alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Burdett and others *v.*Williams and another.1

*(District Court, D. Connecticut.*

December 31, 1886.)

Admiralty—New Trial—Motion—Pacts not Originally Presented.

A motion for a new trial will be refused if tbe conclusion originally reached is, after the presentation of new facts, still adhered to.

In Admiralty. Motion for new trial. Reported 27 Fed. Rep. 113.

*E. L.*Barney, for the motion.

*Samuel Park,*against the motion.

1

 Reported by Theodore M. Etting, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.

Shipman, J.

This is a motion for a new trial in the above-entitled cause. The facts were stated in the opinion of the court. 27 Fed. Rep. 113. The strong and vigorous argument of the counsel for the libelants endeavored to establish the position that on October 4, 1884, the voyage was not turned into and did not become a whaling voyage, but that, by reason of the detention of 20 or 25 days in the ice in July, 1884, and the delay in September, on account of the services to the Isabella’s crew, the proposed whaling voyage was frustrated; and that the stop to whale for 20 days on the return from Cumberland inlet was a mere incident, which did not cause the freighting voyage to come to an end. This particular phase of the case was not presented upon the trial as vigorously as it was upon the motion, but I cannot see that the conclusions to which I came originally are incorrect.

*543If not enough freight was received to fill the vessel, the contract provided that “our wages are to cease, and we are to stop to whale at New •Gunenke, or elsewhere, and receive” a lay in lieu of wages. The vessel did not obtain a sufficient quantity of freight, did stop for the purpose of whaling, and tried to obtain whales until October 24th, when, on the point of starting for home, she was compelled to stay by stress of weather. The captain would not have been endeavoring to do his duty towards the owners if he had started for home on October 4th without trying to whale, and had thus virtually abandoned his undertaking; for if the vessel was not to return with freight, a whaling voyage was to be attempted. If she had left the straits on October 24th, and returned to New London, it would hardly have been contended that the monthly wages did not stop on October 4th. The conditions upon which the men were to receive a lay had taken place, and the unfortunate termination of the voyage by reason of having obtained no catchings, either in the fall of 1884 or during the season of 1885, ought not to change the pecuniary relations of the parties.

The fact that the sailors are poor, and that poverty, in a contest with wealth, always enlists the sympathy of the triers, ought not to induce the court to strain the facts in order to permit the sailors to receive some compensation for the hardships which they endured.

The new facts which wore presented do not seem to me to vary the original case materially. The motion is denied.
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| 1.     | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Qualys Inc.; and |
|   |   |
| 2.     | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |  |
| Date:                   | December 1, 2017 |   |
| By:                     | /s/ MELISSA  B. FISHER |   |
| Melissa B. Fisher       |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| Qualys, Inc.            |
#### In the Matter of Nichole Satchell, Respondent, v John Satchell, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 803]

The Family Court, Suffolk County, issued an order of protection against the appellant husband on December 13, 2006. By its terms, that order was to remain in effect for a period of one year. The Family Court vacated that order of protection on March 7, 2007.

As the order dated December 13, 2006 was subsequently vacated, the instant appeal has been rendered academic *(see Matter of Martin v Rolley,*22 AD3d 998 [2005]; *Ireland v Wilenzik,*296 AD2d 771 [2002]; *Matter of Richmond County Socy. for Prevention of Cruelty to Children,*11 AD2d 236, 239 [I960]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Covello and Eng, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 35842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17299]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-894]


Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Tissue Paper Products 
from the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Brandon Custard, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1766 or (202) 482-1823, respectively.

Background

    On April 6, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain tissue 
paper products from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''), covering 
the period March 1, 2007, through February 29, 2008. See Certain Tissue 
Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
and Partial Rescission of the 2007-2008 Administrative Review and 
Intent Not to Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 15449 (April 6, 2009). The 
current deadline for the final results in this review is August 4, 
2009.

Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of Review

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), requires the Department to issue the final results of the 
review of an antidumping duty order within 120 days after the date on 
which the preliminary results is published in the Federal Register. If 
it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, 
the Department may extend that 120-day period to 180 days.
    Having provided the interested parties more time to submit publicly 
available information and case and rebuttal briefs for consideration in 
the final results of this review, the Department finds that it is not 
practicable to complete the final results of this review within the 
current time frame, as it requires additional time to properly analyze 
the data and arguments submitted by the interested parties.
    Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the 
Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final 
results of this review until October 5, 2009, which is the next 
business day after 180 days after the date on which the notice of the 
preliminary results was published in the Federal Register.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 14, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E9-17299 Filed 7-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
EXHIBIT
      32.2


RESOLVE
      STAFFING, INC.


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 Resolve Staffing, Inc. (the Company) on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald Heineman,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Resolve Staffing, Inc. and will be retained by Resolve Staffing, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:
      April 15, 2006








*/s/
      Scott Horne*


Scott
      Horne


Chief
      Financial Officer
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 56-1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1065
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 56-1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1066
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 56-1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 1067
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

WILLIAM D. MCCARTHY, :

: Civil Action No. 11-3664 (RMB)

Petitioner, :

:

v. : MEMORANDUM OPINION

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

et al., :

:

Respondents. :

APPEARANCES:

Petitioner pro se

William D. McCarthy

F.C.I. Fort Dix

P.O. Box 2000

Fort Dix, NJ 08640

BUMB, District Judge

Petitioner William D. McCarthy, a prisoner confined at the

Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Dix, New Jersey, has

filed a Petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, challenging certain detainers. 

The filing fee for a petition for writ of habeas corpus is

$5.00. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.3(a), the filing fee is

required to be paid at the time the petition is presented for

filing. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 81.2(b), whenever a

prisoner submits a petition for writ of habeas and seeks to

proceed in forma pauperis, that petitioner must submit (a) an

affidavit setting forth information which establishes that the

petitioner is unable to pay the fees and costs of the

Case 1:11-cv-03664-RMB Document 2 Filed 08/03/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 19
proceedings, and (b) a certification signed by an authorized

officer of the institution certifying (1) the amount presently on

deposit in the prisoner’s prison account and, (2) the greatest

amount on deposit in the prisoners institutional account during

the six-month period prior to the date of the certification. If

the institutional account of the petitioner exceeds $200, the

petitioner shall not be considered eligible to proceed in forma

pauperis. Local Civil Rule 81.2(c).

Petitioner did not prepay the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas

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

Petitioner submit an application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court will

be ordered to administratively terminate the Petition without

prejudice. Petitioner will be granted leave to move to re-open

within 30 days, by either prepaying the filing fee or submitting

a complete application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

An appropriate Order will be entered.

s/Renée Marie Bumb 

Renée Marie Bumb

United States District Judge

Dated: August 4, 2011 

2

Case 1:11-cv-03664-RMB Document 2 Filed 08/03/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 20
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5363

AN ACT

judges of the United States for fiscal year 2005.

To authorize salary adjustments for Justices and

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5363

AN ACT

To authorize salary adjustments for Justices and judges of

the United States for fiscal year 2005.

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

•HR 5363 EH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS

2 FOR FEDERAL JUSTICES AND JUDGES.

3 Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97–92, Jus4 tices and judges of the United States are authorized dur5 ing fiscal year 2005 to receive a salary adjustment in ac6 cordance with section 461 of title 28, United States Code.

Passed the House of Representatives November 17,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
# cpsaat21
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2




                                   CONSENT OF
                            ALLAN SPIVAK ENGINEERING



As independent oil and gas consultants, Allan Spivak Engineering hereby consents
to the use of our reserve report dated as of March, 2002, and all references to
our firm included in or made a part of the Ivanhoe Energy Inc. Annual Report on
Form 10-K to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
March 14, 2002.



                                                  Yours truly,

                                                  ALLAN SPIVAK ENGINEERING


                                                  /s/ Allan Spivak
                                                  ______________________________
                                                  Allan Spivak, President


                                                  March 12, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 135 (Thursday, July 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16850]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13485-000]


FFP Project 75, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

July 9, 2009.

    On May 22, 2009, FFP Project 75, LLC filed an application for a 
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Old Town Bend Hydrokinetic 
Project, to be located on the Mississippi River, in Phillips County, 
Arkansas and Coahoma County, Mississippi.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant 
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the 
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder 
to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands 
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Old Town Bend Hydrokinetic Project consists of: (1) 
3,358 proposed 40 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total 
installed capacity of 134.32 megawatts; (2) a 4.3-mile-long, 69 
kilovolt transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The 
proposed Old Town Bend Hydrokinetic Project would have an average 
annual generation of 588 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Vice President of 
Development, Free Flow Power Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, 
Gloucester, MA 01930; phone: (978) 226-1531.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter, 202-502-6486.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http:[sol][sol]www.ferc.gov/
filing-comments.asp. More information about this project, including a 
copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' 
link of Commission's Web site at http:[sol][sol]www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-13485) in the docket 
number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-
866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16850 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7756

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BRIAN DAVID HILL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr - 00435

- TDS

- 1 )

Submitted : March 12, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Brian David Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Brian David Hill appeals the district court’s order denying his pro se motion to correct or modify the record from his September 12, 2019 hearing on revocation of his supervised release . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hill , No. 1:13

- cr - 00435

- TDS

- 1 (M.D.N.C. Nov

. 21, 2019). 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.
AFFIRME D
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5122 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5122

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2004

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to permit members 
 of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance to serve for 2 
                                 terms.

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

 SECTION 1. PERMITTING SECOND TERM FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF OFFICE OF 
              COMPLIANCE.

    (a) In General.--The second sentence of section 301(e)(1) of the 
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1381(e)(1)) is 
amended to read as follows: ``A member of the Board may be reappointed, 
but no individual may serve as a member for more than 2 terms.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to individuals serving on the Board of Directors of 
the Office of Compliance on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# cpsaat42
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002****(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**
     In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Centillium Communications, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”), I, J. Scott Kamsler,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.         Dated: March 11, 2005         /s/ J. Scott Kamsler             J. Scott Kamsler    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Ex. 10.32.2 Amendment-December2012-Muto


Exhibit 10.32.2


December 10, 2012


Mr. Gary Muto




		
	Re: 
	Amendment to Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation of Associates and Non-Competition Agreement




Dear Gary:


In consideration of your continued employment and other good and valuable consideration, this will confirm our agreement to amend the Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation of Associates and Non-Competition Agreement.  Effective immediately, the Agreement is amended as follows:


		
	(1)
	The following sentence is added to the end of Paragraph 2(c):




Subject to Paragraph 2(h), the Company will commence to pay the Separation Pay, if any, payable under this Paragraph 2(c), on the first scheduled payroll date following the fifty-third (53rd) day following your separation date, provided that you have executed and not revoked the separation agreement referenced in Paragraph 2(g).


		
	(2)
	The last sentence of Paragraph 2(d) is deleted and replaced with the following:




Provided that you have executed and not revoked the separation agreement referenced in Paragraph 2(g), the Company will pay the STIP bonus, if any, payable under this Paragraph 2(d) when bonuses are paid to other Company executives under the STIP Plan, or the annual cash bonus plan in effect at the time of termination, but in no event later than two and a half (21⁄2) months following the end of the performance period to which the STIP bonus relates.


		
	(3)
	The last sentence of Paragraph 2(e) is deleted and replaced with the following:




Provided that you have executed and not revoked the separation agreement referenced in Paragraph 2(g), the Company will pay the earned monies in the restricted cash feature of the STIP Plan, if any, in accordance with the payment schedule for active associates.  


		
	(4)
	The last sentence of Paragraph 2(g) is deleted and replaced with the following:




You must sign the separation agreement within forty-five (45) days of receiving it.  If you do not revoke the separation agreement within seven (7) days, the separation agreement will become effective on the eighth (8th) day following your execution of such agreement.





Exhibit 10.32.2




Except as amended hereby, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  








ANN INC.                    




	
	
	/s/ Kay Krill






Kay Krill
President & Chief Executive Officer








Agreed:                    Date: December 18, 2012






	
	
	/s/ Gary Muto






Gary Muto