alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *

 * CRIMINAL NO. 09-00133-CG

v. *

 * 

GEORGE M. CORSON *

FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

WHEREAS, on August 27, 2009, pursuant to a Plea Agreement entered by

Defendant, GEORGE M. CORSON, and the United States of America, which provided,

inter alia, that GEORGE M. CORSON, would enter a plea of guilty to Count One of the

Indictment, charging him with possession and attempting to possess material containing

images of child pornography in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(5)(B) and Section

2256(8)(A). The defendant agreed in the Plea Agreement to immediately forfeit to the

United States all of his right, title, and interest to all property which is set forth in Count

Two of the Indictment and which is forfeitable to the United States pursuant to Title 21

United States Code, Section 2253. Pursuant to the plea agreement the defendant also

agreed to execute any and all paperwork to facilitate and expedite the forfeiture of the

property and agreed and consented that the Order of Forfeiture in this case would become

final as to him at any time after the guilty plea and before his sentencing in accordance

with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(3). Pursuant to the Plea Agreement,

Defendant, GEORGE M. CORSON, agreed to and confessed to forfeit the following

property:

1. (1) Maxtor 40GB IDE HD # 2F040J0310613 Removed from a Gateway

Case 2:09-cr-00133-CG-B Document 30 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 2
computer 

2. (1) Western Digital 80 GB IDE HD # WCAM9U813189, removed from

a Gateway computer

WHEREAS, the United States properly published notice of the forfeiture of the

above-described property and the requirements for filing a claim for the property for 30

consecutive days starting November 20, 2009, on www.forfeiture.gov. A Proof of

Publication was filed on December 21, 2009, (Doc. 26), specifying the details of this

publication. No third-parties have come forward to assert an interest in the subject

property in the time required under Title 21 U.S.C. §853(n)(2). 

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

DECREED that the following property is forfeited to the United States of America

pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1) and 853, and Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 32.2(b), for disposition according to law:

1. (1) Maxtor 40GB IDE HD # 2F040J0310613, removed from a Gateway

computer.

2. (1) Western Digital 80 GB IDE HD # WCAM9U813189, removed from a

Gateway computer.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction in the case

for the purpose of enforcing this Order; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward three (3)

certified copies of this Order to Assistant United States Attorney Sean P. Costello.

DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of March, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cr-00133-CG-B Document 30 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-52490 and 333-47764) and S-8 (Nos. 333-52488,
333-43220, 333-94817 and 333-92729) of The TriZetto Group, Inc. of our report
dated February 21, 2001 relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Orange County, California
June 9, 2001
#### Murdock *v.*City of Cincinnati *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio, W. D.*

September 24, 1889.)

Municipal Oo iu'orations—Assessment—Notice.

A special assessment without notice to the property owner and opportunity to be heard is wanting in “due process of law, *”*though neither the city nor stale laws require such notice, and its enforcement will be enjoined.

In Equity. Application by James Murdock, Jr., for a preliminary injunction restraining the board of public affairs of the city of Cincinnati from enforcing a special assessment.

*Ranhin D. Jones,*for complainant.

*Theo. llorstman,*for defendant.

Jackson, J.

In this cause, now before the court on application for a preliminary injunction, it appears from the allegations of the bill that complainant has had no notice of, nor any opportunity to be heard in *892relation to, tlie assessments made by the board of public affairs of Cincinnati against his several lots described in the bill; that no provision was made in any of the ordinances or resolutions or acts of said city' of Cincinnati, or of its officers or boards, giving to property owners the right an'd opportunity to be heard in respect to the amount of the special assessments complained of; and that no such provision (as complainant alleges) exists in any of the laws of the state applicable to said city and the assessments in question. Under such circumstances the court is of the opinion, in conformity with its holding in the case of *Scott*v. *City of Toledo,*36 Fed. Rep. 385, that the assessments made against complainant’s lots are wanting in. “due process of law,” and that, upon the showing presented by the bill, an order should be granted restraining the city of Cincinnati, its officers and agents, from enforcing, or the taking of any steps to enforce, the assessments complained of until the further order of this court herein. This temporary restraining order is in no way to interfere with the rights of the city of Cincinnati or of its board of public affairs to make a reassessment against complainant’s lots, on account of the improvements referred to in the bill, in any proper and lawful manner, which will afford him notice of, or an opportunity to be heard in respect to, such reassessment. Nor is the restraining order, now granted upon the case, made by the bill alone to preclude the city of Cincinnati from answering and disputing the allegations of the bill, or from showing that complainant has waived his right to notice of, or opportunity to be heard in respect to, said assessments.

Should the city of Cincinnati, after full opportunity to contest the truth of the objections presented by the bill to the validity of the assessments complained of, fail or decline to do so, then complainant may re.new his motion for a preliminary injunction. If, however, the city should answer and controvert the case made by the bill, the restraining order may, upon its motion, be discharged. A restraining order as above indicated and directed will be issued by the clerk of this court to the-defendants.
SCWC-19-0000552

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

JAMES C. BORRSON,

Petitioner/Claimant-Appellee-Appellant,

vs.

BRENDA B. WEEKS,

Respondent/Employer-Appellant-Appellee,

and

SPECIAL COMPENSATION FUND,

Respondent/Appellee-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-19-0000552; CASE NO. AB 2017-041(WH); DCD NO. 9-16-00359)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.)

Petitioner/Claimant-Appellee-Appellant James C. Borrson’s 

application for writ of certiorari filed on August 7, 2024, is 

accepted.

It is further ordered, that no oral argument will be heard 

in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-19-0000552

20-SEP-2024

08:51 AM

Dkt. 5 OGAC
2

Rule 34(c) of the Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for 

retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, September 20, 2024.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens
11918.

#### Watts *v.*Atlanta Realty Investment Company.

Decided April 13, 1921.

Complaint; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Eeid. October 2, 1920.

*John P. Haunson,*for plaintiff 'in error.

*Green, Tilson & McKinney, O. W. Hager,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error will be treated as abandoned. *Cooper*v. *Ricketson,*146 *Ga.*471(1) (91 S. E. 543) ; *Daniel*v. *State,*24 *Ga. App.*557(3) (101 S. E. 812).

2. No error of law is shown, and “ there being evidence to sustain the verdict, this court can not disturb the finding of the jury by overruling the refusal of the trial judge to grant a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence or without evidence to support it.” *Callaway*v. *Pearson,*21 *Ga. App.*566(4) (94 S. E. 817), and cases cited.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             48,917
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      11,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   60,040
<PP&E>                                            348,688
<DEPRECIATION>                                    179,923
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    228,805
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              16,041
<BONDS>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                           40,542
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                         1,340
<OTHER-SE>                                        170,882
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      228,805
<SALES>                                            89,617
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  111,200
<CGS>                                              45,103
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      45,103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  1,201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (45,504)   
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (45,504)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (45,504)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (   .01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (   .01)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2315 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2315

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 State, International Commissions, International Fisheries Commissions 
                         for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 State, International Commissions, International Fisheries Commissions 
                         for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
              INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS, INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES 
              COMMISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of State, 
International Commissions, International Fisheries Commissions for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $50,651,000.
                                 <all>
```
### 822,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

**G-C** MANN A-- rim. Violet s. Qmenhlll, Cblor

Division or Child mlran state Bard of 

### Control

the Statel&e. Violet S. Greenhill,Pa@ Z

lnstltutlons

wit? the Vi9W of dstsmlnlng'whether the ruler are reasonable,**nnirorm and**  **autkorlzed** under **our statutes.**  vie have reoelved the bermrlt 0r lniormatlon rr0t rour departmentthnt rules very similar to the new rules submitted to us hsve been in erfect for the pest two yeexs.

Cur euthorltyto require an unpaid Board of Managers before lloenslngend approvinglnstltutlons or this **-nature has**  **?resentod itself**  to us.

1Co doubt the authorityoi your 

### Board to 

### ~qal.ro a Board or Managersbeford laaulnga lloense to a pertson, assoolatlonor oorporatlon. The statute by Its wordlw oontemplates

that a person may operate suah an institution. It the **Legislature** had thought the oar* and oust&f Of ahlldronuuder flftsen **years** sf age should not **be in$mated**  to an lndlvldualthey would not have authorizedlloenalng an lndlviduul. The substltutlon of the judgmentof tb Board in thlo partloularla unauthorlaedlnsoiaras they require &a unpaid Board of Waaagars. The statute la broad enough in its acope to pm&t a thorough sxaminatlon or the ability and **baokground** of **an** appllaant,but It is **not** broad enough to withdiaw fro61 the applioantor lloenseo the ranaganentof his, her, or their lnstltutlon.

Ee are wnvilllngto say that any or th8 rrther rules aub&tted by you are not rW%OQablt and valld~sdle~a. Yours very truly ATTOBBlJlYGE.llE~

OF TiEhS

MEtOB

APPROV AUG **llyl939**

**s--u** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 203 

To prohibit the hiring of additional Internal Revenue Service employees until 

the Secretary of the Treasury certifies that no employee of the Internal 

Revenue Service has a seriously delinquent tax debt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. ROUZER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To prohibit the hiring of additional Internal Revenue Service 

employees until the Secretary of the Treasury certifies 

that no employee of the Internal Revenue Service has 

a seriously delinquent tax debt. 

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 ‘‘No Hires for the Delin5 quent IRS Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 203 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IRS HIRING OF NEW EMPLOYEES 

2 UNTIL CERTIFICATION THAT NO IRS EM3 PLOYEE HAS A SERIOUSLY DELINQUENT TAX 

4 DEBT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—No officer or employee of the 

6 United States may extend an offer of employment in the 

7 Internal Revenue Service to any individual until after the 

8 date on which the Secretary of the Treasury publicly 

9 issues a written certification that the Internal Revenue 

10 Service does not employ any individual who has a seriously 

11 delinquent tax debt. 

12 (b) SERIOUSLY DELINQUENT TAX DEBT.—For pur13 poses of this section, the term ‘‘seriously delinquent tax 

14 debt’’ means an outstanding debt under the Internal Rev15 enue Code of 1986 for which a notice of lien has been 

16 filed in public records pursuant to section 6323 of such 

17 Code, except that such term does not include— 

18 (1) a debt that is being paid in a timely manner 

19 pursuant to an agreement under section 6159 or 

20 section 7122 of such Code; 

21 (2) a debt with respect to which a collection due 

22 process hearing under section 6330 of such Code, or 

23 relief under subsection (a), (b), or (f) of section 

24 6015 of such Code, is requested or pending; 

25 (3) a debt with respect to which a levy has been 

26 issued under section 6331 of such Code (or a debt 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 203 IH

1 with respect to which the applicant for employment 

2 agrees to be subject to a levy issued under such sec3 tion); and 

4 (4) a debt with respect to which relief under 

5 section 6343(a)(1)(D) of such Code is granted. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.6 Attention Business Editors/Telecommunications/Media Reporters: Media Advisory  Call-Net Enterprises to release Q3 2004 results on Wednesday, October 27, 2004,
quarterly conference call at 1:00 p.m. TORONTO, Oct. 12 /CNW/  Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (TSX: FON, FON.B) will
release its third quarter 2004 results before the markets open on Wednesday,
October 27, 2004. Later the same day, the Company will hold a quarterly
conference call.  Date:
    
    Wednesday, October 27, 2004Time:
    
    1:00 p.m. ETParticipants:
    
    Bill Linton, president and chief executive officer
Duncan McEwan, executive vice president & chief strategy officer
Roy Graydon, executive vice president & chief financial officerAccess Number:
    
    1-888-789-0089 or 416-695-5259Confirmation:
    
    T526243SWebcast:
    
    www.callnet.ca or http://www.newswire.ca/en/webcast/viewEvent.cgi?eventID=935880 To participate in the conference call, please call the access number 10
minutes prior to the scheduled start time and request Call-Nets third quarter
results teleconference. If you require assistance during the
conference call, you can reach an operator by pressing 0. A replay of the conference call will be available as follows: Replay:
    
    1-866-518-1010 and 416-695-5275 until November 3, 2004.Archive:
    
    The audio webcast will be archived at www.callnet.ca About Call-Net Enterprises Inc. Call-Net Enterprises Inc., primarily through its wholly owned subsidiary
Sprint Canada Inc., is a leading Canadian integrated communications solutions
provider of home, long distance, dial-up Internet and wireless phone services
to consumers and local, long distance, toll free, enhanced voice, data and IP
services to businesses of all sizes across Canada. Call-Net, headquartered in
Toronto, owns and operates an extensive national fibre network, has over 148
co-locations in five major urban areas including 31 municipalities and
maintains network facilities in the United States and the United Kingdom. For
more information, visit the Companys web sites at www.callnet.ca and
www.sprint.ca. %SEDAR: 00004316EF For further information: Karen OLeary, (416) 718-6445,
karen.oleary@sprint-canada.com
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
Quarterly Report of Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 27, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) we, J. Frank
Harrison, III, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and David V. Singer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ J. Frank Harrison, III            
|J. Frank Harrison, III                
|Chairman of the Board of Directors and
|Chief Executive Officer               
|August 5, 2004                        



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ David V. Singer         
|David V. Singer             
|Executive Vice President and
|Chief Financial Officer     
|August 5, 2004
822, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

G-C MANN 

A-- 

rim. Violet s. Qmenhlll, Cblor 

Division or Child mlran 

state Bard of Control 

the State 
l&e. Violet S. Greenhill, Pa@ Z 

lnstltutlons wit? the Vi9W of dstsmlnlng'whether the ruler 

are reasonable, nnirorm and autkorlzed under our statutes. 

vie have reoelved the bermrlt 0r lniormatlon rr0t rour department thnt rules very similar to the new rules submitted 

to us hsve been in erfect for the pest two yeexs. 

Cur euthorlty to require an unpaid Board of 

Managers before lloenslng end approving lnstltutlons or 

this -nature has ?resentod itself to us. 

1Co doubt the authority oi your Board to ~qal.ro a 

Board or Managers beford laaulng a lloense to a pertson, 

assoolatlon or oorporatlon. The statute by Its wordlw 

oontemplates that a person may operate suah an institution. 

It the Legislature had thought the oar* and oust&f Of 

ahlldron uuder flftsen years sf age should not be in$mated 

to an lndlvldual they would not have authorized lloenalng 

an lndlviduul. The substltutlon of the judgment of tb 

Board in thlo partloular la unauthorlaed lnsoiar as they 

require &a unpaid Board of Waaagars. The statute la broad 

enough in its acope to pm&t a thorough sxaminatlon or 

the ability and baokground of an appllaant, but It is not 

broad enough to withdiaw fro61 the applioant or lloenseo 

the ranaganent of his, her, or their lnstltutlon. 

Ee are wnvilllng to say that any or th8 rrther 

rules aub&tted by you are not rW%OQablt and valld~sdle~a. 

Yours very truly 

ATTOBBlJlYGE.llE~ OF TiEhS 

MEtOB 

APPROV AUG llyl939 

s--uATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PRIMA
ENERGY CORPORATION'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       2,572,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,024,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,432,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (43,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    446,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,664,000
<PP&E>                                      45,828,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (18,261,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,851,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,336,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        58,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,624,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,682,000
<SALES>                                     11,456,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,659,000
<CGS>                                        7,084,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,084,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,266,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,000,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,266,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,266,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.84
        

</TABLE>