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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1620

MUHAMMED ABDULJABAR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Daniel E. Klein, Jr., Chief Magistrate

Judge. (CA-98-2193-DKC)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 18, 1999

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan M. Perlman, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A.

Battaglia, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant

United States Attorney, Arthur J. Fried, General Counsel, Charlotte

Hardnett, Principal Deputy General Counsel, John M. Sacchetti, Associate General Counsel, George G. Davidson, Office of the General

Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1994).

2

PER CURIAM:

Muhammed Abduljabar appeals the magistrate judge’s order

granting summary judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security on

Abduljabar’s claim for disability insurance benefits.* Having reviewed the briefs and the administrative record, we find that substantial evidence supported the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)

decision denying benefits. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the magistrate judge. See Abduljabar v. Apfel, CA-98-2193-DKC

(D. Md. Mar. 8, 1999). Additionally, we note that the ALJ’s opinion properly assessed Abduljabar’s credibility and accurately

considered the evidence of Abduljabar’s attention deficit disorder.

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.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY 2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 -2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION October 28, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Summary of Minor Corrections to Light- Duty N otice of Intent and the Interim Joint Technical Assessment Report

FROM: Tad Wysor

TO: EPA Docket # EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010-0799

In the interest of clarity, EPA is highlighting a few minor errors in the recent Notice of Intent (NOI) (75 FR 62739, October 13, 2010) and the associated Joint Interim Technical Assessment Report (Interim Report). We provide the corrected information below.

1. NOI Table 3, page 62746:

Table 3 of the NOI was published in the Federal Register with several erroneous values at the low ends of the ranges presented for Lifetime CO2e Reduction. The correct values are shown below and are consistent wi th those presented in Table ES-2 (page x) in the Interim Report.

Table 3: Estimated Total CO2e and Fuel Reductio ns for the Lifetime of MY 2025 Vehicles 1,2,3

Scenario Lifetime CO2e Reduction (million metric tons, MMT) Lifetime Fuel Reduction (Billion Barrels) 3%/year 340 0.7

4%/year 410

- 440 0.9

5%/year 520 440

- 530 1.1

6%/year 530

- 470

- 590 1.3

2. NOI Docket ID Number:

On page 62739, the EPA docket number appears without the “2010” designation. Throughout the document, t he Docket ID Number should be EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010- 0799. Thiserror should not result in any practical consequences, since users who search on “EPA- HQ

OAR -0799” should be automatically directed to the correct docket.

3. Interim Report: Certain References in Chapter 3

On pages 3-20, 3-21- and 3 -22 of the Interim Report, the reader is erroneously referred to “Table 3.2

- 1.” Instead, the read er should refer to Table B2.1-1 in Appendix B (page B -10).

Also, regarding costs for HEVs, PHEVs, EVs, and FCEVs, in addition to the reference on page 3 -7 to Appendix B, the reader can find costs for all HEV, PHEV, and EV packages in a memorandum that has been placed in the docket: “ OMEGA Master

- set of Packages ,” Todd Sherwood, September 16, 2010, Document ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2010-0799-0003.
#### Kingdrel N. AYERS, Appellant, v. HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF KILLEARN ESTATES, Appellee.

No. II-313.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 3, 1978.

K. N. Ayers, Tallahassee, for appellant.

William L. Boyd and Mary F. Clark of Mahoney, Hadlow & Adams, Tallahassee, for appellee.

BOYER, Judge.

Plaintiff (appellant here) appeals an order dismissing his complaint with prejudice.

Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking injunc-tive relief to restrain the Association (ap-pellee here) from using assessments received from members to pay the legal fee of an attorney in connection with a class action suit filed by the members of the Association against Killearn Properties, Inc. The Association filed a motion to dismiss. Thereafter the court entered an order finding that the complaint failed to alleged irreparable injury or any ultimate facts which could allow the court to conclude that any basis for injunctive relief existed. We hold the trial court abused its discretion in failing to give plaintiff at least one chance to amend his complaint.

Accordingly, the order of dismissal with prejudice is reversed and this case is remanded to the trial court with directions that the plaintiff be allowed a reasonable time within which to amend.

It is so ordered.

McCORD, C. J., and MELVIN, J., concur.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleasesCensus 2000

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

### Release Information

**CB01-CN.117**
**Contact:**  Public Information Office 301-457-3691/301-457-3620 (fax) 301-457-1037 (TDD) e-mail: 2000usa@census.gov Statistical Information Staff Population Division 301-457-2422 e-mail: pop@census.gov

## FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  EMBARGOED UNTIL: 12:01 A.M. EDT, MAY 23, 2001 (WEDNESDAY)

## Census Bureau Releases Census 2000 Demographic Profile for Wyoming

The U.S. Census Bureau today released the Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: Census 2000 for Wyoming, a one-page table providing Census 2000 data on age and sex distribution, race, Hispanic origin, household relationship and type, housing occupancy and tenure (whether the housing occupant owns or rents). 

The profile includes nearly 100 data items in all, plus percentage distributions. 

In addition to the profile of the state as a whole, similar demographic profiles for counties, places and other geographic components of the state can be accessed on an embargoed basis at <https://www.census.gov/dcmd/www/embargo/embargo_demoprofile.html>. After the release time, go to the Census Bureau's online search-and-retrieval database American FactFinder <http://factfinder2.census.gov> or to its Demographic Profile Page <https://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/demoprofile.html>. You will also be able to download the profiles from the bureau's file transfer protocol site <http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/demographic_profile/>. 

For information about how to order paper copies of Census 2000 demographic profiles, contact Customer Services Center, U.S. Census Bureau, 301-457-4100; or e-mail:<webmaster@census.gov>. 

For local context, contact the Wyoming State Data Center, 307-766-2925; e-mail: <wliu@state.wy.us>.

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MIZAR , INC. AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND FOR THE THREE
MONTHS THEN ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,013
<SECURITIES>                                     8,638
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,712
<ALLOWANCES>                                       128
<INVENTORY>                                      1,799
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,152
<PP&E>                                           1,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,722
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,862
<SALES>                                          3,025
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,025
<CGS>                                            1,380
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,289
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    491
<INCOME-TAX>                                        52
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                439
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       439
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court No. DA 1 9

- 0648

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ANDREW PIERCE LAKE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is

given an extension of time until October 14 , 2020 to prepare, file and serve the

Appellant’s opening brief.

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

September 14 2020

09/14/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0648
EXHIBIT 11R

                           DECORATOR INDUSTRIES, INC.
             COMPUTATION OF DILUTED INCOME PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK
                 FOR THE FIVE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JANUARY 3, 2004

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      2003         2002         2001         2000         1999
                                      ----         ----         ----         ----         ----

<S>                                <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Net income                         $1,561,778   $1,384,379   $  861,561   $  133,198   $2,552,278
                                   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========

Average number of common
  shares outstanding                2,794,286    2,793,781    2,812,882    3,041,364    3,378,721

Dilutive effect of stock options
  on net income                        33,316       36,526        7,895       35,896      138,960
                                   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------

Diluted weighted average shares
  used in the calculation of
  diluted earnings per share        2,827,602    2,830,307    2,820,777    3,077,260    3,517,681
                                   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========

Diluted earnings per share
  Net income                       $     0.55   $     0.49   $     0.31   $     0.04   $     0.73
                                   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

JAMES M. KUSH,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (POWER CONTRACTING 

COMPANY),

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 241 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, James W. Klingler, certify that:

 

 1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof North American Scientific, Inc.;

 

 2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

 3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

 4.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosed in this report any changes in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

 5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 
|  Date: September 20, 2004 |
|-------------------------------------|
|                                |
| /s/  James W. Klingler              |   |   |
| James  W. Klingler                  |
| Chief  Financial Officer            |

 

----
Amendment to Bylaws

Paragraph 13 of the By-laws of the Dunes Hotels and Casinos, Inc. is amended
to read as follows:

      "13. The Board of Directors  shall  consist of not less than three (3) nor
      more than fifteen (15)  directors.  Directors need not be  stockholders of
      the  corporation,  residents of the state of New York,  or citizens of the
      United States in order to qualify.  Directors must be over 18 years of age
      and shall be elected at annual meetings of the stockholders. Each director
      shall be  elected to serve for one year and until his  successor  shall be
      elected and shall qualify."

Dated: June 18, 1997
Chemical Zebrafish 

(TIQDT)

In vitro Alternative 

species 

Mammal

KCLO4

KSCN

NaBr

NaNO3

MMI

PTU

BP2

Resorcinol

Phoroglucinol

SMX

Amitrol

ETU

Mancozeb

Pyrazole

Genistein

BPA

BP3

linuron

PFOS

PFOA

BD-47

BDE-209

HBCD

TBBPA

DDT

Dir

e

c

t

e

f

f

e

c

t In

dir

e

c

t

e

f

f

e

c

t

Tier 1 in vitro and 2 in vivo exposures coupled to test for disruption of thyroid function 

Figue 13. Comparison of tier 1 type assays 

(zebrafish TIQDT screening assay and human 

focused in vitro assays) and tier 2 type in vivo 

exposures [mammalian models (rat and 

mouse) and alternative species (fish and frog)] 

to predict and confirm thyroid disruption by a 

chemical. Red indicates positive, green 

indicates negative, white indicates no or 

conflicting data (adapted from Thienpont et al 

2011).
Xenopus tropicalis 

plasma TSH

Xenopus and Zebrafish 

TH/bZIP-eGFP 

Thyroperoxidase

Hepatic Nuclear

Xenoreceptors

Deiodinases

Thyroid Receptors

T4–Serum Transport

Protein Binding

Serum

T3

& 

T4

 TSH

Tissue

TH Changes

Altered

Development

Thyroid

Hyperplasia

Thyroid

Tumors

Birth Defects

Low IQ

 T4 & T3 

Synthesis

 Phase 2

Catabolism

 Cellular

Transporters

 Tissue 

T4 T3 

Conversion

 Biliary 

Elimination

Pathway 2

Population 

reduction

High social 

cost

Perchlorate

Methimazole,

Ethylenethiourea

PCBs,

Phenobarbital, 

3-methylcolanthrene, 

Triclosan 

Propylthiouracil, 

OMC, 4-MC

Sodium Iodide 

Symporter

Bisphenol A 

HydroxyPCBs

HydroxylPCBs, 

pentachlorophenol

Death

Figure 3. Major Adverse outcome pathways for thyroid disruption with example toxicants, alternative species and non-animal models applicable 

to human and ecological risk assessment. The red box indicates the critical event of serum level concentrations of thyroid hormones. 1. Rat 

pathway leading to tumors via thyroid hyperplasia. 2. Principle pathway of concern affecting humans. Figure modified from Miller et al 2009.

a. Reporter gene (eGFP) detection of Thyroid Receptor (TR) activity (Demeneix et al EST 2007 41:5908) 

b. Detection of developmental defects with zebrafish embryos (Nesan D, Vijayan DM, 2012. Embryo exposure to elevated cortisol level leads to 

cardiac performance dysfunction in zebrafish, Mol Cell Endocrinol, 363: 85-91)

c. Quantification of plasma thyroid Stimulating Hormone levels (Korte et al 2011, fig from Hellsten et al. Science 2010;328:633-636 )

d. Detection of developmental defects with Xenopus laevis metamorphosis assay (Degitz et al 2005; OECD 2004)

e. Direct quantification of thyroid hormone concentrations in zebrafish embryos (Thienpont et al ES&T 2011)

Toxicant

Macromolecular 

interaction 

Cellular 

response 

Organ response Organism 

response 

Population 

effect 

Zebrafish embryo 

TH levels

,

e

b

Xenopus laevis

developmental defects 

In situ

detection 

of T4 in

Zebrafish

embryo

d

a

c

U

Pathway 1
#### Leroy MASON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-535.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

March 26, 1969.

Lee R. Horton, Jr., Public Defender, and Robert L. Trohn, Asst. Public Defender, Lakeland, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

LILES, Chief Judge.

This is the third motion filed by appellant pursuant to CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. Appellant was informed against on four informations, three of which charged him with assault to commit murder in first degree and the fourth with larceny of an automobile. He was represented by a public defender and after entering a plea of guilty he was convicted and sentenced by the judge to serve a total of sixty years in the Florida state prison.

The motion which we are called upon to consider at this time was filed on September 9, 1968, and was denied by the trial judge without a hearing. Appellant in this motion urges that he entered his guilty plea involuntarily.

This is not the first time this court has been called upon to pass upon the validity of appellánt’s conviction. The record shows that he filed his first motion on July 27, 1965, and following denial by the trial judge this court affirmed on the grounds that the appeal was without merit. Then on February 23, 1966, appellant filed another Rule 1 motion which was also denied. Following that the appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court which was also denied. Following this appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and this petition was denied. The same court denied a certificate of probable cause by order dated January 4, 1968, which denial was affirmed *by*the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Thus it would appear that this appellant has been afforded a hearing in almost all the courts of this land, and, if appellant has his way, he will spend the sixty years harassing the various courts of this state and of this country.

Our concern here is how many more frivolous petitions this appellant will be allowed to file. It appears that we have no effective way to prevent them from being filed.' The state will apparently be called *11upon to bear the extensive costs of continuous litigation concerning this man’s guilt regardless of previous judicial determinations that he has been afforded every safeguard due process provides.

In this third motion there is nothing alleged which would indicate that petitioner’s plea of guilty was not made voluntarily. He was represented by counsel at the time the guilty plea was entered, and from the record it is apparent that he knew the consequences of a guilty plea, that nothing was promised to him, and that he was entitled to what he received.

For these reasons we affirm.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
No. 00-7318.

#### Hansen *v.*Barker, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Interest of L. E., a child.

No. 72-576.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 15, 1972.

Ben L. Bryan, Jr., of Bryan & Koblegard, Ft. Pierce, for appellant, L. E., a child.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Andrew I. Friedrich and Fredric Scott, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been made to clearly appear. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, CROSS, and MAGER, JJ„ concur.