alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 136

Requiring that unexpended balances in the official allowances of Members

of the House of Representatives be returned to the Treasury for deficit

reduction.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 18, 1993

Mr. DUNN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Requiring that unexpended balances in the official allowances

of Members of the House of Representatives be returned

to the Treasury for deficit reduction.

1 Resolved, That (a) any amount made available to a

2 Member of the House of Representatives in an official al3 lowance may be used only by that Member for the period

4 and purpose for which such allowance is made available.

5 At the end of that period, any amount remaining shall

6 be returned to the Treasury for the purpose of deficit

7 reduction.
2

•HRES 136 IH

1 (b) As used in this resolution, the term ‘‘Member of

2 the House of Representatives’’ means a Representative in,

3 or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

Æ
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 Quarterly Report of General Kinetics Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Larry M. Heimendinger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ Larry M. HeimendingerLarry M. HeimendingerChief Executive OfficerOctober 15, 2004
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 09-2360

RAYMOND HERNANDEZ-ALBINO,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

ANTHONY HAYNES, Warden,

Respondent, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Aida M. Delgado-Colón, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Torruella, Selya and Howard,

Circuit Judges.

Raymond Hernández-Albino on brief pro se.

Thomas F. Klumper, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Nelson Pérez-Sosa,

Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United

States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

March 12, 2010
-2-

Per Curiam. We have reviewed the record and the parties'

submissions, and we affirm. Despite appellant Raymond HernándezAlbino's (Hernández's) attempt to characterize his most recent

filing as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, rather than a

motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, this court must look to

the substance of the motion to determine whether it is governed by

the statutory framework set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Trenkler v.

United States, 536 F.3d 85, 97 (1st Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129

S. Ct. 1363 (2009). Hernández argues that the evidence presented

at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. This claim

falls squarely within the ambit of section 2255. Cf. Rogers v.

United States, 180 F.3d 349, 357 n. 15 (1st Cir. 1999).

Moreover, the "savings clause" of section 2255 does not

help Hernández. Only if the remedy available under section 2255 is

inadequate or ineffective will a prisoner be allowed to file a

section 2241 motion to challenge the legality of his conviction.

See Sustache-Rivera v. United States, 221 F.3d 8, 15 (1st Cir.

2000). The remedy in section 2255 does not become "inadequate or

ineffective" simply by virtue of the fact that the prisoner is not

able to meet the gate-keeping requirements for second or successive

petitions. See United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34, 50 (1st Cir.

1999).

Even if the court were to treat Hernández's submissions

here as a request for permission to file a second or successive
-3-

motion pursuant to section 2255, we would deny the request.

Hernández does not cite any new evidence; rather, he only argues

that the evidence presented at trial did not establish his guilt.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1). Moreover, he does not cite to a new

rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral

review by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2).

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
<PAGE>

                   GATEWAY ENERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                   EXHIBIT 11

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               THREE MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 31,        SIX MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 31,

                                                  1999              1998               1999             1998
                                               -----------       -----------        -----------     -----------
<S>                                            <C>               <C>                <C>                <C>
Weighted average number of common shares        15,259,936        14,659,800         15,251,215      14,557,300
outstanding

Add shares issuable pursuant to warrant                  -            34,500 (1)              -          46,400 (1)
agreements less shares assumed
repurchased at the average market price

Add shares issuable pursuant to stock                    -             5,500 (1)              -           8,100 (1)
options less shares assumed repurchased
at the average market price

Add shares issuable from assumed
conversion of convertible notes                          -           624,600 (1)              -         695,500 (1)
                                               -----------       -----------        -----------     -----------

Tentative number of shares for
computation of diluted earnings per share
                                                15,259,936        15,324,400         15,251,215      15,307,300
                                               ===========       ===========        ===========     ===========

Loss applicable to common stock                $  (634,035)      $  (222,700)       $(1,029,202)    $  (779,200)

Add back interest expense for
convertible promissory notes assumed
converted                                                -            13,400 (1)              -          36,000 (1)
                                               -----------       -----------        -----------     -----------

Tentative earnings (loss) for
computation of diluted earnings per share
                                               $  (634,035)      $  (209,300)       $(1,029,202)    $  (743,200)
                                               ===========       ===========        ===========     ===========

Basic and diluted loss per common share
                                               $     (0.04)      $     (0.02)       $     (0.07)    $     (0.05)
                                               ===========       ===========        ===========     ===========
</TABLE>


         (1) Not used in diluted earnings per share calculations as effect would
be antidilutive.


                                      17
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 8, 1995, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
INCOME FOR THE 28 WEEKS ENDED DECEMBER 8, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q, QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13
OR 15(D)  OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-27-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-8-1995
<CASH>                                       7,763,640
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               76,736,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,063,800
<INVENTORY>                                 57,672,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           155,281,047
<PP&E>                                     241,847,357
<DEPRECIATION>                             100,506,585
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             338,298,766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       79,690,467
<BONDS>                                    162,484,974
<COMMON>                                       577,796
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  90,821,529
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               338,298,766
<SALES>                                    514,907,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           514,907,690
<CGS>                                      474,510,781
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              474,510,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            46,517,196
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,546,783
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,486,116)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (3,564,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,922,116)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,922,116)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.20)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7634
ROBERT J. CAPROOD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LAURIE F. BESSINGER, Warden; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney G eneral of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-97-295-22BD) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert J. Caprood, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert J. Caprood seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Caprood's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Caprood v. Bessinger , No. CA-97-295-22BD (D.S.C. Oct. 16, 1997). 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
(function () {
  
//Redefine RenderListView with our override
    var overrideContext = {};
    overrideContext.Templates = {};
	
    overrideContext.Templates.Header = renderHeader;
    overrideContext.Templates.Item = renderItem;
    overrideContext.Templates.Footer = renderFooter;

    window.SPClientTemplates.TemplateManager.RegisterTemplateOverrides(overrideContext);
})();

// Create the header.
function renderHeader() {
		
        $().SPServices({operation: "GetList",listName: 'ESG Priorities', completefunc: function(data, Status){
    	$("#listDesc").html(data.responseXML.getElementsByTagName("List")[0].attributes['Description'].value);
    	}
    	}); 

       $("#ExpandedContent1").addClass('centeredContent');
        var headerHtml = "<style type='text/css'>.checkmark { background-color:black; width:20px; border-radius:50%; color:white; text-align:center; font-size:.75vw;font-weight:bold;line-height:20px;float:left;}#listDesc{padding-top: 5px;font-size: 32px !important;color:background: #051432 !important;line-height: 40px !important;font-weight: bold !important;padding-bottom: 30px;}@media only screen and (max-width: 768px) {.priorityImgCont{display:block !important;width:100%;}.esgPrioritiesCont{display: block !important;margin: 0px 5px !important;width: 100% !important;}}</style>";
       
        headerHtml = headerHtml + "<div class='esgPrioritiesCont' style='display: table;padding: 50px 0px;'><div style='display:table-cell;width:50%;vertical-align:top;text-align:right;' class='priorityImgCont'><img style='text-align:center;max-height:450px' src='/about_us/what_we_do/PublishingImages/ESG/priorities.png' border='0'/></div><div style='display:table-cell;width:50%;padding-left:40px;vertical-align:top;'><div id='listDesc'></div><div>";
        return headerHtml;
     
}

// Create the item.
function renderItem() {
    var title = ctx.CurrentItem["Title"];  

    var itemHtml ="<div style='display:table;padding:10px 0px;'><div style='display:table-cell;width:7%;vertical-align:middle;padding-right:10px;'><div class='checkmark'>✓</div></div><div style='display:table-cell;width:85%;vertical-align:middle;'>" + title + "</div></div>"; 

    // Return whole item html 
    return itemHtml;
}

// Create the footer and modify the layout.
function renderFooter() {      
        var footerHtml = "</div></div></div>";
        return footerHtml;
}
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE JESUS SALGADO-FRANCO, 

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 13-74364

Agency No. A075-090-469

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2016**

San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Jose Jesus Salgado-Franco, a Mexican citizen, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal and 

affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his request for cancellation of 

removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

legal determinations regarding an individual’s eligibility for cancellation of 

removal, Montero–Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir. 2002), and 

we review factual findings for substantial evidence, Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 

1028–29 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny Salgado-Franco’s petition for review. 

1. The BIA properly determined that Salgado-Franco was ineligible for 

cancellation of removal because his deportation was previously suspended. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(6). Although Salgado-Franco argues that he had obtained 

suspension of deportation relief as a derivative of his mother’s application, 

reasonable and substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that SalgadoFranco received this relief independent of his mother’s claim. The record shows 

that Salgado-Franco had completed his own application for suspension of 

deportation. In his application, Salgado-Franco described the extreme hardship that 

he would personally suffer if deported to Mexico; the hardship described was not 

necessarily dependent on the success of his mother’s application. Because SalgadoFranco previously received suspension of deportation relief, under § 1229b(c)(6), 

he is not eligible for cancellation of removal. See Garcia-Jimenez v. Gonzales, 488 

F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 2007). 

2. We lack jurisdiction to review Salgado-Franco’s contention that he 
3 

remains eligible for cancellation of removal because he was granted suspension of 

deportation relief after September 30, 1996, because he failed to exhaust this claim 

before the BIA. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 123 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 123

 To amend rule XLVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives to 
  provide for a phased reduction in the size of the Permanent Select 
                       Committee on Intelligence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 1993

Mr. Hyde submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                           Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To amend rule XLVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives to 
  provide for a phased reduction in the size of the Permanent Select 
                       Committee on Intelligence.

    Resolved, That rule XLVIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended in clause 1(a) by striking out ``The select 
committee shall be composed of not more than nineteen Members with 
representation to'' and in lieu thereof inserting ``Beginning on 
January 1, 1994, the select committee shall be composed of not more 
than eighteen Members, of not more than eleven may be from the same 
party. Beginning on January 1, 1995, the select committee shall be 
composed of not more than sixteen Members, of which not more than ten 
may be from the same party. Beginning with the One Hundred Sixth 
Congress and each Congress thereafter, the select committee shall be 
composed of not more than thirteen Members, of which not more than 
seven may be from the same party. The select committee shall''.

                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

*Name and Committee Code:*                     Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research (DMR) (#1203)—2-Dimensional Crystal Consortium (2DCC), Materials Innovation Platform (MIP), Pennsylvania State University (Site Visit).                

*Date and Time:*                     July 23, 2018; 8:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m., July 24, 2018; 8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.                

*Place:*                     Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.                

*Type of Meeting:*                     Part open.                

*Contact Person:*                     Dr. Charles Ying, Program Director, MPS/DMR, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Room E 9467, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone (703) 292-8428.                

*Purpose of Meeting:*                     Site visit to provide advice and recommendations concerning further support of the MIP at Pennsylvania State University.                

## Agenda

### Monday, July 23, 2018

8:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m., Closed—Executive Session

9:15 a.m.-11:30 a.m., Open—Review of 2DCC MIP

11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m., Closed—Executive Session

1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m., Open—Review of 2DCC MIP

4:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., Closed—Executive Session

### Tuesday, July 24, 2018

8:00 a.m.—3:00 p.m., Closed—Executive Session.

*Reason for Closing:*                     The work being reviewed during closed portions of the site review includes information of a proprietary or confidential nature including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with 2DCC/MIP program. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                

Dated: June 25, 2018.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-13897 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### Sam W. KLEINFELD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43219.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 28, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 270 So.2d 22.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,038,190
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,455,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,748,397
<PP&E>                                           1,502,712
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,981,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,235,221
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            74,390
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2,050,302)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,981,219
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,076,637
<CGS>                                            7,936,704
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,698,172
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 371,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      7,190
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  7,190
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         7,190
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.00
        


</TABLE>