alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4.302 Fees at filing. ( a ) *Filing requirement.* A section 30(c) application must be accompanied by a fee or a bond, together with copies of the most recent cost estimates provided by fish and wildlife agencies pursuant to § 4.301(b).
( b ) *Amount.* The fee required under paragraph (a) of this section must be in an amount equal to 50 percent of the most recent cost estimates provided by fish and wildlife agencies pursuant to § 4.301(b). In lieu of this amount, an applicant may provide an unlimited term surety bond from a company on the Department of Treasury's list of companies certified to write surety bonds. Applicants bonded by a company whose certification by the Department of the Treasury lapses must provide evidence of purchase of another bond from a certified company. A bond must be for an amount no less than 100 percent of the agencies' most recent cost estimates pursuant to § 4.301(b).
( c ) *Failure to file.* The Commission will reject a section 30(c) application if the applicant fails to comply with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
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 OSK Capital II Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB  for the period ending March 31, 2001,
(the  "Report"), I, Frank Kramer, Secretary and Treasurer 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Frank Kramer
-----------------------
Secretary and Treasurer


Date: December 15,2003
EXHIBIT 32

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Stonewall  Financial,  Ltd.,
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"),  the undersigned,  B.
Stephen Bailey,  Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my  knowledge  and
belief:

         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.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 7373]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Oriental Institute Museum of the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, from on or about March 28, 2011, until on or about December 31, 2011, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: March 14, 2011.

Ann Stock,

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2011-6549 Filed 3-18-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Thom W Hayward, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of IS EMPLOYMENT;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly 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
     quarterly  report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

        (a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
              material information relating to the registrant is made known to
              us by others, particularly during the period in which this
              quarterly  report is being prepared;
        (b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
              controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
              filing date of this quarterly  report (the Evaluation Date); and
        (c)   presented in this quarterly  report our conclusions about the
              effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
              our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
     committee of registrant's board of directors;

        (a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
              internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's
              ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
              and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material
              weaknesses in internal controls; and
        (b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
              other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
              internal controls; and

6.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
     quarterly  report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
     controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
     controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including
     any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
     weaknesses.

Date: 5/20/03

/s/ Thom Hayward
    Chief Executive Officer
```
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 16-BG-1246

IN RE PETER N. NJANG, RESPONDENT.

A Suspended Member of the Bar

of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration No. 456012)

On Report and Recommendation

of the Board on Professional Responsibility

(BDN 123-10 et al.)

(Decided June 11, 2020)

Before THOMPSON, MCLEESE, and DEAHL, Associate Judges.

PER CURIAM: The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee issued a report concluding that 

respondent Peter N. Njang intentionally misappropriated entrusted funds. 

Specifically, the Hearing Committee found that respondent received client funds as 

the result of successful litigation and failed to accurately account for the funds,

resulting in an overdraft of his IOLTA account when his client attempted to deposit 

a check representing the client’s share of funds from the litigation. The Committee 

recommended that respondent be disbarred. Respondent did not file exceptions to 

the Committee’s report. The Board on Professional Responsibility adopted the 
2

Committee’s findings that respondent intentionally misappropriated entrusted funds 

in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(a) and concurred that respondent 

should be disbarred. Respondent did not file exceptions to the Board’s report and 

recommendation. Because the Board found that respondent’s misappropriation was

intentional, the Board’s recommended sanction of disbarment is the presumptively 

mandatory disposition.1

 

Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s 

report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the 

Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” See also In 

re Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (“When . . . there are no exceptions to the 

Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes 

even more deferential.”). We are satisfied that the record supports the determination

that respondent engaged in intentional misappropriation of entrusted funds. We 

accept the recommendation that respondent be disbarred.

Accordingly, it is

 1 See, e.g., In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C. 1990) (en banc) (disbarment is

presumptive discipline for all but negligent misappropriation). 
3

ORDERED that respondent Peter N. Njang is hereby disbarred. For purposes 

of reinstatement, the period of respondent’s disbarment will not begin to run until 

such time as he files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit.
#### The American National Fire Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Thomas Scholl, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 70-247;

Second District

August 12, 1971.

John C. Pagnatelli, of Sterling, for appellant.

Richard Caldwell, of Oregon, and Konstans & Catella, of St. Charles, for appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE STROUSE

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Thomas Scholl, appeals from a judgment order in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $876.00, plus $37.50 court costs for the premium for hail insurance for the year 1968.

This conflict concerns premiums on an insurance contract for the year 1968 and whether the Plaintiff’s signature thereon was a forgery or whether it was cancelled.

There were direct conflicts in the testimony between the parties which were heard and resolved by the trial judge’s finding in favor of the Plaintiff.

The Appellant lays great stress on the fact that the Plaintiff should have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the cancellation of the contract and that the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

It is well settled in Illinois that the burden of proof in civil cases is by a preponderance of the evidence. *Watt v. Kirby*(1853), 15 Ill. 200. *323
      *Commerce Union Bank v. Midland National Insurance Company*(1964), 53 Ill.App.2d 229, 202 N.E.2d 688.

It is further well settled that the Reviewing Court will not set aside a judgment unless it is clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. *Nichols v. Sargent*(1887), 22 Ill.App. 403; *Commerce Union Bank v. Midland National Insurance Company*(1964), 53 Ill.App.2d 229, 202 N.E.2d 688.

It is clear from the record that the judgment is not clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

SEIDENFELD and GUILD, JJ., concur.
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





The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify as follows:





This annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2010 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Mark R. BakerDate: March 15, 2011
Mark R. Baker

Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 5.4 Computation of time.

Sundays and holidays shall be counted in computing any period of time prescribed in the Act or in the rules and regulations in this part.
#### § 51.56 Guidance from the courts.

In making determinations the Attorney General will be guided by the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and of other Federal courts.
Karen F. Long, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

George Jenkins, 

Defendant. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

DEC 1 0 2010 

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the District of Columbia 

10 2103 

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis 

application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading 

requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 

complaints to contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction 

[and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Oralsky v. CIA, 355 

F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair 

notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate 

defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 
, 

Plaintiff, a resident of Ox on Hill, Maryland, sues an individual apparently associated with 

Shoppers Food Warehouse in District Heights, Maryland. The complaint, consisting of 

scribbling and disjointed phrases, fails to provide any notice of a claim or the basis of federal 

court jurisdiction.l A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: December~, 2010 

United States District Judge 

1 This complaint is one of nine such submissions received by the Clerk's Office on the 

same day. Each complaint names a different defendant but is otherwise the same. Moreover, 

similar complaints were dismissed in August, September and November of this year for the same 

reasons. Plaintiff is warned that her persistence in filing similar lawsuits may result in the 

imposition of restrictions on her ability to file cases in this Court. 

2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

HOWARD SCHWARTZ,

Petitioner

v.

ALLEGHENY COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA, AND VALUE-ADDED

COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Respondents

*********************************************

VALUE-ADDED COMMUNICATIONS, 

INC.

v.

SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND

THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 352 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NOS.  2-06-205-CR

					        2-06-206-CR

MARCUS WAYNE SPRINGER	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Marcus Wayne Springer entered open pleas of guilty to indecency with a child in two cases and pleaded “true” to a repeat-offender enhancement allegation recited in both indictments.  The trial court convicted Appellant and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) for each offense, with the sentences to run concurrently. 

	In each case, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  In his brief, counsel has reviewed the history of the case, including detailing the evidence presented.  Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California2 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the appeal.3  Although this court gave Appellant the opportunity to file a pro se brief, he did not file one.

	In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous.4  Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.5  Because Appellant entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Appellant’s plea, error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after entry of the guilty plea.6 	We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief.  We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.7

	Consequently, we grant the motion to withdraw in each case and affirm the trial court’s judgments. 

							PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	GARDNER, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  August 31, 2007
| **FORM 4**                                                                                                                                               | UNITED STATES SECURITIES        AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION        Washington, D.C. 20549                                                                                                                                                                                 | OMB      APPROVAL                                                                                                                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **   **        Check this box if no longer subject to Section 16. Form 4 or Form 5 obligations        may continue. See Instruction 1(b). | **STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP**

Filed pursuant to        Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 17(a) of        the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 or Section 30(h) of the        Investment Company Act of 1940 | OMB      Number: 3235-0287      Expires: January 31, 2005      Estimated average burden      hours per response. . .0.5
Filed By |
EXHIBIT 22

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


Name                                       State of Incorporation

ART Holdings Corporation
f/k/a Acumenics Research & Technology, Inc.              Maryland

Aerospace Sciences, Inc.                                 Virginia

Avenue Technologies, Inc.                                Virginia

Engineering and Information Services, Inc.               Virginia

Performance Engineering Network, Inc.                    Virginia

SyCom Services, Inc.                                     Delaware

Vail Research and Technology Corporation                 Maryland

Hadron - CPD, Inc. (inactive)                            Virginia

P.E.N. Acquisition Corporation (inactive)                Virginia

Telcom International, Inc. (inactive)                    Delaware

Applied Graphics Corporation (inactive)                  Maryland

Compulaser, Inc. (inactive)                              Delaware

Digitcom, Inc. (inactive)                                    Ohio

G. E. Boggs and Associates, Inc. (inactive)              Maryland

<PAGE>
Order entered January 23, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00070-CV

IN RE CARLA ROBINSON, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-02-06685-T

ORDER

The Court has before it relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Based on the Court’s 

opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER that relator 

bear the costs of this original proceeding

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE