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

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CRAIG A. CARSON, 

Petitioner,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF

PENNSYLVANIA, et al

 Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C.A. No. 06-75E

District Judge McLaughlin

Magistrate Judge Baxter

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Docket No. 1) be denied and the case be dismissed without prejudice.

II. REPORT

When submitting a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, a petitioner is required to submit

an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable

to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In addition to the

aforementioned affidavit, a petitioner is further required to “submit a certified copy of the trust fund

account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately

preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of

each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

In this case, Petitioner has failed to submit a copy of his institutional account statement,

certified or otherwise. Because Petitioner has failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites for

proceeding In Forma Pauperis, Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis should be denied

and the case dismissed without prejudice.

Case 1:06-cv-00075-SJM-SPB Document 2 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 2
2

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that the Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 1) be denied and the case dismissed without prejudice.

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule

72.1.4(B) of the Local Rules for Magistrates, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of

service to file objections to this report and recommendation. Any party opposing the objections

shall have seven (7) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to file

timely objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.

Dated: March 24, 2006 By the Court:

S/ Susan Paradise Baxter

Susan Paradise Baxter

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00075-SJM-SPB Document 2 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.1
                                                                    ------------



     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I,  Terry  J.  Logan,  the  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  N-Viro  International
Corporation, certify that (i) the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements
of  Section  13(a)  or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information  contained  in  the  Form  10-K  fairly  presents,  in  all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  N-Viro
International  Corporation.


/s/  Terry  J.  Logan
---------------------
Terry  J.  Logan,  Chief  Executive  Officer
May  12,  2003




     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I,  James  K.  McHugh,  the  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  N-Viro International
Corporation, certify that (i) the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements
of  Section  13(a)  or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information  contained  in  the  Form  10-K  fairly  presents,  in  all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  N-Viro
International  Corporation.


/s/  James  K.  McHugh
----------------------
James  K.  McHugh,  Chief  Financial  Officer
May  12,  2003
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**




CONSENT
      OF GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP




CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




We
  consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the Registration
  Statements and related Prospectus of MTM Technologies, Inc. listed below, and
  to the incorporation by reference therein of our report, dated June 6, 2006
  (except as to Note 12 which the date is August [ • ],
  2006), with respect to the audited consolidated balance sheets of MTM Technologies,
  Inc. and Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated
  statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
  three years in the period ended March 31, 2006.




Registration Statements:




(1)
      Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-131089)


(2)
      Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-128434)


(3)
      Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-127587)


(4)
      Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-123144)


(2)
      Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-117549)


(3)
      Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333- 49718)


(4)
      Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-126322)


(5)
      Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-123147)


(6)
      Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333- 72269)








/s/ GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP


GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP


New York, New York




September 12, 2006


---
#### In re ROE.

No. 6.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 1, 1937.

*694F. M. Joslyn, of Buffalo, N. Y. (Curtiss D. Matterson, of Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel), for appellant.

Joseph E. North, of Binghamton, N. Y., for respondent.

Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellee was adjudged a bankrupt February 26, 1930. A petition for extension of time to apply for a discharge was filed February 6, 1934, when an order was entered granting the right to file a petition for discharge nunc pro tunc as of May 2, 1930. An order of discharge was entered March 6, 1934, from which no appeal was taken. Appellant moved, April 27, 1934, to vacate the discharge; the motion was denied, and this appeal followed.

Section 25 of the Bankruptcy Act (30 Stat. 553, as amended 11 U.S.C.A. § 48) grants an appeal as of right, within 30 days, from an order granting a- discharge. Appellant did not oppose the granting of such discharge but claims-it’had no notice of those proceedings. Be that as it may, it is clear that the order denying the motion to revoke the discharge is appealable only by a petition to revise. In re Jacobs, 241 F. 620 (C.C.A.6); Thompson et al. v. Mauzy, 174 F. 611 (C.C.A.4). See In re Louisville Nat. Banking Co., 158 F. 403 (C. C.A.6). Thompson et al. v. Mauzy, supra, held that an order refusing to set aside a discharge was not appealable under section 24a (11 U.S.C.A. § 47 (a) as a controversy in bankruptcy; whether it was appealable under section 25 (a) (2), 11 U.S. C.A. § 48 (a) (2), as the equivalent of an order .granting a discharge was not decided. In Re Jacobs, supra, an order revoking a discharge was held not appeal-able under section 25 (a) (2). A parallel situation is presented by section 25 (a) (1), which makes a judgment granting or refusing an adjudication appealable as of right. But an order refusing to vacate an order of adjudication is appealable only with leave. Chicago Bank of Commerce v. Carter, 61 F.(2d) 986 (C.C.A.8). Administrative orders of this character constitute proceedings in bankruptcy from which an application for leave to appeal is necessary (section 24 (b). See Taylor v. Voss, 271 U.S. 176, 181, 46 S.Ct. 461, 70 L.Ed. 889.

It is true that section 14a of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended (11 U.S.C.A. § 32 (a), provides that applications for discharge must be filed within twelve months, .with a six-month period of grace permissible in the court’s discretion [see In re Sullivan, 62 F.(2d) 245 (C.C.A.2), certiorari denied Sullivan v. Kohn, 289 U.S. 725, 53 S.Ct. 523, 77 L.Ed. 1475] and that here the discharge was invalidly granted more than four years after adjudication. Still,. we possess no discretion to entertain an appeal not taken in accordance with the statute. Compliance therewith is jurisdictional. Wingert et al. v. Smead et al., 70 F. (2d) 351 (C.C.A.4), certiorari denied 293 U.S. 567, 55 S.Ct. 77, 79 L.Ed. 666. Leave to appeal was not granted, and the appeal must accordingly be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.3

                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 Quarterly Report of IA Global, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark E.
Scott, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
Company.

                                        /s/ Mark E. Scott
                                        -----------------
                                        Mark E. Scott
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        February 3, 2004
Order entered March 19, 2015 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00276-CV 

IN RE PETER BEASLEY, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 192nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-13433 

ORDER 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

We DENY relator’s motion for temporary relief as moot. We ORDER relator to bear the costs 

of this original proceeding. 

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL 

 JUSTICE
#### KENILWORTH INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Samuel MacMILLAN, Calvin Curry, James Willy Young and Bessie Mae Foster and Elijah Davis, Doretha Rowell McMullen and American Foods Inc., Appellees.

No. 77-1921.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 12, 1978.

Marjorie D. Gadarian of Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Maureen L. McGill of Adams, Sullivan, Coogler, Watson & Smith, West Palm Beach, for appellee-McMullen.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from a summary judgment on the issue of insurance coverage. The trial court found a “public or livery conveyance” exclusion to be inapplicable under stipulated and undisputed facts. After review, this court concludes that both the facts and law fully support the trial court’s finding. The vehicle in question was not used as a public or livery conveyance as this exclusion has been defined. *Greyhound Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Carbon,*327 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The summary judgment below is, therefore, affirmed.

CROSS, MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
No. 00-7104.

#### Romine *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR




RULE
      15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. §1350,




AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the quarterly report of Pangea Petroleum Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
      B. Pollock, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.





Date:
                August 14, 2007
            **By:
                */s/ Charles B. Pollock*Charles
                B. PollockChief
                Executive Officer
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 99-914 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EXTRADITION 

 Treaty Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CYPRUS 

Signed at Washington June 17, 1996 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 CYPRUS 

 Extradition 

Treaty signed at Washington June 17, 1996; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate July 28, 1997 (Treaty Doc. 105-16, 

 105th Congress, 1st Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 October 14, 1998 (Senate Executive Report No. 105-23, 

 105th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 October 21, 1998; 

Ratified by the President January 20, 1999; 

Exchange of instruments of ratification at Nicosia 

 September 14, 1999; 

Entered into force September 14, 1999.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3052 

To make aliens who are holders of a passport issued by the Palestinian 

Authority ineligible for visas, admission, or parole into the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 17, 2023 

Mr. DAINES introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To make aliens who are holders of a passport issued by 

the Palestinian Authority ineligible for visas, admission, 

or parole into the United States. 

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 TITLES. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Guaranteeing Aggres5 sors Zero Admission Act’’ or the ‘‘GAZA Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY FOR VISAS, ADMISSION, OR PAROLE. 

7 An alien who is holder of a passport issued by the 

8 Palestinian Authority— 

9 (1) is inadmissible to the United States; 

2 

•S 3052 IS

1 (2) is ineligible to receive a visa or other docu2 mentation to enter the United States; and 

3 (3) is otherwise ineligible to be admitted or pa4 roled into the United States or to receive any other 

5 benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act 

6 (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). 

Æ
DISMISS ; and Opinion Filed June 10, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 01194

- CV

WANDA GARRETT, ANTHO NY R. GARRETT, AND A LL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 3445 MONTE CARLO STR EET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5224 , Appellants V. HSBC BANK USA, N.A. , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 14

- 04251

- B



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Fillmore, Myers, and Evans O pinion by Justice Fillmore Before the Court is appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. In a postcard notice dated February 6, 2015, the Court informed appellants their brief was past due.

We instructed appellants to file a brief along with an extension motion within ten days and cautioned them that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1). As of today’s date, appellants have not filed a brief. Accordingly, we grant appellee’s moti on and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1) & 42.3(b).

141194F.P05 /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

WANDA GARRETT, ANTHONY R. GARRETT, AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 3445 MONTE CARLO STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 75224, Appellants

No. 05

- 14

- 01194

- CV V.

HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 14

- 04251

- B. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore. Justices Myers and Evans participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that appellee HSBC BANK USA, N.A. recover its costs of this appeal from appellants WANDA GARRETT, ANTHONY R. GARRETT, AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 3445 MONTE CARLO STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 75224.

Judgment entered this 10th day of June, 2015.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SS. 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Technest Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company do hereby certify, to their best knowledge and belief, 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.








/s/ Gino M. Pereira

/s/  Nitin V. KotakGino M. Pereira

Chief Executive Officer

Nitin V. Kotak

Chief Financial OfficerDate: May 14, 2010

Date: May 14, 2010
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53615-53616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27197]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-164-004]

Texas-Ohio Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 8, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 2, 1997, Texas-Ohio Pipeline, Inc. 
(TOP), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, with a 
proposed effective date November 1, 1997:

Second Revised Sheet No. 41
First Revised Sheet No. 54A
First Revised Sheet No. 57A
First Revised Sheet No. 78

    TOP states that these tariff sheets are being filed to comply with 
the Letter Order issued June 30, 1997, by the Commission, in Docket No. 
RP97-164-002. In that Letter Order, the Commission had preliminarily 
approved pro forma sheets filed by TOP

[[Page 53616]]

in compliance the Commission's Order No. 587-C, subject to the filing 
of certain revised tariff sheets to become effective November 1, 1997.
    TOP further states that copies of this filing have been served on 
TOP's jurisdictional customers.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27197 Filed 10-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
Case 1:06-cv-00169-MBC   Document 20   Filed 10/24/06   Page 1 of 1
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Revised alternate essential air service proposal for Manistee/Ludington, 

Michigan and discussion.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3145 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize fellowships under 

the Minority Fellowship Program to be awarded for training for professionals in the addiction medicine field. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2023 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. LUJA ́N) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize fellowships under the Minority Fellowship Program to be 

awarded for training for professionals in the addiction 

medicine field. 

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 ‘‘Improving Access to 

5 Addiction Medicine Providers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MINORITY FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM. 

7 Section 597 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 290ll) is amended— 

2 

•S 3145 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ‘‘diag2 nosis,’’ after ‘‘related to’’; and 

3 (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘addiction 

4 medicine,’’ after ‘‘psychiatry,’’. 

Æ
Exhibit 99.1

Sun Healthcare Group, Inc.101 Sun Avenue N.E.Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109

 

 

 

Securities and Exchange Commission450 Fifth Street, N.W.Judiciary PlazaWashington, D.C. 20549

March 28, 2002

Re:  Confirmation of Receipt of Assurances from Arthur Andersen LLP

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Arthur Andersen has audited the consolidated financial statements of Sun HealthcareGroup, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and subsidiaries of theCompany as of and for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000. Arthur Andersen hasissued its report to the consolidated financial statements dated March 18, 2002, which isincluded with this filing on Form 10-K.

Arthur Andersen has represented to the Company that the audit was subject to Andersen'squality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonableassurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards andthat there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the auditand availability of national office consultation. Availability of personnel at foreignaffiliates of Arthur Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

Respectfully submitted,/s/ Robert F. Murphy         Robert F. MurphySecretary