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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5416 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5416

 To amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice), to define and punish stalking by persons subject 
                            to that chapter.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 19, 2004

Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California introduced the following bill; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice), to define and punish stalking by persons subject 
                            to that chapter.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Stalking Prevention Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. STALKING.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter X of chapter 47 of title 10, United 
States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by 
inserting after section 917 (article 117) the following new section:
``Sec. 917a. 117a. Stalking
    ``Any person subject to this chapter who wrongfully and knowingly 
engages in a course of conduct, or a course of unwanted communication, 
that would cause emotional distress to a reasonable person or would 
place a reasonable person in fear of injury to the person, property, or 
reputation of that person or any other person, is guilty of stalking 
and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such subchapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
section 917 (article 117) the following new item:

``917a. 117a. Stalking.''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:11-cr-00310-JLL Document 11 Filed 07/24/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 18
Case 2:11-cr-00310-JLL Document 11 Filed 07/24/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 19
Case 2:11-cr-00310-JLL Document 11 Filed 07/24/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 20
**Restricted Share PurchaseAgreement**

This Agreement, dated as of the 12th day of March,  2007, is between SaturnaCapital Corporation ("Saturna")and Saturna Investment Trust ("Trust") on behalfofits series Sextant Core Fund("Fund").

Whereas, the Fund is a newly created series of the Trust; and

Whereas, the shares of the Fund ("Shares")  are not yet being offered to the public, pending  effectiveness of a registration statement with the  Securitiesand Exchange Commission; and

Whereas, Saturna wishes to purchase and the Trust wishes to sell 50,000Shares to provide initial capital to the Fund, the parties agree as follows:

Simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement the Trust will issue andsell to Saturna 50,000 Shares and  Saturna will pay to the Trust $500,000 inreturn therefore.

Saturna acknowledges that the Shares are not being sold pursuant to aneffective SEC registration statement and agrees that Saturna will not sell,transfer, or redeem the Shares prior to the public offering of the Sharespursuant to an effective SEC registration statement.

In witness whereof, the Trust and Saturna have executed this Agreement as ofthe date first written above.

| SATURNA CAPITALCORPORATION

By */s/ Nicholas F. Kaiser* Nicholas F.Kaiser, *President* | SATURNA INVESTMENTTRUST

By */s/ Phelps S. McIlvaine* Phelps S.McIlvaine, *Vice President* |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dezra George, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 21]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered December 16, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

*436The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made on the basis of a brief reference in the prosecutor’s summation to statements made by the separately tried, nontestifying codefendants, since the prosecutor’s remark constituted fair comment on the evidence *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]). The court had received limited evidence concerning the codefendants’ statements because defendant had opened the door to their admission, and there was no meaningful difference between the prosecutor’s reference to these statements and the evidence in the record. To the extent that defendant is raising a constitutional claim, such claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters outside the record concerning counsel’s choice of strategy *(see People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668. [1984]).

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s charge on the issue of the voluntariness of defendant’s statements is unpreserved *(see People v Hoke,*62 NY2d 1022 [1984]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim we would find that the court delivered a proper voluntariness charge. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Katharine S. Hayden

 

v. : Crim. No. 11-471 (KSH)

 

ROD PEREZ : SCHEDULING ORDER

IT IS, hereby ORDERED that the Scheduling Order (doc. 22) be amended 

as follows:

Pretrial Conference: December 9, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.

Jury Selection: January 9, 2012 commencing at 9:00 a.m.

Jury Trial: January 17, 2012 commencing at 9:00 a.m.

/s/ Katharine S. Hayden 

KATHARINE S. HAYDEN

United States District Judge

Date: December 7, 2011
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel; Review Predoctoral and Postdoctoral Fellowship Applications.                    

*Date:*                         July 28, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Peter Kozel, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, NCCAM, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892-5475. 301-496-8004.                         *kozelp@mail.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to meeting due to scheduling conflicts.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 14, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-17202 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon Defendants’ motion to

disqualify Diego F. Navas, Esq., as counsel for Plaintiff [CM/ECF No. 7]; and the Court

having considered the papers in support of and in opposition to the motion; and for the

reasons set forth in the Opinion issued on this date; and for good cause shown;

IT IS on this 29 day of November 2011,

th

ORDERED that, Defendants’ motion to disqualify Diego F. Navas, Esq. as Plaintiff’s

counsel [CM/ECF No. 7] is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that, Plaintiff shall have substitute counsel enter an appearance, or shall

himself enter an appearance pro se, on or before January 2, 2012.

s/Mark Falk

MARK FALK

United States Magistrate Judge

 Civil Action No. 11-4042 (WJM)

 

ORDER

MARIO CARRENO, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF NEWARK, CITY OF

NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT,

PAUL HAMILTON, JOHN DOES 1-20,

AND ABC CORP 1-20, 

 Defendants.

 

Case 2:11-cv-04042-WJM -MF Document 17 Filed 11/29/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 121
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 30 Filed 11/12/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 713
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 30 Filed 11/12/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 714
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 30 Filed 11/12/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 715
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 30 Filed 11/12/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 716
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 30 Filed 11/12/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 717
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 30 Filed 11/12/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 718
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 30 Filed 11/12/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 719
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 30 Filed 11/12/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 720
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5370 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5370

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 4985 Moorhead Avenue in Boulder, Colorado, as the ``Donald G. 
                    Brotzman Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 16, 2004

   Mr. Udall of Colorado (for himself, Mr. Hefley, Mr. McInnis, Ms. 
DeGette, Mr. Tancredo, Mrs. Musgrave, and Mr. Beauprez) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 4985 Moorhead Avenue in Boulder, Colorado, as the ``Donald G. 
                    Brotzman Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DONALD G. BROTZMAN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4985 Moorhead Avenue in Boulder, Colorado, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Donald G. Brotzman Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Donald G. 
Brotzman Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
1 Cite as: 595 U. S. ____ (2021)

Statement of S OTOMAYOR , J. 

## SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

MICKEY THOMAS v. DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 20–7480. Decided October 4, 2021
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Statement of J USTICE S OTOMAYOR respecting the denial of certiorari. A jury convicted petitioner Mickey Thomas of capital murder and sentenced him to death. After pursuing relief in state court, Thomas filed a timely federal habeas peti

tion. Thomas argued, in part, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of his trial. The District Court agreed. Yet without giving Thomas an opportunity to respond, theCourt of Appeals reversed on the basis of a proceduraldefault argument that the State never raised on appeal. I do not dissent from the denial of certiorari because Thomas’ claim does not satisfy this Court’s traditional cri

teria for granting certiorari. See this Court’s Rule 10. As Judge Colloton rightly observed in his dissent from denial of rehearing en banc, however, the Court of Appeals’ deci

sion to reverse based on an argument that the State failed to make on appeal, and that Thomas never had the oppor

tunity to address, deprived Thomas of “fair notice that the issue was ‘in play.’” 977 F. 3d 697 (CA8 2020); see Day v. McDonough , 547 U. S. 198, 210 (2006) (“Of course, before acting on its own initiative, a court must accord the parties fair notice and an opportunity to present their positions”). This lack of notice left Thomas without a meaningful oppor

tunity to dispute the grounds on which the court reversed2 THOMAS v. PAYNE

Statement of S OTOMAYOR , J. the District Court’s decision to grant him habeas relief. Where, as here, a State declines to argue procedural de

fault on appeal, a court of appeals should at a minimum af

ford a capital petitioner the opportunity to respond and be heard before adopting an argument on the State’s behalf. The denial of certiorari should not be understood to endorse the Court of Appeals’ fa ilure to do so here.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Shaw Hong, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of OmniVision 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(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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):



Date:
July 1, 2009

By:

/s/ SHAW HONGShaw HongChief Executive Officer and President


---



QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of Renee Rondon, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 811]

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of possession of alcohol. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination in issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner. Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner has been afforded all of the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Thorpe v Goord,*43 AD3d 1258, 1258 [2007]).

*991Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

BRANDON ANTHONY,

Defendant

Criminal No. 11-68 (JBS)

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on two of 

Defendant Brandon Anthony’s pre-trial motions: to compel the

Government to disclose the identity of a confidential informant

whose information was used to support the search warrant; and to

suppress the search as the fruit of a warrantless dog sniff of

Defendant’s apartment door [Docket Items 15 & 18]; for the

reasons stated in the Opinion of today’s date; and for good cause

shown;

IT IS this 20th day of March, 2012 hereby

ORDERED that Defendant’s motions are DENIED.

 s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Chief U.S. District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00068-JBS Document 28 Filed 03/20/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 143
Charting the U.S. Labor 

Market in 2006

U.S. Department of Labor

Bureau of Labor Statistics

August 2007
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**


**RULE
      13a-14(b)/15d-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
      AND**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Eugene Science, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Jae Hong Yoo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350, that to the best of my 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.





Date:
                April 23, 2007
            
            /s/
                Jae Hong YooJae
                Hong YooChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial Officer)








This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)
      under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall
      not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.
Exhibit 8.1

List of Subsidiaries



|                                                            |  |                       |  |                              
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiary                                                  |  | Year of Incorporation |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Hoshin GigaMedia Center, Inc.                               |  | 1998                  |  | Taiwan                       
|GigaMedia Finance International Limited                     |  | 2000                  |  | Cayman Islands               
|GigaMedia International Holdings Limited                    |  | 2004                  |  | British Virgin Islands       
|Cambridge Entertainment Software Limited                    |  | 2004                  |  | British Virgin Islands       
|Koos Broadband Telecom Co., Ltd.                            |  | 2001                  |  | Taiwan                       
|Bridgepoint International Limited                           |  | 2004                  |  | British Virgin Islands       
|FunTown World Limited                                       |  | 2005                  |  | British Virgin Islands       
|GigaMedia Asia Limited                                      |  | 2005                  |  | British Virgin Islands       
|Implus International Limited                                |  | 2004                  |  | British Virgin Islands       
|FunTown Hong Kong Limited                                   |  | 1999                  |  | Hong Kong                    
|GigaMedia China Limited                                     |  | 2005                  |  | British Virgin Islands       
|Cambridge Interactive Development Corporation (Quebec) Inc. |  | 2005                  |  | Canada                       
|Cambridge Interactive Development Corporation               |  | 1997                  |  | U.S.A.                       
|Internet Media Licensing Ltd.                               |  | 2005                  |  | British Virgin Islands
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MeridianEMR, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTUITIVE MEDICAL SOFTWARE, LLC,

d/b/a UROCHART, and THE SHAPPLEY

CLINIC,

Defendants.

11-cv-3480 (WJM)

ORDER

THIS MATTER having been opened by way of Plaintiff MeridianEMR, Inc.’s

application for an Order to Show Cause seeking temporary restraints and a preliminary

injunction; and an Order to Show Cause having been issued by the Court on June 17,

2011; and a hearing having been held on July 21, 2011; and the Court having reserved on

its decision with respect to the Order to Show Cause application pending the parties’

conference with Judge Falk; and the conferences with Judge Falk having occurred; and

the Court finding that most of Plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief is unnecessary at this

time as there is no threat of irreparable harm; and the Court further noting that some of

Plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief is simply to require Defendant Intuitive Medical

Software, LLC (“IMS”) to abide by the law, and therefore does not require a Court order;

and for the reasons stated on the record during the July 21, 2011 Hearing; and for good

cause appearing,

Case 2:11-cv-03480-WJM-MF Document 45 Filed 08/18/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 762
IT IS on this 18th day of August 2011, hereby,

ORDERED that the Server at issue shall remain in the custody of the neutral third

party expert charged with safeguarding the information on it, unless the parties agree

otherwise; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that since Defendant IMS cannot access the Server at

issue while it is in the custody of the neutral third party, there is no tangible threat of

irreparable harm in this case, and therefore no restraints against Defendant IMS are

necessary at this time.

s/ William J. Martini

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

2

Case 2:11-cv-03480-WJM-MF Document 45 Filed 08/18/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 763