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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3236 

To expand the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium to include the 

SUNY National Center for Security and Preparedness. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 21, 2010 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced the following 

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

Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To expand the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium 

to include the SUNY National Center for Security and 

Preparedness. 

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 ‘‘National Domestic 

5 Preparedness Consortium Enhancement Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 

8 (1) the State University of New York (SUNY) 

9 is the Nation’s largest comprehensive system of pubVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:42 Apr 21, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3236.IS S3236

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3236 IS

1 lic higher education, comprising 64 campuses across 

2 the State of New York; 

3 (2) the SUNY National Center for Security and 

4 Preparedness oversees a coordinated strategy to le5 verage the resources of all 64 SUNY campuses to 

6 develop homeland security training programs and to 

7 apply SUNY’s homeland security research expertise; 

8 (3) the SUNY National Center for Security and 

9 Preparedness and the SUNY campuses provide ex10 traordinary capabilities to help the Nation in the 

11 areas of intelligence, infrastructure protection anal12 ysis, information sharing, and critical decision13 making; 

14 (4) the SUNY National Center for Security and 

15 Preparedness is poised to create a program in the 

16 areas of intelligence, infrastructure protection anal17 ysis, information sharing, and critical decision18 making with national training capabilities; 

19 (5) the management team of the SUNY Na20 tional Center for Security and Preparedness has 

21 many years of experience with working with the Na22 tional Domestic Preparedness Consortium; 

23 (6) the SUNY National Center for Security and 

24 Preparedness has established partnerships that will 

25 allow the SUNY National Center for Security and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3236 IS

1 Preparedness immediately to identify and certify in2 structors, pilot and certify courses, and set up an in3 frastructure that is compatible with the reporting re4 quirements of the Department of Homeland Secu5 rity; and 

6 (7) of the member institutions of the National 

7 Domestic Preparedness Consortium of the Depart8 ment of Homeland Security, none are currently fo9 cusing on providing training in the areas of intel10 ligence, infrastructure protection analysis, informa11 tion sharing, and critical decisionmaking. 

12 SEC. 3. ENHANCEMENT OF THE NATIONAL DOMESTIC PRE13 PAREDNESS CONSORTIUM. 

14 The National Domestic Preparedness Consortium 

15 shall include the SUNY National Center for Security and 

16 Preparedness. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 99.1

    Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
                                     Code)


     Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United States Code),  each of
the undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"),  does hereby  certify,  to the best of such officer's  knowledge and
belief, that:

(1)  The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002
     (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company 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  Form  10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all
     materials  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
     the Company.



Dated:  November 13, 2002                       /s/ Frank B. Manning
                                            ____________________________________
                                            Frank B. Manning
                                            Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  November 13, 2002                       /s/ Robert A. Crist
                                            ____________________________________
                                            Robert A. Crist
                                            Chief Financial Officer
#### GITLIN v. GITLIN.

No. 1866.

United States District Court, E. D. New York.

April 29, 1954.

*459Eugene E. Lefkowitz, New York City, for defendant.

Leo Gitlin, New York City, in pro. per.

RAYFIEL, District Judge.

The plaintiff obtained a final decree of divorce against the defendant in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John at Charlotte Amalie, providing, inter alia, for the payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of alimony at the rate of $31 per week. The plaintiff has defaulted in the payment of all or part of several of such weekly installments and on the date of the application herein was indebted to the defendant in the sum of $312.

The defendant caused a certified copy of the said judgment to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court in accordance with Title 28 U.S.C. § 1963, which provides that “a judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property entered in any district * * may be registered in any other district * * * [and] shall have the same effect as a judgment of the district court of the district where registered and may be enforced in like manner. * * * ”

That section is a revision of the proposed rule 77 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure then (1937) under consideration by the Advisory Committee on the said rules.

The defendant now moves to punish the plaintiff for contempt for failure to make the payments of alimony provided for in the aforementioned final decree.

I have been unable to find any authority for granting such relief. Volume 8, of House Report No. 308, on Revision of Title 28, United States Code, 80th Congress, 1st Session, 1947, in commenting on the proposed section 1963, U.S.C. states that “the phrase ‘for the recovery of money or property’ was not in the committee’s draft of rule 77 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but was inserted in the revised section to exclude judgments in divorce actions, and any other actions, the registration of which would serve no useful purpose.”

Accordingly the motion is denied.
'!?is Sc?tlmeml 4.$raotn! cnmmr) is mr> into 5y ma! anrI.imrr. 

:"- k ~'k'?%kfi <rfkl, 6 T?ikm J~~'-T"~?~IX~ Ifl(!ifll) bik. pd :'.p >;b!man 

c!'ib~:: %t:nrtrk ;~:I~LIG 1371 tn~ Cngl!ljlb:,:ar (Y7cj', I, rr:ll!r~ to the nzI!.:p coe?;lid!cl" !w 

!'w YrC;C ?b3m: ??'a hctcc of V:.r!c!'.r No. 4 :)V.M-2.1. 
7. 7heaHk F:w!: rl~! i: air wired ro jcbmjl ?kly qumcrly miemcntq nrm 

Itt prlyQcri5 to f?c WIGC for CXS~~J O~qlvj xnd !.I!&> 77 I'mr ltr: cdc-tnr yc:i~' 

?my)?. - + 

i(l 'fim'l'rh Egrets to wbmR cl! n'cndcr )mr m6.307 and ?&l9 quancfy 

fi=?~:-er.~x 7.r" I::c pay~mig 'p i7xcy.i~ 2: , ::?I$,
[Cite as State ex rel. Boyd v. Ward, 132 Ohio St.3d 90, 2012-Ohio-2359.] 

THE STATE EX REL. BOYD, APPELLANT, v. WARD, JUDGE, ET AL., APPELLEES. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Boyd v. Ward, 132 Ohio St.3d 90, 2012-Ohio-2359.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint for writs of mandamus and 

procedendo affirmed. 

(No. 2012-0102—Submitted May 23, 2012—Decided May 30, 2012.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Athens County, No. 11CA21. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 

complaint of appellant, Jamie Boyd, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to 

compel appellees, Judge Michael Ward and the Athens County Court of Common 

Pleas, to resentence him and to take into account his allied offenses of similar 

import. 

{¶ 2} Neither mandamus nor procedendo will issue if the party seeking 

this extraordinary relief has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 

State ex rel. Jelinek v. Schneider, 127 Ohio St.3d 332, 2010-Ohio-5986, 939 

N.E.2d 847, ¶ 13. Boyd had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his 

allied-offense and double-jeopardy claims. State ex rel. Hudson v. Sutula, 131 

Ohio St.3d 177, 2012-Ohio-554, 962 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 1. 

{¶ 3} Moreover, Boyd waived his argument concerning the propriety of 

Judge Ward’s representing the court of common pleas in the court of appeals by 

failing to raise it in the proceedings below. See State ex rel. Hawthorn v. Russell, 

107 Ohio St.3d 269, 2005-Ohio-6431, 838 N.E.2d 666, ¶ 8. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

__________________ 

 Jamie R. Boyd, pro se. 

 Michael Ward, for appellees. 

______________________
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3145 

To amend section 1004 of title 39, United States Code, to include that 

it is a policy of the Postal Service to ensure reasonable and sustainable 

workloads and schedules for supervisory and management employees and 

to clarify provisions relating to consultation and changes or terminations 

in certain proposals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 19, 2010 

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

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend section 1004 of title 39, United States Code, 

to include that it is a policy of the Postal Service to 

ensure reasonable and sustainable workloads and schedules for supervisory and management employees and to 

clarify provisions relating to consultation and changes 

or terminations in certain proposals. 

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

3 SECTION 1. POSTAL SERVICE SUPERVISORY AND OTHER 

4 MANAGERIAL ORGANIZATIONS. 

5 Section 1004 of title 39, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3145 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘to ensure 

2 reasonable and sustainable workloads and schedules 

3 for supervisory and management employees;’’ after 

4 ‘‘other managerial personnel;’’; 

5 (2) in subsection (b), in the second sentence, by 

6 inserting ‘‘as provided under subsection (d) and any 

7 changes in, or termination of, pay policies and 

8 schedules and fringe benefit programs for members 

9 of the supervisors’ organization as provided under 

10 subsection (e)’’ before the period; and 

11 (3) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting ‘‘, or ter12 mination of,’’ after ‘‘any changes in’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6643
ROBERT LEE BROCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHALE ROACH, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-775-R) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Brock, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action. 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. Brock v. Roach , No. CA-95-775-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 4, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Uri Tornheim, Appellant, v Blue & White Food Products Corp., Respondent.

Submitted February 14, 2012;

decided May 3, 2012

*841Motion for leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order affirming the Supreme Court order that denied appellant’s motion to vacate, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7111

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH FRANCIS SHEA, a/k/a Diamond Joe,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-55, CA-96-1198-2)

Submitted: October 8, 1999 Decided: November 10, 1999

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Francis Shea, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

July 28, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on July 29, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date

that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Francis Shea seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Shea, Nos. CR-93-55; CA-96-

1198-2 (E.D. Va. July 29, 1999).* 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.

DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, July 14, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. Central Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Patricia Robb. For more information please contact Ms. Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues. 

Dated: May 27, 2009. 

Shawn F. Collins, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

[FR Doc. E9-12739 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges McClanahan, Haley and Senior Judge Willis 

MICHAEL PARR TAYLOR 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0941-10-4 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 

LOUDOUN COUNTY FIRE & RESCUE 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Julie H. Heiden; Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & 

Lightfoot, L.L.P., on brief), for appellant. 

 (Susan A. Evans; Siciliano, Ellis, Dyer & Boccarosse, PLC, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Michael Parr Taylor appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission 

finding that his hypertension was not an occupational disease under Code § 65.2-402 and 

denying his motion to vacate the opinion rendered by the deputy commissioner on November 30, 

2009. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final 

opinion. See Taylor v. Loudoun County Fire & Rescue, VWC File No. 237-84-61 (Apr. 9, 

2010). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not 

aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MICHAEL DEWAYNE CLARK , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. ( 1:18

- cr - 00017

- MR

- WCM

- 1 ; 1:22

- cv - 00216

- MR )

Submitted : July 31, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024

Before WYNN and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Michael Dewayne Clark , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6018 Doc: 16 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Michael Dewayne Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). This Court will not issue a certificate of appealability absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck
v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6018 Doc: 16 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### J. D’Addario & Company, Inc., Appellant, v Embassy Industries, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted May 29, 2012;

decided June 28, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### LIBERTY BROADCASTING SYSTEM, Inc. v. ALBERTSON.

Civ. A. No. 5055.

United States District Court W. D. New York.

Nov. 16, 1953.

Leonard J. Brizdle, Buffalo, N. Y., for plaintiff.

McDonough, Boasberg & McDonough, Buffalo, N. Y., for defendant, Charles J. McDonough, Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel.

KNIGHT, Chief Judge.

Defendant has moved for an order forbidding the taking of the deposition of defendant pursuant to notice served by plaintiff on October 8, 1953, “on the ground that the examination is sought for the sole purpose of annoyance, embarrassment and oppression of the defendant ; on the further ground that the plaintiff is not entitled by law to take the deposition; or in the alternative, that the scope of the examination of the defendant shall be limited in such respect as to the Court may seem just and proper- # # **»*

Upon the árgument of the motion, November 2, 1953, which was adjourned after argument to November 16, 1953, to permit defendant’s counsel to obtain a medical certificate showing that defendant, by reason of his health, could not be examined.

On the adjourned date, the affidavit of Robert B. Johnson, M. D., was filed wherein it is stated “Mr. Albertson, because of his health, is unable to travel any extended distance. He has been so advised that such a trip might be dangerous.”

Defendant’s counsel stated in open Court that there are two persons-employed in the local office of defendant who would be more familiar with the information sought by plaintiff. Plain*122tiff’s counsel replied that if the information sought could be obtained from the employees it would be satisfactory. The objection of defendant that plaintiff is not entitled to obtain the information sought must be overruled (see Fed.Rules of Civ.Proc. Rule 26, 28 U.S.C.A.) and the taking of the deposition is to proceed (1) first as to the two employees stated to have the information sought; and (2) if the information cannot be obtained from the proposed witnesses, application may thereafter be made to examine defendant.

As to the question raised by defendant’s counsel that plaintiff is not the proper party by reason of its adjudication as a bankrupt and the appointment of a “receiver or trustee”. No motion has been made for substitution, so that it is proper to continue the action as originally instituted. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25(c).

So ordered.