alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 3, 2020. 

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1342) entitled ‘‘An Act to require the Under Secretary for Oceans and 

Atmosphere to update periodically the environmental sensitivity index products of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for each coastal area of the Great 

Lakes, and for other purposes.’’, do pass with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Great Lakes Environ3 mental Sensitivity Index Act of 2020’’. 

4 SEC. 2. UPDATE TO ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY INDEX 

5 PRODUCTS OF NATIONAL OCEANIC AND AT6 MOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION FOR GREAT 

7 LAKES. 

8 (a) UPDATE REQUIRED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SENSI9 TIVITY INDEX PRODUCTS FOR GREAT LAKES.—Not later 

10 than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

11 the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere shall com12 mence updating the environmental sensitivity index prod13 ucts of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra14 tion for each coastal area of the Great Lakes. 
2 

•S 1342 EAH 

1 (b) PERIODIC UPDATES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SENSI2 TIVITY INDEX PRODUCTS GENERALLY.—Subject to the 

3 availability of appropriations and the priorities set forth 

4 in subsection (c), the Under Secretary shall— 

5 (1) periodically update the environmental sensi6 tivity index products of the Administration; and 

7 (2) endeavor to do so not less frequently than 

8 once every 7 years. 

9 (c) PRIORITIES.—When prioritizing geographic areas 

10 to update environmental sensitivity index products, the 

11 Under Secretary shall consider— 

12 (1) the age of existing environmental sensitivity 

13 index products for the areas; 

14 (2) the occurrence of extreme events, be it natural 

15 or man-made, which have significantly altered the 

16 shoreline or ecosystem since the last update; 

17 (3) the natural variability of shoreline and 

18 coastal environment; and 

19 (4) the volume of vessel traffic and general vul20 nerability to spilled pollutants. 

21 (d) ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY INDEX PRODUCT

22 DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘environmental sensi23 tivity index product’’ means a map or similar tool that 

24 is utilized to identify sensitive shoreline, coastal or offshore, 

25 resources prior to an oil spill event in order to set baseline 
3 

•S 1342 EAH 

1 priorities for protection and plan cleanup strategies, typi2 cally including information relating to shoreline type, bio3 logical resources, and human use resources. 

4 (e) FUNDING.—Funds to carry out the activities under 

5 this section shall be derived from amounts authorized to be 

6 appropriated for the Under Secretary that are enacted after 

7 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1342 

AMENDMENT
1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2372

___________

Tandy L. Hairston, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Carolyn Beverly, *

* Appeal from the United States

Plaintiff, * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

United States of America, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 6, 2007

Filed: July 23, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In March 2005 Tandy Hairston sought return of a Rolex watch as well as

numerous other items seized by the FBI in November 2001 as part of a criminal

investigation. The district court1

 dismissed Hairston’s claim for return of the watch,

and Hairston appeals. 
-2-

We conclude we lack jurisdiction to review the March 2006 order. While the

district court dismissed some of Hairston’s claims in a January 6 order, the court has

not rendered final judgment on Hairston’s claim for property on a “List of Items To

Be Returned,” which he submitted to the court on January 23. Thus, the March order,

which disposed of only the watch claim, did not end the litigation on the merits.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts of appeals have jurisdiction over district court’s final

decisions); Tenkku v. Normandy Bank, 218 F.3d 926, 927 (8th Cir. 2000) (decision

is not usually final unless it effectively ends litigation on merits and leaves nothing

for district court to do but execute judgment). If the court intended the March 2006

order to be a partial final judgment, certification under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(b) was required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (when action raises more

than one claim for relief, court may direct entry of final judgment as to fewer than all

claims only upon “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and

upon an express direction for the entry of judgment”; in absence of such determination

and direction, order which adjudicates fewer than all claims does not terminate action

as to any claim); Stockman’s Water Co. v. Vaca Partners, 425 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th

Cir. 2005) (district court’s certification was ineffective to provide jurisdiction over

appeal where certification order did not include analysis of relevant factors under Rule

54(b)); cf. Bullock v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 817 F.2d 58, 59 (8th Cir. 1987) (orders

directing entry of final judgment as to fewer than all parties must, either in express

words or by unmistakably clear implication, contain findings specifically required by

Rule 54). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 31.4

Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to

Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)
and 15d-14(a)

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002

I, Karen Krumeich, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Soligenix, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2017; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  



|August 17, 2018 | /s/ Karen Krumeich                               
|--------------- | -------------------------------------------------
|                | Karen Krumeich                                   
|                | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
        32
 
 
 Certifications
        of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 on Form 10-QSB of China Shoe Holdings,
        Inc.
        (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Gu
        Xianzhong, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Angus
        Cheung Ming, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,each hereby certifies,
        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 his 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/
        Gu
        Xianzhong
 Name:
        Gu
        Xianzhong
 Title:
        President and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal
        Executive Officer)
 
 
 /s/
        Angus Cheung
        Ming
 Name:
        Angus Cheung Ming
 Title:
        Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal
        Financial and Accounting Officer)
 
 Date:
        November 14, 2007
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
        by Section 906, has been provided to Secure CARE Technologies, Inc. andwill
        be
        retained by China Shoe Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
        Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:10-cr-00844-SDW Document 10 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 35
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(b)

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
(Nos. 33-17196, 33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491, 33-54075,
33-54079, 33-54077, 333-47833, 333-28273, 333-38752, 333-62572, 333-62568) on
Form S-8 and (Nos. 33-36001 and 333-60175) on Form S-3, of Wellman, Inc. of our
report dated February 12, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets
of Wellman International Limited and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and
2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity
and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Wellman, Inc.

/s/ KPMG
Chartered Accountants
Registered Auditors
Dublin, Ireland

29 April 2003
S05Y1654.

#### IN THE MATTER OF STEVEN H. BALLARD.

(619 SE2d 625)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master recommending the acceptance of Steven H. Ballard’s petition for voluntary discipline, which seeks a two-year suspension, plus conditions. After reviewing the record, we agree and accept the petition.

The Special Master found, and Ballard admits, that in November 2001, Ballard was retained to represent a client in plea negotiations with the Clayton County Solicitor-General. No fee agreement was discussed. The client paid Ballard $20,000, understanding that Ballard would return the money if plea negotiations failed and the client needed to retain other counsel for trial. Ballard immediately paid himself $5,750 although he had not earned that amount. He deposited the remaining amount in his escrow account. Over the next few months, Ballard withdrew non-earned fees from the escrow account for his personal use. When the client asked for the return of his $20,000 in January 2002, Ballard wrote a check on his escrow account, but it was returned for insufficient funds. Two weeks later, Ballard returned the $20,000 using funds from his general operating account. The client’s case was subsequently transferred to the District Attorney’s office, and he was indicted on felony charges. Ballard successfully negotiated a plea agreement.

Ballard’s conduct violated Rules 1.15 (I) (a) and 1.15 (II) (b) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. The maximum penalty for the violation of each rule is disbarment. In mitigation, the special master found that Ballard had no prior discipline, is remorseful and that he was dealing with personal problems at the time the misconduct occurred. The special master found no aggravating factors. The special master also found that Ballard’s client did not suffer any legal or financial injury.

We have reviewed the record and agree to accept the petition. Steven H. Ballard is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years from the date of this opinion. Prior to reinstatement, Ballard must attend Ethics School as offered by the staff of the State Bar and within six months of reinstatement, must successfully submit to, pay for, and implement the recommendations of, an *664evaluation by the State Bar’s Law Practice Management Program. Ballard is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Decided September 19, 2005.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, K. Gene Chapman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Larry M. Melnick,*for Ballard.

*Two-year suspension with conditions.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Brenda Lynch, Appellant, v Dobler Chevrolet, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[855 NYS2d 172]

*510The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through the deposition testimony of the defendant James J. Schnitzer, that the plaintiff violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, when she made a left-hand turn directly into the path of the defendants’ oncoming vehicle *(see Maloney v Niewender,*27 AD3d 426 [2006]; *Moreback v Mesquita,*17 AD3d 420, 421 [2005]). Notably, Schnitzer testified that the highest speed his car attained just prior to the accident was 40 miles per hour, the speed limit on Stewart Avenue, the roadway along which he had been driving. However, the evidence the plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motion, including, inter alia, the properly-notarized affidavit of nonparty eyewitness Jessica Lubeski, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether, immediately prior to the accident, Schnitzer was speeding and thus as to whether he was free from comparative negligence *(see Guzman v Bowen,*38 AD3d 837, 838 [2007]). Lubeski averred that immediately prior to the collision, she observed the defendants’ motor vehicle pass her motor vehicle on Stewart Avenue at a speed of, at least, 85 miles per hour, and shortly thereafter, heard a loud bang and recognized Schnitzer’s vehicle as one of the two cars involved in the collision. “A lay witness is ordinarily permitted to testify as to the estimated speed of an automobile based upon the prevalence of automobiles in our society and the frequency with which most people view them at various speeds” *(Shpritzman v Strong,*248 AD2d 524, 525 [1998]). A trier of fact could draw a reasonable inference from these facts, short of speculating, that Schnitzer’s speed may have been a factor in the happening of the accident *(see Alexander v Eldred,*63 NY2d 460, 468 [1984]; *Demshick v Community Hous. Mgt. Corp.,*34 AD3d 518, 520 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The appeal from the order dated April 19, 2007, denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew and reargue the defendants’ prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, must be dismissed as it has been rendered academic in light of our determination on the appeal from the order dated October 3, 2006. In any event, the appeal from so much of the order dated April 19, 2007, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to reargue must also be dismissed *511as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Belen, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CLOSED

VIRTUAL STUDIOS,

Plaintiff(s).

V.

COURISTAN, INC.,

Defendant(s).

Civil Action No.: 11-427 (JLL)

ORDER

settled:

It appearing that it has been reported to the Court that the above captioned matter has been

It is on this 4th day of JANUARY, 2013;

ORDERED, that this action be and hereby is dismissed without costs and without prejudice

to the right, upon good cause shown within 60 days, to reopen the action if the settlement is not

consummated; and, it is further,

ORDERED, that the Clerk shall close the file in this matter.

c_ -; -

JQEL. LINARES, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-00427-JLL-MAH Document 81 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 676
H. Res. 779 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 8, 2020. 

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 535) to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to designate per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances as hazardous substances under the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980. The first reading of the bill shall be 

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 

bill and amendments specified in this resolution and shall not 

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, 
2 

•HRES 779 EH 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 

text of Rules Committee Print 116–45, modified by the 

amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee 

on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 

adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 

for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 

rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No 

further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order 

except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 

on Rules. Each such further amendment may be offered only 

in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 

Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 

shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 

shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 

to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 

the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 

and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage 
3 

•HRES 779 EH 

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 

with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
911 A.2d 477

#### NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DELTA PLASTICS CORPORATION AND FLEXSOL PACKAGING CORP., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Argued September 25, 2006

Decided December 4, 2006.

*Michael J. Marone,*argued the cause for appellant *(McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter,*attorneys; *Richard J. Williams, Jr.,*on the briefs).

*Leonard Rosenstein,*argued the cause for respondents *(Vasios, Kelly & Strollo,*attorneys).

*Lance J. Kalik,*submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae, Insurance Council of New Jersey, American Insurance Association, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America and National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies *(Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti,*attorneys; *Mr. Kalik and Ronald Z. Ahrens,*on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

This appeal comes to us as of right, based on a dissent filed in the Appellate Division. *N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Delta Plastics Corp.,*380 *N.J.Super.*532, 883 A.2d 399 (2005).

The case, like its companion, *Charles Beseler Co. v. O’Gorman & Young, Inc.,*188 *N.J.*542, 911 A.2d 47 (2006), decided today, involves application of the C.5. exclusion in a standard Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance Policy to an employer’s claim for coverage against an employee’s common-law action. As in *Beseler,*the employee claims bodily injuries that resulted from employer conduct “substantially certain” to cause injury. The trial court held that the insurer did not have to provide a defense for the employer to the employee’s complaint because the exclusion applied. The Appellate Division reversed. *583*Delta Plastics Corp., supra,*380 *N.J.Super.*at 535, 883 A.2d 399. For the reasons set forth in our decision in *Beseler,*we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division majority below.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, WALLACE and RIVERA-SOTO — 7.

*Opposed*— None.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-11000 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus MARK ALLEN RODRIGUEZ, also known as Mark Blair, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CR-169-P - - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mark Allen Rodriguez appeals the revocation of his supervised release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Rodriguez contends that he was denied due process because the district court considered undisclosed evidence in revoking his supervised release and imposing a 24-month sentence. We haveNo. 95-40912 -2- reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find no reversible error. AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 26, 2016

jam

Order 

Clerk

February 26, 2016

153230 (20)

In re FIELDS

__________________________________

CEDRIC FIELDS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 153230

COA: 328777

WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT, 

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $27.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$348.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil 

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.