alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  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
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-A  ("Issuer") for the period
ending  September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 20th day of November, 2006.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-A
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income Limited  Partnership  II-A and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership  II-A and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14711]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket<greek-i> EPA-RO4-SFUND-2009-0375, FRL-8922-1]


W.R. Grace Superfund Site, Wilder, Campbell County, KY; Notice of 
Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement for 
reimbursement of past response costs concerning the W.R. Grace 
Superfund Site located in Wilder, Campbell County, Kentucky for 
publication.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until 
July 23, 2009. The Agency will consider all comments received and may 
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received 
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. 
Painter. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO4-
SFUND-2009-0375 or Site name W.R. Grace Superfund Site by one of the 
following methods:
    <bullet> http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/sf/enforce.htm.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#edbd8c848399889fc3bd8c98818cad889d8cc38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f8a89991968c9d8ad6a8998d9499b89d8899d69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

    Dated: June 5, 2009.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund 
Division.
[FR Doc. E9-14711 Filed 6-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 195 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Judiciary in 

the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2019 

Mr. NADLER (for himself and Mr. COLLINS of Georgia) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

the Judiciary in the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 That for the expenses of the Committee on the Judi4 ciary (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Com5 mittee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there 

6 shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House 

7 of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 

8 not more than $18,832,310 for the One Hundred Six9 teenth Congress. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 195 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $9,277,000 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2019, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2020; and 

7 (2) not more than $9,555,310 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2020, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2021. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
# Troyer Syndrome

## What is Troyer syndrome?

Troyer syndrome (also known as spastic paraplegia gene, SPG20) belongs to a group of nervous system disorders called hereditary spastic paraplegias. The main feature of these disorders are muscle weakness and spasms in the legs that tend to get worse over time. 

Troyer syndrome usually begins in early childhood. It results from a mutation in SPGP20 located in chromosome 13. The mutation causes loss of the spartin proteins. 

Troyer syndrome is an autosomal recessive disorder, which means that both parents must carry it and pass on the defective gene. The disease was first observed in Amish families in Ohio. Diagnosis is made by specialized genetic testing. 

In addition to muscle weakness and muscle spasms in the legs, other symptoms include:

                    - Permanent shortening of one or both legs
                    - Difficulty walking
                    - Speech disorders
                    - Drooling

                    - Weakening of the hand muscles
                    - Developmental delays
                    - Fluctuating emotions
                    - Short stature

The outlook for people with Troyer syndrome varies. Some people may have a mild form of the disease, while others eventually lose the ability to walk normally. Troyer syndrome does not shorten the normal life span.

There are no specific treatments to prevent or slow the progressive degeneration seen in Troyer syndrome. Symptomatic therapy includes antispasmodic drugs and physical therapy to improve muscle strength and maintain range of motion in the legs. Assistive devices may be needed to help with walking.

file-medical

## How can I or my loved one help improve care for people with Troyer syndrome?

Consider participating in a clinical trial so clinicians and scientists can learn more about Troyer syndrome and related disorders. Clinical research uses human volunteers to help researchers learn more about a disorder and perhaps find better ways to safely detect, treat, or prevent disease. 

All types of volunteers are needed—those who are healthy or may have an illness or disease—of all different ages, sexes, races, and ethnicities to ensure that study results apply to as many people as possible, and that treatments will be safe and effective for everyone who will use them. 

For information about participating in clinical research visit NIH Clinical Research Trials and You. Learn about clinical trials currently looking for people with Troyer syndrome at Clinicaltrials.gov.
> Where can I find more information about Troyer syndrome?
Genetic Alliance, Inc.Phone: 202-966-5557 or 800-336-4363

National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD)Phone: 203-744-0100 or 800-999-6673; 844-259-7178 Spanish

Spastic Paraplegia FoundationPhone: 877-773-4483

## Learn about related topics

              - Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia

book-open
Order entered July 9, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01289-CR

TOMMY AGUILAR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-81651-2012

ORDER

Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Schenck

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DIRECT the Clerk to issue the mandate in 

this appeal INSTANTER.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
----

**Exhibit 31.1**

**  CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Ronald A. Durando, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of mPhase Technologies, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

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

a.

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c.

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

/s/ Ronald A. Durando                   

Ronald A. DurandoChief Executive Officer

November 14, 2008

----
Opinion issued February 11, 2021

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 19

- 00534

- CV

———————————
ANDREW J.C. KUNIAN , Appella nt

V.

EOS INV ESTMENT GROUP, LLC AND EOS LNG GRO UP , LLC , Appell e e s

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Ca se No. 2019

- 20153

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Th is case was submitted to the panel on January 27, 2021, but no opinion has

issued yet. The parties now request dismissa l of the appeal under Rule 42.1 of the

Texas R ules of Appellate Procedure. We grant the ir joint moti on

.2

Th is appeal is DISMISSED without pr ejudice . T he matter is remanded to the

trial court . All parties shall bear their own costs and attorney ’ s fees.

Sarah B eth Landau Justice

Pan el c onsists of Justice s Goodman

, Landau , and Guerra

.
**Exhibit 32.1****Section 1350 Certification**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of NextelCommunications, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Timothy M. Donahue, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to18 U.S.C.§ 1350 (as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) that, to thebest of my knowledge:     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.Date: July 28, 2005     /s/ Timothy M. Donahue         _______________________________________
EXHIBIT 10.2
------------



                    AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE LANDAUER, INC.
     AMENDED AND RESTATED 1997 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN


            WHEREAS, Landauer, Inc. (the "Company") has adopted the Amended
and Restated 1997 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan (the "Plan");
and

            WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan as set forth
herein.

            NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 3.2 of the Plan, the Plan
hereby is amended as follows:

      1.    Section 3.7(a)(2) of the Plan is amended to read in its
entirety as follows:

            "(2)  Notwithstanding any provision in this Plan or any
Agreement, in the event of a Change in Control pursuant to Section (b)(1)
or (2) below, or in the event of a Change in Control pursuant to Section
(b)(3) or (4) below in connection with which the holders of Common Stock
receive consideration other than shares of common stock that are registered
under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, the Board may, in its discretion,
require (A) that each outstanding option immediately become exercisable in
full and if there shall be a surviving corporation in such Change in
Control, or a parent corporation thereof, that shares of capital stock of
such surviving corporation or parent corporation be substituted for some or
all of the shares of Common Stock then subject to such option and the
purchase price per share of Common Stock subject to each such option shall
be appropriately adjusted by the Board (whose determination shall be final,
binding and conclusive), such adjustments to be made without an increase in
the aggregate purchase price, or (B) that each outstanding option shall be
surrendered to the Company by the holder thereof, and each such option
shall immediately be canceled by the Company, and the holder shall receive,
within ten days of the occurrence of a Change in Control, a cash payment
from the Company in an amount equal to the number of shares of Common Stock
then subject to such option, multiplied by the excess, if any, of the
greater of (x) the highest per share price offered to stockholders of the
Company in any transaction whereby the Change in Control takes place or (y)
the Fair Market Value of a share of Common Stock on the date of occurrence
of the Change in Control, over the purchase price per share of Common Stock
subject to the option."

In all other respects, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect in
accordance with its terms.

Adopted by the Board of Directors of Landauer, Inc. on December 30, 2005.
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 Annual Report of The Black & Decker Corporation (the
“Corporation”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Nolan D. Archibald, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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
Corporation.





/s/ NOLAN D.
ARCHIBALD


Nolan D.
Archibald


Chief
Executive Officer


February
16, 2009
#### Roberto Ciaprazi, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

Submitted June 24, 2013;

decided September 10, 2013

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the May 2013 Appellate Division order, denied; motion for leave to appeal otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the other orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40627 Conference Calendar

JERRY E. EASLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-96-CV-332

- - - - - - - - - - February 11, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. *
PER CURIAM: ** Jerry E. Easley, # 421286, appeals the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. He argues that his due process and equal protection claims are now ripe because his word processor is not working. The word-processor claim was no longer before the district court when it entered the current dismissal order. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration on that basis.No. 98-40627 -2- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc. , 38 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994). Easley also argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his case as frivolous without service of summons after he paid a partial filing fee pursuant to Grissom v.
Scott , 934 F.2d 656 (5th Cir. 1991). Easley filed this complaint on July 3, 1996, after the effective date of the PLRA. Grissom no longer applies. This argument lacks merit. Easley argues that the district court failed to comply with this court’s direction in its opinion remanding the case to further develop the facts of his retaliation claim. The district court found that Easley had agreed to settle all of his then pending retaliation claims on December 6, 1996, and that he had made misrepresentations to the Fifth Circuit about the continued viability of those claims. Easley does not make any argument in his appellate brief challenging the district court’s finding that he had already settled those claims. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and find no issue of arguable merit. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. We caution Easley that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Easley is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this
court.No. 98-40627 -3-
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
[879 NYS2d 653]

#### Elvetta Fulton, Respondent, v New York City Police Department et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 23, 2009

*47APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel,*New York City *{John Hogrogian, Pamela Seider Dolgow*and *Margaret G. King*of counsel), for appellants. *Bader, Yakaitis & Nonnenmacher, LLP*and *Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco,*New York City *{Brian J. Isaac*and *Catherine A. Sheridan*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Amended judgment, entered February 7, 2005, to the extent appealed from, reversed, without costs, defendants’ motion to set aside the jury verdict on the false arrest claim granted and plaintiffs false arrest cause of action dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter a further amended judgment accordingly.

Defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on plaintiffs false arrest claim should have been granted. The existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for an arrest and an affirmative defense to a false arrest claim *(see Martinez v City of Schenectady,*97 NY2d 78 [2001]). The trial evidence, including plaintiffs own testimony, showed that plaintiff, following her arrest, was issued a summons for the offense of excessive horn honking *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY former § 24-221 [a]; CPL 140.10 [1] [a]). At a subsequent hearing before an administrative judge of the Environmental Control Board, plaintiff was found to have violated the Code and assessed a civil penalty. On this record, and in the absence of any evidence that the administrative ruling was overruled on appeal, dismissal of the false arrest claim is required as a matter of law since probable cause for plaintiffs arrest was established *(see Broughton v State of New York,*37 NY2d 451 [1975], *cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg,*423 US 929 [1975]). Lack of probable cause to arrest or prosecute is an essential element of false arrest *(see Rivera v City of New York,*40 AD3d 334 [2007]).

Even assuming that defendants did not have probable cause to arrest, the jury’s award of $850,000 on the false arrest claim for three hours of detainment was clearly excessive and beyond *48any rational limit (see *Sital v City of New York,*60 AD3d 465 [2009] [$500,000 award for 20 hours in custody reduced to $150,000]; *Landow v Town of Amherst,*49 AD3d 1236 [2008] [$10,000 reasonable for the humiliation and embarrassment suffered during four hours in custody]; *Gutierrez v City of New York,*288 AD2d 86 [2001] [$500 for “one day period” absent any evidence of physical or other injuries]). To the extent plaintiff established that she sustained physical injuries, the jury awarded her $100,000 for those injuries on her assault claim, a verdict which defendants do not challenge on appeal.

McKeon, EJ. and Schoenfeld, JJ., concur.