alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 301.86-8 Attachment and disposition of certificates and limited permits. ( a ) A certificate or limited permit required for the interstate movement of a regulated article must, at all times during the interstate movement, be: ( 1 ) Attached to the outside of the container containing the regulated article; or
( 2 ) Attached to the regulated article itself if not in a container; or
( 3 ) Attached to the consignee's copy of the accompanying waybill. If the certificate or limited permit is attached to the consignee's copy of the waybill, the regulated article must be sufficiently described on the certificate or limited permit and on the waybill to identify the regulated article.
( b ) The certificate or limited permit for the interstate movement of a regulated article must be furnished by the carrier or the carrier's representative to the consignee listed on the certificate or limited permit upon arrival at the location provided on the certificate or limited permit.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0322)
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1944.76-1944.99 [Reserved]
Case 3:94-cr-03012-LC-MD   Document 867   Filed 01/13/09   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:94-cr-03012-LC-MD   Document 867   Filed 01/13/09   Page 2 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case Nos.: 4:02cr3-MW/CAS

 4:16cv304-MW/CAS

DAVID JUNIOR UPSHAW,

Defendant.

__________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION ON THE MERITS BUT REJECTING 

RECOMMENTDATION THAT CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY BE DENIED 

The Court has considered the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, 

ECF No. 76, filed October 25, 2017. The Court has also reviewed de novo

Defendant’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 81, filed 

November 22, 2017. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted in part as the 

Court’s opinion, except for the Magistrate’s recommendation to deny a certificate 

of appealability. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Petitioner’s Amended 

Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a 

Person in Federal Custody, ECF No. 73, is DENIED. While this Court is bound by 
2

Beeman, reasonable jurists could disagree on whether the law of the circuit is 

correct. Similarly, reasonable jurists may disagree on whether Griffin was correctly 

decided and whether Beckles extends to the pre-Booker Guidelines. A certificate of 

appealablity is GRANTED on these issues: 1) whether Petitioner must 

affirmatively show that the sentencing court relied on the ACCA residual clause; 

and 2) whether Johnson applies to the career offender provision of the pre-Booker 

Guidelines.” 

SO ORDERED on November 27, 2017.

s/Mark E. Walker ____

United States District Judge
Case 3:99-cr-00090-RV   Document 185   Filed 02/13/06   Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT
TO




SECTION
1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE




I, Andrew Stewart, the President, Chief
Executive Officer and principal executive officer of Man Investments (USA)
Corp., the Managing Member of Man-AHL 130, LLC (“Man-AHL 130”), certify that (i)
the Quarterly Report of Man-AHL 130 on Form 10-Q for the period ending December
31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Man-AHL 130.




Date:  February 13,
2009




/s/ Andrew
      StewartAndrew
      Stewart
                President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




ASA International Ltd.
Framingham, Massachusetts



     We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  Registration
Statement  No.  33-312933  of ASA  International  Ltd. on Form S-8 of our report
dated March 11, 2000, relating to the consolidated  financial  statements of ASA
International Ltd. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1999.



                                       /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

                                       BDO Seidman, LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 2000

                                                                              77
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2320 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an increasingly 

larger earned income credit for families with more than 3 children. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2013 

Mr. NADLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

an increasingly larger earned income credit for families 

with more than 3 children. 

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 ‘‘Tax Fairness for All 

5 Families Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASED EARNED INCOME CREDIT FOR FAMI7 LIES WITH MORE THAN 3 CHILDREN. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 32(b) of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read 

10 as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2320 IH

1 ‘‘(1) PERCENTAGES.—For purposes of sub2 section (a)— 

‘‘In the case of an eligible individual with: 

The credit 

percentage 

is: 

The phaseout percentage is: 

1 qualifying child .................................................... 34 15.98

2 qualifying children ............................................... 40 21.06

3 qualifying children ............................................... 45 21.06

4 qualifying children ............................................... 50 21.06

5 qualifying children ............................................... 55 21.06

6 qualifying children ............................................... 60 21.06

7 or more qualifying children ................................. 65 21.06

No qualifying children ............................................ 7.65 7.65’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (3) of 

4 section 32(b) of such Code is amended by striking sub5 paragraph (A). 

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

8 December 31, 2012. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
M. P. No. 79-505.

#### Evelyn Pandozzi *et al. v.*The Providence Lodge No. 14 of The Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks.

Mr. Justice Doris and Mrs. Justice Murray did not participate.

*Letts, Quinn ir Licht, Frank N. Ray, Daniel J. Murray, Dianne Curran,*for plaintiffs-respondents, *Carroll, Kelly ir Murphy, John R. Mahoney,*for defendant-petitioner.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:00cr55-RH/WCS

4:06cv27-RH/WCS

JAMES GILYARD,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING §2255 AND RULE 60(b) MOTIONS

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 96) and the objections thereto (document 99). I have

reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. Defendant’s motion (document 94) for modification of his sentence

or alternatively to stay and abate proceedings on the motion is DISMISSED for

failure to obtain authorization from the Court of Appeal for the filing a second or

successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant’s motion (document 95)

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from the judgment on his

Case 4:00-cr-00055-RH-WCS Document 100 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:00cr55-RH/WCS and 4:06cv27-RH/WCS

prior § 2255 motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 19th day of July, 2006.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:00-cr-00055-RH-WCS Document 100 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 2
USGS Publications Warehouse - Citation View Home

Publication Citation

Online Document Versions

View index page

View document

USGS Store

Currently unavailable through the USGS

Store.

Publication Type USGS Numbered Series

Title

Selected hydrologic and water-quality data, 1997 through 1999, for the

Lake Traverse Reservation/Roberts County water-resources investigation in

South Dakota

Author Thompson, R. F.

Year 2000

Series Open-File Report

Series Number 2000-445

Edition -

Language ENGLISH

Description ix, 304 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.

USGS Library

Call Number -

USGS Home

Contact USGS

Search USGS

Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey

URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

Page Contact Information: Contact the Pubs Warehouse Team

Page Last modified: 10/31/2011 14:36:42

USGS Publications Warehouse http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr00445

1 of 1 10/31/2011 2:39 PM
#### Roth, Admr., Appellant, *v.*State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *Roth v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 431.]

(No. 98-1276

Submitted September 15, 1998

Decided October 28, 1998.)

*Kemp; Schaeffer, Rowe & Lardiere Co., L.P.A., Steven D. Rowe*and *Nannette J.B. Dean,*for appellant.

*Young & Alexander Co., L.P.A.,*and *Steven O. Dean,*for appellee.

The discretionary appeal is allowed.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court to apply *Ross v. Farmers Ins. Group of Cos.*(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 281, 695 N.E.2d 732.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### § 29.1122 Rule 16.

Any lot of ripe tobacco which contains 20 percent or more of variegated red or scorched tobacco shall be designated by the color symbol “KR.” Any lot of unripe tobacco which is under 20 percent greenish or green but which contains 20 percent or more of scorched tobacco, or any lot of tobacco which contains 20 percent or more of a color distinctly different from the major color shall be classified as mixed color and designated by the color symbol “KM”. Any lot of unripe tobacco in the C, or B groups which is under 20 percent greenish or green but which contains 50 percent or more of scorched tobacco shall be classified as excessively scorched and designated by the combination symbol “KK”.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977, as amended at 51 FR 25028, July 10, 1986]
Exhibit
31.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Lou
Persico, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of  DATASCENSION INC.





2.Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





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





4. I am
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:





a)designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual 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 annual report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and





c)presented
in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;





5. I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):





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. I have
indicated in this annual 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.





Dated:
      April 10, 2009/s/ Lou PersicoLou
      Persico
                President
      and CEO and Principal Executive
Officer
**Exhibit 10.2****SECOND AMENDMENT TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT**     Pursuant to this Second Amendment to Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of July 31, 2006 (this“***Amendment***”), the parties hereto hereby amend that certain Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as ofApril 28, 2006, by and among Alon USA Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and the stockholders ofParamount Petroleum Corporation named on the signature page thereto (as amended to date, the“***Purchase Agreement***”) as expressly set forth below. Capitalized terms used herein and nototherwise defined shall have the meanings given such terms in the Purchase Agreement. 1. Amendment to Section 2.3(d)(iii) of the Purchase Agreement. Section2.3(d)(iii) is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:     “(iii) If the Closing Date does not occur within three Business Daysfollowing the Asset Purchase Date, then, at the option of either Alon orSellers exercised by written notice to the other party, the purchase andsale of the 1031 Assets under this Section 2.3(d) shall be rescindedand (A) title to the purchased 1031 Assets shall revert to the AcquiredCompanies, and (B) the purchase price for the 1031 Assets shall be refundedto Alon. Alon shall bear all costs, liabilities and expenses attributableto rescinding the 1031 Asset sale, and the Acquired Companies shall beentitled to recover any such costs, liabilities and expenses from Alon,including by offset against the purchase price refunded to Alon.” 2. Supplement to Section 2.3 of the Purchase Agreement. The followingprovision is hereby added to Section 2.3 of the Purchase Agreement immediatelyfollowing Section 2.3(d):     “(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to thecontrary, the Acquired Companies shall bear all costs, liabilities andexpenses incurred by the Sellers or the Acquired Companies attributable tothe 1031 Asset sale, including all fees and expenses of the attorneys of theSellers or the Acquired Companies and the lenders of the Acquired Companiesrelated thereto.” 3. As expressly amended above, the Purchase Agreement shall continue in full forceand effect in accordance with its terms.  4. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shallbe deemed to be an original and all of which together shall be considered to be onedocument.[Signature page follows]
 

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to Stock PurchaseAgreement as of the day and year first above written.      ALON USA ENERGY, INC
(April 22, 1980)

#### In the Matter of Robert Kerwick, as Assessor of the Town of Hardenburg, et al., Appellants, v State Board of Equalization and Assessment, Respondent.

Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals from order entered February 20, 1980, which order modified the judgment entered July 14, 1978 by dismissing the petition as moot. Motion granted, without costs. Kane, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, 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**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),                as                applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Maurice S. Reznik         |
|----------------------------------------------|
| Maurice                S. Reznik             |
| Chief                Executive Officer       |
| (principal                executive officer) |

*This      certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that      section, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing      under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except      to the extent the Company specifically incorporates it by      reference.*

----
## 1997 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-17-1997 

# B one nb e rge r v

. P l ymouth T w p

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 97-1047

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1997

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1997 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Bone nbe r g e r v

. P ly mouth T

w p " (1997). 1997 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 277. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1997/277

### Filed December 17, 1997

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 97-1047

CHERYL BONENBERGER,

Appellant,

v.

PLYMOUTH TOWNSHIP; JOSEPH LA PENTA, SERGEANT, PLYMOUTH TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Civil No. 96-cv-0043)

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 25, 1997
BEFORE: COWEN, ROTH and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.

### ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the last paragraph, on page 14, of the Slip Opinion filed in this case on December 17, 1997, be amended to read as follows:
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the di strict court's order granting summary judgment with respect to Bonenberger's Title VII claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment and her section 1983 claim agains t Plymouth Township. With regard to all other claims, we will reverse the district court's order gran ting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.10 On remand, t he district court is directed to reinstate plaintiffs' s tate law claims.

BY THE COURT
/s/ Timothy K. Lewis

Circuit Judge

Dated: December 17, 1997

A True Copy: Teste:
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

___________________________________________________ ____________________ 10. We also reject Bonenberger's argument that the district court erred in permitting Appellees additional time in which to amend their summary judgment motion. Under the circumstances, t his decision was well within the district court's discretion.

2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11

                                   PALFED, Inc.

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                                             ----------------------------------
<S>                                                                          <C>         <C>         <C>
                                                                                1996        1995        1994
                                                                             ----------  ----------  ----------
Weighted average shares outstanding........................................   5,133,285   5,095,811   5,136,668
Stock options outstanding..................................................     336,713     184,233     186,000
Shares assumed repurchased.................................................    (227,693)   (117,474)   (152,946)
                                                                             ----------  ----------  ----------
Average common and common equivalent shares(1).............................   5,242,305   5,162,570   5,169,722
                                                                             ----------  ----------  ----------
                                                                             ----------  ----------  ----------
</TABLE>

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

(1) Stock options outstanding less shares assumed repurchased are common
    equivalent shares.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 6 -00 679 -CV M oni c a M as on , A ppe lla nt

v. John Mason , Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- F M- 04- 0062 44 , HO NORAB LE DARLENE BY RNE , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Monica Mason ha s filed an unopposed motion to dismiss her a ppeal. We grant the mot ion and dis mis s th is a

pp e a l.
G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Waldrop a nd Henson Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: September

24, 2007