alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Redman and Others *v.*The State.

On the trial of an indictment for an offence, charged to have been committed in one county, evidence of the defendant’s having committed a similar offence in another county, is inadmissible.

ERROR to the *Floyd*Circuit Court.-r-Indictment for an assault and battery. Plea, not guilty. Yerdict and judgment a.gainst the defendants below»,

*Nelson,*for the plaintiffs.

Scott, J.

The indictment charges the offence to have been-committed in *Floyd*county; and it appears by the record, that, on the trial, the Court admitted evidence of an imprisonment in the county of *Clark.*We are not informed whether or not this was the only evidence offered on the trial. If it was, the indictment could not he supported. If there was evidence of an of-fence in the county of *Floyd,*the additional evidence of a similar offence in the county of *Clark,*was calculated to make an impression on the minds of the jurors unfavourable to the accused. Such evidence haying been admitted by the Court, after having been objected toby the counsel for the defendants, affords a presumption that it had its influence in settling the amount of the fine (1).

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings, subsequent to the issue are set aside (2). Cause remanded for-further proceedings.

(1)

 In criminal cases, the jury that find the verdict determine the amount of the fine, &c.; except where it is otherwise directed, or where the same is fixed by law. If the defendant plead guilty, the Court assess the fine, &c. Ind. Stat. 1817, p. 96; — 1823, p. 150.

(2)

 The state is not liable for costs. The *United States*never pay costs in ansy suit. *United*State v. *Barker,*2 Wheat. 395.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.68





March 07, 2003



Ms. Marie Neff
4000 Lindsey Road
Marietta, GA 30067

Dear Marie:

This letter confirms our agreement to amend, effective February 24, 2003, your
employment agreement with PRG-Schultz USA, Inc. dated May 2, 2001 (the
"Agreement") in the following respects:

1.       Base salary increase to $185,000.00 per annum (including employee
         deferral) paid $7,115.38 bi-weekly to $210,000.00 per annum (adjusted
         base salary including employee deferral is ($220,000.00) paid $8,076.92
         bi-weekly in accordance with the Company's customary payroll
         procedures. It should be noted that your compensation increased from
         $165,000.00 to $185,000.00 in 2002.

2.       Increase car allowance from $8,000.00 per annum, paid $666.67 monthly
         to $15,000.00 per annum paid $1,250.00 monthly during your employment
         and pro-rated for partial periods.

Except for the amendments above, the terms of the Agreement shall continue in
full force and effect as originally executed.

Should you have any questions, please give me a call.

Best wishes,

/s/  John Cook

John Cook
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Hector Manuel Diaz-Cuevas, 

Defendant.

No. CR-16-0066-PHX-NVW

DETENTION ORDER 

 In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), the issue of 

detention was addressed at a hearing on January 15, 2016. The Court was informed that 

the defendant is subject to other custody and is not eligible for release at this time. 

 The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is subject to 

other custody and should be similarly detained in this case. If circumstances change such 

that defendant is no longer in custody in the other matter, defendant shall have leave to 

request that the matter of detention be reopened in this case. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be detained pending further proceedings. The 

defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated 

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The 

defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense 

counsel. On order of the Court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to 

Case 2:16-cr-00066-NVW Document 9 Filed 01/15/16 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 

the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a Court 

proceeding. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should a motion for review/reconsideration of 

this detention order be filed, it is counsel's responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion 

for review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it 

is counsel's responsibility to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing 

to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and investigate the potential third 

party custodian. 

 Dated this 15th day of January, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cr-00066-NVW Document 9 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
  Written Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 The undersigned, the President of Webster Preferred Capital Corporation (the Company),
hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:  (a)
    the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 filed on the date
hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13a or 15d 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/ William T. BromageWilliam T. Bromage,
President
Principal Executive Officer
May 9, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Webster Preferred Capital Corporation and will be retained by Webster Preferred Capital Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 19
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Kate Blankenship, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of CalPetro Tankers (IOM)
Limited;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 the period  covered by this annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  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 annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant  changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls  subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


/s/ Kate Blankenship
----------------------------
Kate Blankenship
Director
(Chief Financial Officer)

Date:  June 30, 2003
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

Mark Brnovich 

Attorney General 

Michael E. Gottfried 

State Bar No. 010623 

Assistant Attorney General 

2005 North Central Avenue 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-1592 

Telephone: (602) 542-7693 

Fax: (602) 542-7670 

E-mail: michael.gottfried@azag.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants Ryan, Rittenhouse, Hood, Olson and Riggs 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Prison Legal News, a project of the 

Human Rights Defense Center, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

 Defendants. 

No. CV15-02245-PHX-ROS 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Defendants Ryan, Rittenhouse, Hood, Olson and Riggs, through undersigned 

counsel, pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(g) move to reconsider parts of the Court’s Order (doc. 260) 

granting summary judgment to Plaintiff and denying Defendants’ summary judgment 

motion. The Court should reconsider its conclusions because, among other reasons, 

numerous courts have approved prison regulation of sexually-explicit material 

substantively similar to Arizona’s regulations. 

I. ADC’s publication regulations are facially constitutional. 

A. The Court misconstrued ADC’s publication regulations—they are 

indistinguishable from those approved in Thornburgh v. Abbott. 

In Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 409 (1989), the Supreme Court upheld a 

facial challenge to a prison regulation that barred all “sexually explicit material which by 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 266 Filed 04/12/19 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Katherine Schauer","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/ksschaue\/","title":"Integrated LCRD LEO User Modem and Amplifier Terminal","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"i4jqe1HzZS\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/illumat\/\">Integrated LCRD LEO User Modem and Amplifier Terminal<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/illumat\/embed\/#?secret=i4jqe1HzZS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Integrated LCRD LEO User Modem and Amplifier Terminal” — NASA\" data-secret=\"i4jqe1HzZS\" 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\/2021\/10\/microsoftteams-image-77.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
EXHIBIT 13

Ultrapar Participações S.A. and Subsidiaries

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the
Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Thilo Mannhardt, the Chief Executive Officer, and André Pires de Oliveira Dias, the Chief Financial Officer of Ultrapar
Participações S.A., each certifies that, to the best of their respective 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 Ultrapar Participações S.A.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

São Paulo, April 29, 2016

ULTRAPAR
PARTICIPAÇÕES S.A.



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /S/ THILO MANNHARDT    
|Name:  |  | Thilo Mannhardt        
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer

São Paulo, April 29, 2016



|       |  |                                               
|------ |  | ----------------------------------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /S/ ANDRÉ PIRES DE OLIVEIRA DIAS              
|Name:  |  | André Pires de Oliveira Dias                  
|Title: |  | Chief Financial and Investor Relations Officer
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 689

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to continue full-time-equivalent resident reimbursement for an additional one year under Medicare

for direct graduate medical education for residents enrolled in combined

approved primary care medical residency training programs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 11, 1997

Ms. SLAUGHTER (for herself, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCNULTY,

and Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to

the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to continue

full-time-equivalent resident reimbursement for an additional one year under Medicare for direct graduate medical education for residents enrolled in combined approved

primary care medical residency training programs.

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 ‘‘Primary Care Pro5 motion Act of 1997’’.
2

•HR 689 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEDICARE SPECIAL REIMBURSEMENT RULE FOR

2 PRIMARY CARE COMBINED RESIDENCY PRO3 GRAMS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886(h)(5)(G) of the So5 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(5)(G)) is amend6 ed—

7 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘and (iii)’’ and in8 serting ‘‘, (iii), and (iv)’’; and

9 (2) by adding at the end the following:

10 ‘‘(iv) SPECIAL RULE FOR PRIMARY

11 CARE COMBINED RESIDENCY PROGRAMS.—

12 (I) In the case of a resident enrolled in a

13 combined medical residency training pro14 gram in which all of the individual pro15 grams (that are combined) are for training

16 a primary care resident (as defined in sub17 paragraph (H)), the period of board eligi18 bility shall be the minimum number of

19 years of formal training required to satisfy

20 the requirements for initial board eligibility

21 in the longest of the individual programs

22 plus one additional year.

23 ‘‘(II) A resident enrolled in a com24 bined medical residency training program

25 that includes an obstetrics and gynecology

26 program qualifies for the period of board
3

•HR 689 IH

1 eligibility under subclause (I) if the other

2 programs such resident combines with such

3 obstetrics and gynecology program are for

4 training a primary care resident.’’.

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

6 subsection (a) apply to combined medical residency pro7 grams in effect on or after July 1, 1996.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,351,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               92,795,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     165,489,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,343,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             254,453,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 130,150,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               254,453,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,249,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,643,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               163,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,706,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,313,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,313,000        
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,313,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
Order entered October 6 , 2016

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00989

- CR

ROSICK HILL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal Dist rict Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F

- 1171579

- K



### O RDER

T he Court has before it appellee the State of Texas’s October 5, 2016, Second Motion for

Extension of Time to File Brief. We GRANT the motion and DIRECT the Clerk to file

appe llee’s brief tendered with its Second Motion for Extension of Time.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE

PRESIDING JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dennis Ellis,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03919-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Skikos, Crawford, Skikos & Joseph, LLP

(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 10/25/2017, 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: October 26, 2017 /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 8435 Filed 10/27/17 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 8435 Filed 10/27/17 Page 2 of 2