alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KARLA J. MACORMAC, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 05-158 Erie

v. )

)

WARREN COUNTY JAIL, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was received by the Clerk of Court on May

20, 2005 and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed on June 3, 2005,

recommended that the Petitioner’s Motion [Doc. 1] to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be

denied and the case dismissed without prejudice. The parties were allowed ten (10)

days from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on Petitioner by

certified mail at the Warren County Jail, where she is incarcerated, and on Respondent. 

Petitioner has filed no objections to Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report and

Recommendation. After de novo review of the petition and documents in the case,

together with the Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 29th day of July, 2005;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion [Doc. 1] to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed on

June 3, 2005, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00158-SJM-SPB Document 3 Filed 07/29/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 73-6973.

#### Bozeman *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 495 F. 2d 508.
Exhibit 14.1
                                                                     -----------

                        N-VIRO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

                                 CODE OF ETHICS

     The  Board of Directors has determined that the Chief Executive Officer and
Chief  Financial  Officer  of  the  Company hold important and elevated roles in
corporate  governance.  While  members of the management team, they are uniquely
capable  and  empowered  to  ensure  that  all  stakeholders'  interests  are
appropriately  balanced, protected and preserved.  This Code provides principles
to  which  these  individuals  are expected to adhere and advocate.  They embody
rules  regarding  individual  and  peer  responsibilities  to  the  Company, the
Company's  clients  and  shareholders.  Violations  of  the  Code  of Ethics may
subject  the  officer  to  censure,  suspension  or  termination.

Each  of  the  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer shall, at all
times:

1.     Act  with honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of
interest  in personal and professional relationships.  All material transactions
and relationships involving a potential conflict of interest between the Company
and  the  Chief Executive Officer or Chief Financial Officer must be approved in
advance  by  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Company.

2.     Provide  full,  fair,  accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in
reports and documents that the Company files with, or submits to, the Securities
and  Exchange Commission and in other public communications made by the Company.
3.     Comply  with  applicable  rules  and  regulations  of  federal,  state,
provincial  and  local  governments,  and  other  appropriate private and public
regulatory  agencies.

4.     Act  in good faith, responsibly, with due care, competence and diligence,
without  misrepresenting  material facts or allowing his independent judgment to
be  subordinated.

5.     Respect  the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of his
work  except  when  authorized  or  otherwise  legally  obligated  to  disclose.
Confidential  information  acquired  in the course of his work shall not be used
for  personal  advantage.

6.     Share  knowledge  and  maintain  skills  important  and  relevant  to the
Company's  needs.

7.     Proactively promote ethical behavior as a responsible partner among peers
in  his  work  environment.

8.     Achieve  responsible  use  of  and  control  over  all Company assets and
resources  employed  or  entrusted  to  him.

9.     Report  promptly  known  or  suspected  violations  of  this  Code to the
Chairman  of  the  Audit  Committee.

     Each  waiver  of  a  provision  of  this  Code of Ethics, and each material
transaction  and  relationship  involving  a  conflict  of  interest between the
Company  and  the  Chief  Executive  Officer or Chief Financial Officer which is
approved  by  the  Board of Directors, must be disclosed in the periodic reports
filed  by  the  Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to
the  rules  of  the  Commission.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52378-52379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26459]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: American Mercury 
Insurance Company

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Surety companies acceptable on federal bonds CHANGE OF NAME 
American Fidelity Insurance Company.

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

SUMMARY: Dept. Circ. 570, 1997--Rev., Supp. No. 1)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Surety Bond Branch (101) 874-7102.Q02
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: American Fidelity Insurance Company, an 
Oklahoma corporation, has formally changed its name to American Mercury 
Insurance Company, effective August 1, 1997. The Company was last 
listed as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 62 FR 35550, July 1, 
1997.
    A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal 
bonds, dated today, is hereby issued under Sections 9304 to 9308 of 
Title 31 of the United States Code, to American Mercury Insurance 
Company, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. This new Certificate replaces the 
Certificate of Authority issued to the Company under its former name. 
The underwriting limitation of

[[Page 52379]]

$3,850,000 established for the Company as of July 1, 1997, remains 
unchanged until June 30, 1998.
    Certificates of Authority expire on June 30, each year, unless 
revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent 
annual renewal as long as the Company remains qualified (31 CFR, Part 
223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1, 
in the Department Circular 570, which outlines details as to 
underwriting limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety 
business and other information. Federal bond-approving officers should 
annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 1997 
Revision, at page 35551 to reflect this change.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet 
(http:/
/www/fms.treas.gov/c570.html) or through our computerized public 
bulletin board system (FMS Inside Line) at (202) 847-6887. A hard copy 
may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO), 
Subscription Service, Washington, DC, telephone (202) 512-1800. When 
ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 048-
000-00499-7.
    Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds 
Management Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 
6A14, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

    Dated: September 18, 1997.
Charles F. Schwan III,
Director, Funds Management Division, Financial Management Service.
[FR Doc. 97-26459 Filed 10-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No . FAA

- 20 15

- 3820 Directorate ID : 2014

- SW

- 024

- AD

Helicopter Model: V arious R estricted C ategory H elicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 607 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Re ason : The proposed actions are intended to detect a crack in the M/R blade

, and prevent failure

of the M/R blade and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

Costs :

• Cleaning and performing all inspections of a set of M/R blades (2 per

helicopter) would requ ire a total of 1⁄2 work

- hour. No parts would be needed. At an

estimated 24 inspections a year, the cost would be $1,032 per helicopter and $626,424 for

the U.S. fleet.

• Replacing an M/R blade would require 12 work hours and parts would cost

$90,656, for a to tal cost of $91,676 per blade.

Executive Order 12866 :

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  )

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures :

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  )

Regula tory Flexibility Act :

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No (  )

Project Engineer : Charles Harrison
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                                  <C>                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-MOS              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUN-30-2000        JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-2000        JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-2000        JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                95,909              1,144
<SECURITIES>                                               0                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        318,478            840,637
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0                  0
<INVENTORY>                                        1,682,576            822,903
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   2,204,814          1,718,366
<PP&E>                                               422,687            337,389
<DEPRECIATION>                                       289,421            117,507
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     2,898,791          2,265,632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              2,401,868          2,492,785
<BONDS>                                                    0                  0
<COMMON>                                          10,943,988          1,929,848
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                0                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (10,468,877)        (2,183,813)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       2,898,791          2,265,632
<SALES>                                            1,850,611          1,609,558
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   1,850,611          1,609,558
<CGS>                                              1,416,429            937,313
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1,416,429            937,313
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   3,127,457          1,285,599
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   2,000,000                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   126,541            125,027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (4,807,212)          (730,573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (4,807,212)          (730,573)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0                  0
<CHANGES>                                                  0                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (4,807,212)          (730,573)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.288)            (0.048)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.288)            (0.048)


</TABLE>
## Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In r e: Clyde Ura C ain, Sr.

No. 06

- 14

- 00203

- CR Original Mandamus Proceeding

Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief

Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley

participating.

A s stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the petition for writ of

mandamus should be dismissed . Therefore, we dismiss the petition.

RENDERED DECEMBER 3, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debr a K. Autrey, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27059]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-785-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

October 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 29, 1997, Koch Gateway Pipeline 
Company (Koch Gateway), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas, 77251-1478, 
filed in Docket No. CP97-785-000, a request pursuant to Sections 
157.205 and 157.216(b) and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations, for 
approval to abandon three farm taps on its Index 276 in LaFourch 
Parish, Louisiana, and establish three new delivery taps, under its 
blanket certificate issued in Docket Nos. CP82-430-000, pursuant to 
Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more fully set forth 
in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Koch Gateway states that the certificate authorization for the 
construction and operation of the taps which Koch Gateway now seeks 
abandonment authorization was issued in FPC Docket No. G-232. Koch 
Gateway states that these taps are used for delivery of natural gas to 
end-users on behalf of Louisiana Gas Service Company (LGS) a local 
distribution company in LaFourche Parish, Louisiana. Service will be 
continued to the affected end-users through new taps on an adjacent 
Koch Gateway pipeline. Koch Gateway asserts that LGS concurs with the 
proposed abandonment and tie-over measures.
    Koch Gateway indicates that the approximate cost of the proposed 
abandonment and construction activities is $31,500. The purchaser of 
Index 276 will reimburse Koch Gateway for all such costs.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the 
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the 
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day 
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and 
not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27059 Filed 10-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3101 

To provide that members of the Armed Forces performing services in Niger, 

Mali, Burkina Faso, and Chad shall be entitled to tax benefits in the 

same manner as if such services were performed in a combat zone. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 19, 2023 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, and Ms. 

CORTEZ MASTO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide that members of the Armed Forces performing 

services in Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Chad shall 

be entitled to tax benefits in the same manner as if 

such services were performed in a combat zone. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS PER4 FORMING SERVICES IN NIGER, MALI, 

5 BURKINA FASO, AND CHAD. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of the following pro7 visions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a qualified 

8 hazardous duty area shall be treated in the same manner 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3101 IS

1 as if it were a combat zone (as determined under section 

2 112 of such Code): 

3 (1) Section 2(a)(3) (relating to special rule 

4 where deceased spouse was in missing status). 

5 (2) Section 112 (relating to the exclusion of 

6 certain combat pay of members of the Armed 

7 Forces). 

8 (3) Section 692 (relating to income taxes of 

9 members of Armed Forces on death). 

10 (4) Section 2201 (relating to members of the 

11 Armed Forces dying in combat zone or by reason of 

12 combat-zone-incurred wounds, etc.). 

13 (5) Section 3401(a)(1) (defining wages relating 

14 to combat pay for members of the Armed Forces). 

15 (6) Section 4253(d) (relating to the taxation of 

16 phone service originating from a combat zone from 

17 members of the Armed Forces). 

18 (7) Section 6013(f)(1) (relating to joint return 

19 where individual is in missing status). 

20 (8) Section 7508 (relating to time for per21 forming certain acts postponed by reason of service 

22 in combat zone). 

23 (b) QUALIFIED HAZARDOUS DUTY AREA.—For pur24 poses of this section, the term ‘‘qualified hazardous duty 

25 area’’ means Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Chad, if as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3101 IS

1 of the date of the enactment of this section any member 

2 of the Armed Forces of the United States is entitled to 

3 special pay under section 310 of title 37, United States 

4 Code (relating to special pay; duty subject to hostile fire 

5 or imminent danger), for services performed in such loca6 tion. Such term includes such location only during the pe7 riod such entitlement is in effect. 

8 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The provisions of this Act 

9 shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
----

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No .1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Merge Healthcare Incorporated; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Steven M. Oreskovich                                             |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Steven M. Oreskovich                                                 |
| Chief Financial Officer                                              |
| (principal financial officer and  principal accounting officer) |

----
Data Fil e C:\CHEM32\3\DATA\6850 01\6850 01-002263 . D 

Sample Name : 

Acq . Operator 

Sample Operator 

Acq. Instrument 

Inj ection Date 

Method 

Last changed 

SYSTEM 

SYSTEM 

6850 01 

9/4/2014 3:43 : 24 PM 

C: \CHEM32\3\METHODS\MHD6MH .M 

8/2/2014 7 : 05 : 12 AM by SYSTEM 

FID1 A, (6850_01\6850_01-002263.0) 

pA - ~ 

Location Vial 1 

Inj Volume Manually 

900 111131515-Pentameth~ltrisiloxane {M'D'M'} 

lot 2688-81 

99.3% M'D'M' 

800 R.I. 1.3747 

MEW/CKB/AO 3/25/14 

700 

600 -

500 

400 

300 

"<t 

200- ~ 0 ~ 100 0> 

co 

1 

0 2o 2

1

0 5 10 15 5 

===================================================================== 

Area Percent Report 

=============== ======== =============================== == ========= 

Sorted By 

Multiplier 

Signal 

1.0000 

Dilution 1.0000 

Use Multiplier & Dilution Factor with ISTDs 

Signal 1: FID1 A, 

Peak RetTime Type Width Area Height Area 

# [min] [min] [pA*s] [pAl % 

--- -l---- --- l- --- -- --- /----- ----- /- ------- --l --- --- -/ 

3o 3s 

l 2 . 890 BB 0 . 0215 44 . 48180 33.43836 0.08182 1,1,2,2-Tetramethyldisiloxane (M'M') 

2 4.728 BV 0.1055 5.39936e4 6208 . 35498 99.31468 1,1,3,5,5-Pentamethyltrisiloxane(M'D'M') 

3 5 . 314 BV 0.0218 202 . 59604 149. 75 630 0.37265 1,1,3,3,5,5-Hexamethyltrisiloxane (M'DM') 

4 5.355 VB 0 . 0196 125 . 50439 100 . 24983 0 . 23085 1,1,1,3,5,5-Hexamethyltrisiloxane(MD'M') 

Totals 5 . 43662e1 6491.79947 

*** End of Report *** 

68 5 0 01 9/4/ 2014 4:43:28 PM SYSTEM Pa ge l o f l 

mil
109 STAT. 292 PUBLIC LAW 104–33—OCT. 3, 1995

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 464:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104–180 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):

Mar. 30, considered and passed Senate.

Sept. 18, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 104–33

104th Congress

An Act

To make the reporting deadlines for studies conducted in Federal court demonstration districts consistent with the deadlines for pilot districts, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY

REDUCTION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS.

Section 104 of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C.

471 note) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ‘‘4-year period’’ and

inserting ‘‘5-year period’’; and

(2) in subsection (d) by striking ‘‘December 31, 1995,’’ and

inserting ‘‘December 31, 1996,’’.

Approved October 3, 1995.

Oct. 3, 1995

[S. 464]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

DUANE BROWN , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2104

[ October 24, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Laura Johnson , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2002

- CF

- 010444

- AXXX

- MB

.
Duane Brown, Graceville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C IKLIN , G ERBER a nd C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.