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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4976 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4976

      To amend title 10, United States Code, to require emergency 
contraception to be included on the uniform formulary of pharmaceutical 
 agents of the pharmacy benefits program of the Department of Defense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2004

Mr. Michaud (for himself, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. DeGette, and Mrs. Davis of 
 California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend title 10, United States Code, to require emergency 
contraception to be included on the uniform formulary of pharmaceutical 
 agents of the pharmacy benefits program of the Department of Defense.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION ON UNIFORM 
              FORMULARY OF PHARMACEUTICAL AGENTS OF THE PHARMACY 
              BENEFITS PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

    Section 1074g(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(9)(A) Emergency contraception shall be included on the uniform 
formulary.
    ``(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (4), no prior authorization may be 
required for emergency contraception. Nothing in the preceding sentence 
may be construed as waiving any provision of the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) or any other Act administered 
by the Food and Drug Administration.
    ``(C) In this paragraph, the term `emergency contraception' means a 
drug, drug regimen, or device that is--
            ``(i) used postcoitally;
            ``(ii) prevents pregnancy by delaying ovulation, preventing 
        fertilization of an egg, or preventing implantation of an egg 
        in a uterus; and
            ``(iii) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.''.
                                 <all>
```
LITTLER MENDELSON 

A Professional Corporation 

One Newark Center – 8th Floor 

Newark, New Jersey 07102 

(973) 848-4700 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Waste Management of New Jersey, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

TEAMSTERS-EMPLOYERS LOCAL 945 

PENSION FUND, 

 -andTRUSTEES OF TEAMSTERS-EMPLOYERS 

LOCAL 945 PENSION FUND, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW JERSEY, 

INC., 

Defendant. 

Civil Case No. 2:11-cv-00902 (FSH)(PS) 

REQUEST BY LOCAL COUNSEL 

FOR PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEYS TO 

RECEIVE ELECTRONIC 

NOTIFICATION 

 

 This Request is hereby made by local counsel, Frank A. Custode, Esq., for pro hac vice 

counsel, Susan Katz Hoffman, Esq., Deidre A. Grossman, Esq. and Thomas J. Bender, Esq., to 

receive electronic notification in the instant matter, and it is represented that: 

 1. On March 7, 2011, the Court entered an Order granting Susan Katz Hoffman, Esq. 

and Deidre A. Grossman, Esq. pro hac vice admissions in this matter; 

 2. On March 14, 2011, the Court entered an Order granting Thomas J. Bender, Esq. 

pro hac vice admission in this matter; 

Case 2:11-cv-00902-FSH -PS Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 199
 

2 

 3. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 101.1(c)(3), each pro hac vice counsel has made 

payment of the Admission Fee of $150.00 to the Clerk of the Court; and 

 4. Pursuant to N.J. Court Rule 1:28-2, each pro hac vice counsel has made payment 

to the New Jersey Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection of $204.00 for the 2011 Assessment. 

Dated: March 18, 2011 /S/ FRANK A. CUSTODE 

 FRANK A. CUSTODE 

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEYS’ INFORMATION: 

Name: Susan Katz Hoffman, Esq. 

Address: Littler Mendelson, P.C. 

 1601 Cherry Street – 8th Floor 

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 

Telephone: 267.402.3000 

E-Mail: shoffman@littler.com

Name: Deidre A. Grossman, Esq. 

Address: Littler Mendelson, P.C. 

 900 Third Avenue – 8th Floor 

 New York, New York 10022 

Telephone: 212.583.9600 

E-Mail: dgrossman@littler.com

Name: Thomas J. Bender, Esq. 

Address: Littler Mendelson, P.C. 

 1601 Cherry Street – Suite 1400 

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 

Telephone: 267.402.3000 

E-Mail: tbender@littler.com

Firmwide:100499024.1 046621.1206 

Case 2:11-cv-00902-FSH -PS Document 18 Filed 03/18/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 200
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME   Document 380-1   Filed 11/29/17   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 15621

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME   Document 380-1   Filed 11/29/17   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 15622
Case 2:02-mj-09906-ARM Document 1 Filed 07/25/02 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL NUMBER 10-366(WHW)

Plaintiff, ORDER

V.

LUIS REYES,

Defendant.

This matter having come before the Court on the Motion of

Luis Reyes through counsel (Paulette Pitt, Esq.) for a Voluntary

Dismissal of the appeal filed on behalf of defendant, Luis Reyes,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(a), and the

United States Attorney’s Office (Eric Kanefsky, Esq., Assistant

United States Attorney) having consented to this Application; and

for good cause shown;

/‘

_____

IT IS, therefore, on this

day of rii’u&iij, 2012,

ORDERED that the Application of Defendant, Luis Reyes, for a

Voluntary Dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 42(a) is hereby granted; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appeal of Luis Reyes is

hereby dismissed.

H. WALLS,

U.S.D.J.

Case 2:10-cr-00366-ES Document 179 Filed 03/13/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1307
**Exhibit
      13.1**





**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 RADVision Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F
      for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Boaz Raviv, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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





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








/s/Boaz
      Raviv*


Boaz
      Raviv


Chief
      Executive Officer





April 3,
      2006








*  The
      originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
      Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon
      request.
#### In the Matter of Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant, v Cynthia Jackson et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 652]

*749On April 22, 2005 a car owned by the respondent Cynthia Jackson and insured by the petitioner Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Progressive) was involved in an accident with a car owned by the respondent Leonard Dinardo and allegedly insured by the respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm). However, State Farm had cancelled Dinardo’s policy before the accident occurred. Contrary to Progressive’s contention, the State Farm notice of cancellation was effective since it informed the insured of a means “via which the cancellation of his policy could be challenged” *(Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. [Ramos],*104 AD2d 495, 496 [1984]; *see Silverstein v Minkin,*49 NY2d 260 [1980]; *Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Rothman,*116 AD2d 652 [1986]; *Matter of Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Medina,*114 AD2d 959 [1985]). Accordingly, since there is otherwise no dispute that the State Farm cancellation notice contained all of the information required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 and the New York Automobile Insurance Plan rules regarding cancellation of automobile insurance, the Supreme Court correctly refused to permanently stay arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim.

Under the circumstances of this case, it was also a provident exercise of the court’s discretion to, in effect, deny that branch of the petition which sought the alternate relief of prearbitration discovery *(see Matter of State-Wide Ins. Co. v Womble,*25 AD3d 713 [2006]; *Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Gershovich,*1 AD3d 364 [2003]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT (10)(p)

EXTENSION NO. 2 OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Extension of Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into as of
the 9th day of May 2001, by and between Calloway's Nursery, Inc., a Texas
corporation ("Employer") and James C. Estill ("Employee").

WHEREAS, Employee has been employed by Employer under the terms of an employment
agreement dated July 2, 1991 (the "Original Agreement"), which was extended on
July 2, 1996 ("Extension No. 1"), which would terminate by its terms on July 2,
2001; and

WHEREAS, Employer and Employee each desire to renew and extend the term of the
Original Agreement, as amended by Extension No. 1;

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants and
of the mutual covenants and agreement contained herein, and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged,
the parties agree as follows:

    1.   In accordance with the provisions of the last sentence of Section 3 of
         the Original Agreement, the Term, as defined in that agreement, is
         amended so that it will end on July 2, 2006, unless earlier terminated
         by either party pursuant to its terms.

    2.   The address for the Employer in Section 10 is amended to read as
         follows:

                  Calloway's Nursery, Inc.
                  4200 Airport Freeway, Suite 200
                  Fort Worth, TX  76117-6200

    3.   The Salary in Section 4(a) is amended to $225,000.

    4.   Except as amended by Extension No. 1 and by this  Extension No. 2, all
         of the terms and provisions of the Original Agreement are ratified,
         confirmed and approved.

                                    EMPLOYER:

                                    CALLOWAY'S NURSERY, INC.


                                    BY:  /s/ John Cosby
                                         --------------
                                         John Cosby, Vice President

                                    EMPLOYEE:

                                    BY:  /s/ James C. Estill
                                         -------------------
                                         James C. Estill
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7401

RICKY VINCENT PENDLETON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RALPH TERRY, Acting Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, 

at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00130-JPB-RWT)

Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: March 1, 2019

Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Vincent Pendleton, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Vincent Pendleton, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pendleton has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**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 CTT International Distributors Inc. (“CTT”)
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Amit
Sankhala, President and Chief Executive Officer of CTT and a member of the Board
of Directors, certify, pursuant to s.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
   (1)
  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
  The information contained in the Report fairly represents, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Company.
   
   */s/
Amit Sankhala*
 Amit
Sankhala
 Chief
Executive Officer
   March 31,
2005
   ***Page
- 29***
   **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 CTT International Distributors Inc. (“CTT”)
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Amit
Sankhala, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer of CTT, certify,
pursuant to s.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
   (1)
  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
  The information contained in the Report fairly represents, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Company.
   
   */s/
Amit Sankhala*
 Amit
Sankhala
 Chief
Financial Officer
   March 31,
2005
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ZZLL Information Technology, Inc. . (the "Company") for the quarter ending June 30, 2016, I, Sean Webster, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1.

Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2016, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2016, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 15, 2016

ZZLL Information Technology, Inc.

By: /s/
Sean Webster

Sean Webster
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 Tianyin Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Dr.
Guoqing Jiang, Chief
Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial 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:





(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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated.








Date:
February 17, 2009





Dr. Guoqing
Jiang


Dr. Guoqing Jiang,


Chief
Executive Officer & Acting Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      I, Keith R. Phillips, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. section
1350, that:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
    December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
    section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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

March 15, 2004

                                        By:/s/Keith R. Phillips
                                        -----------------------
                                        Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MICHAEL NUBILE

Honorable William H. Walls

Chminal Case No.: 1(1-517 (WHW)

Consent Order Amending

Conditions of Release

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, on the application at Scott E Leemon, Esq., counsel

tar the defendant, with the consent or the Government, by and through 1USA

lonathan Roniankow that the home dett-nuon aspect at the defendant’s release a

hereby removed.

Consented to: /7 7

/ AkISA Jonathan Romankow

tttorney ibr USA

SO ORDERED:

‘2/

july2O1 I

Newark, NJ

Scott E. Leemon, Esq.

4ttorncy for Michhel/Nobile

-—; C—,- /

-( 7, /7

Un ited States District Judge
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1740** 

MANUELA HOLMES, f/k/a Manuela Moore , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. MORGAN H. MOORE , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv - 01254

- TLW )

Submitted : January 29, 2015 Decided: February 12, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Brian C. Gambrell, HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stephanie R. Fajardo, THE FAJARDO LAW FIRM, LLC, Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Manuela Holmes appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her action for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against her former husband, Morgan H. Moore. The district court premised its di smissal on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, applying the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction. Holmes contends that her claims are not barred by the domes tic relations exception because, she claims, the property settlement agreement that she seeks to enforce does
not involve issues related to the divorce decree; the settlement agreement is a contract on its own terms subject to contract law of South Carolina; and the court erred in failing to grant her summary judgment (although she did not move for summary judgment) because there were no remaining issues of fact. We review legal questions, including the breadth of a district court’s jurisdiction, de novo. Simmons v. United Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC , 634 F.3d 754, 762 (4th Cir. 2011). We have reviewed the record and t he parties ’ briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Holmes v. Moore , No. 3:13

- cv - 01254

- TLW (D.S.C. June 23, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions a re adequately presented in the materials3 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.1
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT
 Amendment Company Culligan Registration Rights Agreement
   Target Effective Date
  Qualifying Combined Offering means an underwritten offering of shares of
Common Stock in which (i) at least 2,200,000 of the shares sold in such
offering are Registrable Securities and (ii) all of the first 694,717 shares
sold in such offering in excess of 6,000,000 shares (including but not limited to
shares sold pursuant to any over-allotment option granted to the underwriters of
such offering) are Registrable Securities.Target Effective Date means July 15, 2011 or, if a registration statement
for a Qualifying Combined Offering is declared effective by the Commission prior to
July 15, 2011, the date which is 75 days after the effective date of such
registration statement.
 Confirmation of Registration Rights Agreement
 Waiver of Ticking Fee
 References
 Miscellaneous mutatis mutandis
 [signature page follows]




---



##### 



PRIMO WATER CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Mark CastanedaName: Mark Castaneda
Title:   Chief Financial OfficerCULLIGAN INTERNATIONAL COMPANYBy:
    
    /s/ Susan E. BennettName: Susan E. Bennett
Title:   Senior Vice President,
            General
Counsel and Secretary