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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5055

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the amount of the 

military death gratuity from $12,000 to $50,000. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2004

Mr. MOORE (for himself, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. HILL, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. UDALL

of Colorado, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. BERRY, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. 

ISRAEL, Mr. OSBORNE, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. FORD, Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. LAMPSON, Ms. SOLIS, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. STUPAK, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. LINDER, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. DOOLEY of California, Mr. 

CROWLEY, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. PASCRELL, Mrs. BONO, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. 

BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. GORDON, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, 

Mr. RANGEL, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, 

Mr. CLAY, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. WATERS, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. JONES

of North Carolina, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. COOPER, Mr. TANNER, Mrs. 

LOWEY, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. 

PASTOR, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. STRICKLAND, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. 

FROST, Mr. BOSWELL, and Mr. BONNER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the 

amount of the military death gratuity from $12,000 to 

$50,000.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 5055 IH 

1 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN DEATH GRATUITY PAYABLE WITH 

2 RESPECT TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

3 FORCES. 

4 (a) AMOUNT OF DEATH GRATUITY.—Section 

5 1478(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 

6 striking ‘‘$12,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000’’. 

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

8 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to deaths occurring 

9 on or after September 11, 2001. 

10 (c) OFFSET.—The Secretary of Defense shall derive 

11 funds for amounts payable during fiscal year 2005 by rea12 son of the amendment made by subsection (a) from 

13 amounts available for that fiscal year for travel for per14 sonnel assigned to, or employed in, the Office of the Sec15 retary of Defense. Amounts for such purpose shall be 

16 transferred to the appropriate accounts of the Department 

17 of Defense available for such payments, and amounts so 

18 transferred shall not be counted for purposes of any limi19 tation on the amount of transfers of Department of De20 fense funds during that fiscal year.

Æ
##### 



EXHIBIT
3.1
 ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF BROOKSIDE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS CORP.
 CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION,
PREFERENCES AND RIGHTS OF
SERIES B CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK
  SERIES B CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK  DESIGNATION AND AMOUNT
  Stated Value.
 Dividends
 Dividends on Series B Convertible Preferred Stock. Section
4(a) Section




---



##### 



9
 Priority of Payment. Section
2(a)
 Voting .
 Number of Votes. Section 3(b) Sections 3(c) and (d)
 Limitation on Number of Votes. Section 6
 Senior Securities or Financial Instruments.
 2




---



##### 



Section 5(d) Section 3(c) Section 9
 Other Limitations on Corporate Action.
  Section 2
   Liquidation, Dissolution, or Winding-Up.
 3




---



##### 



Payments to Holders of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock.
 Payments to Holders of Junior Stock.
 Optional Conversion.
 Right to Convert.
 Fractional Shares.
 4




---



##### 



Mechanics of Conversion
   5




---



##### 



Section 5
 Adjustments to Series B Conversion Price for Diluting Issues
 Special Definitions Section 5
    Section 5(d)(iii)
  6




---



##### 



Section 5(e), 5(f) or
5(g)
     No Adjustment of Series B Conversion Price. Section 5(d)(v)
 (iii) Deemed Issue of Additional Shares of Common Stock
  7




---



##### 



Section 5(d)(iv)
 Section 5(d)(iv) Section 5(d)(v) Section 5(d)(iii)(A
 Section
5(d)(iv)
 8




---



##### 



Adjustment of Series B Conversion Price Upon Issuance of Additional Shares of Common
Stock . Section 5(d)(iii)
 Determination of Consideration . Section 5(d)
 Cash and Property:
    Options and Convertible Securities Section 5(d)(iii)
  9




---



##### 



Multiple Closing Dates Section 5(d)(iv)
 Adjustment for Stock Splits and Combinations.
 Adjustment for Certain Dividends and Distributions.
 10




---



##### 



Adjustments for Other Dividends and Distributions.
 Adjustment for Merger or Reorganization, etc. Sections 5(e), (f), or
(g) Section 5 Section 5
 11




---



##### 



Certificate as to Adjustments Section 5
 Notice of Record Date.
     12




---



##### 



Conversion Cap. Section
6
 Optional Redemption Section 7 ab initio Section 5 Section 5(c)
 Waiver.
 13




---



##### 



Definitions
    Section 2
  14




---



##### 



Section 2(a)
       15




---



##### 



th
 BROOKSIDE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS CORP.By:Name:Title:
 16
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 Mattmar Minerals Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2008 as filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Sean Mitchell, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and

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

     A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

Date: April 11, 2008

                             /s/ Sean Mitchell
                             -------------------------------------------
                             Sean Mitchell
                             President and Chief Financial Officer
                             (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50710

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Manuel Guerrero, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:21-CR-35-1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Manuel Guerrero pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and 

now appeals the 27-month sentence imposed. He argues that the sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the 

sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically, he argues that the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 5, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50710 Document: 00516267416 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2022
No. 21-50710

2

district court should have given more consideration to his turbulent family 

history. 

We consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence imposed 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). Furthermore, we presume that a within-guidelines sentence, like 

Guerrero’s, is reasonable. United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209, 214 (5th 

Cir. 2013). The district court considered Guerrero’s mitigation arguments, 

the record, and the § 3553(a) factors before determining that a sentence at 

the top of the guidelines range was fair and reasonable. Guerrero fails to rebut 

the presumption of reasonableness attached to his sentence by showing that 

the district court failed to consider a pertinent factor or erred in balancing the 

sentencing factors. Id.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-50710 Document: 00516267416 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2022
Case 2:11-cr-00102-JLL Document 7 Filed 02/17/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 29
Case 2:11-cr-00102-JLL Document 7 Filed 02/17/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 30
TheHonorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for th e 1 Eastern District of Arkansas.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3943

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas Jeannie Lynn Williams, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 7, 1998 Filed: October 20, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, HEANEY, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jea nnieLynn Williams appeals from the final judgment entered in the Distric t Cou rt for the Eastern District of Arkansas upon her guilty plea to bank fraud, i n

1 viol ationof 18 U.S.C. § 1344. The district court sentenced Williams to 6 month s impr isonment, 3 years of supervised release, restitution of $2,147, and a specia l assessment of $100. For reversal, in a brief fi led pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Williams’s counsel challenges the inclusion of uncounseled,-2-

misdeme anor convictions in the calculation of Williams’s criminal history score. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. At sentencing, Williams did not dispute that, accordi ng to the presentence report (PSR), she had seven prior misdemeanor th eft-of-property convictions for writing “hot checks” on clos ed accounts, four of the seven convictions were uncounseled, and she receiv edno term of imprisonment for any of her uncounseled convictions. I n accordance with the PSR, the district court concluded, as relevant, Williams had a Category III criminal history, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c), and a total offense level of 5, yielding a Guidelines imprisonment range of 1-7 months.
In Nichols v. United States , 511 U.S. 738 (1994) , the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Scott v. Illinois , 44 0 U.S. 367, 372-74 (1979), that where no sentence of imprison ment

was imposed, a defendant charged with a misdemeanor had n o constitutionalright to counsel. The Nichols court held “that an uncounsele d misdemeanor conviction, valid under Scott because no prison term was impo sed, is also valid when used to enhance punishment at a subsequent convi ction.” 511 U.S. at 748- 49
. We therefore agree with the district court that Williams & s uncounsele d misdemeanor convictions, none of which resulted in sentences of imprisonment, could be used in calculating her criminal history. Having reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and having found no nonfrivolous issues, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EX-4.(c)(iv)



 Exhibit 4 (c) (iv) 
 Mrs Julie Brown 
 15, Adam Street, 
 London 
 WC2N 6LA 
 21 February 2013 
 Dear Julie, 
 We refer to the Service Contract entered between you and Smith & Nephew UK Limited on 7 November 2012 and write to clarify certain provisions in the contract that were unknown at the time the contract
was signed, as follows: 
  

	 	1)	Clause 1.1 refers to the commencement date of your employment. 

 We confirm that your employment with Smith & Nephew UK Limited commenced on 4 February 2013. 
  

	 	2)	Clause 5.2 refers to a cash payment of £200,000 which would be paid to you if you forfeited the short term incentive payment due to you in respect of 2012 from
your former employer AstraZeneca and to a payment of £30,000 which you might have had to repay to AstraZeneca in respect of relocation assistance. 

 We confirm that as Astra Zeneca has paid you a short term incentive payment in respect of 2012 and has not required you to repay any amount in respect of relocation assistance, Smith & Nephew UK
Limited will not be making payment to you of either £200,000 or £30,000. 
 Yours sincerely, 

/s/ Susan Swabey                    

 Susan Swabey 
 Director
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 Tube City IMS Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, I Michael Coslov, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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/ I MICHAEL COSLOV               
|I Michael Coslov                   
|Chairman and Chief Executive Office
|Tube City IMS Corporation          
|November 1, 2007                   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Tube
City IMS Corporation and will be retained by Tube City IMS Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 of MattMar Minerals Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sean
Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
12th day of October, 2006.


/s/ Sean Mitchell
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 10.1
 Letter Agreement between MBF Healthcare Acquisition, Corp. and MBF Healthcare Management, LLC
 
 
  Principal.
 Interest
 Non-Revolving Line of Credit
 Application of Payments
 Events of Default
    Remedies




---



##### 



Waivers
 Unconditional Liability
 Waiver of Claim Against Trust Account.
 Notices
  MBF Healthcare Acquisition Corp.
121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1100
Coral Gables, FL 33134
  MBF Healthcare Management, LLC
121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1100
Coral Gables, FL 33134
  Governing Law; Construction
 Severability
 signatures on following page




---



##### 



MBF HEALTHCARE ACQUISITION CORP.By:
    /s/ Jorge RicoName:
    Jorge L. RicoTitle:
    Chief Operating OfficerMBF HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLCBy:
    /s/ Miguel B. FernandezName:
    Miguel B. FernandezTitle:
    President
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of President

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Rule 13a-14(a)

or 15d-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934





I, Anne Straton, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Westergaard.Com, 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.







Date:

February 13, 2008





By: /s/  Anne Straton



Anne Straton



President
Case 2:11-cv-01656-JLL-JAD Document 29 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 115
Case 2:11-cv-01656-JLL-JAD Document 29 Filed 01/17/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 116
Case 2:11-cv-01656-JLL-JAD Document 29 Filed 01/17/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 117
Case 2:11-cv-01656-JLL-JAD Document 29 Filed 01/17/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 118
Case 2:11-cv-01656-JLL-JAD Document 29 Filed 01/17/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 119
Case 2:11-cv-01656-JLL-JAD Document 29 Filed 01/17/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 120
Case 2:11-cv-01656-JLL-JAD Document 29 Filed 01/17/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 121
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

(609) 989-2182

CHAMBERS OF

FREDA L. WOLFSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building

& U.S. Courthouse

402 East State Street

Trenton, New Jersey 08608

April 5, 2012

Re: U.S.A. vs Carl Barnett, et al.

 Cr. 11-452(FLW) 

Dear Counsel:

Please be advised we have scheduled an in-person status conference (counsel only) for April

20, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5E. To ensure that things move smoothly towards trial on May

21 (THIS IS A FIRM DATE), it would be helpful for all of you to be aware of my trial practices

and expectations. We will discuss scheduling of submissions of voir dire, jury charges, and the

logistics of our trial days. Questionnaires are currently being sent out to prospective jurors due to

the length of the trial. 

Very truly yours,

 /s/ Freda L. Wolfson 

FREDA L. WOLFSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cr-00452-FLW Document 207 Filed 04/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 594
Case 3:11-cr-00391-FLW   Document 6   Filed 03/01/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 8

Case 3:11-cr-00391-FLW   Document 6   Filed 03/01/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 9
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2599
NELDA A. PERKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES JEROME WARE, Esq.; CHARLES JEROME WARE, Esq. P.A.; CHARLES JEROME WARE, P.A. and Associates, Defendants - Appellees, versus HARRY T. ALEXANDER, Honorable, Third Party Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA93-389-DKC) Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nelda A. Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Martinez, ECCLESTON & WOLF, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants in a legal malpractice 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. Perkins v. Ware , No. CA-93-389-DKC (D. Md. July 28, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED