alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SALARY TABLE 2013-GS 

RATES FROZEN AT 2010 LEVELS 

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2013 

Hourly Basic (B) Rates by Grade and Step 

Hourly Overtime (O) Rates by Grade and Step 

Grade B/O Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 

1 B $ 8.53 $ 8.82 $ 9.10 $ 9.38 $ 9.67 $ 9.83 $ 10.11 $ 10.39 $ 10.41 $ 10.67 

O 12.80 13.23 13.65 14.07 14.51 14.75 15.17 15.59 15.62 16.01 

2 B 9.59 9.82 10.14 10.41 10.52 10.83 11.14 11.45 11.76 12.07 

O 14.39 14.73 15.21 15.62 15.78 16.25 16.71 17.18 17.64 18.11 

3 B 10.46 10.81 11.16 11.51 11.86 12.21 12.56 12.91 13.26 13.60 

O 15.69 16.22 16.74 17.27 17.79 18.32 18.84 19.37 19.89 20.40 

4 B 11.75 12.14 12.53 12.92 13.31 13.71 14.10 14.49 14.88 15.27 

O 17.63 18.21 18.80 19.38 19.97 20.57 21.15 21.74 22.32 22.91 

5 B 13.14 13.58 14.02 14.46 14.90 15.33 15.77 16.21 16.65 17.09 

O 19.71 20.37 21.03 21.69 22.35 23.00 23.66 24.32 24.98 25.64 

6 B 14.65 15.14 15.63 16.12 16.60 17.09 17.58 18.07 18.56 19.05 

O 21.98 22.71 23.45 24.18 24.90 25.64 26.37 27.11 27.84 28.58 

7 B 16.28 16.82 17.37 17.91 18.45 19.00 19.54 20.08 20.62 21.17 

O 24.42 25.23 26.06 26.87 27.68 28.50 29.31 30.12 30.93 31.76 

8 B 18.03 18.63 19.23 19.83 20.43 21.04 21.64 22.24 22.84 23.44 

O 27.05 27.95 28.85 29.75 30.65 31.56 32.46 32.90 32.90 32.90 

9 B 19.92 20.58 21.24 21.91 22.57 23.23 23.90 24.56 25.22 25.89 

O 29.88 30.87 31.86 32.87 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 

10 B 21.93 22.66 23.39 24.13 24.86 25.59 26.32 27.05 27.78 28.51 

O 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 

11 B 24.10 24.90 25.70 26.50 27.31 28.11 28.91 29.72 30.52 31.32 

O 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 

12 B 28.88 29.84 30.81 31.77 32.73 33.69 34.66 35.62 36.58 37.54 

O 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 33.69 34.66 35.62 36.58 37.54 

13 B 34.34 35.49 36.63 37.78 38.92 40.07 41.21 42.36 43.50 44.65 

O 34.34 35.49 36.63 37.78 38.92 40.07 41.21 42.36 43.50 44.65 

14 B 40.58 41.94 43.29 44.64 45.99 47.35 48.70 50.05 51.40 52.76 

O 40.58 41.94 43.29 44.64 45.99 47.35 48.70 50.05 51.40 52.76 

15 B 47.74 49.33 50.92 52.51 54.10 55.69 57.29 58.88 60.47 62.06 

O 47.74 49.33 50.92 52.51 54.10 55.69 57.29 58.88 60.47 62.06 

Applicable locations are shown on the 2013 Locality Pay Area Definitions page: http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/

salaries-wages/2013/locality-pay-area-definitions/
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6671

RICK WAYNE BOBLETT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-95-489-R)

Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rick Wayne Boblett, Appellant Pro Se. Robert B. Condon, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current

version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable

cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. Boblett v. Virginia Dep't of Corrections, No. CA95-489-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 13, 1995). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S.

___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Spectrum Realty,Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, William J. Carden, President, Chief Executive Officer and ActingChief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of theCompany as of the dates indicated and results of operations of the Company forthe period indicated.

 
| */s/ William J. Carden*            |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| William J. Carden                  |
| President, Chief Executive Officer |
| and Acting Chief Financial Officer |

 

April 29, 2004

 

----
#### Jessie R. RANDALL v. RORAN CORPORATION et al.

No. 61813.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 7, 1978.

In re: Jessie R. Randall applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of *4Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 354 So.2d 1060.

Writ denied.
No. 44358.

#### Protests 948915-G (A), etc., of Edward & John Burke et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same as-that passed upon in *Burke*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 276, C. D. 253). The. claim at $2.50 per gallon under paragraph 802 was therefore sustained.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50699 Summary Calendar

__________________ KEITH O. YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus SONYA A. ALEXANDER, ET AL. Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of USDC No. A-95-CV-190
- - - - - - - - - - February 12, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Keith O. Young appeals the dismissal of his suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Young contends that the defendants violated various federal statutes by keeping improper records and by not releasing records to him. We have reviewed the record and Young's brief and AFFIRM the district court's dismissal for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court. Young v. Alexander , No. A-95-CA-190 (W.D. Tex. August 8, 1995).
No. 96-5803.

#### Rojas *v.*Ohio.

Ct. App. Ohio, Hamilton County. Certiorari denied.
No. 00-6731.

#### Pittman *v.*Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO





SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Report of China Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Qinan Ji, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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.





Date:
September 30, 2010





/s/
      Qinan JiQinan
      Ji, Principal Executive Officer
#### Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 8121.

Entry No. 10329.

*668(Decided June 3, 1952)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto:

> That the merchandise covered by the above-entitled appeal to reappraisement, consists of certain earthenware exported from Italy.

> That on or about the dates of exportation of such merchandise, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of Italy in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever natura and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States at the entered values, less the amount added under duress.

> That on or about the dates of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Italy or, if so offered, the price for home consumption was no higher.

> That the above-entitled appeal to reappraisement is limited to certain earthenware and is abandoned as to any other kind of merchandise.

> That the appeal to reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation. : ■

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware here involved, and that such values were the entered values, less the amount added under duress.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 99-1106.

#### Bastian et al. *v.*International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2

I, Arnold Gans, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Medical Nutrition
USA, 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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

      4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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)) for the small
business issuer and have:

            a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

            b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

            c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of this annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

            a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

            b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 28, 2004


/s/ Arnold Gans
-----------------------------------
Arnold Gans
Chief Financial Officer
#### S & S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. J. W. GUNN et al.

No. 49474.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 25, 1977.

Price & Krohn, James E. Price, Corinth, for appellants.

Marion D. Roten, Thomas E. Pegram, Jr., Ripley, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Tippah County; William H. Anderson, Chancellor.

Before PATTERSON, P. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA Disposition Services’ expeditionary team puts excess property in its place

By DLA Public AffairsDLA Public Affairs

                Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo  –              
When the military has excess property and needs it properly accounted for and turned in, they go to DLA Disposition Services; and if it needs to be done quickly and aggressively, they contact the “dog,” otherwise known as the DLA Disposition Services’ Expeditionary Site Support team. There are five sets that can be deployed for military and humanitarian use. Visit the DLA Disposition Services website for more details.:

                                                                               

                                                                                                      View the video on You Tube

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Disposition ServicesDLA Disposition Services’ Expeditionary Site Support teamDeploy the Dogexcess property disposal
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1246 

To require the Secretary of Education to revise regulations regarding student 

loan repayment deferment with respect to borrowers who are in postgraduate medical or dental internship, residency, or fellowship programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 14, 2005 

Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. KERRY, and Mr. FEINGOLD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Education to revise regulations 

regarding student loan repayment deferment with respect 

to borrowers who are in postgraduate medical or dental 

internship, residency, or fellowship programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medical Education Af5 fordability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REGULATION REVISION REQUIRED. 

7 (a) ACTION REQUIRED.—Not later than 90 days 

8 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
2 

•S 1246 IS

1 Education shall revise the regulations of the Department 

2 of Education that are promulgated to carry out the provi3 sions relating to student loan repayment deferment under 

4 the Federal Family Education Loan Program under part 

5 B of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

6 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.), the William D. Ford Federal Direct 

7 Loan Program under part D of title IV of such Act (20 

8 U.S.C. 1087a et seq.), and the Federal Perkins Loan Pro9 gram under part E of title IV of such Act (20 U.S.C. 

10 1087aa et seq.), which are promulgated under sections 

11 682.210, 685.204, and 674.34 of title 34, Code of Federal 

12 Regulations, to comply with the requirements of sub13 section (b). 

14 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—The student loan repayment 

15 deferment regulations shall be revised to provide, with re16 spect to a borrower who is in a postgraduate medical or 

17 dental internship, residency, or fellowship program, that 

18 if the borrower qualifies for student loan repayment 

19 deferment under the economic hardship provision— 

20 (1) the deferment shall be available for the 

21 length of the internship, residency, or fellowship pro22 gram if the program— 

23 (A) must be successfully completed by the 

24 borrower before the borrower may begin profes25 sional practice or service; or 
3 

•S 1246 IS

1 (B) leads to a degree or certificate award2 ed by a health professional school, hospital, or 

3 health care facility that offers postgraduate 

4 training; and 

5 (2) the borrower shall not be required to apply 

6 annually for such student loan repayment deferment 

7 during the length of the program. 

Æ
#### Marion Alvertis YEARTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-21.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1978.

*77Philip G. Butler, Jr., of Foley, Colton & Butler, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler and Glenn H. Mitchell, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ALDERMAN, Chief Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction for shooting into a building in violation of Section 790.19, Florida Statutes (1975). The only issue raised is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. We hold that the defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that the error complained of injuriously affected his substantial rights.

The defendant pled not guilty. After a jury was empaneled the defendant filed a written motion to suppress. The trial court, out of the presence of the jury, held a suppression hearing and denied the motion. The trial then proceeded and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The defendant provided us with a transcript of the suppression hearing, but failed to give us a transcript of the trial.

Even if we were to conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress, without the trial transcript we cannot be sure, and cannot presume, that the error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant.1 This case is distinguishable from the situation where a defendant, after an adverse ruling on his motion to suppress, withdraws his plea of not guilty and enters a plea of nolo conten-dere, reserving his right to appeal. In that situation the only testimony presented is at the suppression hearing. In the present case the defendant did not change his plea; instead he elected to proceed with the trial, he was found guilty and now he is appealing his conviction.

AFFIRMED.

CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.

1

. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975), provides:

> No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Apellant contends that his attorney and the attorney for the State, prior to the preparation of the record-on-appeal, orally agreed between themselves that a transcript of the trial proceedings was not ne-cesary for this appeal, that the State would accept the statement of facts as set out in appellant’s brief, and that the State would not raise the issue of “harmless” error. This court was not advised. Appellant now seeks a rehearing and an opportunity to supplement the record. We deny rehearing because, even accepting the facts as set out in appellant’s brief, we find that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress.

REHEARING DENIED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<LEGEND>        This schedule contains summary financial
                information extracted from the December 31,
                1998 audited financial statements and is
                qualified in its entirety by reference to
                such financial statements.

<MULTIPLIER>	  1,000

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>	DEC-31-1999

<PERIOD-END>	DEC-31-1999

<PERIOD-TYPE>	12-MOS

<CASH>	 69,117

<SECURITIES>	  1,702

<RECEIVABLES>	 30,104

<ALLOWANCES>	  1,892

<INVENTORY>	      0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>	104,059

<PP&E>	 24,151

<DEPRECIATION>	 21,899

<TOTAL-ASSETS>	133,215

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>	 87,074

<BONDS>	      0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>	      0

<PREFERRED>	      0

<COMMON>	    179

<OTHER-SE>	 42,977

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>	133,215

<SALES>	704,996

<TOTAL-REVENUES>	713,638

<CGS>	652,274

<TOTAL-COSTS>	725,902

<OTHER-EXPENSES>	      0

<LOSS-PROVISION>	      0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>	    185

<INCOME-PRETAX>	(12,264)

<INCOME-TAX>	      0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>	(12,264)

<DISCONTINUED>	      0

<EXTRAORDINARY>	      0

<CHANGES>	      0

<NET-INCOME>	(12,264)

<EPS-BASIC>	   (.68)

<EPS-DILUTED>	   (.68)


</TABLE>