alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert FRANKLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-5574.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 6, 2003.

Before GILMAN and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; and POLSTER, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Dan A. Polster, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

*ORDER*

Robert Franklin appeals a district court order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of his application for social security disability insurance benefits. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon exam nation, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. RApp. P. 34(a).

Franklin filed an application for social security disability insurance benefits, alleging that he suffered from the residual effects of a broken right hand and a lower back injury. After two hearings, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Franklin was not disabled because he could perform his previous type of work. The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s determination. Franklin then filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. The district court subsequently granted judgment to the Commissioner.

Upon review, we conclude that substantial evidence exists to support the Commissioner’s decision. *See Brainard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,*889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir.1989).

In his pro se brief, Franklin contends that the opinion of the vocational expert that he could drive a truck conflicted with Dr. Gagliardi’s opinion that he should avoid excessive sitting. The record indicates that the vocational expert did not testify that Franklin could work as a truck driver. Rather, the vocational expert felt that Franklin could perform his previous work as an apartment maintenance worker. Thus, Franklin failed to establish that he was unable to perform his previous type of work as a maintenance worker. In addition, the vocational expert identified several other jobs which Franklin could perform. These jobs were that of a vehicle washer, stock clerk, grounds keeper, security guard, ticket taker, general office clerk, and information clerk.

Franklin also contends that his condition has deteriorated since the medical reports *741were submitted to the Commissioner. However, judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. *Id.*If Franklin believes that his condition has deteriorated since his initial application, the proper procedure is for Franklin to file a new application for benefits. Since the medical evidence as to Franklin’s current application does not indicate that Franklin is disabled, the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence. *Id.*

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
#### In re David L. SMITH.

No. 93-631.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 29, 1993.

*724Before: SEYMOUR, BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Respondent was ordered to show cause why he should not be fined, disbarred or otherwise disciplined for filing frivolous appeals in numbers 93-1070 and 93-1139, *Deherrera v. Denver,*7 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir.1993) after the entry of this court’s orders in *Sandlin v. Canady (In re Canady),*993 F.2d 1551 (10th Cir.1993) and *Dunkin v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.,*Nos. 92-1230 & 92-1381 (10th Cir. February 11, 1993), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 87, 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993) and for filing a frivolous appeal in *Casillan v. Regional Transportation District,*986 F.2d 1426 (10th Cir.1993). Respondent maintains the appeals were not frivolous. We disagree.

The appeals were found to be frivolous by the panels who decided them. We cannot overrule the judgment of another panel of this court. We are bound by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court. *United States v. Killion,*7 F.3d 927 (10th Cir.1993); *United States v. Spedalieri,*910 F.2d 707, 710 n. 3 (10th Cir.1990) (a three-judge panel cannot overrule circuit precedent); *United States v. Berryhill,*880 F.2d 275, 277 (10th Cir.1989), *cert. denied,*493 U.S. 1049, 110 S.Ct. 853, 107 L.Ed.2d 846 (1990).

Respondent filed a petition for certiorari in *Dunkin.*The question presented for review was,

> “Whether an order sanctioning counsel currently of record is immediately appeal-able under the collateral order exception rule established by this Court in *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 54169 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949).

> Whether sanctions may be imposed against counsel for filing appeals warranted by existing law or by a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law.”

Petition for certiorari, attached to appellant’s motion to recall and stay the mandate filed July 12,1993, in *Dunkin v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.,*Nos. 92-1230 & 92-1381 (10th Cir. February 11, 1993). Certiorari was denied without comment. *Dunkin and Smith v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.,*— U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 87, 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993).

At oral argument, respondent admitted that he has not paid any of the sanctions that have been imposed on him by this court or the district court. David L. Smith is suspended from the practice of law before this court until all sanctions are paid. He may apply for reinstatement to our bar when he can demonstrate that each sanction order of this court Or the district court has been satisfied.

The clerk shall provide a copy of this order to all courts before which Mr. Smith has been admitted to practice.
COMPANY SANITIZED. DOES NOT CONTAIN TSCA CBI

2010/15 PFOA Global Stewardship Program 

Company Report: Summary of Annual Emissions and Product 

SECTION 1: REPORT DATE September 2011 SECTION 2: COMPANY IDENTIFICATION 

Company Name Arkema Inc. 

2a 

Street Address 900 1st Avenue 

King of Prussia, PA 19406 

SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS Reporting Period (use calendar year - e.g. Jan 1, 2000 to Dec 31, 2000) Jan 1, 2010 to Dec 31, 2010 

Releases to all environmental med

fluoropolymer and telomer manuf

Operations Chemical category

kgs 1 kgs of fluoropolymers kgs of category 

PFOA, PFOA salts and higher homologues 

 > 1,000 – 5,000 > 0.0001 – 0.001 

3a 

U.S. facilities

Precursors NA NA PFOA, PFOA salts and higher homologues 

 > 1,000 – 5,000 > 0.001 – 0.01 

3b Non-U.S. facilities

Precursors NA NA 

Please provide information on the methods, assumptions, uncertainties and detection limits for the data pro

3c For each chemical category, the quantity of chemical released was determined for each process using mass balances, 

and actual measurements of the chemical. The total quantity released is the sum of releases from the different proce

error for the total quantity released for all of the chemical categories is approximately +/- 5%. 
COMPANY SANITIZED. DOES NOT CONTAIN TSCA CBI

SECTION 4: SUMMARY OF PRODUCT CONTENT Reporting Period (use calendar year - e.g. Jan 1, 2000 to Dec 31, 2000) Jan 1, 2010 to Dec 31, 2010 

Product type Fluoropolymer dispersions Other fluoropolymers

1 T

4a 

Production volume (kgs/year)

2 > 100,000 kgs – 1,000,000 kgs Over 1,000,000 kgs 

Concentration

3

Operations Chemical category

Fluoropolymer dispersions

4

(ppm wet-weight) 

Other fluoropolymers1,5

(ppb dry-weight) 

Te

PFOA, PFOA salts and higher homologues 

0 PPM > 5,000 ppb - 25,000 ppb 

4b 

U.S. facilities

Precursors NA NA PFOA, PFOA salts and higher homologues 

 NA > 50,000 ppb - 100,000 ppb 

4c Non-U.S. facilities

Precursors NA NA 

4d Please provide information on the methods, assumptions, uncertainties and detection limits for the data pro

1 Fluoropolymers manufactured with PFOA or related chemicals. 2 Use the following ranges: (1) Zero (2) > 0 – 10 kgs; (3) > 10 kgs – 100 kgs; (4) > 100 kgs – 1,000 kgs; (5) > 1,000 kgs – 10,000 kg

100,000 kgs; (7) > 100,000 kgs – 1,000,000 kgs; (8) Over 1,000,000 kgs. 

3 Concentration should reflect the concentration of chemical in the product as sold by the reporting company. If the reporting company 

concerning the concentration of chemical in the product as used by others – for example, as incorporated by dilution into a formulation 

information would also be helpful. 

4 This value should be expressed as a weighted average concentration and range. 5 This value should be expressed as a maximum concentration. 6 This value should be expressed as a simple (not weighted) average and range.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1564

To amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 to authorize the

Secretary of the Interior to provide loan guarantees for water supply,

conservation, quality, and transmission projects, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 7, 1996

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 to

authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide loan

guarantees for water supply, conservation, quality, and

transmission projects, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. RECLAMATION PROJECT LOAN GUARANTEE

4 PROGRAM.

5 The Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (43

6 U.S.C. 422a et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the

7 following:
2

S 1564 IS

1 ‘‘(m)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision con2 tained in this Act, the Secretary of the Interior is author3 ized to provide loan guarantees to the developers, includ4 ing nongovernment entities, of water supply, water con5 servation, water quality, and water transmission projects.

6 Guaranteed loans shall bear interest at the rate agreed

7 upon by the borrower and lender. The amount of guaran8 teed loans shall be subject only to such limitations as to

9 amounts as may be contained in appropriation Acts pro10 viding budget subsidy authority for such guarantees. As

11 used in this section a guaranteed loan is one which is ini12 tially made, held, and serviced by a legally organized lend13 ing institution and which is guaranteed by the Secretary

14 hereunder. All guarantees issued pursuant to this section

15 shall constitute obligations, in accordance with the terms

16 of such guarantees, of the United States Government and

17 the full faith and credit of the United States is hereby

18 pledged to the full performance of such obligations.

19 ‘‘(2) The maximum contingent liability outstanding

20 at any time pursuant to guarantees issued under this sec21 tion shall not exceed in the aggregate $500,000,000.’’.

Æ
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-17-00667- CV

In re State of T exas ex rel. David Escam illa, T ravis County Attor ney

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY

O R D E R
P ER CURIAM

Relator State of Texas ex rel. David Escamilla, Tra v i s C o u nty Attorney , has filed
a petition for writs of prohibition and mandamus and an emer g ency motion reque sting that we stay the trial co u rt proce eding s. We g rant rela tor’s emer g ency motion and temporar ily stay the trial court proce eding s, including the schedule d hear ing on rea l party in interest’s application for writ of habea s corpus, pending further order of this Court. I n addition, we o rd er t h e re al party in interest to file a

response to the petition on or befor e Oc tober 27, 2017. I t is so ordered O ctober

12, 2017.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Field, a nd Bour land
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the December
28, 1996 financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                           1,933
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,289
<INVENTORY>                                    100,672
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               185,061
<PP&E>                                          80,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 272,842
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,290
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   272,842
<SALES>                                        848,535
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               848,535
<CGS>                                          659,072
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  659,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,067
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,818
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,310
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                508
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       508
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 5.1
 
 Re:
    
    Registration Statement on Form S-3
   (a)
    
    1,990,050 shares (the Note Shares) that are issuable upon the conversion of senior
secured convertible notes (Notes) which were sold in a private placement transaction on
February 23, 2007; and(b)
    
    1,735,324 shares (the Warrant Shares) that are issuable upon exercise of
outstanding warrants (Warrants) which were issued by the Company in a private
placement transaction on February 23, 2007.




---



##### 



Very truly yours,/s/  Rutan & Tucker, LLP -2-
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 Cal-Bay International, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Charles  A. Prebay, Chief Financial 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  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

     (1)  The  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result of operations of the
Company.




                              /s/Charles  A.  Prebay
                              ----------------------
                              Charles  A.  Prebay
                              Chief  Financial  Officer
                              November  12,  2003
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 166 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 166

 To transfer a parcel of land to the Taos Pueblo Indians of New Mexico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 5, 1995

 Mr. Domenici (for himself, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Dole) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To transfer a parcel of land to the Taos Pueblo Indians of New Mexico.

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

SECTION 1. LAND TRANSFER.

    (a) Transfer.--The parcel of land described in subsection (c) is 
transferred without consideration to the Secretary of the Interior to 
be held in trust for the Pueblo de Taos.
    (b) Management.--The parcel of land transferred by subsection (a) 
shall be a part of the Pueblo de Taos Reservation and shall be managed 
in accordance with section 4 of the Act of May 31, 1933 (48 Stat. 108) 
(as amended, including the amendment made by Public Law 91-550 (84 
Stat. 1437)).
    (c) Land Description.--The parcel of land referred to in subsection 
(a)--
            (1) is the land that is generally depicted on the map 
        entitled ``Lands transferred to the Pueblo of Taos--proposed'' 
        and dated September 1994;
            (2) comprises 764.33 acres; and
            (3) is situated within sections 25, 26, 35, and 36, 
        Township 27 North, Range 14 East, New Mexico Principal 
        Meridian, within the Wheeler Peak Wilderness, Carson National 
        Forest, Taos County, New Mexico.
    (d) Conforming Boundary Adjustments.--The boundaries of the Carson 
National Forest and the Wheeler Peak Wilderness are adjusted to reflect 
the transfer made by subsection (a).
    (e) Completion of Transfer.--The Congress finds and declares that 
the lands to be held in trust and to become part of the Pueblo de Taos 
Reservation under this Act complete the transfer effected by section 4 
of the Act of May 31, 1933.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICERCALLISTO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2006PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I am the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 and filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (“Form 10-Q”).

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Date: November 20, 2006 |   |                    |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                    |   |                    |
|                    |   | /s/ GARY S. JACOB       |
|                    |   |                    |
|                    |   | Gary S. Jacob           |
|                    |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
NUMBER 13-22-00266-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI — EDINBURG 

____________________________________________________________

EX PARTE DELFINO MOLINA AYALA JR.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 105th District Court

of KIeberg County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

Appellant, Delfino Molina Ayala Jr., filed a post-conviction application for writ of 

habeas corpus at the district court, pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure. On May 17, 2022, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law

and denied the application for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant now seeks to appeal the 

order denying habeas corpus relief.

Jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief in felony cases rests 

exclusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 

11.07, § 5; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 
2

Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717–

18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we are without 

jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. 

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Furthermore, 

appellant’s pending motion requesting an extension to respond to the Court’s defect 

notice, is dismissed as moot. 

JAIME TIJERINA

Justice

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

18th day of August, 2022.
Periodic Brick Kiln Testing Estimate

PM FTIR Tech

# 1 1 4

rate 75 75 35

prep 10 10 8

travel 8 8 8

setup 6 6 6

test 14 14 14

test 14 14 14

test 3 3 3

teardown 4 4 4

travel 8 8 8

report 20 20

$ 5025 5025 9100

Total 19150

per diem 150 6 7 6300

mileage 1 500 500

trailer 2000 6 12000

Analysis 20 60 1200

Other costs 1500

Total 49750
#### Charles K. ELDER; Beverly S. Elder, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. R.D. HOLLOWAY; Other Unknown Employees and/or Agents, individually and in their official capacity as police officers for the Ada County Sheriffs Office, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-35146.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 11, 1994.

Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, HUG, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

The mandate of the Supreme Court having issued in *Elder v. Holloway,*— U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 1019, 127 L.Ed.2d 344 (1994), we vacate the judgment of the district court, 751 F.Supp. 858 (D.Idaho 1990), and remand for reconsideration of the qualified immunity issue in light of *United States v. Al-Azzawy,*784 F.2d 890 (9th Cir.1985), *cert. denied,*476 U.S. 1144, 106 S.Ct. 2255, 90 L.Ed.2d 700 (1986), and all other relevant authority. Like the Supreme Court, we express no view as to whether *Al-Azzawy'&*holding with respect to exigent circumstances, *id.*at 894, entitles defendants to qualified immunity. *See Elder,*— U.S. at-, 114 S.Ct. at 1023.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
Exhibit 10.3.5

 

BIO-REFERENCE LABORATORIES

 

AMENDMENT NO. 5

 

TO 

 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

WITH SAM SINGER

 




 

Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) and Sam Singer (the “Employee”) hereby mutually agree that Section 8(d) as set forth in Amendment No. 4 dated March 4, 2008 to the Employment Agreement between the Company and the Employee is hereby deleted in its entirety and that except for such deletion, the parties hereby reaffirm each provision of the Employment Agreement as of the date hereof.

 

Dated: September 18, 2008

 

 

	
THE   COMPANY
    	
 
    	
EMPLOYEE
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Bio-Reference   Laboratories, Inc.
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By   
    	
/s/   Marc Grodman
    	
 
    	
/s/ Sam Singer
    
	
 
    	
Marc   Grodman
    	
 
    	
Sam Singer
    
	
 
    	
President