alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Joseph P. La Sala 

MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP

1300 Mount Kemble Avenue

P.O. Box 2075

Morristown, NJ 07962-2075 

Phone: (973) 993-8100

Facsimile: (973) 425-0161

Jlasala@mdmc-law.com

Attorneys for Defendants Express Scripts, Inc., Aristotle Merger Sub, Inc., Aristotle Holding, Inc. 

and Plato Merger Sub, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE: 

MEDCO/EXPRESS SCRIPTS MERGER 

LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 11-4211 (DMC) (MF)

ORDER

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court upon the motion of Defendants

Express Scripts, Inc., Aristotle Holding, Inc., Aristotle Merger Sub, Inc. and Plato Merger Sub, Inc. (collectively, "Express Scripts"), by and through its counsel, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney

& Carpenter LLP, for an Expedited Ruling on (1) Express Scripts' motion to certify the

September 19, 2011 Opinion and Order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), 

and staying this action pending resolution of the appeal (Dkt. 56), and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for

Class Certification (Dkt. 39) (collectively, the "Motions"); and good cause having been shown,

IT IS on this ____ day of _________, 2011

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 84-5 Filed 10/25/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2979
ORDERED that Express Scripts Motion For An Expedited Ruling on the Motions is

GRANTED, and it is further 

ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served upon all counsel within seven (7)

days of the date hereof. __________________________________ Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 84-5 Filed 10/25/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2980
Chart 2-2. The higher the education level, the lower the 

unemployment rate

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Percent

Less than a high school diploma

High school graduates, no college

Bachelor's degree and higher 

Some college or associate degree

NOTE: Data are from the March 1970-2006 Current Population Survey and are for persons 25 to 64 years old. Beginning in 1992, 

data are based on highest diploma or degree received; prior to this time, data were based on years of school completed.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 2-2. The higher the education level, the lower the 

unemployment rate

• In March 2006, the unemployment rate for persons 25 to 64 years old without 

a high school diploma was 8.3 percent, while the jobless rate for college 

graduates was 2.3 percent. This compares with unemployment rates of 4.6 and 

1.3 percent, respectively, in March 1970.

• The unemployment rate for high school dropouts trended upward until the 

early 1980s. Although the rate has generally trended lower since then, it 

remains considerably higher than in 1970.

• In contrast, the jobless rate for college graduates has held fairly steady over the 

long term.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                         663,072
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,101,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                   312,854
<INVENTORY>                                  6,872,430
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,725,891
<PP&E>                                      40,529,671
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,851,061
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,735,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,455,453
<BONDS>                                     15,977,599
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,784,972
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,742,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,735,585
<SALES>                                     61,718,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            61,718,514
<CGS>                                       42,155,775
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               42,155,775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,396,856
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               155,774
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,584,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,943,464
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,144,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,799,464
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,799,464
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
        


</TABLE>
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

GENNY RIVAS, :

: Crim. No. 11-427 (SDW)

Petitioner, : Civil No. 14-608(SDW)

:

v. : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

:

ERIC WILSON, WARDEN, :

: 

Respondent. :

:

This matter having come before the Court on Petitioner’s 

submission of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2241, and it appearing that:

1. Petitioner is currently a federal inmate confined at 

the FCI Petersburg in Petersburg, Virginia, at the time this 

habeas petition was submitted on his behalf by counsel.

2. Petitioner challenges the execution of his federal 

sentence; namely, Petitioner seeks immediate access to “DAP” or 

opportunity for early release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e). 

3. Petitioner neither prepaid the $5.00 filing fee for a

habeas petition as required by Local Civil Rule 54.3(a), nor 

submitted a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) that contains a certification by an authorized official 

at his place of confinement certifying Petitioner’s 
2

institutional account for the preceding six months, as required 

under L.Civ.R. 81.2(b).

IT IS THEREFORE on this 6th day of February, 2014,

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively 

terminate this case for Petitioner’s failure to either pay the 

requisite filing fee of $5.00 or submit a complete application 

to proceed in forma pauperis; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall supply to 

Petitioner a blank form Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

in a Habeas Corpus Case (DNJ-PRO-SE-007-B.pdf), for use by a 

prisoner; and it is further

ORDERED that, if Petitioner wishes to reopen this action, 

she shall so notify the Court within 30 days of the date of 

entry of this Order, in writing addressed to the Clerk of the 

Court, Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut 

Street, Room 4015, Newark, New Jersey 07101; Petitioner’s 

writing shall include either: (1) a complete in forma pauperis

application, including a certification of Petitioner’s 

institutional account, as required by Local Civil Rule 81.2(b); 

or (2) the $5 filing fee; and it is finally
3

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of 

this Order upon Petitioner’s counsel by regular U.S. mail, and 

close this case accordingly.

_s/ Susan D. Wigenton______

SUSAN D. WIGENTON

United States District Judge
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

136061 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 136061 COA: 274133 Iosco CC: 06-002566-FH CLIFFORD EUGENE COMSTOCK, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0616 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 23, 2008

Clerk
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5020

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pepperoncini prepared or 

preserved by vinegar or acetic acid in concentrations at .5% or greater. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2004

Mr. PASCRELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pepperoncini 

prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid in concentrations at .5% or greater.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PEPPERONCINI PREPARED OR PRE4 SERVED BY VINEGAR OR ACETIC ACID IN 

5 CONCENTRATIONS AT .5% OR GREATER. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading:
2

•HR 5020 IH 

‘‘ 9902.20.04 Pepperoncini, prepared or 

preserved by vinegar or acetic acid in concentrations at 

.5% or greater (provided for 

in subheading 2001.90.38) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2007 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 479 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 479

    Seeking the return of the USS Pueblo to the United States Navy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2019

 Mr. Tipton submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Seeking the return of the USS Pueblo to the United States Navy.

Whereas the USS Pueblo, which was attacked and captured by the navy of North 
        Korea on January 23, 1968, was the first ship of the United States Navy 
        to be hijacked on the high seas by a foreign military force in more than 
        150 years;
Whereas 1 member of the USS Pueblo crew, Petty Officer Duane Hodges, was killed 
        in the assault, while the other 82 crew members were held in captivity, 
        often under inhumane conditions, for 11 months;
Whereas the USS Pueblo, an intelligence collection auxiliary vessel, was 
        operating in international waters at the time of the capture, and 
        therefore did not violate the territorial waters of North Korea;
Whereas the capture of the USS Pueblo resulted in no reprisals against the 
        Government or people of North Korea and no military action at any time; 
        and
Whereas the USS Pueblo, though still the property of the United States Navy, has 
        been retained by the Government of North Korea for more than 50 years, 
        was subjected to exhibition in the North Korean cities of Wonsan and 
        Hungham, and is now on display in Pyongyang, the capital city of North 
        Korea: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) desires the return of the USS Pueblo to the United 
        States Navy;
            (2) would welcome the return of the USS Pueblo as a sign of 
        good faith from the North Korean people to the American people; 
        and
            (3) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to 
        transmit copies of this resolution to the President, the 
        Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Crescendo Capital Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter ending February 28, 2007, I, Anthony E. Lombardo, Chief Executive 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-QSB for the quarter ending February 28, 2007, 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-QSB for the quarter ending February 28, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  April 5, 2007 Crescendo Capital Corp. By: /s/ Anthony E. Lombardo Anthony E. Lombardo  {A0037910.DOC}  Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Crescendo Capital Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter ending February 28, 2007, I, Margaret L. Sollish, 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-QSB for the quarter ending February 28, 2007, 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-QSB for the quarter ending February 28, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  April 5, 2007 Crescendo Capital Corp. By: /s/ Margaret L. Sollish Margaret L. Sollish    {A0037910.DOC}
Exhibit 32.2


Certification
Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 (as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
 
 In
connection with the comprehensive report of TransWorld Benefits International,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the years ended June 30, 2004, 2005, and
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Richard Diya, Chief Financial Officer of TransWorld Benefits
International Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my
knowledge:
 
 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.
 
 Date:  
April 29, 2008
  TransWorld
Benefits International, Inc.
  /s/ 
Richard Diya
 Richard Diya
 Chief Financial Officer
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 November 30, 2007 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
11th day of January, 2008.


/s/ Sean Mitchell
-------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6261

DOUGLAS LEE HUSKETH, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus JUDY H. SILLS, Manager at Combined Records, North Carolina Department of Corrections; THEODIS BECK, Secretary of Corrections at North Carolina Department of Corrections; BOYD BENNETT, Director of Prisons at North Carolina of Corrections; LINDA WEISEL, Attorney at North Carolina Prisoner’s Legal Services, Incorporated; KARL L. HAMEL, North Carolina Prisoner’s Legal Services, Incorporated; MICHAEL E. BEALE, Superior Court Judge at Anderson County Courthouse; JOHN H. CONNELL, Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals; J. BUTTERFIELD, Judge, North Carolina Supreme Court; JAMES M. WEBB, Judge, Superior Court at Moore County Courthouse; CAPTAIN MCPHADDER, Correctional Officer at Brown Creek Correctional Institution; MICHAEL S. HAMDEN, Executive Director at North Carolina Prisoner’s Legal Services, Incorporated, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-682-3-MU-02) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 20022 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Lee Husketh, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 We interpret the district court’s dismissal as being without prejudice.
2 Husketh’s claim is barred because his challenge of his parole eligibility implies the invalidity of his continued confinement, and Husketh makes no showing that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated or called into question by the issuance of a federal writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles , 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding action challenging validity of parole proceedings calls into question fact of confinement and thus must satisfy Heck element).
3 PER CURIAM: Douglas Lee Husketh appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion1 and affirm its decision. 2 See Husketh v. Sills , No. CA-01-682-3-MU-02 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2002). 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
LUIS DAMIAN SIME-TINEO,

Defendant.

WALLS, Senior District Judge

The Court is in receipt of Defendant Luis Sime-Tineo’s Pro

Se Motion for Resentencing. (Docket Entry 112)

1. On June 3, 2015, this Court revoked Defendant’s term

of supervised release and remanded him to the custody of theBureau of Prisons for 18 months. The order further stated the

sentence was to run concurrently with sentences imposed by the

State of New York in case 02557N—2014, and by the SouthernDistrict of New York in No. 14—447. (Docket Entry 111).

2. On December 15, 2015, Defendant filed the instant

motion for resentencing alleging the Bureau of Prisons

improperly calculated his sentence by running his new sentence

consecutively to his other sentences instead of concurrently. He

therefore asserts the Bureau of Prisons is violating this

Court’s order. (Docket Entry 112)

MORANDUM OPINION
sentence. His claim is therefore more properly brought in a

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See

Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 F.3d 533, 536 (3d Cir. 2012) (holding

allegations that Bureau of Prisons is not properly carrying out

the directives of sentencing judgment are cognizable under §

2241) . Such a petition must be filed in the district ofDefendant’s confinement, the Western District of Pennsylvania,

and name his immediate custodian, the Warden of CI Moshannon

Valley, as respondent. Defendant’s motion is therefore not

properly before this Court.

5. Defendant’s motion is denied without prejudice to his

ability to raise his claims in a § 2241 petition in the Western

District of Pennsylvania.

6. An appropriate Order follows.

/% W

Date / H. LLS

(I Senior U.S. District Judge

2
Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 1 of 36 PageID: 990

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 2 of 36 PageID: 991

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 3 of 36 PageID: 992

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 4 of 36 PageID: 993

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 5 of 36 PageID: 994

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 6 of 36 PageID: 995

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 7 of 36 PageID: 996

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 8 of 36 PageID: 997

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 9 of 36 PageID: 998

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 10 of 36 PageID: 999

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 11 of 36 PageID: 1000

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 12 of 36 PageID: 1001

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 13 of 36 PageID: 1002

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 14 of 36 PageID: 1003

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 15 of 36 PageID: 1004

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 16 of 36 PageID: 1005

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 17 of 36 PageID: 1006

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 18 of 36 PageID: 1007

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 19 of 36 PageID: 1008

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 20 of 36 PageID: 1009

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 21 of 36 PageID: 1010

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 22 of 36 PageID: 1011

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 23 of 36 PageID: 1012

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 24 of 36 PageID: 1013

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 25 of 36 PageID: 1014

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 26 of 36 PageID: 1015

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 27 of 36 PageID: 1016

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 28 of 36 PageID: 1017

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 29 of 36 PageID: 1018

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 30 of 36 PageID: 1019

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 31 of 36 PageID: 1020

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 32 of 36 PageID: 1021

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 33 of 36 PageID: 1022

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 34 of 36 PageID: 1023

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 35 of 36 PageID: 1024

Case 2:11-cv-04068-SRC   Document 22   Filed 05/20/16   Page 36 of 36 PageID: 1025