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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 29 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 28, 2005 

Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. REID) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the 

Senate. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns 

3 at the close of business on Thursday, April 28, 2005, Fri4 day, April 29, 2005, Saturday, April 30, 2005, or Sunday, 

5 May 1, 2005, on a motion offered pursuant to this concur6 rent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 

7 stand recessed or adjourned until Monday, May 9, 2005, 

8 at a time to be specified by the Majority Leader or his 

9 designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon 

10 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem-
2 

SCON 29 ATS 

1 ble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 

2 whichever occurs first. 

3 SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate or his des4 ignee, after consultation with the Minority Leader, shall 

5 notify the Members of the Senate to reassemble whenever, 

6 in his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

Æ
#### The Mark Lane.*

*(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.*

September 15, 1882.)

Maritime Lien—Stevedore—Subcontractor.

Where the master of a vessel employs a stevedore to discharge cargo, and the latter employs laborers for that purpose, such laborers have no lien upon the vessel.

Libel of Alexander Baird *et al.*against the steam-ship Mark Lane to recover wages. The facts disclosed were as follows:

The Mark Lane arrived at Philadelphia April 80, 1882, with a cargo of potatoes, part of which were rotten. The master contracted with one James Steen, a stevedore, to discharge the cargo, sound and unsound, at a price of 40 cents a ton. Steen in turn employed the libelants. The board’ of health afterwards ordered the master to remove the rotten potatoes from the city as a nuisance, and Steen thereupon contracted with the laborers at increased wages. The sound potatoes were discharged upon the wharf, and the steamship proceeded down the river with the libelants and discharged the rotten part overboard. A dispute afterwards arose between Steen and the libelants, he claiming that they were to be paid for the time they actually worked and the time spent in going up and down the river, and they claiming wages from the time of leaving the wharf to the return to the city. Libelant failing to obtain from Steen the amount claimed, filed this libel.

*J. Joseph Murphy*and *W. P. Sivope,*for libelants.

*Henry G. Ward,*for respondent.

*

Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.

Butler, D. J.

The defense urged is *two-fold—-first,*that no lien arose from the service; and, *second,*if a lien did arise it was in favor of Steen, who alone was known to respondent. As the second point is, in my judgment, well taken, and is fatal, the first need not be considered. Steen contracted to discharge the cargo, and employed libel-ants as laborers for that purpose. When the prohibition to discharge upon the wharf came, and arrangements were made to do it elsewhere, the relations between Steen and his employers continued, except as to the extent of wages. Their rights were in no other respbct affected. As between them and the ship Steen performed the service. No other view of the subject is supported by the evidence. The libelants are entitled to payment from Steen according to the rate of wages contracted for with him. If he is in default they have a remedy elsewhere. They are here pursuing the ship only because he and they disagree respecting their contract. 'He having been paid in full for the service, the claim here seems especially inequitable.

The libel must be dismissed, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Fernandez, Appellant.

Submitted July 12, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

*788Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Earl Mason, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 342]

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered on or about June 19, 2012, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.
REDACTED  VERSION * =  Confidential  Portions
                               have been separately submitted to the commission


                        MARTEK BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION/
                               GIST-BROCADES B.V.

                      ARA PURCHASE AND PRODUCTION AGREEMENT


This ARA Purchase Agreement (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 31st
day of December, 1996 (the "Effective Date") by and between Gist-Brocades, B.V.,
a company  organized and existing under the laws of the Netherlands,  having its
principal place of business at  Wateringseweg  1, 2611 XT Delft, The Netherlands
("GB"), and Martek Biosciences  Corporation,  a Delaware  corporation having its
principal  place of business  at 6480  Dobbin  Road,  Columbia,  Maryland  21045
("Martek"), who, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:


1.        INTRODUCTION

         1.1.  Martek  owns  technology  related to the  manufacture  and use of
arachidonic  acid and has certain issued patents and patents pending  throughout
the world,  claiming (i) certain  processes for the  manufacture  of arachidonic
acid, (ii) certain compounds and (iii) certain applications; Martek manufactures
and sells  arachidonic  acid to a number of customers  for  application  in food
(including infant formula) products.

         1.2.  GB  owns  technology  related  to  the  manufacture  and  use  of
arachidonic  acid and has patents  pending  throughout  the world,  claiming (i)
certain  processes  for  the  manufacture  of  arachidonic  acid,  (ii)  certain
formulations for that product and (iii) certain compounds.

         1.3.  GB is  currently  building  new  production  facilities  for  the
manufacture of arachidonic acid for sale to its customers; the capacity of these
facilities will exceed GB's own  requirements  for arachidonic  acid for sale to
its customers.

         1.4.  Martek  wishes  to  have  GB  manufacture   arachidonic  acid  in
accordance with certain  specifications  as further specified below in Section 2
and GB is willing to supply  arachidonic acid conforming to such  specifications
to Martek.

         1.5.  The  parties  wish to enter into this  Agreement  to provide  for
certain  terms under which GB will produce  arachidonic  acid ordered by Martek,
and Martek will pay for arachidonic acid it orders from GB.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 261 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the deduction 

for the travel expenses of a taxpayer’s spouse who accompanies the 

taxpayer on business travel. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 15, 2009 

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. ENSIGN, and Mr. MARTINEZ) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore 

the deduction for the travel expenses of a taxpayer’s 

spouse who accompanies the taxpayer on business travel. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF DEDUCTION FOR TRAVEL EX4 PENSES OF SPOUSE, ETC. ACCOMPANYING 

5 TAXPAYER ON BUSINESS TRAVEL. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (m) of section 274 of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional 

8 limitations on travel expenses) is amended by striking 

9 paragraph (3). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 261 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

3 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed January 10, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0832

Lower Tribunal No. M23-1471

________________

Rosanna Thomasina Espinal,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Betsy Alvarez-Zane, 

Judge.

Rosanna Thomasina Espinal, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PHILIP A. BRALICH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 20-3248 (UNA)

)

FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, his pro se civil complaint and motion for appointment of counsel. 

Generally, the plaintiff laments the “hate speech” and derogatory language used by the 

current President of the United States, national political parties, and media outlets when speaking 

of the indigent, the disabled, and other members of this society who may not be belong to a 

“recognized” minority group, since the administration of former President Ronald Reagan. The 

plaintiff considers himself a target of such speech. He demands an award of $24 million and 

injunctive relief.

The Court has reviewed the plaintiff’s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed 

by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings 

drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants must 

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 

(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint 

contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand 
for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum 

standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to 

prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the 

doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 

This complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). Its 

factual allegations are so broad and so vague that the pleading does not give the named 

defendants fair notice of the claims asserted against them. An Order consistent with this 

Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: November 19, 2020 /s/

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON

United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FISCAL YEAR
END FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS PREPARED BY HOLLANDER, GILBERT & CO. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10KSB FILING.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          12,902
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,902
<PP&E>                                           5,226
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,409
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                    21,966,577
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          151,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (22,258,858)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (141,281)
<SALES>                                         50,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               266,697
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (216,697)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (206,397)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 15,341
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (191,056)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### State v. Risher

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 865

No. 595P06

1. Def’s PDR Under-N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1249)

2. Def’s Motion to Stay Mandate Pending PDR

3. Def’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

1. Denied 05/03/07

2. Denied 11/22/06

3. Denied 05/03/07 .
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maurice Benston, Appellant.

Submitted June 28, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., the Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2554 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-amino-4-methoxy-6-methyl1,3,5-triazine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-amino4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-AMINO-4-METHOXY-6-METHYL-1,3,5-TRIAZINE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.13.42 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 2-Amino-4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazine) is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2554 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon AGUILERA-ARRIAGA, also known as Ramon Perez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-20072

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 20, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jeffery Alan Babcock, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for D efendant-App ellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ramon Aguilera-Amaga (Aguilera) appeals following his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States after having been deported. Aguilera argues that the district court erred by ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of his supervised release. Such a claim is not ripe for review on direct appeal. *See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu,*428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). Accordingly, we dismiss this claim for lack of jurisdiction. *Id.*at 1102.

Aguilera also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Aguilera’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Aguilera contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez*
      *447
      *Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Aguilera concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here solely to preserve it for further review.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.

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.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Columbia Laboratories, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert
S. Mills, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my 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 result of operations of the
      Company.











/s/ Robert S.
Mills


Robert S.
Mills


Chief
Executive Officer


May 7,
2009
#### The C. B. Sanford.

*(District Court, D. Massachusetts.*

October 26 1882.)

Tug—Negligence—Loss of Tow.

A tug Laving two tows on long hawsers, m rounding a dangerous island, for not going further to the eastward, and for allowing her hawsers to slacken so that she lost all control over her tow, was in fault and should be condemned for the loss of the tow, which drifted on a reef and sunk.

*G. T. Russell*and *C. T. Russell, Jr.,*for libelants.

*J. G. Dodge*and *E. S. Dodge,*for claimants.

Nelson, D. J.

Libel filed against the steam-tug 0. B. Sanford for alleged unskillful towage of the barge Metropolis. It appeared that *911the tug was engaged by the master of the Metropolis, at New York, on the fourteenth of June, 1881, to tow her from Jersey City to Providence. The tug started on the voyage on the afternoon of the same day, with another barge called the Dunderberg, destined for Pall River, first in tow, and the Metropolis, having on board a cargo of TOO tons of coal, second in tow. The hawser of each barge was 90 fathoms in length. On the afternoon of the 15th, the tug with her two tows entered Mount Hope bay, intending to leave the Metropolis at anchor in Bristol harbor while she proceeded with the Dunderberg • to Pall River, and afterwards, to return and take the Metropolis up to Providence. In rounding Hog island, which forms the west side of the entrance to Mount Hope bay, the Metropolis struck on a submerged rock known as Hog island reef, which extends out from the southeasterly point of Hog island, and immediately filled and sunk.

The evidence was clear that the effect of making the circuit round the point of Hog island, after passing the light-ship, was to lessen the headway of the tug in the direction in which the tows were proceeding. The hawsers were thus slackened and the control of the fug over the tows lost. The consequence was that the Metropolis, being left without the support of the tug, was driven by the strong ebb-tide which was then running down from Mount Hope bay and Bristol harbor directly upon the shoal. This is the evidence of the master and mate of the Metropolis; and in this they are supported by the master of the Dunderberg, who saw the whole transaction and was called as a witness by the claimants.

The accident would have been avoided if the tug had kept further on her course after passing the light-ship before turning to the northward; or if she had passed the light-ship further to the eastward, where there was plenty of room, and the depth of water was ample; or if she had shortened the hawsers of the tows before making the turn. The tug was bound under the circumstances to take one or the other of these precautions against this accident, and for failing to do so she was in fault and should be condemned.

Interlocutory decree for the libelants.
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 Columbia Laboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence A. Gyenes, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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





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








/s/ Lawrence A. Gyenes


Lawrence A. Gyenes


Senior Vice President-


Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


December 28, 2010
#### Gene S. GROVES, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-7058.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 14, 2006.

Before NEWMAN, RADER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: *AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36