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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2503 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2503

   To make permanent the reduction in taxes on dividends and capital 
                                 gains.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 3, 2004

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To make permanent the reduction in taxes on dividends and capital 
                                 gains.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT REDUCTION IN TAXES ON DIVIDENDS AND CAPITAL GAINS.

    Section 303 of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
2003 (relating to sunset of title) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
WALTER E. ARCHER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 2931

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed October 3, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Suwannee County

. Paul S. Bryan , Judge

.

Walter Archer, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel A. Perrone, Assistant Attorney

General, T allahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, William V. Carey, President and Chief Executive Officer of Central European Distribution Corporation, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Central EuropeanDistribution Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data; and 

 

b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 12, 2003
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Fifty-five Years Ago, Faith 7 Closes Out Project Mercury","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"SRsF7K5kcb\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/fifty-five-years-ago-faith-7-closes-out-project-mercury\/\">Fifty-five Years Ago, Faith 7 Closes Out Project Mercury<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/fifty-five-years-ago-faith-7-closes-out-project-mercury\/embed\/#?secret=SRsF7K5kcb\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Fifty-five Years Ago, Faith 7 Closes Out Project Mercury” — NASA\" data-secret=\"SRsF7K5kcb\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/34-s63-01922.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":772}
#### Taylor Young *v.*Wm. H. Gudgell.

Minor — Failure to Appoint Guardian.

It is reversible error to render a judgment against a minor without having a guardian appointed to defend for him.

Minor’s Contract, Enforcable When — Evidence.

The purchase of a horse by a minor to operate a farm upon which he was living as the head of a family, and from the use of which a support for himself and family was obtained; and the jury believed that the purchase by the minor of the house was necessary for the minor’s use, though while he could not bind himself by the execution of a note therefor, the law will bind him to pay the reasonable value of the horse; and what he promised to pay for the horse, will be competent evidence conducing to show its value.

APPEAL FROM FLEMING CIRCUIT COURT.

*265
      *Curd, for appellant.*

*Stanton*& *Throop, for appellee.*

Opinion ok the Court by

Judge Peters :

Tlie judgment was rendered in the court below against appellant, who was at the time a minor, without the' appointment of a guardian to defend for him, contrary to the 55 *Section of the Civil Code,*which is an error available for reversal in this court, as was held in the case of *Pond vs. Dougherty*18 *B. M.*558.

It is proved by Williams, statutory guardian for appellant, that he was married and had one child, was living to himself on a farm purchased for him by the witness,, that he was cultivating his farm, and manáging it as he pleased when he purchased the mare, for the price of which, the note was given, that he used and worked her in making his crop, for which purpose she was suitable, and useful, and from the evidence of Mr. Weis it appears he sold her, and realized more for her than he promised to pay. If the jury from the evidence believe the foregoing facts and that the mare was necessary for the use of appellant, situated as he was, while he could not bind himself by the execution of a note, still the law will bind him to pay the reasonable value of the mare to appellee, and what he promised to give, for her, will be competent evidence conducing to show her value.

But for the failure to appoint a guardian to defend for appellant the judgment n ast be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




HERITAGE
      OAKS BANCORP




Annual
      Report on Form 10K


for
      the
      Year ended December 31, 2006





**CERTIFICATION**




Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The
      undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Heritage Oaks Bancorp (the
      “Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, that (i) the
      Annual Report on Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed by
      the
      Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Annual Report”), to
      which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the
      information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.


Dated:
              March 1, 2007
            
            /s/
              Margaret A. TorresMargaret
              A. TorresExecutive
              Vice
              President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 3 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9334-1 Filed 12/14/17 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9334-1 Filed 12/14/17 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9334-1 Filed 12/14/17 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9334-1 Filed 12/14/17 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9334-1 Filed 12/14/17 Page 5 of 5
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6018

ROBERT PAYNE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge,

Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-3464-18AJ)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 3, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Payne v.

Moore, No. CA-94-3464-18AJ (D.S.C. Nov. 27, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Brandy Williams, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

G & K Services Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-01744-PHX-DJH 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 

Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The 

issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered. 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court’s Order filed 

March 30, 2018, judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, 

and this action is hereby terminated. 

 

 Brian D. Karth 

 District Court Executive/Clerk of Court 

April 2, 2018 

 s/ L. Figueroa 

 By Deputy Clerk 

 

Case 2:15-cv-01744-DJH Document 82 Filed 04/02/18 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:15-cv-01744-DJH Document 82 Filed 04/02/18 Page 2 of 2
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1160 KA 14-02212 PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES HOOD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW S. SZALKOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered December 5, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.25 [2]), defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. We reject that contention. The evidence at trial established that defendant, an inmate in state prison, knowingly possessed the contraband in question, i.e., a razor blade melted into a pen cap that was found in his sock. Thus, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495).
Defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in allowing the People to introduce testimony that defendant made an inculpatory statement, i.e., that the contraband was his, is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as he failed to move to suppress that evidence ( see generally CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Margaret R. Brenner,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04502-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 1/4/2018, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail to 

do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: January 12, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

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) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9722 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9722 Filed 01/18/18 Page 2 of 2
| **Exhibit 21** |
|----------------|

 

 

**Subsidiaries**

 

The following table sets forth the information on our subsidiaries that is required to be reported under Item 601 of the SEC’s Regulation S-K.

 

 

|  

**Name**   |   | **State of Incorporation****or Organization** |   | **Name Under Which Business is Conducted** |
|--------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
| ESI Service Corp.  |   | Delaware                                      |   | ESI Service Corp.                          |
| ESI Maryland Corp. |   | Maryland                                      |   | ITT Technical Institute                    |
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)
       OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 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 on Form 10-Q of Penwest
Pharmaceuticals Co. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Tod R. Hamachek, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.



Dated: November 4, 2004                            /s/ Tod R. Hamachek
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Tod R. Hamachek
                                                   Chairman of the Board
                                                   and Chief Executive Officer
INTERPHARM HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                    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

Each of the  undersigned  hereby  certifies,  in his  capacity  as an officer of
Interpharm Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The  Quarterly  Report  of the  Company  on Form 10-Q for the  period  ended
September  30, 2005 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: November 14, 2005

/s/ Cameron Reid
--------------------------------
Cameron Reid
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ George Aronson
--------------------------------
George Aronson
Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Interpharm  Holdings,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by  Interpharm
Holdings,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Central European Distribution Corporation (the Company), hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Chris BiedermannChris BiedermannVice President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 10, 2007