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


<ARTICLE>                            5

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                               1,456,794
<SECURITIES>                         000
<RECEIVABLES>                        000
<ALLOWANCES>                         000
<INVENTORY>                          000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     1,456,794
<PP&E>                               000
<DEPRECIATION>                       000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,456,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                1,620,172
<BONDS>                              000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                000
<PREFERRED>                          000
<COMMON>                             000
<OTHER-SE>                           (163,378)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         1,456,794
<SALES>                              000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     55,342
<CGS>                                000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     238,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (182,758)
<INCOME-TAX>                         000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (182,758)
<DISCONTINUED>                       000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      000
<CHANGES>                            000
<NET-INCOME>                         (182,758)
<EPS-BASIC>                        (.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.56)


</TABLE>
§ 21.5054 Dates of participation. ( a ) *General.* An individual may participate after December 31, 1976. An individual was not eligible for benefits before July 1, 1977, unless discharged after January 1, 1977, for a service-connected condition. The first date on which an individual on active duty enrolled in a course, courses or a program of education leading to a secondary school diploma or equivalency certificate may receive benefits is subject to the eligibility requirements of § 21.5040(f)(4) and (5). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3231 (a) and (b))
( b ) *Termination of right to begin participation.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, no individual on active duty in the Armed Forces may initially enroll after June 30, 1985.
( 2 ) An initial enrollment occurs when a serviceperson who has never contributed to the fund— ( i ) First makes a lump-sum payment to the fund, or
( ii ) First authorizes an allotment to VA for deposit in the fund. See 32 CFR 59.3(b)(10).
( 3 ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, any individual on active duty in the Armed Forces who was eligible to enroll on June 30, 1985, may enroll at any time during the period beginning on October 28, 1986, and ending on March 31, 1987.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3221(a), Pub. L. 99-576, sec. 309(c); Pub. L. 99-576)
[51 FR 2695, Jan. 21, 1986; 51 FR 12321, Apr. 10, 1986, as amended at 53 FR 34496, Sept. 7, 1988]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6757** 

BRUCE M. RICHARDSON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WARDEN OF TURB EVILLE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent s - Appellee s .

Appeal fro m the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Margaret B. Seymour , District Judge. ( 3:09

- cv - 01107

- MBS )

Submitted : February 10, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS , Circuit Judges, and H AMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Bruce M. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorneys General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opin ions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bruce M. Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and its subsequent order denying his motion to reconsider. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing o f the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of th e constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the d ispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisit e showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisi onal
process. DISMISSED
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****South Gillette area coal leaseapplications [electronic resource]: draft environmental impact statement**
 
SuDoc Number:I 53.59:SO 8/DRAFT

Item Number:0629-E-09 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000655781
 
Volumes: 01 | 02
 
April 2, 2020
§ 20.715 Rule 715. Loss of hearing recordings or transcripts—request for new hearing. ( a ) *Notification.* ( 1 ) The Board must notify the appellant and his or her representative in writing in the event the Board discovers that a Board hearing has not been recorded in whole or in part due to equipment failure or other cause, or the official transcript of the hearing is lost or destroyed and the recording upon which it was based is no longer available. The notice must provide the appellant with a choice of either of the following options: ( i ) Appear at a new Board hearing, pursuant to Rules 703 and 704 (§§ 20.703 and 20.704) for appeals or Rules 602 and 603 (§§ 20.602 and 20.603) for legacy appeals, as defined in § 19.2 of this chapter; or
( ii ) Have the Board proceed to appellate review of the appeal based on the evidence of record.
( 2 ) The notice will inform the appellant that he or she has a period of 30 days to respond to the notice. If the appellant does not respond by requesting a new hearing within 30 days from the date of the mailing of the notice, then the Board will decide the appeal on the basis of the evidence of record. A request for a new Board hearing will not be accepted once the Board has issued a decision on the appeal.
( b ) *Board decision issued prior to a loss of the recording or transcript.* The Board will not accept a request for a new Board hearing under this section if a Board decision was issued on an appeal prior to the loss of the recording or transcript of a Board hearing, and the Board decision considered testimony provided at that Board hearing.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102, 7105(a), 7107)
[84 FR 188, Jan. 18, 2019]
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 20, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00433

- CV

Patricia Brown EDWARDS,

Appellant

v.

Mayra Brown BURTON,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CI16821

Honorable Martha B. Tanner , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On December 16, 2021 , this court received appellant’s brief. The brief violates the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure in that it :

1. does not provide a complete list of all parties and counsel, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(a);

2. does not contain a table of contents, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(b);

3. does not contain an index of authorities, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(c);

4. does not contain a statement of the case, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(d);

5. does not contain issues presented, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(f);

6. does not contain a statement of facts, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(g);

7. does not contain any citations to the record, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(g), (i);

8. does not contain a summary of the argument, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(h);

9. does not contain clear and concise argument with citations to legal authority

, see T EX

.

R. A PP

. P. 38.1(i);

10. does not contain a short conclusion clearly stating the natu re of the relief sought,

see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(j);

11. does not contain an appendix including the necessary contents required by the Rules,

see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(k);

12. does not comply with the form requirements for briefs, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.4; and

13. does not certify proof of service, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.5(d)

– (e).It is therefore ORDERED that the brief filed by the appellant is STRICKEN from our

record. It is FURTHER ORDERED that appellant file an amended brief in compliance with the

Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure no later than January 19, 202 2 or this appeal will be

dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.9, 42.3.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of December, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
** **

** **

 

 

 

 

**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ParkwayProperties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Steven G. Rogers, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            /s/Steven G. Rogers                                                            

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            StevenG. Rogers (*) 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            President,Chief Executive Officer and Director 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            November4, 2009 

 

*    A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toParkway Properties, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

----
§ 42.16 Disqualification of reviewing official or ALJ. ( a ) A reviewing official or ALJ in a particular case may disqualify himself or herself at any time.
( b ) A party may file with the ALJ a motion for disqualification of a reviewing official or an ALJ. The motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit alleging personal bias or other reason for disqualification.
( c ) The motion and affidavit shall be filed promptly upon the party's discovery of reasons requiring disqualification, or such objections shall be deemed waived.
( d ) The affidavit shall state specific facts that support the party's belief that personal bias or other reason for disqualification exists and the time and circumstances of the party's discovery of the facts. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of the representative of record that it is made in good faith.
( e ) Upon the filing of the motion and affidavit, the ALJ shall proceed no further in the case until the ALJ resolves the matter of disqualification in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.
( f ) ( 1 ) If the ALJ determines that a reviewing official is disqualified, the ALJ shall dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
( 2 ) If the ALJ disqualifies himself or herself, the case shall be reassigned promptly to another ALJ.
( 3 ) If the ALJ denies a motion to disqualify, the Secretary may determine the matter only as part of the review of the initial decision upon appeal, if any.
§ 21.7658 False, late, or missing reports. ( a ) *Reservist.* Payments may not be based on false or misleading statements, claims or reports. VA will apply the provisions of §§ 21.4006 and 21.4007 of this part to a reservist or any other person who submits false or misleading claims, statements or reports in connection with benefits payable under 10 U.S.C. chapter 1606 in the same manner as they are applied to people who make similar false or misleading claims for benefits payable under 38 U.S.C. chapter 34 or 36. (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16136(b), 38 U.S.C. 3680, 3690, 6103; Pub. L. 98-525)
( b ) *Educational institution or training establishment.* ( 1 ) VA may hold an educational institution liable for overpayments which result from a willful or negligent: ( i ) Failure of the educational institution to report, excessive absences from a course or discontinuance or interruption of a course by a reservist; or
( ii ) False certification by the educational institution. See § 21.7644(c).
( 2 ) If an educational institution or training establishment willfully and knowingly submits a false report or certification, VA may disapprove that institution's or establishment's courses for further enrollments and may discontinue educational assistance to reservists already enrolled. In doing so, VA will apply §§ 21.4210 through 21.4216.
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16136(b); 38 U.S.C. 3690)
[53 FR 34740, Sept. 8, 1988, as amended at 61 FR 20729, May 8, 1996; 63 FR 35837, July 1, 1998]
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2016-4232 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2015-CE-043-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

#### § 36.4335 Delivery of notice.

Except where otherwise specified in this part, any notice required by §§ 36.4300 to 36.4380 to be given the Secretary must be in writing or such other communications medium as may be approved by an official designated in § 36.4345 and delivered, by mail or otherwise, to the VA office at which the guaranty or insurance was issued, or to any changed address of which the holder has been given notice. Such notice must plainly identify the case by setting forth the name of the original veteran-obligor and the file number assigned to the case by the Secretary, if available, or otherwise the name and serial number of the veteran. If mailed, the notice shall be by certified mail when so provided by §§ 36.4800 to 36.4880.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3703(c)(1))

[73 FR 6310, Feb. 1, 2008. Redesignated at 75 FR 33705, June 15, 2010, as amended at 80 FR 34319, June 16, 2015; 82 FR 11153, Feb. 21, 2017]
cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge 

Robert Earl Stewart 

Attorney General/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 

MEM WSW 1111M
#### § 18b.93 Expeditious treatment.

Requests for expeditious treatment of matters pending before the reviewing authority or the presiding officer are deemed communications on the merits, and are improper except when forwarded from parties to a proceeding and served upon all other parties thereto. Such communications should be in the form of a motion.
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

#### § 36.4502 Use of guaranty entitlement.

The guaranty entitlement of the veteran obtaining a direct loan which is closed on or after February 1, 1988, shall be charged with the lessor of the loan amount or an amount which bears the same ratio to $36,000 as the amount of the loan bears to $33,000. The charge against entitlement of a veteran who obtained a direct loan which was closed prior to the aforesaid date, shall be the amount which would have been charged had the loan been closed subsequent to such date.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3711(d)(2)(A))

[55 FR 40657, Oct. 4, 1990]
§ 19.52 Time limit for filing Notice of Disagreement, Substantive Appeal, and response to Supplemental Statement of the Case. ( a ) *Notice of Disagreement.* Except in the case of simultaneously contested claims, a claimant, or his or her representative, must file a Notice of Disagreement with a determination by the agency of original jurisdiction within one year from the date that that agency mails notice of the determination to him or her. Otherwise, that determination will become final. The date of mailing the letter of notification of the determination will be presumed to be the same as the date of that letter for purposes of determining whether an appeal has been timely filed. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1) (2016))
( b ) *Substantive Appeal* — ( 1 ) *General.* Except in the case of simultaneously contested claims, a Substantive Appeal must be filed within 60 days from the date that the agency of original jurisdiction mails the Statement of the Case to the appellant, or within the remainder of the 1-year period from the date of mailing of the notification of the determination being appealed, whichever period ends later. The date of mailing of the Statement of the Case will be presumed to be the same as the date of the Statement of the Case and the date of mailing the letter of notification of the determination will be presumed to be the same as the date of that letter for purposes of determining whether an appeal has been timely filed.
( 2 ) *Special rule in certain cases where additional evidence is submitted.* Except in the case of simultaneously contested claims, if ( i ) a claimant submits additional evidence within 1 year of the date of mailing of the notification of the determination being appealed, and
( ii ) that evidence requires, in accordance with § 19.31 of this title, that the claimant be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case, then the time to submit a Substantive Appeal shall end not sooner than 60 days after such Supplemental Statement of the Case is mailed to the appellant, even if the 60-day period extends beyond the expiration of the 1-year appeal period. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1), (d)(3) (2016))
( c ) *Response to Supplemental Statement of the Case.* Where a Supplemental Statement of the Case is furnished, a period of 30 days from the date of mailing of the Supplemental Statement of the Case will be allowed for response. The date of mailing of the Supplemental Statement of the Case will be presumed to be the same as the date of the Supplemental Statement of the Case for purposes of determining whether a response has been timely filed. Provided a Substantive Appeal has been timely filed in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the response to a Supplemental Statement of the Case is optional and is not required for the perfection of an appeal.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105(d)(3) (2016))
[57 FR 4109, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 66 FR 50318, Oct. 3, 2001; 68 FR 64806, Nov. 17, 2003; 73 FR 40748, July 16, 2008. Redesignated and amended at 84 FR 177, 179, Jan. 18, 2019]
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1.
    
    this Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2005 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2005
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Thor Industries, Inc.
 Date: November 28, 2005
    
    /s/
    
    Walter L. BennettWalter L. BennettExecutive Vice President,Secretary and Chief Financial Officer(principal financial and accounting officer)
 22
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0585

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

TAYLOR JAY DAMM,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 15, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 9 2024

02/09/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0585