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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         203,983
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,305,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                    48,134
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,836,831
<PP&E>                                       4,823,840
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,688,516
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,485,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,686,425
<BONDS>                                         87,057
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,057,430
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,654,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,485,145
<SALES>                                        673,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,400,007
<CGS>                                          286,588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,232,332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,608,888
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                32,088
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              61,012
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (336,814)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (89,291)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (247,523)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (51,389)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (298,912)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
#### § 102-75.1145 What action must the Federal agency receiving an offer of a conditional gift take?

Prior to notifying the appropriate GSA regional property disposal office, the receiving Federal agency must acknowledge receipt of the offer in writing and advise the donor that the offer will be referred to the appropriate GSA regional property disposal office. The receiving agency must not indicate acceptance or rejection of the gift on behalf of the United States at this time. The receiving agency must provide a copy of the acknowledgment with the notification and recommendation to the GSA regional property disposal office.
Exhibit 4.1


 


	 	 	 
	NUMBER	SHARES
	CERT.XXX	*******XXXXXXXX*******
	 	CUSIP G4760X 102 
	 	INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS	ORDINARY SHARES
	 	$0.00267 PAR VALUE ORDINARY SHARES	 
	 	 	 
	THIS CERTIFIES THAT	* SPECIMEN *	 
	 	 	 
	Is The Owner of	* XXXXXXXXXXXXX *	 




 





FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF
ORDINARY SHARES OF


Indonesia Energy Corporation Limited







 





Transferable on the books of
the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate
is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.







 


 





	Dated:	XXXXXXXXX	 
	 	 	 
	
        COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:

        VSTOCK TRANSFER, LLC
	 
	Transfer Agent and Registrar	 
	 	 


 


 


	 	 	Chief Executive Officer
	By:	 	 	 
	 	AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000108 05-SEP-2018 09:53 AM
#### § 762.28 Release of original disbursement postal money orders.

An original Disbursement Postal Money Order may be released to a responsible endorser only upon receipt of a properly authorized request showing the reason it is required.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7203

DONALD PEVIA , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN FRANK BISHOP; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen L. Hollander , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv - 01223

- ELH )

Submitted : May 27, 2020 Decided: June 15, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Donald Ray Pevia, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Donald Ray Pevia , Jr. , seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying rel ief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (201 8 ) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (201 8 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial s howing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (201 8 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pevia has not made the requisite 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 materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### § 102-75.220 Where should an agency send a request for exception to the 100 percent reimbursement requirement?

Agencies must submit all requests for exception from the 100 percent reimbursement requirement to the appropriate GSA regional property disposal office.
§ 105-60.1003 Acceptance of service of a subpoena duces tecum or other legal demand on behalf of the General Services Administration. ( a ) The Administrator of General Services and the following officials are the only GSA personnel authorized to accept service of a subpoena or other legal demand on behalf of GSA: The GSA General Counsel and Associate General Counsel(s) and, with respect to material or information which is the responsibility of a regional office, the Regional Administrator and Regional Counsel. The Inspector General and Counsel to the Inspector General, as well as the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board of Contract Appeals, are authorized to accept service for material or information which are the responsibility of their respective organizations.
( b ) A present or former GSA employee not authorized to accept service of a subpoena or other demand for material, information or testimony obtained in an official capacity shall respectfully inform the process server that he or she is not authorized to accept service on behalf of GSA and refer the process server to an appropriate official listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) A Regional Administrator or Regional Counsel shall notify the General Counsel of a demand which may raise policy concerns or affect multiple regions.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 590

To eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members of Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1999

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Ms. RIVERS, Mrs.

EMERSON, Mr. HOSTETTLER, and Mr. GOODE) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and

in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration

of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members of

Congress.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUST4 MENTS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

5 Section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act

6 of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is amended—

7 (1) by striking paragraph (2); and

8 (2) in paragraph (1)—
2

•HR 590 IH

1 (A) by striking ‘‘(1) The’’ and inserting

2 ‘‘The’’;

3 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A)

4 through (C) as paragraphs (1) through (3), re5 spectively; and

6 (C) by striking ‘‘, as adjusted by para7 graph (2) of this subsection’’.

Æ
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 81004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33157]

[[Page 81004]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7739]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Woman in Blue, Against Blue Water'' by Edvard Munch

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the object ``Woman 
in Blue, Against Blue Water'' by Edvard Munch, imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural 
significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit object at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 
York, N.Y., from on or about January 9, 2012, until on or about January 
9, 2014, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Ona 
M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department 
of State (telephone: (202) 632-6473). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, 
DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: December 19, 2011.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-33157 Filed 12-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
No. 10-11037.

#### Cervantes-Guerra *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 105-68.215 Which nonprocurement transactions are not covered transactions? The following types of nonprocurement transactions are not covered transactions: ( a ) A direct award to— ( 1 ) A foreign government or foreign governmental entity;
( 2 ) A public international organization;
( 3 ) An entity owned (in whole or in part) or controlled by a foreign government; or
( 4 ) Any other entity consisting wholly or partially of one or more foreign governments or foreign governmental entities.
( b ) A benefit to an individual as a personal entitlement without regard to the individual's present responsibility (but benefits received in an individual's business capacity are not excepted). For example, if a person receives social security benefits under the Supplemental Security Income provisions of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1301 *et seq.,* those benefits are not covered transactions and, therefore, are not affected if the person is excluded.
( c ) Federal employment.
( d ) A transaction that the General Services Administration needs to respond to a national or agency-recognized emergency or disaster.
( e ) A permit, license, certificate, or similar instrument issued as a means to regulate public health, safety, or the environment, unless the General Services Administration specifically designates it to be a covered transaction.
( f ) An incidental benefit that results from ordinary governmental operations.
( g ) Any other transaction if the application of an exclusion to the transaction is prohibited by law.
#### § 102-36.430 May we dispose of excess Munitions List Items (MLIs)/Commerce Control List Items (CCLIs)?

You may dispose of excess MLIs/CCLIs only when you comply with the additional disposal and demilitarization (DEMIL) requirements contained in part 101-42 of this title. MLIs may require demilitarization when issued to any non-DoD entity, and will require appropriate licensing when exported from the U.S. CCLIs usually require export licensing when transported from the U.S.
§ 101-25.301 General. ( a ) This subpart prescribes minimum use standards for certain Government-owned personal property which shall be applied by all executive agencies. Additional criteria above these minimum standards shall be established by each executive agency, limiting its property to the minimum requirements necessary for the efficient functioning of the particular office concerned. This subpart does not apply to automatic data processing equipment (ADPE) which is covered in the Federal Information Resources Management Regulation (FIRMR) (41 CFR Chapter 201).
( b ) Additional use standards should be established by all executive agencies for other Government-owned property under their control whenever use standards will effect economy and efficiency in the use of such property.
( c ) All items of property, determined to be excess to the needs of an agency as a result of the application of use standards, shall be promptly reported in accordance with part 101-43.
[29 FR 15993, Dec. 1, 1964, as amended at 61 FR 14978, Apr. 4, 1996]
#### § 105-74.100 What does this part do?

This part carries out the portion of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.,* as amended) that applies to grants. It also applies the provisions of the Act to cooperative agreements and other financial assistance awards, as a matter of Federal Government policy.
Exhibit 32


                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                     and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned, Roger S. Marcus, Chief
Executive Officer, and Howard N. Feist III, Chief Financial Officer, of American
Biltrite Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge: The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2007 of the Company as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 14, 2007
                                                /s/ Roger S. Marcus
                                                -----------------------
                                                Roger S. Marcus
                                                Chief Executive Officer


                                                /s/ Howard N. Feist III
                                                -----------------------
                                                Howard N. Feist III
                                                Chief Financial Officer
#### § 105-71.101 Scope of §§ 105-71.100 through 105-71.105.

This section contains general rules pertaining to this part and procedures for control of exceptions from this subpart.
#### § 128-50.001 Definitions.
Re: GRACE - mediation status report & map files

Nicholas Warren <NWarren@aclufl.org>

Fri 6/30/23 233 PM

To:Christopher N. Johnson <Christopher.Johnson@gray-robinson.com>;Jason Unger <jason.unger@grayrobinson.com>;George Levesque <George.Levesque@gray-robinson.com>

Cc:Daniel Tilley <dtilley@aclufl.org>;Carrie McNamara <CMcNamara@aclufl.org>;Christopher Merken

<christopher.merken@dechert.com>;Joe Dye <dyework54@gmail.com>;Gilbert Placeres

<gplaceres@jd25.law.harvard.edu>

Counsel,

We just received the final 6/14 transcript from our vendor. We'd be happy to share a copy if you agree to split t

$315 cost.

And, don't feel obligated to respond (to the extent you so felt) to my questions regarding the written reso

and presentment to the mayor. I see the final resolution was prepared after the vote, became effect

ago, and was finally posted online toda

We are still wondering how the map changed after the commission voted on it, but perhaps we'll learn about 

in your filin

Best,

Nick

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-20 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 705 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.705

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

                                 An Act

 
   To make technical corrections with respect to the monthly reports 
  submitted by the Postmaster General on official mail of the House of 
                            Representatives.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS REGARDING REPORTS BY POSTMASTER 
              GENERAL ON OFFICIAL MAIL OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

    (a) In General.--Section 311(b)(2) of the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 59e(b)(2)) is amended by striking 
``any person with an allocation under subsection (a)(2)'' and inserting 
the following: ``any person with an allocation under subsection 
(a)(2)(A) as to the amount that has been used and any person with an 
allocation under subsection (a)(2)(B)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to January 1999 and each succeeding month.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50107 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. FA BIAN FUENTES
- VAL DI VA, D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 3: 08- C R
- 2744- 1 B e fo r e W IE N E R , B E N AV ID E S , a n dS T E W A R T , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * Fab i an Fuen t e s - Val divaa ppe al s th e4 6
- m o n ths e n t e n c ei m p o s e df o l l o w i ng hi s c onvi c t i on f

ori l l egalr ee nt r y af

t erdepo r t at i on. H e a sse r t s t hatt he il l egal r e e nt r y G ui del i n es d o ubl e c o untade fe nda nt ’ s c r i m i nalr e c o r d, r e s ul t i ng i n a s e n t e n c i n gr a n g e t h a ti s g r e a t e rt h a nn e c e s s a r y t o me e tt h e g o a l s o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 355 3( a) . H e a lso a rg u e s that t h e gu i del i n es r an ge f or hi s s en t en ce w as t oo severe because i tfai l ed to ref l ectt h at hi s of

fen se i s not evi lor a cri m e of vi ol en ce United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 50107

2 an d becau se itfai l ed to c on si der t h at th e reason h e cam e back to t h e U n i t ed St at e s w as t o f

i nd wor k t o s upp o r thi s s o n. W e ha ve rej ect ed the argu m en tt h at usi n g a pri or c on vi ct i on t o i n crease th e o ffe n s e le v e l a n din c a lc u la tin gcr im in a l h is to r yis im p e r m is s ib le “d o u b le cou n ti n g.” Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Cal ba t , 2 6 6 F .3d 3 5 8 , 3 6 4 (5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). M oreover, F u en t es- V al diva h as not r ebu t t ed t h e presum pti on t h at th e di st ri ct court sentenced hi m t o a reasona bl e an d p roperl y cal cul ated w i t h i n - gu i del i n es s e n te n c e . Se e Uni t e d St at e s v . Campo s - Maldo nado , 5 3 1 F .3d 3 3 7 , 3 3 8 (5t h C ir.) , cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 3 2 8 (2 0 0 8 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lon zo , 435 F. 3d 551, 554- 55 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.
#### State of Iowa, appellee, v. Walter Merrick Jenkins, appellant.

No. 49010.

(Reported in 81 N.W.2d 653)

*595March 5, 1957.

Richard F. Stageman, of Council Bluffs, for appellant.

Norman A. Erbe, Attorney General, Freeman H. Forrest, Assistant Attorney General, and Matt Walsh, County Attorney, for appellee.

Hays, J.

Defendant-appellant was convicted of keeping a house of ill fame in violation of section 724.3, Code, 1954. On his appeal the sole error assigned is the giving of Instruction No. 11, the alleged error being there was no evidence in the record to support such instruction.

The instruction stated certain evidence had been received tending to prove the general reputation of the house and it should be considered with all the other facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence.

The record shows the Chief of Police, as a witness, testified as follows: “Q. Do’ you have an opinion as to the general reputation of that house? A. Yes. Q. What is that reputation? A. A house of ill repute. Q. It is a house of ill repute? A. In my opinion, yes.”

On motion, the last answer was stricken as being an opinion and conclusion.

As above set forth, there is evidence the general reputation is that of a house of ill repute, and to which no objection was interposed. The record warrants the instruction. State v. Neff, *596228 Iowa 383, 291 N.W. 415, is cited by appellant. There, in an arson case, an instruction stated there was evidence' of footprints “pointing toward and away from” the burned building, while the record made no mention of steps “pointing toward” the building. The case is of no aid to appellant.

Finding no error the judgment is affirmed. — Affirmed.

All Justices concur.