alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1303 Scope.

The provisions of this subpart shall apply to all Commission actions that may or will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. To the extent that other provisions of the Commission's rules and regulations are inconsistent with the subpart, the provisions of this subpart shall govern.

[55 FR 20396, May 16, 1990]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM fORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED sEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,002
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                        75
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,862
<PP&E>                                             587
<DEPRECIATION>                                      96
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,163
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,615
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,620
<SALES>                                         33,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,514
<CGS>                                           28,690
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (29)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,517
<INCOME-TAX>                                       610
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                907
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       907
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001003936
<NAME> PITTSBURGH HOME FINANCIAL CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,959,659
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,516,522
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             1,415,291
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                130,208,910
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      10,000,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        10,033,700
<LOANS>                                    213,718,898
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,737,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             374,278,724
<DEPOSITS>                                 153,982,999
<SHORT-TERM>                                12,700,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,286,655
<LONG-TERM>                                167,566,730
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,821
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,777,644
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             374,278,724
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             16,028,442
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            7,986,277
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               399,666
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            24,414,385
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           6,945,652
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          16,513,541
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        7,900,844
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  610,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            (21,873)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,114,038
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,786,004
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,901,518
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.51
<LOANS-NON>                                  3,214,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 3,214,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,419,196
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  363,393
<RECOVERIES>                                    72,170
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,737,973
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-153.

#### Keles *v.*Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York et al.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 

January 25, 2019

a0124d

Order 

Clerk

January 25, 2019

157930(6)

IN THE MATTER OF 

THERESA M. BRENNAN, JUDGE

53rd DISTRICT COURT SC: 157930

Formal Complaint No. 99

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION

____________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The petition for interim suspension is considered, and it is DENIED without prejudice to 

the filing of a petition for interim suspension by the Judicial Tenure Commission. 

Section 30(2) of Article 6 of the 1963 Constitution provides that the Court may take 

certain disciplinary actions against a judge only “[o]n recommendation of the judicial 

tenure commission . . . .” In In re Hathaway, 464 Mich 672, 683 (2001), we noted that 

when the “commission comes to this Court with a recommendation for discipline, it 

invokes the Court’s jurisdiction under Const 1963, art 6, § 30(2) . . . .” (Emphasis 

added.) It is the invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction by the commission that gives the 

Court authority to act. Id. Further, MCR 9.219(A)(1) provides only that “the 

commission may petition the Supreme Court” for an order suspending a judge until final 

adjudication of the complaint. 

The petition before the Court was not filed on behalf of the commission. Rather, 

the petition was filed by the Judicial Tenure Commission “Deputy Executive Director, 

with the permission of the Commission . . . .” Indeed, the commission’s January 9, 2019 

order “expresse[d] no opinion regarding . . . the substance and/or merits of the 

Examiner’s motion for interim suspension . . . .” Accordingly, there is no 

recommendation or petition from the commission before the Court.
No. 11-5147.

#### Moran *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24 - 0094 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOEL WESLEY SPEISER,

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 October 7 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 3 2024

09/03/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0094
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Wyeth (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30,
2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2005 (the
Report), I,
Robert Essner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1)  
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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 of the
Company.

|Dated: November 7,
2005 |  | By: /s/           
         Robert Essner
     

           
               
    Robert Essner
       Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Section
      1350**


**CERTIFICATION**








The
      undersigned officer hereby certifies
      that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE
      Corporation for the quarter endedSeptember 30,
      2007 as to which this Certification is
      an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the
      information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of COMFORCE
      Corporation.








SignedNovember
      6,2007.








Harry
                V. MaccarroneExecutive
                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
JUDICIARY SALARY PLAN

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA - Table DCB

33.26% Locality Payment Included

Effective January 1, 2024

Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 $29,299 $30,282 $31,255 $32,226 $33,198 $33,767 $34,732 $35,703 $35,742 $36,649

2 $32,945 $33,728 $34,820 $35,742 $36,145 $37,209 $38,272 $39,336 $40,399 $41,463

3 $35,947 $37,145 $38,343 $39,541 $40,739 $41,937 $43,135 $44,333 $45,531 $46,729

4 $40,351 $41,696 $43,040 $44,385 $45,730 $47,074 $48,419 $49,763 $51,108 $52,452

5 $45,146 $46,650 $48,155 $49,659 $51,164 $52,668 $54,173 $55,677 $57,182 $58,686

6 $50,326 $52,003 $53,681 $55,359 $57,037 $58,714 $60,392 $62,070 $63,748 $65,425

7 $55,924 $57,788 $59,653 $61,517 $63,381 $65,245 $67,110 $68,974 $70,838 $72,703

8 $61,933 $63,997 $66,061 $68,125 $70,189 $72,254 $74,318 $76,382 $78,446 $80,510

9 $68,405 $70,685 $72,965 $75,245 $77,525 $79,805 $82,085 $84,366 $86,646 $88,926

10 $75,329 $77,840 $80,350 $82,861 $85,372 $87,882 $90,393 $92,904 $95,414 $97,925

11 $82,764 $85,522 $88,281 $91,039 $93,798 $96,556 $99,315 $102,073 $104,832 $107,590

12 $99,200 $102,506 $105,812 $109,119 $112,425 $115,731 $119,037 $122,343 $125,650 $128,956

13 $117,962 $121,894 $125,827 $129,759 $133,692 $137,624 $141,557 $145,489 $149,422 $153,354

14 $139,395 $144,042 $148,689 $153,336 $157,982 $162,629 $167,276 $171,923 $176,570 $181,216

15 $163,964 $169,429 $174,894 $180,359 $185,824 $191,289 $191,900 ** $191,900 ** $191,900 ** $191,900 **

16 $192,301 $198,711 $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 *

17 $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 *

18 $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 * $204,000 *

** Rate limited to the rate for Level IV of the Executive Schedule.

* Rate limited to the rate for Level III of the Executive Schedule.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4810

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARVIN ALEXANDER WRIGHT,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. 

Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:11-cr-00350-RMG-1)

Submitted: November 24, 2020 Decided: December 22, 2020

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kimberly H. Albro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL 

PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Peter M. McCoy, Jr., 

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Nick Bianchi, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Wright appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and 

imposition of 60 months’ imprisonment. Wright raises two arguments on appeal: The 

government erroneously withheld certain evidence in violation of Wright’s due process 

rights, and insufficient evidence supported the district court’s conclusion that Wright 

possessed drugs. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Supervised release revocation hearings are not “criminal prosecutions” under the 

Sixth Amendment. United States v. Ward, 770 F.3d 1090, 1097 (4th Cir. 2014). “[T]hus, 

the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply to [supervised 

release] revocations.” Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972). Here, Wright was

only entitled to the “minimum requirements of due process” and the requirements of 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2). See id. at 488–89; Ward, 770 F.3d at 1098. 

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court’s discovery orders provided 

for sufficient due process and, to the extent Wright identified evidence that the district court 

declined to provide, the court did not err in denying Wright’s requests.

Turning to Wright’s sufficiency argument, we review the district court’s revocation 

of supervised release for abuse of discretion and its factual determinations underlying the 

conclusion that a violation occurred for clear error. United States v. Dennison, 925 F.3d 

185, 190 (4th Cir. 2019). A district court need only find a supervised release violation by 

a preponderance of the evidence. Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)). Based on our review 

of the record, we conclude that there was ample evidence adduced at the revocation hearing 

from which the district court could conclude that Wright possessed the drugs at issue. 
3

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral 

arguments because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 51-9.101-2 Standards of accuracy.

The Executive Director shall ensure that all records which are used by the agency to make determinations about any individual are maintained with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual. Upon petition by an individual, the Executive Director shall provide the individual with the opportunity to review his records, and to request amendment of a portion which the individual believes is not accurate, relevant, timely or complete. Prior to dissemination of records about any individual to any person or to another agency, exclusive of disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the Executive Director shall make reasonable effort to ensure that such records are accurate, complete, timely, and relevant.
§ 109-38.105 Agency purchase and lease of motor vehicles. ( a ) DOE activities shall submit a copy of all motor vehicle leases and purchases not procured through the GSA Automotive Commodity Center to GSA.
( b ) - ( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) DOE activities desiring to renew a commercial lease shall submit the requirement in writing to the Office of Management for approval prior to submission by field offices to GSA.
( e ) DOE activities shall submit a copy of all lease agreements to GSA.
# Comments on: 22-1937: TRILLER, INC. v. BYTEDANCE LTD. [ORDER], Nonprecedential
west virginla department of environmental protection SIGN-IN SHEET 

Public Hearing on proposed 2015 Division of Air Quality Rules 45CSR14,45CSR16,45CSR25,45CSMO and 45CSR34 

Jdy 7,2014,6:00 p,m. 

The Department of Environmental Protection asks for the information below so that agency staff may provide responses and information about 

decisions to you. The information you voluntarily provide on this sheet becomes part of the public record related to this topic and may be released if 

requested under the Freedom of Information Act. 

. .. 

Name (please print) 

I 

Address E-mail 1 Co-at 

I I I I 

Promoting a healthy environment.
#### § 60-4.9 Incorporation by operation of the order.

By operation of the order, the equal opportunity clause contained in § 60-1.4, the Notice of Requirement for Affirmative Action to Ensure Equal Employment Opportunity (Executive Order 11246) contained in § 60-4.2, and the Standard Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Construction Contract Specifications (Executive Order 11246) contained in § 60-4.3 shall be deemed to be a part of every solicitation or of every contract and subcontract, as appropriate, required by the order and the regulations in this chapter to include such clauses whether or not they are physically incorporated in such solicitation or contract and whether or not the contract is written.
# Comments on: Notice of Upcoming Modifications to Clerk’s Office Procedures
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16565]



[[Page 40623]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2448-000]


LSP-Nelson Energy, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 26, 2000.
    LSP-Nelson Energy, LLC (LSP-Nelson) submitted for filing a rate 
schedule under which LSP-Nelson will engage in wholesale electric power 
and energy transactions as a marketer. LSP-Nelson also requested waiver 
of various Commission regulations. In particular, NSP-Nelson requested 
that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 35 of all 
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by LSP-
Nelson.
    On June 22, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by LSP-Nelson should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, LSP-Nelson is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of LSP-Nelson's issuance of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is July 24, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, 
DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

      
David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16565 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### § 50-205.4 Plan of cooperation.

Each agreement under this part shall incorporate a plan of cooperation between the Department of Labor and the State agency. The plan shall include the operative details of the cooperation contemplated in the making of safety and health inspections. The plan shall include a statement of the location of the State offices designated to make inspections and those of the Department of Labor designated to cooperate with such State offices.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439

PETER R. MARKSTEINER

CLERK OF COURT

CLERK’S OFFICE

202-275-8000

March 20, 2020

Notice of Modified Filing Procedures for Pro Se Parties

Pursuant to the court’s March 20, 2020 Administrative Order, the Clerk’s Office has 

implemented the following temporary procedures for pro se/unrepresented parties. 

1. Filings by Email or Facsimile. All documents, including new appeals or 

petitions, can be submitted by email to prose@cafc.uscourts.gov or by facsimile to 

202-275-9678. Filings will still be accepted by mail or by deposit at the court’s 

night box in Washington, D.C. 

The Clerk’s Office will only accept for filing documents emailed to 

prose@cafc.uscourts.gov. Documents emailed to other court email 

addresses will not be accepted for filing and will receive no response.

Parties who either do not comply with or misuse these procedures may 

have their email or facsimile filing privileges restricted or revoked.

2. Filing Date. The filing date of any document submitted by email or by 

facsimile will be the date received by the Clerk’s Office. The filing date of email 

submissions will be the system date on the court’s email server. The filing date 

of facsimile submissions will be the machine date stamp on the facsimile print 

out.

3. Service Date. Service of documents filed by email or by facsimile will be 

completed by the clerk of court on the date the document is entered on the 

docket. Responsive deadlines for documents submitted under this procedure will 

be calculated from the date of service by the court’s electronic filing system.

4. Signatures. Documents submitted by email or facsimile will be deemed signed 

if the document includes either (1) an original signature or (2) /s/ preceding the 

filers name if the name matches that of the pro se party.

5. Fee Payments. For litigants who cannot access the mail, the Clerk’s Office will

accept payment over the phone at 202-275-8000. Please do not email credit 

card or bank account information.

6. Questions. Please email prose@cafc.uscourts.gov with questions about these 

procedures.