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:      November 14, 2008 | By:                                    | /s/ Ram      Mukunda                                                                |   |
|                         |                                   | Ram      Mukunda                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |   |
|                         |                                   | Chief      Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |   |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:94cr03104-02/RV

VERNON LANG COMER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on April 7, 2009 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION to Reduce Sentence (re Retroactive Application of Sentencing

Guidelines to Crack Cocaine Offense 18 USC 3582) 

Filed by Defendant on 10/31/2008 Doc.# 124 

RESPONSES:

United States on 12/18/2008 Doc.# 127 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

 Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 8th day of

 April , 2009, that:

(a) The requested relief is DENIED.

(b) The Defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under 

Amendments 706 and 711. 

(c) The amendments do not affect the Defendant’s sentencing guideline

range. 

/s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:94-cr-03104-RV-SMN Document 130 Filed 04/08/09 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:02cr34-SPM

MICHAEL WHITE,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Michael White’s motion

to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c) and Amendment 750 to the

Sentencing Guidelines. Doc. 50. The Government filed a response in

opposition. Doc. 53.

Upon review, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to a sentence

reduction. Application of the amendment results in no change to Defendant’s

sentencing range, which was determined by the career offender enhancement. 

Since the sentencing range has not changed, the Court is not authorized to order

a reduction. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327-30 (11th Cir. 2008). 

 Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion for reduction of sentence

(doc. 34) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of January, 2011

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-84,231-11 & WR -84,231-12

EX P ARTE ANTHONY DAVID TEAG UE, Appl icant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. W366-82919-2013-HC10 & W366- 82919-2013-HC11 IN THE 219 DISTRICT COURT FROM COLLIN COUNTY

T H

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of stalking and sentenc ed to tw enty y ear s’ imprisonment. The Six th Court of Appea ls aff

irmed his conviction. Teague v. State , No. 06-14-00053- CR (T ex. App.—Texarkana May 13, 2015). Applicant filed these applications for writs of habe as corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded them to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. We have previously dismiss ed six subsequent applicat i o n s i n this cause . See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 4. I t is obvious from the rec ord that Applicant continues to raise g rounds that wer e previously reje cted on the merits or that should have been raised in previous applications.2

We hold that Applicant has abused the writ and filed a friv o l o u s lawsuit. See Ex parte Jones , 97 S.W .3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); T E X . G O V ’ T C O D E § 498.0045(a- 1). Should Applicant file future habea s applications i n this cause , we wi l l n o t consider the merits of hi s applications unl ess he shows that the fac tual or leg al basis of his g rounds was unavailable in a previou s l y filed application. The se applica tions are dismissed. Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division and the Boa rd of Par dons and Paroles.

Filed: Marc h 11, 2020 Do not publish
#### GUTH, Respondent, v. BARTH, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Minnie Guth against Joseph Barth.

No opinion. Order of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Reportof Linn Energy, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the threemonths ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael C. Linn, Chairman,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.              The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.              The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 14, 2007 |   | By:    | /s/ Michael C. Linn                             |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   |   | Michael C. Linn                                 |
|                       |   |   | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Simmons, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on March 22, 1979, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Ross and Silverman, JJ.
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2565 

AN ACT 

To provide for the termination of employment of employees 

of the Internal Revenue Service who take certain official 

actions for political purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2565 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Targeting Our 

3 Politics IRS Act’’ or as the ‘‘STOP IRS Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF INTERNAL REV5 ENUE SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR TAKING OF6 FICIAL ACTIONS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. 

7 Paragraph (10) of section 1203(b) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 

9 is amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘(10) performing, delaying, or failing to per11 form (or threatening to perform, delay, or fail to 

12 perform) any official action (including any audit) 

13 with respect to a taxpayer for purpose of extracting 

14 personal gain or benefit or for a political purpose.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 31, 2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2565 

AN ACT 

To provide for the termination of employment of 

take certain official actions for political purposes. employees of the Internal Revenue Service who
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1553

NATHANIEL E. DOZIER, JR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 and 

DOZIER & ASSOCIATES, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JERRY J. SKALSKY, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief 

District Judge. (3:09-cv-00015-JRS) 

Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 14, 2009 

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Nathaniel E. Dozier, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles Richard 

Cranwell, CRANWELL MOORE & EMICK, PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, Mark 

Quentin Emick, Jr., CRANWELL MOORE & EMICK, PLC, Vinton, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Nathaniel E. Dozier, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his civil action against Jerry Skalsky, a 

member of the Board of Supervisors of Prince George County, 

Virginia. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Dozier v. Skalsky, No. 3:09-cv-00015-JRS (E.D. 

Va. Apr. 28, 2009). We deny Appellee’s motion to dismiss the 

appeal or disregard Dozier’s informal reply brief. 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
Nora Wright

8 Chestnut St Boston, Mass. 02108 Beacon Hill Meeting (Religious Society of Friends) The United States — all of us and the government that acts on behalf of the public good - we all need to support the biggest and most promising climate proposal to date — these new EPA regulations. The magnitude of the climate change threat requires bold national action. As a Cornell trained city and regional planner, I understand the importance of analyzing trends and preparing for the future. We know that to avoid the worst impact of warming, in 2009 at the Copenhagen Summit, the world agreed that the temperature should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius. That can be translated into gigatons of carbon — how much more carbon can be emitted before we exceed 2 degrees. That number is something more than 50o for all of us. That is our CARBON BUDGET - global emissions need to remain within this carbon budget. If current emissions levels stay the same, the planet's carbon budget will be exhausted by 2024-10 years from now—or even earlier if their upward trend continues. This is a climate crisis. If unchecked, fossil fuel companies will simply carry out their stated mission of selling and burning their reserves. What will be the climate impact? All models suggest we will far exceed the 2degree limit and we may expect global temperature to rise over 5° Celsius. What is the effect of 5 degrees increase?

• 2 degrees puts Amsterdam under water, 3-4 degrees puts NY under water, • oceans die as habitats • 75% of the sea ice will be gone • Italy, Spain and Greece will have become deserts • 40% of species are at risk for extinction at 3-4 degrees • it is unclear what species can survive a 5 degree increase I support the EPA's regulation of carbon and hope the state plans will center on renewable energy. Future generations, if we manage to pull this out of the fire, will find it incomprehensible that we Americans continued until well into the 21st century to engage in behavior that seriously compromised the habitability of our own country and the planet. May it be said of us that we did everything in our power to reverse the climate crisis while there is still some time left.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

GARY PAVLIC,

Petitioner

v.

JOHN F. BELL, ET AL.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 321 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of November, 2016

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 27, 2017

t0920

Order 

Clerk

September 27, 2017

155994

In re WILLIAMS, Minors. SC: 155994

COA: 335932

Macomb CC Family Div: 

 2012-000291-NA 2012-000292-NA

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 8, 2017 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

address whether the respondent-father was entitled, under the Michigan Indian Family 

Preservation Act, MCL 712B.1 et seq., to withdraw his consent to the termination of his 

parental rights for the purpose of adoption at any time before entry of a final order of 

adoption. MCL 712B.13(3). The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for 

each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).

The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Inter-Tribal Council of 

Michigan, Inc., United Tribes of Michigan, National Indian Child Welfare Association, 

Indigenous Law & Policy Center of the Michigan State University College of Law, and 

the Children’s Law, Family Law, and American Indian Law Sections of the State Bar of 

Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in 

the determination of the issue presented in this case may move the Court for permission 

to file briefs amicus curiae.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from the
December  31, 1998  financial  statements  and is  qualified  in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000795445
<NAME>                        ADVANCED MACHINE VISION CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4423
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4303
<ALLOWANCES>                                  230
<INVENTORY>                                  7379
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17231
<PP&E>                                       7967
<DEPRECIATION>                               2693
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5131
<BONDS>                                      7862
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                  2579
<COMMON>                                    24329
<OTHER-SE>                                 (10062)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29839
<SALES>                                     27041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27041
<CGS>                                       12585
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26193
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            689
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               159
<INCOME-TAX>                                (2083) <F1>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2242
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2242
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0.18
<FN>
<F1>
     Income tax includes a benefit from deferred income taxes of $2,100,000.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### § 3550.209 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:93cr4028-WS

KEITH LAPELL BIGGINS, 4:05cv443-WS

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 851)

docketed January 3, 2006. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

motion for relief from judgment be summarily denied. The defendant has filed

objections (doc. 854) to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record in light of the defendant’s objections, the court has

determined that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 851) is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

2. The defendant’s motion for relief from judgment (doc. 850) is hereby

summarily DENIED.

Case 4:93-cr-04028-WS-CAS Document 856 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:93cr4028-WS

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall close Case No.

4:05cv443-WS.

DONE AND ORDERED this January 30, 2006.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:93-cr-04028-WS-CAS Document 856 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 2
98-1768.

#### Wilson v. Mohr.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
*Friday, October 2, 1998*

MOTION DOCKET

98-921.

#### State v. Carter.

Trumbull C.P. No. 97CR558. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Trumbull County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for extension of time for transmission of record,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for extension of time for transmission of the record be, and hereby is, granted, and the time for transmitting the record is extended to October 8, 1998. No further extensions will be granted.
#### § 3565.210 Maximum interest rate.

The interest rate for a guaranteed loan must not exceed the maximum allowable rate specified by the Agency. This interest rate must be fixed over the term of the loan.

[84 FR 55036, Oct. 15, 2019]
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0184. WILLIE BENNETT v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

In this dispossessory action brought by Citimortgage, Inc., against Willie

Bennett, the magistrate court issued a writ of possession in favor of Citimortgage.

Bennett filed a number of motions in the magistrate court, which were ultimately

dismissed. Bennett then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the state court. On

October 31, 2016, the state court denied Bennett’s petition for certiorari. Bennett

sought discretionary appeal of this order on November 30, 2016. We lack jurisdiction

because Bennett’s application is untimely.

Generally, an application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days

of entry of the order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). But the underlying

subject matter of an appeal controls over the relief sought in determining the proper

appellate procedure. Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 467-468 (448 SE2d 192) (1994).

The underlying subject matter here is a dispossessory action. OCGA § 44-7-56

provides that an appeal from any dispossessory judgment must be filed within seven

days of the date the judgment was entered. See Ray M. Wright, Inc. v. Jones, 239 Ga.

App. 521, 522-523 (521 SE2d 456) (1999). Because Bennett’s application was filed

30 days after the state court’s October 31, 2016 order was entered, this application is

December 14, 2016
untimely. Accordingly, this application is hereby DISMISSED.

 

 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/14/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2573 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2573

     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow qualified 
  scholarship funding corporations to access tax-exempt financing for 
                   alternative private student loans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2013

Mr. Flores (for himself and Mr. Cuellar) 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 allow qualified 
  scholarship funding corporations to access tax-exempt financing for 
                   alternative private student loans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Student Loan Opportunity Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. QUALIFIED SCHOLARSHIP FUNDING CORPORATION TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING 
              FOR ALTERNATIVE PRIVATE STUDENT LOANS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 150(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``established and'' and 
``incurred under the Higher Education Act of 1965'' in subparagraph (A) 
thereof.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to bonds issued after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```