alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1.   | I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Crimson Exploration Inc.; |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Based on my knowledge, this 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 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.   | The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5.   | The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | May 12, 2011                          |   |
|-------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|        | /s/ Allan D. Keel                     |   |
| Name:       | Allan D. Keel                         |   |
| Title:      | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|        |                                  |   |
|        |                                  |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE GULFWEST
OIL COMPANY QUARTERLY REPORT FILED ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000813779
<NAME>                        0
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    0

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                        295,867
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 875,513
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   8,068
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,261,811
<PP&E>                        9,868,887
<DEPRECIATION>                2,565,607
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                8,784,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         8,824,572
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   143
<COMMON>                      3,461
<OTHER-SE>                    (1,910,527)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  8,784,207
<SALES>                       623,651
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              680,629
<CGS>                         567,055
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,834,499
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            419,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (1,568,240)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (1,568,240)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (1,568,240)
<EPS-BASIC>                 (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (.59)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6163
DE’SHON PITT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-02-1879-AM) Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 15, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. De’shon Pitt, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: De’shon Pitt, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pitt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pitt’s motion for 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
38626, 38627.

#### BYRAM v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT; and *vice versa.*

Nichols, Judge.

The State Highway Department filed a condemnation action in which it sought to condemn certain land owned by N. D. Byram. The petition sought to condemn the land under the procedure set forth in the Code providing for the appointment of assessors, one by the condemnor, one by the condemnee and one by those two assessors, or by the court in the event the first appointed assessors cannot agree on such third assessor. When the first appointed assessors could not agree upon a third assessor the court appointed such third assessor, but before such assessors could make their return the condemnor dismissed the proceeding without any prior approval of the court and thereafter, within a few days, filed a second condemnation proceeding to condemn the same land, but this time it sought to utilize the procedure provided by the General Assembly, whereby the amount of just and adequate *270compensation is determined by a “special master.” Thereafter, and before the “special master” appointed by the court could make any finding, the condemnee filed in the superior court a pleading, which properly denominated is a plea in abatement, whereby the condemnee sought to abate the second condemnation case because the dismissal of the first action was a nullity and because the cost in the first action had not been paid before the second condemnation case was filed. The condemnor demurred to such plea and thereafter the court overruled such demurrer, but, alter hearing evidence, dismissed the plea. The condemnee assigns error on the dismissal of his plea and the condemnor, in the cross-bill of exceptions, assigns error on the judgment overruling its demurrers. *Held:*

Decided March 7, 1961.

*Shirley C. Boykin, William P. Johnson, D. S. Strickland,*for plaintiff in error.

*Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Carter Goode, E. J. Summermerour, Assistant Attorneys-General, Eugene Brown,*contra.

*“*‘A judgment sustaining or overruling a plea in abatement is not such a final judgment as can be made the subject of a bill of exceptions to this court within *Code Ann.*§ 6-701.’ *Price v.*Stewart, 209 Ga. 339 (2) (72 S. E. 2d 459). See also *Gilbert v. Tippens,*183 Ga. 497 (2) (188 S. E. 699).” *Smith v. State,*214 Ga. 314 (2) (104 S. E. 2d 444). Accordingly, the main bill of exceptions must be dismissed. The main bill of exceptions being dismissed the cross-bill of exceptions must also be dismissed. See *Rich’s, Inc. v. Denmon,*101 Ga. App. 600 (114 S. E. 2d 462).

*Writs of error dismissed.*

*Felton, C. J., and, Bell, J., concur.*
Exhibit 23.1
                                                                 ------------

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the post effective amendment
No.1 registration statement on Form S-8 of 1st Independence Financial Group,
Inc. (Company) (333-113163) , the registration statement of the Company on
Form S-8 (333-118198) and the registration statement of the Company on
Form S-8 (333-136725) of our report dated March 23, 2007, appearing in the
annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006.


/s/ BKD, LLP

Louisville, Kentucky
March 23, 2007
#### Justan et al. v. Rodgers Motor Lines, Inc.

*488
      *Jerome E. Parker,*for plaintiffs.

*Leach & Lenahan,*for defendant.

April 4, 1951.

Robinson J.,

— Plaintiffs, as consignees of a shipment of fresh meat, declared against defendant motor carrier, alleging breach of a contract of carriage. Plaintiffs averred that defendant accepted the perishable cargo in New York City; that defendant undertook to deliver it to plaintiffs in Scranton, this county, on the following morning; that by reason of a two-day delay, in the delivery of the shipment* the meat spoiled causing plaintiffs a loss of $250.55, the value of the cargo.

Defendant objected preliminarily, contending that the terms of the shipping contract are illegal and unenforcible in that it provides for “extremely fast delivery” and “special terms” which are violative of the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act. The objections were coupled with a motion for judgment.

The illegality does not appear from the allegations of the complaint and whether the transaction is illegal because of a departure by the carrier from its filed tariffs and certificated services resulting in a shipper’s preference is a matter yet to be brought upon the record.

Pa. R. C. P. 1030 provides that: “The defenses of . . . illegality . . . shall be pleaded in a responsive pleading under the heading *‘New*Matter’.” Thus, defendant is required to plead by way of answer the factual material relied upon by way of defense. Plaintiff is not compelled to anticipate possible defenses in drawing the complaint.

Now, April 4, 1951, the preliminary objections are overruled, the motion for judgment for defendant is denied and defendant is allowed 20 days to file an answer.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. PATRICK JOHN ROPE, a.k.a. Patrick Rope,
Defendant

- Appellant. No. 14

- 10460
D.C. No. 2:09

- cr - 01400

- SRB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 2 5 , 2015 **

Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Patrick Rope appeals the 24

- month sentence imposed upon revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rope argues t hat the district court procedural ly erred by fa iling to calculate

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 2 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 10460

the Guidelines range and to explain why it was imposing an above

- Guidelines

sentence

. We review for plain error. S ee United States v. Hammons , 558 F.3d

110 0, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009)

. The district court erred when it failed to calculate the
Guidelines range. See id. at 1105. The record reflect s , however, that the court

was aware of the Guidelines range and its explanation for the sentence was
adequate. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc.)
Thus, Rope has failed to show a reasonable probability that he would have

received a different sentence absent the error

. See United States v. Tapia , 665
F.3d 1059, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011). Moreover, the record does not support Rope’s
contention that the district court imposed the sentence to punish Rope’s violation

conduct or previous criminal acts

. Rope also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The

district court did not abuse its discretion

. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38,

51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 358 3(e) factors and the totality of t he circumstances , including Rope’s breach of
the court’s trust and the need to protect the public

. See id.; United States v.

Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 1062

- 63 (9th Cir. 2007)

.
AFFIR MED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**FIRST MARINER BANCORPCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuantto, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Mark A. Keidel, ChiefFinancial Officer of First Mariner Bancorp (the “Company”) hereby certify that(i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Dated: March 16, 2007 |   | /s/ Mark A. Keidel      |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                       |   | Mark A. Keidel          |
|                       |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Prices: A Chartbook, 1953-62: Supplement

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Prices: A Chartbook, 1953-62: Supplement : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1351-1*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										September 1963,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4819,			accessed on September 26, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Editorial Note on Part 312
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 312 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 312.52 Transfer of obligations to a contract research organization. ( a ) A sponsor may transfer responsibility for any or all of the obligations set forth in this part to a contract research organization. Any such transfer shall be described in writing. If not all obligations are transferred, the writing is required to describe each of the obligations being assumed by the contract research organization. If all obligations are transferred, a general statement that all obligations have been transferred is acceptable. Any obligation not covered by the written description shall be deemed not to have been transferred.
( b ) A contract research organization that assumes any obligation of a sponsor shall comply with the specific regulations in this chapter applicable to this obligation and shall be subject to the same regulatory action as a sponsor for failure to comply with any obligation assumed under these regulations. Thus, all references to “sponsor” in this part apply to a contract research organization to the extent that it assumes one or more obligations of the sponsor.
Argued and submitted July 12,

vacated in part; otherwise affirmed November 24, 1999

#### JONATHAN W. PETERSEN, *Appellant, v.*Dave COOK, Director, Oregon Department of Corrections, *Respondent.*

(97-02-28552M; CA A103196)

990 P2d 931

Bob Pangburn filed the brief for appellant.

David J. Amesbury, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Before De Muniz, Presiding Judge, and Haselton and Wollheim, Judges.

WOLLHEIM, J.

*242WOLLIIEIM, J.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s judgment requiring him to pay $992.50 for the cost of his court-appointed attorney in the underlying habeas corpus proceeding. The trial court imposed that judgment for costs pursuant to ORS 161.665.1 With two exceptions, this case is indistinguishable from *Alexander v. Johnson,*164 Or App 235, 990 P2d 929 (1999). First, this case arises from a habeas corpus proceeding rather than a post-conviction proceeding; however, that difference does not alter our analysis of the applicable statutes. Second, in our judgment affirming the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs habeas corpus proceeding, we instructed the trial court that it could exercise its discretion under ORS 161.665 to include expenses and compensation for plaintiffs court-appointed counsel in the final judgment. We erred in so instructing the trial court. We conclude that neither ORS 161.665 nor any other statute authorized the judgment of costs in this action and that the court’s imposition of those costs was error apparent on the face of the record. *See Alexander.*Accordingly, we vacate the judgment for costs of $992.50.

Judgment imposing expenses and compensation for court-appointed attorney in amount of $992.50 vacated; otherwise affirmed.

1

 ORS 161.665 provides, in part:

> “(1) Except as provided in ORS 151.505, the court, only in the case of a defendant for whom it enters a judgment of conviction, may include in its sentence thereunder a provision that the convicted defendant shall pay as costs expenses specially incurred by the state in prosecuting the defendant. Costs include a reasonable attorney fee for counsel appointed pursuant to ORS 135.045 or 135.050 and a reasonable amount for expenses approved under ORS 135.055. * * *

> “(2) Except as provided in ORS 151.505, the court, after the conclusion of an appeal of its initial judgment of conviction, may include in its final judgment or modify the judgment to include a requirement that a convicted defendant pay as costs a reasonable attorney fee for counsel appointed pursuant to ORS 138.500 * * *.

> “(3) The court shall not sentence a defendant to pay costs under this section unless the defendant is or may be able to pay them. In determining the amount and method of payment of costs, the court shall take account of the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of costs will impose.”
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 09059

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name Description

x 09059\09059_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09059\09059_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

09059\09059_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 09059\09059_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09059\09059_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09059\09059_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09059\09059_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09059\09059_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

09059\Certification Statement Plant ID 09059.pdf Plant certification statement

x 09059\Supplemental Documents\09059_BP_A5-2 Maps.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09059\Supplemental Documents\09059_BP_A5-3 Water Balance Diagrams.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09059\Supplemental Documents\09059_BP_C2-31_FAS-all units.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09059\Supplemental Documents\09059_BP_D4-22_Basin 3 Closure.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09059\Supplemental Documents\09059_BP_D4-22_landfill closure plan.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09059\Supplemental Documents\09059_BP_D4-24_GW mon plans.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09059\09059_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
§ 212.71 What actions must I take if a batch of PET drug product does not conform to specifications? ( a ) *Rejection of nonconforming product.* You must reject a batch of a PET drug product that does not conform to specifications. You must have and follow procedures to identify and segregate the product to avoid mix-ups. You must have and follow procedures to investigate the cause(s) of the nonconforming product. The investigation must include, but is not limited to, examination of processes, operations, records, complaints, and any other relevant sources of information concerning the nonconforming product.
( b ) *Investigation.* You must document the investigation of a PET drug product that does not meet specifications, including the results of the investigation and what happened to the rejected PET drug product.
( c ) *Correction of problems.* You must take action to correct any identified problems to prevent recurrence of a nonconforming product or other quality problem.
( d ) *Reprocessing.* If appropriate, you may reprocess a batch of a PET drug product that does not conform to specifications. If material that does not meet acceptance criteria is reprocessed, you must follow procedures stated in the product's approved application and the finished product must conform to specifications, except for sterility, before final release.