alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,927,230
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,555,045
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (799,266)
<INVENTORY>                                    326,326
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,319,483
<PP&E>                                       9,041,512
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,065,345
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,714,251
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,452,625
<BONDS>                                     15,357,216
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,972
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,897,438
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,714,251
<SALES>                                     71,516,158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            71,516,158
<CGS>                                       57,983,296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               57,983,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,852,815
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,768,059
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (88,012)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    88,794
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (176,806)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (176,806)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
### §4209. Prohibition on maintenance of actions

This chapter shall not be deemed to provide a basis for any action, either legal or equitable, by any person or class of persons challenging a Federal project, program, or other activity that may affect farmland: Provided, That the Governor of an affected State where a State policy or program exists to protect farmland may bring an action in the Federal district court of the district where a Federal program is proposed to enforce the requirements of section 4202 of this title and regulations issued pursuant thereto.

(Pub. L. 97–98, title XV, §1548, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1344; Pub. L. 99–198, title XII, §1255(b), Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1518.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1985—Pub. L. 99–198 substituted "by any person" for "by any State, local unit of government, or any person" and inserted proviso.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective six months after Dec. 22, 1981, see section 1549 of Pub. L. 97–98, set out as a note under section 4201 of this title.
Order entered February 21, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00287-CR

No. 05-12-00288-CR

SCHULZ, TOM ALVIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-00500-J, F11-00343-J

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeals.

On September 19, 2012, we ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the 

proper amount of restitution. We ADOPT the finding that the parties have reached an agreement 

regarding the amount of restitution.

We ORDER the trial court to file a supplemental record, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

from the date of this order, that contains an order modifying the conditions of community 

supervision setting out the amount of restitution as agreed by the parties

/s/ MARY MURPHY 

JUSTICE
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

January 30, 2012

ERRATA

_____________________

2010-1526

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

NOVA CHEMICALS CORP ORATION (CANADA) and NOVA CHEMICALS INC. (DELAWARE),

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________

Decided January 24, 2012 Precedential Opinion

______________________

Please make the following change:

Page 1, correct name “Henry J. Roper” to “Harry J. Roper”.
----

| (1)   | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-133841) pertaining to the 1991 Employee Stock      Plan of Genentech, Inc., |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | Registration      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-37072) of Genentech,  Inc., |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (3)   | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-115219) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan,      1991 Employee Stock Plan, and 2004 Equity Incentive Plan of Genentech,      Inc., |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (4)   | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-87444) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan of      Genentech, Inc., |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (5)   | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-94749) pertaining to the Tax Reduction      Investment Plan of Genentech, Inc., |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (6)   | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-90669) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan and      1991 Employee Stock Plan of Genentech,Inc., |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (7)   | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-83989) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan and      1991 Employee Stock Plan of Genentech, Inc.,and |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (8)   | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-83157) pertaining to the 1990 Stock      Option/Stock Incentive Plan, 1994 Stock Option Plan, and 1996 Stock      Option/Stock Incentive Plan of Genentech,Inc.; |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/      ERNST & YOUNG LLP |
|--------|--------------------------------|

----
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 4

- 0 0 488

- C V

Style: Commerce and Industry Insurance Company; Starnet Insurance Company; Catlin Insurance

Company, Inc.; Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty S.E.; United States Aircraft Insurance

Group; and QBE Aviation Syndicate 5555 at Lloyd’s v. American Jet International

Corporation d/b/a Million Air Charter; REW Investments, Inc.; Houston Aviation Partners,

LLC; Woolsey Aviation, Inc.; Million Air Lackland, LLC; Go Fayetteville, LLC; Reno

Aviation Partners, LLC; Gulfport Aviation Partners, LLC; Tallahassee Aviation Partners,

LLC; Million Air Interlink, Inc.; Roger Woolsey; and Carl Moody

Date motion s filed: August 19 , 201 4

Type of motion s : M otion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Thomas J

. Strueber and Don Jackson ’s Motion in

Support of Pro Hac Vice Admission

Party filing motion s : Thomas J. Strueber and Don Jackson ( Commerce and Industry Insurance Company; Starnet

Insurance Company; Catlin Insurance Company, Inc.; Allianz Global Corporate &

Specialty S.E.; United States Aircraft Insurance Group; and QBE Aviation Syndicate 5555

at Lloyd’s)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

.

 Denied

 Dismissed

 Other: _____________________________________

Judge ’ s signature: /s / Jim Sharp

 Acting individually

Date: September 16, 2014
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO andCFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of National Property Investors 4 (the "Partnership"),for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as theequivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B.Waters, as the equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership,each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
|EXHIBIT 32.1
|------------

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Aspen Exploration Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.



|Dated:    September 28, 2009                                                                                                                                                                              By      /s/      R. V. BaileyR.V. Bailey, Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|
|

---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 and its
subsidiaries.
 /s/     Michael H. GoldbergMichael H. GoldbergPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) 
October 29, 2008/s/      Scott F. StephensScott F. StephensVice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) 
October 29, 2008
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2960

_____________________________

MANNELO DOTSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

December 7, 2018

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. Cf. Rivera v. Dep’t of Health, 177 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 

1st DCA 2015).

MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Mannelo Dotson, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia C. Harris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### The People *of*the State of New York, Respondent, v. John King, Appellant.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal denied. Cross motion by appellant to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the *949original papers (including the typewritten minutes) and on appellant’s typewritten brief, which shall include the opinion, if any, of the court below. Appellant shall file six copies of his typewritten brief and serve one copy on the District Attorney. Appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the May Term, commencing April 24, 1961; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. John L. Sullivan, 26 Broadway, New York, N. Y., is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE EMONS
TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       1,315,830
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,320,864
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (94,401)
<INVENTORY>                                    226,704
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,043,052
<PP&E>                                      25,609,849
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,833,619)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,138,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,657,584
<BONDS>                                     10,184,961
<COMMON>                                        56,780
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     17,177
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,268,070
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,138,695
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,686,403
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,485,693
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             271,181
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                348,654
<INCOME-TAX>                                   131,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            217,654
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   217,654
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Francis Brewster, as President of Local Union No. 5895, United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff, v. First Trust & Deposit Company et al., Defendants.

Applications for stay or declaration denied. Application to dismiss appeal denied. Memorandum: The filing of the bond did not result in an automatic stay under sections 594 and 615 of the Civil Practice Act. The order appealed from is not an order directing the payment of a sum of money only within the meaning of section 594 and the bond given by the appellants is not a statutory bond within the meaning of that section since the order dealt with payments to be made by the First Trust *&*Deposit Company, and not by the appellants. This court has previously denied a stay in the exercise of its discretion and that decision is adhered to.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6183

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARIUS DEMARCO PRAYER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00058-RAJ-FBS-7;

2:20-cv-00261-RAJ)

Submitted: June 24, 2021 Decided: June 29, 2021

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darius Demarco Prayer, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darius Demarco Prayer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Prayer has not made 

the requisite showing.*

 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. 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

* We observe that the district court lacked jurisdiction to resolve the merits of 

Prayer’s § 2255 motion because it was an unauthorized second or successive § 2255

motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).
# Официален вестник C 330A/7 ок

| | ISSN 1977-0855 |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | C 330A |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Информация и известия | Година 587 октомври 2015 г. |

ISSN 1977-0855

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

C 330A

Издание на български език

Информация и известия

Година 587 октомври 2015 г.

---

| Известие No | Съдържание | Страница |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Становища |
| | АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ |
| | Европейска служба за подбор на персонал (EPSO) |
| 2015/C 330A/01 | Известие за оттегляне на обявление | 1 |

Известие No

Съдържание

Страница

V   Становища

АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ

Европейска служба за подбор на персонал (EPSO)

2015/C 330A/01

Известие за оттегляне на обявление

1

---

| BG | |
| --- | --- |

BG

---

V Становища

АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ

Европейска служба за подбор на персонал (EPSO)

| 7.10.2015 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | CA 330/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2015

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

CA 330/1

---

ИЗВЕСТИЕ ЗА ОТТЕГЛЯНЕ НА ОБЯВЛЕНИЕ

(2015/C 330 A/01)

Публикацията в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
   (1) на конкурс на общо основание EPSO/AD/321/15 — Администратори в областта на одита (AD 5/AD 7) се оттегля.

---

(1)  ОВ C 316 A, 24.9.2015 г., стр. 1.

---
#### 2052.215-76 Preproposal conference.

As prescribed at 2015.407-70(c), the contracting officer may insert the following provision in applicable solicitations which include a preproposal conference:

# Preproposal Conference (JAN 1993)

(a) A preproposal conference is scheduled for:

Date: *

Location: *

Time: *

(b) This conference is to afford interested parties an opportunity to present questions and clarify uncertainties regarding this solicitation. You are requested to mail written questions concerning those areas of uncertainty which, in your opinion, require clarification or correction. You are encouraged to submit your questions in writing not later than * working day(s) before the conference date. Receipt of late questions may result in the questions not being answered at the conference although they will be considered in preparing any necessary amendment to the solicitation. If you plan to attend the conference, notify * by letter or telephone * , no later than close of business * . Notification of your intention to attend is essential in the event the conference is rescheduled or canceled. (Optional statement: Due to space limitations, each potential offeror is limited to * representatives at the conference.)

(c) Written questions must be submitted to: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Contracts and Property Management, Attn: *, Mail Stop T-7-I-2, Washington, DC 20555.

(d) The envelope must be marked “Solicitation No. */Preproposal Conference.”

*To be incorporated into the solicitation.

(e) A transcript of the conference will be furnished to all prospective offerors through the issuance of an amendment to the solicitation.

(End of provision)
#### Katherine C. McAbee, Plaintiff, v. Melvin R. Keen, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Gervas Canning Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Order of May 2, 1963, insofar as it dismisses the third-party complaint unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. (Appeal from order of Chautauqua Special Term granting third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss the third-party plaintiff’s complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

Ms. Kathleen M. Roberts Exec utive Director 

## DEC 10 2013

Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group 2200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite lOOW Washington, DC 20037 Dear Ms. Roberts: I am writing to confirm that on October 7, 2015 , the U
.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency (EPA) received your petition requesting that the EPA promulgate a rule pursuant to Section 8 ofthe Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) establishing a process to amend the list of natural sources of oils and fats in the Soap and Detergent Association nomenclature system. Your petition has been filed pursuant to Section 21 of TSCA and, as required under this section. the EPA will either grant or deny your petition within 90 days of the date \Ve received your petition, or by January 4 , 2016. If the EPA grants your petition, then the agency will promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. If the EPA denies your petition in whole or in part, then the agency will publish the reasons for denial in the Federal Register. If you have any questions relating to your petition or the EPA's guidelines for Section 21 petitions, feel free to contact David Widawsky of my staff at (202) 566-2215 or Widawsky.David @ep a.gov . Sincerely,

# WQ.>J.~**c.~~~** Wendy Cleland-Hamnett Director Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

I nternet Address (URL) • http //www.epa gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed Wllh Vegetable Orl Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper