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

|                      | India Globalization Capital, Inc. |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|---------------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |                              |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |   |
| Date: July 14, 2010  | By:                               | /s/ John B. Selvaraj                                                                |   |
|                      |                              | John B. Selvaraj                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |   |
|                      |                              | Treasurer, Principal Accounting Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 447 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 447

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reduce the limit 
on the amount of certain contributions which may be made to a candidate 
            with respect to an election for Federal office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 2015

 Mr. Capuano introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reduce the limit 
on the amount of certain contributions which may be made to a candidate 
            with respect to an election for Federal office.

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

SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
              INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES.

    (a) Reduction in Limit.--Section 315(a)(1)(A) of the Federal 
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A)) is amended by 
striking ``$2,000'' and inserting ``$1,000''.
    (b) Application of Indexing.--
            (1) In general.--Section 315(c)(1)(B) of such Act (52 
        U.S.C. 30116(c)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``after 2002'' 
        and inserting ``after 2002 (or, in the case of the limitation 
        established under subsection (a)(1)(A), after 2018)''.
            (2) Determination of base period.--Section 315(c)(2)(B) of 
        such Act (52 U.S.C. 30116(c)(2)(B)) is amended--
                    (A) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
                    (B) in clause (ii)--
                            (i) by striking ``(a)(1)(A),''; and
                            (ii) by striking the period at the end and 
                        inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
                    ``(iii) for purposes of subsection (a)(1)(A), 
                calendar year 2017.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
elections occurring after December 2016.
                                 <all>
```
### §375c. Disbursement of sums not exceeding $500 to heirs or legatees

The Secretary of the Interior is granted authority to disburse to the heirs or legatees of deceased members of the Five Civilized Tribes any sum of money on deposit to the credit of such deceased Indian or Indians, not exceeding $500, where said decedent died seized of no lands or the lands have since been lawfully alienated. Said funds shall be disbursed on proof of death and heirship or bequest satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior and his finding thereon shall be final and conclusive: Provided, That such transfer of funds so disbursed shall not be taxable.

(Aug. 12, 1953, ch. 409, §1, 67 Stat. 558.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2046

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALLEGHANY COUNTY,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONNIE T. KERN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (7:21-cv-00471-TTC)

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donnie T. Kern, Appellant Pro Se. Travis Stuart Andrews, Jim H. Guynn, Jr., GUYNN 

WADDELL CARROLL & LOCKABY, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2046 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Donnie T. Kern seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding the case to the 

state court from which it was removed. The district court remanded the case because it 

lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Generally, an order remanding a case to the state court 

from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); see 28 

U.S.C. § 1442 (exception for cases involving “[f]ederal officers or agencies sued or 

prosecuted”); 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (exception for cases involving “[c]ivil rights cases”). The 

Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] 

§ 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from 

review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995); 

see Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 2016) (“[A] district court may remand a case 

sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time, and such an order is not 

reviewable.”) (citations omitted)).

The district court remanded the case because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 

We, therefore, are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. See Doe, 819 F.3d at 

66. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Kern’s motion 

to accelerate case processing, to schedule oral argument, and for injunctive or other relief. 

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.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2046 Doc: 21 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Michael N.Chang, the Chief Executive Officer of Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”),and John D. Prunty, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each herebycertifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.              The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2009, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32(the “Annual Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.              The information contained in the Annual Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company atthe end of the period covered by the Annual Report and results of operations ofthe Company for the period covered by the Annual Report.

 

| Dated: March 11, 2010    |   |                                         |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                          |   |                                         |
| /s/ Michael N. Chang          |   | /s/ John D. Prunty                           |
| Michael N. Chang              |   | John D. Prunty                               |
| Chief Executive Officer       |   | Chief Financial Officer                      |
| (Principal Executive Officer) |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K towhich it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filling of theCompany under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K),irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
§ 3471.2-2 Effect of conveyance to state or local entity. ( a ) If the United States has conveyed the title to, or otherwise transferred control of the land surface containing the coal deposits to ( 1 ) any state or political subdivision, agency, or its instrumentality,
( 2 ) a college, any other educational corporation, or association, or
( 3 ) to a charitable or religious corporation or association, the transferee shall be notified by certified mail of the application for the license to mine or lease, or the scheduling of a lease sale. The transferee shall be given a reasonable period of time within which to suggest any stipulations necessary for the protection of existing surface improvements or uses to be included in the license or lease and state the supporting facts, or to file any objections to its issuance and state the supporting facts.
( b ) Opposition by the state or local entity is not a bar to issuance of the license to mine or lease for the reserved minerals in the lands. (See, however, § 3461.1(b).) In each case, the final determination on whether to issue the license to mine or lease is based on the best interests of the public.
[44 FR 42643, July 19, 1979, as amended at 47 FR 33149, July 30, 1982]
§ 3451.2 Notification of readjusted lease terms. ( a ) If the notification that the lease will be readjusted did not contain the readjusted lease terms, the authorized officer will, within the time specified in the notice that the lease shall be readjusted, notify the lessee by decision of the readjusted lease terms.
( b ) The decision transmitting the readjusted lease terms and conditions to the lessee(s) of record shall constitute the final action of the Bureau of Land Management on all the provisions contained in a readjusted lease and will be provided to the lessee(s) of record prior to the anniversary date. The effective date of the readjusted lease shall not be affected by the filing of any appeal of, or a civil suit regarding, any of the readjusted terms and conditions.
( c ) The readjusted lease terms and conditions shall become effective on the anniversary date;
( d ) The lessee may appeal the decision of the authorized officer in accordance with the procedure set out in 43 CFR part 4; and
( e ) Regardless of whether an appeal is filed by the lessee(s), all of the readjusted lease terms and conditions, including, but not limited to, the reporting and payment of rental and royalty, shall be effective on the anniversary date.
[47 FR 33146, July 30, 1982, and 53 FR 37300, Sept. 26, 1988]
### [Subpart C—Repealed]
### §703. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 13, 1954, ch. 733, §13, 68 Stat. 727, which related to termination of Federal trust, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
#### § 3181.3 Parties to unit agreement.

The owners of any right, title, or interest in the oil and gas deposits to be unitized are regarded as proper parties to a proposed agreement. All such parties must be invited to join the agreement. If any party fails or refuses to join the agreement, the proponent of the agreement, at the time it is filed for approval, must submit evidence of reasonable effort made to obtain joinder of such party and, when requested, the reasons for such nonjoinders. The address of each signatory party to the agreement should be inserted below the signature. Each signature should be attested by at least one witness if not notarized. The signing parties may execute any number of counterparts of the agreement with the same force and effect as if all parties signed the same document, or may execute a ratification or consent in a separate instrument with like force and effect.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 6-K

            REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-16
                OR 15D-16 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                           For the month of June, 2002

                               Durango Corporation
                 (f/k/a Grupo Industrial Durango, S.A. de C.V.)
       -----------------------------------------------------------------
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

 Torre Corporativa Durango, Potasio 150, Cd. Industrial Durango, Durango, Mexico
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F. Form 20-F [X]   Form 40-F [ ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information
contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Yes [ ]    No [X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-_____________.
<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


                           CORPORACION DURANGO, S.A. DE C.V.

Date:  June 10, 2002
                           By /s/ Gabriel Vellegas Salazar
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             Name:  Gabriel Vellegas Salazar
                             Title: Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11281 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. PHONG HUU TRUONG Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-58-1 Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Phong Huu Truong has moved for leave towithdrawand has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Truong has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 20, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1379

DANIEL MOSS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,

District Judge. (7:06-cv-00051-D)

Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: December 5, 2007

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Moss, Appellant Pro Se. Lora M. Taylor, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Moss appeals the district court’s order accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting the

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. Moss v. United States,

No. 7:06-cv-00051-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2007). 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
§ 3162.2-11 How soon after I know of the likelihood of drainage must I take protective action? ( a ) You must take protective action within a reasonable time after the earlier of: ( 1 ) The date you knew or had constructive notice that the potentially draining well had begun to produce oil or gas; or
( 2 ) The date we issued a demand letter for protective action.
( b ) Since the time required to drill and produce a protective well varies according to the location and conditions of the oil and gas reservoir, BLM will determine this on a case-by-case basis. When we determine whether you took protective action within a reasonable time, we will consider several factors including, but not limited to: ( 1 ) Time required to evaluate the characteristics and performance of the draining well;
( 2 ) Rig availability;
( 3 ) Well depth;
( 4 ) Required environmental analysis;
( 5 ) Special lease stipulations which provide limited time frames in which to drill; and
( 6 ) Weather conditions.
( c ) If BLM determines that you did not take protection action timely, you will owe compensatory royalty for the period of the delay under § 3162.2-12.
[66 FR 1894, Jan. 10, 2001]
#### § 3712.2-4 Publication.

If the request for publication and the accompanying papers conform to the requirements of the Act, the Authorized officer or the Director, as may be appropriate, at the expense of the requesting department or agency, shall cause notice to mining claimants to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the county in which the lands involved are situated. If the notice is published in a daily newspaper it shall be published in the Wednesday issue for nine consecutive weeks, if in a weekly paper, in nine consecutive issues, or if in a semi-weekly or tri-weekly paper, in the issue of the same day of each week for nine consecutive weeks.
Page 1 of 2

Deny and Opinion filed August 2, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00745-CV

IN RE VENKY VENKATRAMAN, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-03588

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Myers

Before the Court is relator’s August 1, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus

challenging the trial court’s orders entered on or about July 8, 2022 and dated July 

7, 2022, denying several of relator’s motions.

1 Relator contends the trial court 

denied relator due process by entering the orders without conducting a hearing on 

 

1 Relator challenges the trial court’s orders denying relator’s Amended Motion to Compel 

Depositions; Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm that Stephen D. 

Skinner formed an Attorney-Client Relationship with Witnesses Sakshi Venkatraman and Smrithi 

Venkatraman, Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of 

Defendant Sergio Flores and Motion for Sanctions; Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Plaintiff’s 

Amended Emergency Motion to Compel Deposition and Motion for Sanctions for Abuse of Discovery; 

and Amended Motion for Continuance.
Page 2 of 2

the merits, and the orders were entered after relator had given notice of and filed a 

motion to recuse. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re 

Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). 

Based on our review of the petition and record, we conclude relator has

failed to demonstrate an entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny

the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

220745f.p05 /s/ Lana Myers

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
### **CHAPTER 75—CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES**

Subchapter
Sec. 1
A.
Crimes
7201

B.
Other offenses
7261
C.
Forfeitures
7301
D.
Miscellaneous penalty and forfeiture provisions
7341

1  Section numbers editorially supplied.
#### William J. Randolph, Respondent, *v.*The Boston and Albany Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Argued June 5, 1878;

decided June 18, 1878.)

*George W. Miller*for appellant.

*E. Countryman*for respondent.

Agree to affirm. No opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CALVIN JOHNSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 374 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of February, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

and Motion to Clarify are DENIED

.