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

<ARTICLE>                5

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                   358,191
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              7,777
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         370,371
<PP&E>                                                 5,775,576
<DEPRECIATION>                                         1,814,499
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         4,507,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    185,696
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                             4,321,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           4,507,221
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,698,631
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          1,174,636
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          523,995
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      523,995
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                             523,995
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             FRONTIER ENERGY CORP.
                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350



      The undersigned, Robert Genesi, in his capacities as President and Acting
Chief  Financial  Officer of Frontier Energy Corp. does hereby certify that the
Form 10-KSB of Frontier Energy Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully
complies with the requirements  of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of  1934  (15  U.S.C.  78m  or 78o(d)) and that the  information
contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents,  in  all  material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Frontier Energy Corp.

      This certification is given by the undersigned solely  for the purpose of
18 U.S.C. 1350 and is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein.


      Executed this 15th day of April, 2008.


                                /s/  Robert Genesi
				------------------
                                Robert Genesi
                                President and Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                Principal Financial Officer
98-1708.

#### State v. Holly.

Cuyahoga App. No. 72818. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
#### The State ex rel. Clemons, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Clemons v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 348.]

(No. 97-1323

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*Hochman & Roach Co., L.P.A.,*and *Carla J. Lauer,*for appellant.

*349
      *Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *William D. Haders,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. The cause is returned to the Industrial Commission for relief consistent with *State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm*(1994), 68 Ohio St 3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and issue a limited writ to return the cause to the Industrial Commission for further consideration consistent with *State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm.*(1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245.

Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
Ja ,10 STq, ,

, S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

? < WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

q< PROSE G

~ \O'


### JUL 1 9 2011

J.R. Stroble Director, National TRU Program Carlsbad Field Office Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221
Dear Mr. Stroble: We received your letter dated July 19, 2011, requesting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) concurrence on the draft expa.nsion certification memo the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) plans to issue to the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). We concur with CBFO's draft expansion certification memo allowing INL CCP to expand INL's certification to use filters when assaying certain contact-handled waste using the Waste Assay Gamma System in accordance with EPA's approval on June 23, 2011 (See EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49, II-A4- 150). 

### In accordance with EPA regulations at 40 CFR 194.8 (69 FR 42571-42583), on January 16, 2007, EPA approved the RH TRU waste characterization program at INL (See EPA Air Docket No. A-98-49,11-A4-72). The EPA limitations applicable to the characterization of' RI I TRU waste are appropriately included in Attachment 4 of the draft expansion certification memo. The waste characterization equipment, procedures and processes included in the memo are consistent with EPA's existing approvals at the site. Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft expansion certification memo for INL CCP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (202) 343-9422 or Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462. Sincerely,



# ~ ~ Edward Feltcorn Center for Waste Management and Regulations



### ~~ } Recycled/Recyclable



## ~ Printed wlth Soy/Cenola Ink on paper that contalns at least 50% recycled 11bercc: (Electronic Distribution)

Ed Ziemianski, CBFO Norma Castaneda, CBFO NTP Court Fesmire, CBFO NTP Martin Navarrete, CBFO QA Dennis Miehls, CBFO QA Tom Peake, EPA Raymond Lee, EPA
Exhibit 10.87


 


SALARY INFORMATION FOR EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS


 


The table below provides information regarding the
salary of each executive officer of InterMune, Inc. (“InterMune”) as of March 1,
2005.


 


	
  Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  Salary

  	
   

  
	
  Daniel G. Welch

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  550,000

  	
   

  
	
  Marianne Armstrong, Ph.D.

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  286,500

  	
   

  
	
  Lawrence Blatt, Ph.D.

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  286,040

  	
   

  
	
  Williamson Bradford, M.D., Ph.D.

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  260,350

  	
   

  
	
  Norman L. Halleen

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  275,000

  	
   

  
	
  Roger L. Hawley

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  332,197

  	
   

  
	
  Thomas Kassberg

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  240,000

  	
   

  
	
  Steven Porter, M.D., Ph.D.

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  290,532

  	
   

  
	
  Cynthia Y. Robinson, Ph.D.

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  240,000

  	
   

  
	
  Howard A. Simon, Esq.

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  245,000

  	
   

  
	
  Robin Steele, Esq.

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  285,000
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 0490 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 018 -AD
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:90-cr-01002-MP

GLENN COX,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion at Doc. 210. That motion is

granted to the extent that the Clerk is directed to seal the order at Doc. 204. It is denied in all

other respects.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of March, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:90-cr-01002-MW-GRJ Document 211 Filed 03/10/09 Page 1 of 1
#### § 1900.4 Ratification.

All written instruments affecting title to real or personal property, including but not limited to deeds, releases, satisfactions, subordination agreements, severance agreements, consents, waivers, assignments, declarations of trust, and heretofore executed by officials or employees of the agencies or other entities referred to in § 1900.1 to carry out any purpose authorized by law, incident to the administration of programs under the jurisdiction of said agencies or other entities, are hereby approved, confirmed, and ratified.

[44 FR 18162, Mar. 27, 1979]
#### The State ex rel. Roy, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Roy v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 199.]

(No. 95-1934

Submitted May 26, 1998

Decided September 23, 1998.)

*202
      *Kondritzer, Gold, Frank & Crowley Co., L.P.A.,*and *Lane N. Cohen,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Steven P. Fixler,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*203
      *Per Curiam.*

There are two general components to a review of a PTD denial: (1) “some evidence” of a medical capacity for some sustained remunerative employment and (2) an adequate analysis of claimant’s nonmedical factors. See *State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm.*(1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245. Because the present order satisfies both requirements, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Dr. Hanington’s report, on which the commission relied, is “some evidence” of a medical ability to work, assessing a low fifteen percent impairment.

Assessing the second element, we find the commission’s nonmedical analysis acceptable as well. The commission was within its prerogative to find that claimant’s age was an asset that countered the obstacles imposed by claimant’s education. The commission assessed conflicting evidence about claimant’s literacy and elected in favor of that which demonstrated some ability to read and write. This takes the case outside *State ex rel. Hall v. Indus. Comm.*(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 289, 685 N.E.2d 1245, and *State ex rel. Hartness v. Kroger Co.*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 445, 692 N.E.2d 181, both of which held that illiteracy and a history of heavy labor can compel a PTD finding regardless of the claimant’s age.

We find, therefore, that the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying PTD.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7594

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERTO SPALDING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-105) Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 25, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roberto Spalding, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Roberto Spalding seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the district court properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Spalding has not made the requisite showing. Additionally, we construe Spalding’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). To obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously- 3 - unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Spalding’s claim does not satisfy either of these conditions. For these reasons, we deny a certificate of appealability, decline to authorize Spalding to file a successive § 2255 motion, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### § 29.2512 Cured.

Tobacco dried of its sap by either natural or artificial processes.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case Nos.: 3:99cr46/RV 

 3:14cv193/RV/EMT

WILLIE JAMES GRIFFIN, JR.,

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated April 22, 2014 (doc. 488). The parties have been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of the timely

filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections thereto (doc. 489),

I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 487), is DENIED

and DISMISSED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of May, 2014.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:99-cr-00046-RV-EMT Document 490 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 1
2006-0931.

#### State ex rel. Worrell v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund.

Franklin App. No. 05AP-490, 2006-Ohio-1301.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2337 

To provide for the conveyance of the Forest Service Lake Hill Administrative 

Site in Summit County, Colorado. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2013 

Mr. POLIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the conveyance of the Forest Service Lake 

Hill Administrative Site in Summit County, Colorado. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lake Hill Administra5 tive Site Affordable Housing Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) COUNTY.—The term ‘‘County’’ means Sum9 mit County, Colorado. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2337 IH

1 (2) LAKE HILL ADMINISTRATIVE SITE.—The 

2 term ‘‘Lake Hill Administrative Site’’ means the 

3 parcel of approximately 40 acres of National Forest 

4 System land in the County, as depicted on the map 

5 entitled ‘‘Lake Hill Administrative Site’’ and dated 

6 June 2012. 

7 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

8 the Secretary of Agriculture. 

9 SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF FOREST SERVICE LAKE HILL AD10 MINISTRATIVE SITE, SUMMIT COUNTY, COLO11 RADO. 

12 (a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.—Upon receipt of an 

13 offer from the County in which the County agrees to the 

14 condition imposed by subsection (c), the Secretary shall 

15 use the authority provided by the Forest Service Facility 

16 Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005 (Public Law 

17 109–54; 16 U.S.C. 580d note) to convey to the County 

18 all right, title, and interest of the United States in and 

19 to the Forest Service Lake Hill Administrative Site. 

20 (b) APPLICATION OF LAW.— 

21 (1) TREATMENT AS ADMINISTRATIVE SITE.— 

22 The Lake Hill Administrative Site is considered to 

23 be an administrative site under section 502(1)(A) of 

24 the Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 2337 IH

1 hancement Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–54; 16 

2 U.S.C. 580d note). 

3 (2) EXCEPTION.—Section 502(1)(C) of that 

4 Act does not apply to the conveyance of the Lake 

5 Hill Administrative Site. 

6 (c) COSTS.—The County shall be responsible for 

7 processing and transaction costs related to the direct sale 

8 under subsection (a). 

9 (d) PROCEEDS.—Proceeds received from the convey10 ance pursuant to subsection (a) shall be available, without 

11 further appropriation and until expended, for capital im12 provement and maintenance of Forest Service facilities in 

13 Region 2 of the United States Forest Service. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Blanche H. Shea, as General Guardian of Edward Hazzard, an Infant, Appellant, v. Harold O. Esmay, County Treasurer of the County of Schoharie, as Administrator of the Estate of Francis E. Hazzard, Deceased, Respondent.

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court dismissing for insufficiency the amended complaint in an action brought by an infant against the administrator of his father’s estate to recover for injuries sustained when the father shot and wounded him. The father shot and killed other members of the family and then committed suicide. The opinions of Mr. Justice Kane at Special Term (48 Misc 2d 45; 50 Misc 2d 509), upon deciding a motion addressed to the original complaint and the subsequent motion directed to the amended complaint now before us, well outline the legal problem involved in plain tiff-appellant’s endeavor to frame an acceptable pleading, which will charge more than ordinary negligence, for which the decedent would not become liable to his unemancipated child, but will fall short of alleging assault and battery or other acts evincing an intent to injure which might perhaps be negated by proof of decedent’s insanity, as plaintiff himself recognized when he alleged in the original complaint that decedent “ was insane ” and “ in such state of mind as to prevent him from performing an intent to do the act described or to inflict injury on infant plaintiff.” Plaintiff in his present argument suggests an analogy to the drunken driving cases in which unemancipated infants were permitted to recover against their parents, as, for example, in *Henderson*v. *Henderson*(11 Misc 2d 449, 451) in which “wilful and wanton acts of misconduct” were alleged; but, in the case before us, as Special Term correctly pointed out, the amended complaint in alleging that decedent acted “ wrongfully, negligently, irresponsibly, thoughtlessly and recklessly” charges no more than ordinary negligence. Order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.
#### § 29.9265 Disposition of certificate.

Distribution of the Tobacco Classification Certificate shall be limited to the provisions of this section. The original certificate and one copy shall be delivered or mailed to the applicant or his agent. One copy and the copy of the ASCS certificate shall be forwarded by the inspector to the Division or office of inspection.
#### § 28.7 Area Director, Classing Office; responsibility.

Subject to this subpart and the instructions of the Director, the Area Director of each Classing Office shall be responsible for the proper performance of the duties imposed on such office and on the persons connected therewith. The Area Director shall be responsible for receiving all correspondence relating to the classification of cotton under the act and for providing that all samples are prepared for classification and/or comparison in such manner that the name of the owner and/or the custodian shall be unknown to the cotton classers until after the samples are classified.

[52 FR 30881, Aug. 18, 1987]
```

[108th Congress Public Law 320]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ320.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 1213]]

Public Law 108-320
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to 
permit Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards to be made to nonprofit 
          organizations. <<NOTE: Oct. 5, 2004 -  [H.R. 3389]>> 

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

    Section 17(c)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act 
of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a(c)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(F) Nonprofit organizations.''.

    Approved October 5, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3389:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108-419 (Comm. on Science).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
            Mar. 3, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 23, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
98-1504.

#### State ex rel. Cannon v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Mandamus. On answer of respondent. Answer treated as motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.