alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4442

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postother purposes. the installation of a plaque at such site, and for Memorial Post Office Building’’ and to authorize in Reno, Nevada, as the ‘‘Guardians of Freedom al Service located at 1050 North Hills Boulevard

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4442

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 1050 North Hills Boulevard in Reno, Nevada,

as the ‘‘Guardians of Freedom Memorial Post Office

Building’’ and to authorize the installation of a plaque

at such site, and for other purposes.
2

•HR 4442 EH

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF GUARDIANS OF FREEDOM

4 MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

6 Postal Service located at 1050 North Hills Boulevard in

7 Reno, Nevada, shall be known and designated as the

8 ‘‘Guardians of Freedom Memorial Post Office Building’’.

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg10 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

11 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

12 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Guardians of Freedom

13 Memorial Post Office Building’’.

14 SEC. 2. INSTALLATION OF PLAQUE.

15 (a) AGREEMENT.—The Postmaster General may

16 enter into an agreement with the Office of Veterans’ Serv17 ices of the State of Nevada under which the Office of Vet18 erans’ Services of the State of Nevada agrees—

19 (1) to install a plaque to be displayed at the

20 Guardians of Freedom Memorial Post Office Build21 ing referred to in section 1(a); and

22 (2) to maintain and update such plaque, as ap23 propriate and in accordance with subsections (b) and

24 (c).

25 (b) INSCRIPTIONS.—
3

•HR 4442 EH

1 (1) DEDICATION.—The plaque installed pursu2 ant to subsection (a) shall bear the following inscrip3 tion: ‘‘This post office building is dedicated in the

4 memory of those men and women of the State of

5 Nevada who have lost their lives while serving in the

6 Armed Forces of the United States in the Global

7 War on Terrorism and in Operation Iraqi Free8 dom.’’.

9 (2) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.—The plaque

10 installed pursuant to subsection (a) shall also in11 clude with respect to the men and women of the

12 Armed Forces referred to in paragraph (1) inscrip13 tions containing the names, ranks, branches of serv14 ice, hometowns, and dates of death of such men and

15 women.

16 (c) EXPENDITURE OF COSTS.—The agreement re17 ferred to in subsection (a) shall provide that the Office

18 of Veterans’ Services of the State of Nevada shall have

19 sole responsibility for the expenditure of all costs associ-
4

•HR 4442 EH

1 ated with the installation, maintenance, and updating of

2 the plaque.

Passed the House of Representatives September 7,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40740 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADRIAN GALVAN-GALLEGOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-01-CR-78-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 11, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender representing Adrian GalvanGallegos (Galvan) has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and

has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Galvan has not filed a response. Our independent

review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous

issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4801 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue 

an order regarding secondary cockpit barriers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2004 

Mr. ISRAEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue an order regarding secondary cockpit 

barriers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress makes the following findings: 

5 (1) The safety and security of the civil air 

6 transportation system is critical to the United States 

7 security and its national defense. 

8 (2) A safe and secure United States civil air 

9 transportation system is essential to the basic free-
2 

•HR 4801 IH 

1 dom of Americans to move in intrastate, interstate, 

2 and international transportation. 

3 (3) Security and intelligence officials continue 

4 to worry that a terrorist network is planning to use 

5 planes as weapons and exploit suspected weakness in 

6 United States aviation security. 

7 (4) Reinforced cockpit doors that must be 

8 opened for pilots to use the bathroom and receive 

9 food and drink are a clear vulnerability, compro10 mising the security and safety of aircraft. 

11 SEC. 2. IMPROVED FLIGHT DECK INTEGRITY MEASURES. 

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—As soon as possible after the date 

13 of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 

14 Aviation Administration shall issue an order requiring the 

15 installation of secondary barriers preventing access to the 

16 flight deck of any commercial aircraft operating under 

17 part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, and re18 quiring that such secondary barriers remain locked while 

19 the aircraft is in flight and the cockpit door separating 

20 the flight deck and the passenger area is open. 

21 (b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In issuing an order under 

22 this section, the Administrator shall take into account— 

23 (1) the most promising of the available tech24 nologies relating to secondary barriers described in 

25 subsection (a); and 
3 

•HR 4801 IH 

1 (2) the cost and time schedule for deploying 

2 such barriers. 

Æ
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4478 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 3,2004 

Received 

JUNE 25, 2004 

Read twice and eferred to the Committee on Small Business and 

Entrepreneurship 

AN ACT 

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small 

Business Investment Act of 1958 through July 23, 2004, 

and for other purposes. 

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

HR 4478 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AU2 THORIZATION OF PROGRAMS UNDER SMALL 

3 BUSINESS ACT AND SMALL BUSINESS INVEST4 MENT ACT OF 1958. 

5 The authorization for any program, authority, or pro6 vision, including any pilot program, that was extended 

7 through June 4, 2004, by section 1 of Public Law 108– 

8 217 is further extended through July 23, 2004, under the 

9 same terms and conditions. 

10 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT. 

11 Section 2 of Public Law 108–205 is amended by 

12 striking ‘‘October 1, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘March 15, 

13 2004’’. The amendment made by the preceding sentence 

14 shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 

15 section to which it relates. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000065195
<NAME>                        MESTEK, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          11,649
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,278
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,701
<INVENTORY>                                     43,265
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,752
<PP&E>                                          70,118
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,679
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 170,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,478
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           479
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,718
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   170,010
<SALES>                                        283,413
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               299,527
<CGS>                                          208,050
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  217,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   968
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,377
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,991
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,662
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,329
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,329
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.49
        


</TABLE>
REVISED 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-60106 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Okanlawan O. Norbert, 

Defendant—Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi 

USDC No. 3:19-cr-50 

Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Davis, Jones, Smith, Stewart, 

Dennis, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, 

Costa, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, and

Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED by an equally 

divided court. Our “judgment [is] not entitled to precedential weight no 

matter what reasoning may have supported it.” Rutledge v. United States, 517 

U.S. 292, 304 (1996). 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

February 4, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-60106 Document: 00516192660 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2022
Order entered October 2 6 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00645
- CV ALVESTER COLEMAN, Appellant

V. PETRO
- HUNT LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 160th Judic ial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 18
- 13807

ORDER Appellant filed his brief on the merits on July 2, 2020, before the reporter’s
record was filed

. The brief did not comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 38.1, and on September 9, 2020, after the reporter’s record was filed, we ordered appellant to file a brief in compliance with th e rule within thirty days. To date, he has failed to do so. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal submitted on appellant’s July 2nd brief. We DENY as moot appellee’s motion to
dismiss the appeal based on appellant’s failure to file a compliant brief

.As appellee has filed its brief, the appeal will be submitted in due course.
/s/ E RI N A. NOWELL JUSTICE
#### Winship *v.*Winship et al.

APPEAL from the Tippecanoe Common Pleas.

*Jones, Miller & Stallard, Wallace & Hiett,*and *C. A. Ray,*for appellant.

*W. D. Lee*and *P. H. Lee,*for appellees.

Downey, J.

The appeal in this case must be dismissed without any decision upon the questions which counsel present. There were three defendants to the action in the common pleas, and the judgment was against all of them. One only of them appeals, and, without complying with section 551, p. 270, 2 G. & H., submits the cause. Cases have so frequently had to be dismissed for this reason, thgt it seems to us that counsel should see the hecessity of giving attention to this point. The clerk’s certificate to the transcript is not authenticated by affixing the seal.

The appeal is dismissed, with costs.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-60701

Conference Calendar

 

EDWARD DANIEL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNKNOWN BRADLEY, Warden; UNKNOWN SCOTT, Counselor;

WARDEN HUGHES, Assistant Warden; UNKNOWN BUIE, Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

_____________________________________________________

EDWARD DANIEL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JODY BRADLEY; KNEZIE HUGHES, also known as Unknown Hughes; 

O. BUIE, also known as Unknown Buie; LEON PERRY; WILLIE

O. SCOTT, Counselor,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:99-CV-41-Brs

 No. 5:99-CV-4-Brs

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

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Daniel (“Daniel”), Mississippi state prisoner 
No. 00-60701

-2-

# 42550, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 civil rights complaint. Daniel challenges the credibility

determinations of the magistrate judge, and he argues that 

the district court dismissed his complaint because he is

incarcerated. 

This court does not re-evaluate the credibility of

witnesses. See Williams v. Fab-Con, Inc., 990 F.2d 228, 230 (5th

Cir. 1993); see also Martin v. Thomas, 973 F.2d 449, 453 n.3 (5th

Cir. 1992). Daniel’s argument that the district court dismissed

his complaint because he is incarcerated lacks merit because the

district court did not dismiss Daniel’s complaint because of his

incarceration. 

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark D. ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-7677.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 27, 2001.

Decided May 3, 2001.

*94Mark D. Robinson, pro se.

Cynthia Thompkins, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Mark D. Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for resentencing. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Robinson,*No. CR-95-176 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2000). We 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           6,222
<SECURITIES>                                     6,059
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,211
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,364
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,203
<PP&E>                                           3,995
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,509
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,479
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           122
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,519
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,529
<SALES>                                         10,426
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,426
<CGS>                                            7,140
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,140
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,580
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 637
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,657)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,657)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,657)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.90)
        

</TABLE>
Second Promissory Note to Joseph Roccaforte




 Exhibit 10.5 
  
 PROMISSORY NOTE 
  

			
	 $30,000.00
	  	Baton Rouge, Louisiana
	 	  	 September 9, 2005


  
 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, on
or before September 15, 2005 as set forth below, First Responder Systems & Technology, Inc (“Company”), promises to pay to the order of Jay Roccaforte the principal sum of THIRTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($30,000.00) at
the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum from date until paid. 
  
 In consideration of this note, Company shall pay a fee to Jay Roccaforte of $900.00. This fee shall be payable out of the proceeds of this note. 
  
 This Note shall become immediately due upon the sale by the Company of at least $3 million in debentures or notes and shall be paid from those proceeds.

  
 In case this Note should be placed in the hands of an
attorney-at-law to institute legal proceedings to recover the amount hereof or any part hereof, in principal or interest, or to protect the interests of the holder or holders hereof, or in case the same should be placed in the hands of an attorney
for collection, compromise or other action, the Maker of this Note hereby agrees to pay the reasonable fee of the attorney who may be employed for that purpose, which fee shall not exceed ten percent (10%) on the amount due or sued for or
claimed or sought to be protected, preserved or enforced. 
  
 The
Maker of this Note hereby waives presentment for payment, demand, notice of nonpayment, protest, and all pleas of division and discussion, and agrees that the time of payment hereof may be extended from time to time, one or more times, without
notice of such extension, or extensions and without previous consent, hereby binding itself for the payment hereof in principal, interest, costs and attorney’s fees. No delay on the part of the holder hereof in exercising any rights hereunder
shall operate as a waiver of such rights. 
  
 This note is
convertible into membership shares of the Maker at a price of $5,000 per membership interest. The conversion price of the shares shall be proportionally adjusted to reflect any mergers or restructuring. 
  

	
	 /s/ Thomas Anderson

	 Thomas Anderson, COO

	 First Responders Systems & Technology, Inc.

	 Sept. 23, 2005
Exhibit 10.15  MOCON, INC.  DESCRIPTION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS  Retainer and Meeting Fees.Each of the non-employee directors of MOCON, Inc. receives an annual retainer fee of $10,000, paid in equal quarterly installments, without regard to the number of board of directors or committee meetings held or attended by such director, along with an additional $500 for each board meeting or committee meeting attended in person or via telephone. The Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an additional annual retainer fee of $3,000, paid in equal quarterly installments.  Stock Options.Non-employee directors are granted options to purchase shares of MOCON common stock from time to time in the sole discretion of the board of directors.  Director Retirement Plan.Pursuant to the MOCON, Inc. Director Retirement Plan, a non-employee director who has served on the board of directors of MOCON for at least five years will, upon retirement, receive an amount equal to the annual retainer fee such director would have been entitled to receive during the fiscal year in which such directors retirement occurs. This payment, however, will not be made to a director who, following his or her retirement, continues to serve as a consultant to MOCON or any of its subsidiaries. Any amount payable under this retirement plan will be paid as determined by the MOCON board of directors in its sole discretion following such directors retirement.  Reimbursement of Expenses.Non-employee directors are reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in attending board and committee meetings.
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 quarterly report of Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Akio
Ariura, Principal Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.





Date:
      August 17, 2010
              
              /s/
      Akio AriuraAkio
      AriuraChief
      Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal
      Financial Officer)Radient
      Pharmaceuticals Corporation





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





This
certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by
reference.