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to James Symington, the Secretary of State shall 

16 instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the cur17 rent or next following fiscal year, the total number of im18 migrant visas that are made available to natives of the 

19 country of birth of James Symington under section 203(a) 

20 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, 

21 the total number of immigrant visas that are made avail22 able to natives of the country of birth of James Symington 

23 under section 202(e) of that Act. 

Æ
#### RAYMOND ARTHUR ABBOTT v. FRED G. BURKE, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION.

July 12, 1984.

Petition for certification granted.